HL Deb 12 June 1974 vol 352 cc571-601

7.6 p.m.

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on—

  1. (1) their discrimination against certain countries such as Chile and the Republic of South Africa on the sale of arms;
  2. (2) their plans for the surveillance and defence of the Cape Route if they 572 discourage a friendly relationship with the Republic of South Africa by arbitrarily breaking contracts and refusing orders;
  3. (3) the estimated value in the trade lost and unemployment caused in the next year or two if their discriminatory policy is pursued; and
  4. (4) the available evidence that trade with "Africa as a whole" will necessarily be lost if trade with the Republic of South Africa is encouraged in view of the statement by Lord Shepherd on May 21 that "today our trade with Africa as a whole has as much importance as our trade with South Africa".

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my first duty is to declare an interest. Noble Lords know that I have an interest in South Africa, but I formally declare it. I wish to say that two uncles of mine and my father went to South Africa almost exactly 100 years ago. They were not wicked, bad men, as of course I am, being a South African. They were very good Scots who went out to earn a living and succeeded. They were not in the Colonial Service, but like many of our Colonial servants they did a splendid job in South Africa, and so have their issue since. We are very proud of what we have been able to do in South Africa, and I am very proud of what the Colonial Office has done.

I do not raise this issue for the purpose of grinding my axe, or the axe of those who have interests similar to mine in South Africa. I genuinely raise it in the hope of changing some minds, even if only a little, on the principle that water dripping on the stone, if it goes on long enough, must have some little effect at some time. I will see to it that Ministers and members of the Shadow Cabinet receive a copy of Hansard, and I hope that they will read it. I think that there is a case for British people—and perhaps particularly, the members of the Left, in its broadest sense—and Government Ministers to change their minds about South Africa. I shall start, therefore, by talking about apartheid.

There are various aspects of apartheid: one is job reservation. That, of course, is very similar to the attitude of mind of the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen. In the railway system here in Britain, they are superior men of superior talent and superior pay, and if anyone tries to raise the pay of the men below them—that is to say, 90 per cent. of the railwaymen—they do not like it unless, of course, the differential is maintained. They live alone in this sense, and have their own separate union. They practise a kind of apartheid. It is not confined to South Africa. It is found in very many parts of the world—in Ireland, in the Middle East, in Israel—in all these various places, and certainly in Hong Kong, there are differences in ways of living amongst the people. These are kinds of apartheid.

Job reservation in South Africa means that some better-class jobs are reserved for the white men and less good jobs are reserved for the black men, or the coloured men or the Indians, and of course there is less pay attached to the latter. I do not think that this can be changed within the Constitution of South Africa because the votes in South Africa—and I shall be speaking about votes later—are confined to the white men. No Party can go to the country in an election and say, "We will abolish job reservation" because they would not be returned, and therefore it would be quite useless to do it, any more than you could go to ASLEF annual conference and say, "We will abolish your superior position". They would not hear of it and would not reelect the secretary. Let us remember these parallels because there is something in them, my Lords.

I have been wondering to what extent the adverse view of Leftish people about South Africa is due to what they might call a moral attitude. I ask myself what is morality? Some would think that the Christian ethic was morality. The majority of mankind would not adhere to that view; the majority of mankind are not Christians. I have an idea that the kind of morality that I understand is that of recognising what is good behaviour in your own country and trying to live up to that good behaviour; perhaps also to do good, or at any rate to do better. We know that people belonging to other religions or other States may have four wives, or even forty, and it is quite moral to have four wives or forty if you are in a country where that is the prevailing custom. Not so in Britain. I do not know that it means that we are any better or any worse than these other people, but we are different. Then perhaps Members opposite will say—and Government Ministers have said this to me before now—that the United Nations have passed resolutions indicating that we ought to ban contact with South Africans, that we ought to impose trade restrictions upon them, as the Americans have done over Cuba, or as all of us have tried, and failed to do with Rhodesia.

May I examine for a very few minutes the morality of some of the resolutions of the United Nations. First of all, many international lawyers, some of great repute, take the view that UNO has no right whatever to interfere in the internal affairs of its members. That matter has been before the court in The Hague and there is a real difference of opinion among international lawyers as to whether the very constitution of UNO does not forbid it from interfering in the internal affairs of its Member States. That is very understandable. I do not suppose that UNO, or the old League of Nations either would ever have come into existence if the Member States had not all agreed not to interfere with each other's internal affairs. It is written into the Charter.

Secondly, let us remember that the members who go to UNO are, in the majority, biased men, many still living in an age in which they looked upon colonialism, as they call it, and imperialism, as they call it, as the besetting sins of the more sophisticated countries, particularly of the British. I am proud of the colonial system; I do not need to make apologies for it. Over hundreds of years many men have gone out and have developed a British colonial system of which we can all be proud. They have brought trade and education, culture and understanding and law to millions of people who had no contact whatever with the outside world until they came. It is not surprising, therefore, that the United Nations should pass resolutions enjoining conduct upon us and others which none of them really carry out in their own countries. I do not think we need to be greatly influenced by this and I really do not think that members opposite and Government Ministers can rely upon United Nations resolutions as sanction for some of the crazy things they do in this field. My Lords, the "holier than thou" attitude of some on the opposite side, and one or two on this side of this House and another place, makes me feel quite sick. I think it is utterly shocking and a great humbug.

There is also another view taken by Whitehall, that Whitehall always knows best. I regret that it is true of a great many people in Britain, especially Leftish people who think they know best. It is really not true that they know best. They may know something but they do not know best, certainly not what is best for Africa. Many of them have never been there. May I remind your Lordships that over the last 10 or 20 years our country, Britain, has given so-called independence (still very strongly supported with gifts and donations) to every ex-colony in Africa. It was generous, it was far-seeing (or supposed to be), it was warmhearted. They were given votes for all and a little Parliament with a Government on one side, and an Opposition on the other and a Speaker and all the trappings of the Westminster system. There is not one of these African ex-colonies which has not abandoned the Westminster system—not one, great or small. They have all turned to dictatorship, semi-dictatorship or a single-Party State. Why is this? It is because we really do not know what is best for them, and they probably do know what is best for themselves and they like the system which they understand. We must not therefore be too arrogant.

I come now to my questions. First, why does Her Majesty's Government discriminate—that is a word they love on the other side of the House when they throw it at us—against some countries in this matter of the supply of arms? Chile and South Africa are examples. But there are others. Why do they discriminate? I would go so far to say that it would be right and proper to provide police arms wherever they are required. A policeman is far more effective if, in certain circumstances, he can have recourse to arms—not always, and not in all countries all the time, but in certain circumstances. He can often maintain law and order better if armed, or thought to be armed, from time to time, especially if he is sent out to meet men who are known to be armed. So we say that we cannot supply them with police arms. For some moral reason? Because we are against law and order, or because we think they will use these arms for some wrong purpose? We might as well say that we will not arm the troops or the police in Northern Ireland in case by some error they shoot the wrong man, which they often do. It always happens in wars or in warlike operations. I should have thought it ridiculous not to sell arms for police purposes the world over. It makes the police more effective. If you do not sell arms to them they can either make them themselves or buy from somebody else. So nothing moral that I can think of is gained.

My Lords, another aspect of apartheid is the question of living separately. By and large, white men and black men like living separately. They do not like mixed marriages or miscegenation. There is a law in South Africa against mixed marriages or against sexual intercourse between different coloureds. I am one of those who think that that law is not very good. It does not have much effect. Without it there would be just as much miscegenation or just as little; in fact very little. I would rather this matter be dealt with by public opinion or custom, as it is in many other countries, than by law. The trouble about making a law for coloureds is that you have to define colour, and that is when you get into trouble, because in South Africa there is a great fusion of colours among many elements in the populations, as there is in many other parts of the world. Occasionally you come across hardship where you define colour to the disadvantage of the individual who is to be discriminated against on that account.

That is one aspect of apartheid, but not a very serious one and it does not affect many people; neither does living separately in different parts of the same town. An example of that is to be seen in the system that has been set up by the South African Government called Bantustans or the Homelands, the idea being that the different races—and there are many nations in South Africa, Zulus, Xhosas and those who talk Sesuto but nevertheless do not live in Lesotho but in the mainland—these various ethnic and native groups and nations shall live separately in states or realms of their own which will ultimately become independent.

I doubt very much whether they will really become independent because it would be far too dangerous to allow them to do so. It is all very well to have Lesotho independent, an enclave in the middle of South Africa; but in my view one could not very well have independent the whole of the Transkei down that long coastline. It would need to be subject to some kind of general foreign affairs and defence control. Be that as it may, it is an attempt on the part of the South African Government to take account of one aspect of apartheid, namely, this living separately. Do not be under any misapprehension about this word "apartheid" or the system. It is not new. The word was invented 20 or 30 years ago by a political Party who used it for electioneering purposes, and it has come to be well understood and greatly liked among certain old-fashioned sections and greatly disliked by many other people, while much suspected by many in this country and in the United States. But it is not so bad as we try to make it out to be. Living separately is really not at all a bad idea, and only very slowly as decades pass will this change. It cannot be changed by law or even by undoing laws.

My Lords, I come to the question of voting, another aspect of apartheid. White men vote and the coloureds and blacks do not. Ought not everyone to have a vote? It is easy to say, "Yes", but I have already pointed out that every country to which we gave a vote for all has given it up because they do not like votes. It has been said that you have "one-man, one-vote" once and that is how you create a dictatorship. That is the way it is and it is no use our pretending that we can live in a world that we like to live in. We have to live in this world—warts and all.

I am sure, my Lords, that if everybody in Rhodesia or in South Africa had a vote to-morrow, you would at the next Election, or probably in the space of two Elections, have a completely black, native or Bantu Government. All the Ministers and sub-Ministers would be Bantu ar of the African race. The people would not be better off, either in their freedom, trade or in the confidence which such a new Government would create, or from the investment which would come to them from overseas. It would be a long time before the new Government, composed of peopie who had not been accustomed to it in the past, could match up to the skill, the ingenuity, the courage and the experience of Mr. Smith in Rhodesia, and which Mr. Vorster and his predecessors have in South Africa. They are good and fair Governments, and it is by no means true that the black African States in other parts of Africa are any better. They are not any better, and in many respects some are not so good. Do not let us imagine that by talking about votes for all, or a sentimental idea of this kind, we will be doing our friends, the blacks and the coloureds and the Indians, any good. On the contrary, we should be landing them in a packet of trouble and nobody would be any richer or better off.

If your Lordships look at my first question you will see I ask, "Why discriminate?" I should like the Government to give my question a genuine and serious answer. Why discriminate? What has South Africa or Chile done wrong by comparison with any other country? Is it because we do not like parts of their policy? Do we like all parts of the policy of Russia, Greece or Spain? Do we supply arms to them? Or is the answer merely that since they have not asked us so to do we have not had that awkward question to answer? I do not know, but I should like to know. I have a feeling there is real discrimination against South Africa, and it is not based on good grounds, moral or otherwise.

Let us remember that the Cape route, the 1,000 or 2,000 miles of coastline from around Durban in the Red Sea to the Cape in the South Atlantic, is now watched over by the South Africans. Their Air Force watches 90 per cent. of it. Our little bit of Navy does a bit, but not much and the Labour Party would draw them away if it could. They harass them and prevent them from going in to meet people. They have stopped ships from going to Simonstown. That was done only the other day. Is that either polite or sensible? I have noticed that Ministers—and this comment applies to Ministers on both sides of the House—have from time to time been very rude about South Africa, but the South African Ministers are not rude about us. They are almost as polite as we are to each other in this old House.

Certainly, Mr. Vorster is far more polite in his replies to Mr. Wilson than is Mr. Wilson or that other little chap—what the hell is his name?—Wedgwood Benn, the right honourable the Minister of something or other. He is very rude about South Africa, and yet he gets a polite reply from these wicked men in the Cape. Wedgwood Benn, the right honourable gentleman in the other place, not only says that we cannot supply arms because we would be supporting apartheid—and, by the way, that is rather nonsense. It is supporting apartheid to supply them with arms but of course it is not supporting apartheid to buy their fruit and eat it. I recommend the wife of every Peer in the realm and every Peer in the House to buy South African fruit and eat it during the winter months in England. It is the best fruit, and millions of pounds worth of canned fruit comes here. Labour men might like to remember that in every Coop shop (I believe there is an affinity between the Labour Party and the Coop; at least I have heard so) they will find South African canned fruit and the women buy it. Why? It is because it is the best fruit at the best price.

Our Government and unfriendly to South Africa. They make unfriendly speeches and comments and refuse to allow contracts to be kept. They make an enemy where there ought to be a friend. Our system of defence is NATO. I believe that the "NA" means North Atlantic. South Africa is not a member of that Organisation. Perhaps they cannot be a member under the rules, but there ought to be the utmost co-operation between the British Navy, the NATO Navies and the South African Navy. There has been the utmost co-operation hitherto, but now this Government are doing their very best to stop that.

The words used by the right honourable Wedgwood Benn are that we cannot sell arms to these people, because it would lead to repression. You do not repress a bunch of black men who are having a spree, or a night out, or who have got drunk, or whose escapade has developed into a near riot, with submarines. You do not suppress them with long-range aircraft which cost £1 million, £2 million, £3 million or £4 million apiece. They are not the right weapons and they are not in the right place. So while there could be some reason—though I do not recognise it—for not supplying certain kinds of arms, there can be no reason for denying the Cape route of what might be called the arms required for its surveillance and possibly for its defence, and incidentally, for the surveillance of the Indian Ocean.

I wonder how many noble Lords in this House realise the extent of the infusion—is that the word?—or the extent to which Russia and China are getting a foothold in the continent of Africa. The general poverty throughout Africa may well encourage the belief that here is a country in which Communism might thrive. We do not want that. We are not afraid of "Commies" being under the bed, but we must be aware of what is happening in the world and we cannot be without a friend in the Southern Seas. There is a friend there who has been our friend in the past and who wants to be our friend again.

There is one ray of hope in what the Government have said to me lately in this House; that the whole Defence system of Britain is under consideration. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who said that, or certainly another Minister from the opposite Bench. There is a general review—and he will probably say this to-night—of our Defence system in Britain. If that means anything, it must mean that the Southern Seas are taken into account because they are part of this Earth. You cannot ignore them. I must ask him how, if we are not going to be friendly with South Africa in a minimal way by supplying arms for coastal defence—and that is all I am asking now—we can be friends with them and expect trade with them to increase? How, incidentally, are we going to watch 2,000 miles of coastline and the Indian Ocean? Where are we to base our aeroplanes if we are to watch it at all? Or are we to stop watching it, because of the economies which the Government wish to make, as well as because of this policy? Here is an opportunity where you can make an economy by encouraging South Africa, because South Africa is not only willing to do it at their expense but are doing it at their expense.

How then—I ask the noble Lord who is to answer—are you to watch the Cape route, the coast? Do your Lordships know that a third of our trade comes around there? Not only would we lose greatly if the route was ever inaccessible to us; we would starve. Food, oil, our standard of living would fall away and so would the standard of living of the whole of Europe. How are we to do this if we are not to use the good offices of South Africa, which is willing to do it, and if we are to quarrel with them by refusing arbitrarily and discriminatorily to supply the necessary arms?

Another question I am asking, which is on the Order Paper is: how do the Government assess the loss of money and the loss of amenities in Britain due to the increased unemployment which will arise if we do not supply these arms that have been asked for? I have been told that some £500 million-worth of coastal arms could be provided in the next five years if it were not for this Government's ban on them. My Question is clearly set out on the Order Paper: what assessment do the Government make? They must have made an assessment of the loss in both money and unemployment to which we will be subject.

If Britain is to do good in the world, it must do it by example; by meeting people and trading with them; talking with them; visiting and it cannot do it by sanctions, by refusing this and that, and by refusing to be friends. If we have anything worth while in our heritage to show to other people, we can show it only by meeting with them and talking with them—and talking means trade. So I disagree entirely with the policy of shutting off this or shutting off that. It does not effect what is wanted; it does not even help those whom you want to help; namely, the dependent peoples in South Africa. What would help them is more trade, not less trade.

The noble Lord the Leader of the House told me the other day that I ought to know better than most—these were his words—that British trade with the rest of Africa was so considerable that it might easily lose us more than we would gain by being friendly with South Africa. That is what the noble Lord said. I think I have the figures here, and if I am wrong the noble Lord who is going to reply will correct me. I believe that total British exports to Africa are about £600 million per year and our total exports to South Africa are £400 million a year. What evidence is there that if we lose the one or depreciate it£that is, the trade with South Africa£we shall gain anything from the rest of Africa? Or, vice versa, if we are not rude to the South Africans but if we are polite to them and supply them with some of the things they need, what evidence is there that we are going to lose much of the £600 million?

The old doctrine of laissez-faire or letting the market decide the price (this part of my speech is specially designed for the Liberals; I do not suppose there is anybody still on those Benches, but anyone who cares to do so will be able to read these remarks), had a good deal of sense in it. You sell at the highest price you can get and you buy at the lowest price you have got to: that is good sense. That is the only test which is used by every nation, and especially the black nations. I do not believe for one moment that we shall lose trade all over Africa if we supply necessary arms for the defence of South Africa. I do not believe it. I cannot really believe that the Government do either, but they have got caught up in this and do not know how to get out of it.

May I make one other remark about trade: if Britain has anything good to export in the way of example, heritage or history and if we have any sense whatever (and I am not sure that we have), we can only do good in the rest of the world if we have some money. You cannot do any good without money, and I think even the Labour Government will find this out in a year or two. You cannot have money unless you trade, and this Island can only survive and be prosperous if it is a worldwide trader; that is its role. We are not self-supporting; we have to trade. So there seems to me to be really a good many genuine arguments about this.

Now I come to the last one. In two wars, South Africa fought with us. We may very well need the South Africans again if ever there was a third war£ which God forbid! We may very well need these friends again. Why are we so foolish and short-sighted as to be rude to them whenever we can and to avoid trading with them and avoid meeting them whenever we can? When I say "we", I mean principally noble Lords opposite and in particular Labour Ministers, who go out of their way to be as rude and shocking as they can be. Why?—when these friends at the bottom end of that Continent are the best possible friends we could have to help us to control, to watch over and to look after the Southern seas.

7.45 p.m.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, will forgive me if I do not follow him on the subject of South Africa. I myself support the view of my noble Leader that the question of supplying arms to South Africa is very different in its nature from that of supplying arms to Chile, which we have not yet discussed and which I personally wish to discuss. The problems of supplying arms to South Africa are much wider than those involved in a simple arms deal. I shall not argue the case that the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, has argued, but before launching into my speech (which I hope will be brief) I should like to apologise to my noble friend who is to reply if I give him little comfort. He has been very kind to me in the past and I hope that what I have to say to him will not be too unpalatable.

Why must we have a policy for trading in arms? One proposition to which everyone in this House, whether they are present at the moment or not, would agree, is that this nation of ours is worth defending. That is a simple proposition. If it is to be defended, it needs a Defence industry. That again is obvious. But the problem these days is that the cost of weapons and weapons systems is becoming so astronomically high that it becomes almost impossible to supply equipment unless the costs of research and development are spread over a much wider cost of production than is required for this country. For this reason, we have to export: hence we have the Defence Sales Section within the Arms Procurement Executive. We must trade in arms if we are to have a Defence industry. I seem to remember closing a Defence debate in your Lordships' House with the remark that, in my view, sentimentality can be as dangerous as brutality, and I regret that trading in arms is not suited to sentimental people. Anybody who works in this business can only be ruled by hardheaded national interest. The only question that we can ask is whether the delivery of arms to a certain country is in the national interest? We must never forget that if we sell arms we must also be prepared to sell the ammunition and the spares for them, otherwise we might as well go out of business.

Again, as your Lordships may agree, there are many groupings of the Left of various shades of red. There are the revolutionary groups, within every member of which there is a Ché Guevara struggling to get out; and then they are the sentimentalists who, as the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, has said, are always preaching the doctrine of "holier than thou" (or me) or "more Socialist than thou" (or me). I find this as distasteful as did the great Ernest Bevin, who complained about sentimentalists "hawking their consciences about". I do not like the hawking of consciences: I find it offensive.

Therefore I find the whole myth that has been built up around the Allende regime offensive—partly because it is sentimental but mainly because it is untrue. The Left of whatever shade has built up this extraordinary myth about this man and his period of Office, and it is then basing its policy towards the Defence sales to Chile upon the basis of that myth and not upon reality. The myth is, of course, that a Marxist gained the Presidency of Chile by way of the ballot box and then in due course, because he was trying to carry through reforms against the will of the Chilean people. was opposed by reactionary forces and finally destroyed by them, mainly by the Armed Forces of Chile.

Of course, my Lords, reality is very different. At the beginning the Armed Forces of Chile did their best to make the Allende Government and system work, and when they ultimately found that it was not working and that Allende was being used as a stalking horse by organisations of the Left, and the extreme Left, then they and the middle classes, the artisans and the housewives, turned against the régime and brought it to its undignified end. With your Lordships' permission, even at this late hour I should like to quote a paragraph from The Economist which I think illuminates the picture and destroys the myth. I do not know whether one should really base one's views upon The Economist, but they have been consistent in their opposition to Allende ever since his experiment started to turn sour, and they are, I think, one of the few voices of reason in an increasingly unreasonable world. What they said about this myth is this: ‡the easiest way to deal with those who maintain that Allende was a democrat is to ask them to translate his actions into British terms. The nearest analogy is to imagine that a prime minister of Britain formed a private bodyguard out of members of the Angry Brigade and the Workers' Revolutionary Party; that he allowed other would-be guerrillas, organised by KGB and Palestinian instructors, to turn parts of the Clydeside and Liverpool slums into armed camps; that he allowed private property, often quite small farms, to be confiscated at gunpoint; that inflation running at an annual rate of 350 per cent. was used to wipe out the savings of the middle class; and that, in the end, he ignored a vote of censure in the House of Commons and tried to organise a coup to perpetuate his power. If that happened, would anyone to the right of Mr. Mick McGahey describe him as a democrat? My Lords, I think that is a picture much closer to the truth than the myth which has been spread about that man and his régime.

Quite frankly, this nonsense is spotted by sensible men in industry. I think the best comment upon the whole nonsense about the supply of arms to Chile, and particularly in this case submarines, was made by a worker in the Lower Clyde shipyards, who remarked that if the submarines being built there were to be used to put the workers down, "then they must have bloody big sewers in Chile". I think that is the definitive comment on the subject. Why should British workers be denied work because of a revolutionary splinter group preventing the Government and a Government establishment from, shall we say, reconditioning Rolls-Royce engines for Chile? Or why should they be denied work because of someone's bleeding soul? There are two big arms contracts going in South America at the moment. One is about £100 million worth of naval equipment for Argentina, and there is another £100 million for Brazil. What do we think of Peron? Is Peron a good thing or a bad thing? Is our conscience so tender that we cannot sell him £100 million worth of ships which he will never use against us? I just do not understand the position. Of course, it is not only just this particular issue but the attitude which is spread throughout the whole world where we are trying to sell arms which will enable us to finance our own Defence budget. There are a great many sane people—sane officials, sane Governments—who are very doubtful about placing orders for equipment in this country because they are afraid that spares, ammunition and so on may be denied them because of an emotional spasm here.

I am afraid, my Lords, that the nonsense goes even wider, and I am now going to raise a point which I warned my noble friend I was going to raise. Again I quote The Economist. On the 8th of this month they wrote as follows: The Secretary of State for Trade, Mr. Peter Shore, has decided to try to cut down on British trade with right-wing governments. He asked the Export Credits Guarantee Department to provide a list of all its pending export deals involving British companies and Spain, Chile, Greece and South Africa. Later, he returned the list and told the E.C.G.D. to pull out of all the deals he had marked as objectionable. This has been denied. I do not know by whom, but this assertion by The Economist has been denied. But I would rather believe The Economist than whoever issued the démenti.

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to interrupt him? It was flatly denied in another place on June 10 by the Secretary of State for Trade.

LORD WINTER BOTTOM

In that case, my Lords, I am very glad, because the doubts still remain. I would very much have preferred it if the statement had been denied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Foreign Secretary, since the issues raised by a statement of this type in a paper which I personally trust (and which, of course, is nowadays my only source of information) are so dangerous to our trade in the world as a whole that the position really must be made perfectly clear.

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I am very sorry, but I really must intervene once more. The truth or otherwise of this allegation should clearly be settled by the Minister who is in charge of E.C.G.D., and that is the Secretary of State for Trade.

LORD WINTERBOTTOM

My Lords, I hope my noble friend will see that this is given the very widest publicity, because we as a nation are told that export-led growth is the only way by which we can reach the Promised Land. If this is true, is this, in either of these cases, the way to achieve it?

7.56 p.m.

EARL COWLEY

My Lords, the sale of armaments to foreign countries has always raised strong emotions in both political Parties, but possibly more so among those on the Left of the political spectrum. Fortunately for this country, there are few people who think that British armaments should be sold without any restrictions of any kind or, on the other side, who believe that Britain should cease all exports of Defence equipment. The arms industry of this country plays a vital part in providing much-needed foreign exchange and employment for Britain. It was estimated in the last Defence White Paper that the value of arms exports in 1973–74 would rise to £405 million, going mostly to the Middle East. The policy of the Conservative Party when it was in Government was to sell Defence equipment to countries with which we have friendly relations subject to strategic, political, economic and security considerations. This is still our policy. So far as Portugal and South Africa were concerned, we took up the last Labour Government's distinction, which is sometimes difficult to draw, between weapons suitable only for external purposes and those which can be used for civil repression. In short, there was no material difference between the policy of the two Governments on arms sales, and both permitted the supply of arms to virtually the same countries.

The last Labour Government continued to sell Defence equipment to Brazil, Argentina and Peru after their democratically-elected presidents had been overthrown in military coups: President Goulart of Brazil in 1964, President Illia of Argentina in 1966, and President Belaunde of Peru in 1968. The Labour Government of the day made no attempt to cut off or reduce the supply of arms to these countries on the basis that they had become politically and morally unacceptable to those on the Left of the Labour Party. Furthermore, the last Labour Government, although at times equivocally, honoured Britain's obligations under the Simonstown Agreement. When the Conservatives took over in 1970, this general policy was followed.

The present Government have drastically changed the criterion by which this country sells arms abroad into a a concept that is both unrealistic and extremly damaging to this country. If a sovereign State wishes to buy Defence equipment from Britain, they have to pass a democratic fitness test, irrespective of the economic, strategic, political or security considerations that may apply. When one takes into account the time gap between negotiations, the signing of the contract and delivery, one sees one of the dangers and the fallacy of the present Government's policy. Governments come and go very quickly, especially in developing countries. Armaments can be ordered by a military Government and delivered subsequently to a democracy, as one can see in Argentina.

I am not saying that moral issues should be ignored—far from it. Many of us on this side of the House totally abhor the concept of apartheid and recognise the untold damage that it does in the African Continent. The denial of human rights in Chile at the present time, or wherever it takes place, should be condemned by all sides of the House; but where we differ from the Labour Government is on the grounds of reality and practicality. The chief fault of the Left Wing of the Labour Party, which seems to be making the running within the Government on this topic, lies not so much in its inability to admit that there are always two sides to a case. One has only to read the speeches by the noble Lord's honourable friends during the debate on Chile in another place last November 28, or to study the incredible myth that they have created around the late President Allende, to see that point.

Objectivity is not their strong point. No—the chief fault lies in the Left Wing of the Labour Party's total obsession, which has infected the Government, with making moral gestures without pausing to weigh their likely effectiveness against their cost. It seems that the Government—a minority one, at that—are determined, come hell or high water, to dictate to friendly sovereign States how they should run their own internal affairs, at the same time dragging the majority of the electorate, which did not vote for a Labour Government, along a path that the Government have not convinced us they wish to follow.

The cancellation of the export licence for the Westland Wasp helicopter involves not only a blatant breach of contract, but also a breach of the Simonstown Agreement. Will the Government say whether this is the first hint of the Government's plan to end the Agreement and, if this is so what provisions are they making to replace the facilities and vital intelligence, that this country receives under the Simonstown Agreement? While the cancellation of the export licence can only be described as a hollow gesture to appease the Left Wing, the repercussions will probably be substantial. Already it seems that the South African Government are considering making reprisals, most likely in the area of trade. There should be no need for me to remind the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, of what is written on page 112 of Labour's Programme 1973 and I quote: We are not interested in empty gestures or actions which would inflict severe damage on the British economy and the level of employment without changing the situation in Southern Africa. What could be more empty or more damaging to Britain's interests than the present Government's action, and where is the change in the situation in Southern Africa caused by the cancellation? I cannot see the South African Government's being persuaded to become more amenable to the idea of relaxing their apartheid policies by the Labour Government's action.

LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl in reading his delightful essay on this matter, but he did, as I understood him, say that the South African Government were contemplating reprisals in respect of certain matters. Could he give noble Lords further details of the reprisals which the South African Government are proposing to make, and could he give noble Lords in this House the source of his information in making that general statement without any further details?

EARL COWLEY

My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord I am afraid that I have to decline. I cannot give the source of my information.

LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN

My Lords, I am so sorry to interrupt the noble Earl again, but he said that the South African Government were contemplating making reprisals. Either he withdraws that statement or substantiates it.

EARL COWLEY

In that case, my Lords, since I cannot give the source of my information, I will certainly withdraw the statement. But I still do not think it makes very much difference to the argument I am putting forward.

As I was saying, the action taken by the Government has only infuriated the South African Government. Could the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, tell the House whether this is just the thin end of the wedge, or whether they intend to extend this policy to trade in general? For I am certain many companies and individuals in this country would like to know the answer. Then there is the immorality of breaking a contract which has been freely entered into by both parties. This can only damage the reputation of this country as a reliable trading partner and so affect the economic viability of this country. The only conclusion that I can draw is that the Government cannot consider the morality of honouring contracts very high.

So far as Chile is concerned, I accept that none of the contracts was technically broken on the Government's instructions. With the delivery of the two frigates and two submarines, there remained only the contracts for supplying of spare parts for, and the servicing of, the Chilean Air Force's Rolls-Royce engines, both of which are to be ended by implementing the three months' break clause in respect of servicing and by giving a reasonable period of denunciation in respect of the spares. However, for how long will the Government continue to supply spares for the warships? The action taken by the Government is rather similar to a garage from which one has purchased a car and which is then told by the manufacturers not to continue to service the car after 6,000 miles. Although there is no breach of contract, one expects one's car to be serviced and the spare parts to be provided by the manufacturers—something on which I gather Rolls-Royce prides itself. If I were the customer I should be as annoyed as are the Chilean Government.

The Chilean Minister of Mining said last month: All the countries which have an unfriendly attitude towards Chile will be paid back in the same coin. In respect of Britain, Chile is intending to revise its copper supply policies. I have no need to remind the noble Lord that 20 per cent. of Britain's copper needs come from Chile. A copper embargo by Chile, coupled with the setting up of a copper cartel by the CIPEC member States, could have dire consequences on industry in this country. What stand are the Government going to take in the light of all these factors at the bilateral talks between Britain and Chile over the latter's foreign debt of £140 million owed to this country, especially since half of it was created by the purchasing of the four warships?

It would be impossible to quantify in monetary terms the economic loss of future arms orders and the increase in unemployment because of the Government's policy. Governments never give all their reasons for ordering arms from one country rather than another. However, an indication of the policy's effect might be gained when the Argentine Navy orders its six new destroyers which, as the noble Lord opposite has said, is worth £100 million. British companies are bidding, strongly for the order since the Argentine Navy has lone-standing links with British shipyards. However, while the Argentine Government do not greet General Pinochet of Chile with open arms, the Argentine Navy has close contacts with its Chilean counterparts. In fact, the Armed Forces of most Latin American States liaise with each other.

The Conservative Party fully recognises the importance of our trade with the independent countries of black Africa, but we believe in trying to maintain good relations with all countries in Africa, black as well as white, and to encourage the growth of trade between this country and the African Continent. I readily admit that this has not always been successful, but we did not sacrifice the interests of this country for the sake of what might be called the moral unacceptability of the Governments of some of the African States, whether they be black or white. We are watching and studying events in Africa very carefully, especially since April 25.

My Lords, while I personally fully understand and even sympathise with the moral stands being taken by certain of the noble Lord's colleagues in the Government towards the Governments of certain countries, this is only as individuals. I can have no respect for the Government's policy on arms sales and its inconsistent application. It is nothing but the product of a collective and emotive obsession which takes no account of reality or of the interests of this country, and if it is extended to other fields of trade I fear for our position in the world.

8.10 p.m.

LORD BARNBY

My Lords, I seek to support the Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. He sought information in an exceptionally informative and yet temperate speech. He covered a great deal of ground and said things which needed saying. I am in entire agreement with the whole of what he said. My noble friend's Unstarred Question is in a manner which is rather unusual; it is divided up into four sections. Doubtless when the Government spokesman comes to reply he will deal with it in four sections.

But it prompts me, with the indulgence of the House. to raise a procedural question regarding a change in practice as set out in the procedural rules of the House. It is not usual for a speaker to follow the Minister in his reply. It is not disallowed, but it is regarded with disapproval. I am prompted to submit to the Leader of the House the possibility of considering the propriety of a review of that procedure. I am prompted by the obvious search for information from the Government which has been visible to a marked degree recently, particularly in the past two days, in the number of supplementary questions to Starred Questions. In this case, my noble friend's Unstarred Question comes within the confines of other customary procedures.

This thirst for information, which under the present procedure is not easy to extract, is prompted by recent experiences. Discussions have gone on over many years as to whether there should or should not be a revision of procedure. A precedent has been set with the two short debates held on some Wednesdays, and possibly this precedent should be extended by allowing each speaker a strict limit of "x" minutes to raise a supplementary question following the Government spoke-man's reply but without requiring the Government spokesman then to answer. While the spokesman would then know the questions that Members of the House wished to raise on his speech, he would not be faced with the embarrassment of an unprepared reply.

To return to the Unstarred Question of my noble friend, I propose to make a few general remarks under four headings: first, Chile. Much has been said about this. I feel that the discrimination which has been used with regard to the recent discussions on arms for Chile is very stupid. Chile has always been friendly to England. I remember on my first visit to Chile, some fifty years ago, one frequently found Chileans with English or Scottish names who could speak nothing but Spanish. A large part of the industrial and commercial trade of Chile was carried out by English firms. There was a great affection for England. What a stupid thing now, when those conditions still exist, that we should seek to discriminate against them! But a still more foolish thing is that what we do to Chile will have a profound effect upon all other States in South America! As my noble friend Lord Cowley has just said, the potential of orders from South America as a whole is very great.

Secondly, South Africa. Discrimination has been dealt with so effectively by my noble friend Lord Fraser that there is little point in adding to it; but I cannot refrain from making two or three points. First of all, South Africa's sophisticated development of industry, and its high degree of technology, enables it to make all arms except those of the most highly sophisticated kind. Those arms would be used, as my noble friend Lord Fraser has explained, in defence of our trade. That makes it so stupid to refuse to supply arms to South Africa when, if we do not do it in the most sophisticated way, it will be done by other countries. From certain sources, either from the Socialist Benches or associated with the Socialist Benches, it has been said that there ought to be opposition to foreign investment in South Africa and opposition to emigration to South Africa. How stupid! As my noble friend Lord Fraser explained, there is a tremendous Bantu population in South Africa. How can they get employment unless it is by foreign investment, and the supply of technological higher grade craftsmen to guide that employment? Such a common sense examination of the position seems widely disregarded.

Thirdly, employment. What a vicious disregard of employment by the Socialist Government in trying to limit the possibility of orders coming to this country! The amount of unemployment which might be caused here has been emphasised. How can it be any part of common sense to interfere with work that could come to us? I call that ideological bigotry of the most regrettable kind. It is of a character similar to the absurdity of opposing private enterprise and wanting to increase the amount of nationalisation of industry. It is disregard of the profit motive without which you are not going to get further investment. Again there is the stupidity of condemning the profits which are made by banks. Banks are the custodians of the deposits of "small" people all over the country, of the pension funds of public bodies, of unit trust holders. If they do make profits, 50 per cent. of those profits go to the Government in any case, and what is left will increase the security of all those people whom I have just enumerated.

My last point relates to the Communist influence. Lord Fraser emphasised the dismaying spread of Chinese and Russian influence in Central Africa. Beyond that there is the danger to the Cape Route. Surely our interests are sufficiently great that we should do nothing which would in any way imperil our trade through the Indian Ocean and round the Cape. Even disregard of collaboration on Simonstown would be a matter of great regret. There is a need for a great arms industry in the country. It can bring an enormous amount of employment to this country.

Unless we have foreign business, how are we to sustain for our attenuated domestic requirements a really efficient arms industry? My noble friend Lord Fraser put this question and it is a timely one. Those who follow this question at the moment disagree with discrimination which is condemned by the Socialist Party in most other forms of social activity and is now quite a menace to employment.

8.23 p.m.

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. I have been buffeted for the past hour or so by a variety of moral philosophers, and a Liberal humanitarian kindly came to my aid on one occasion. I will say only this about morality in politics and foreign affairs. We do our best. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser, said that this country is in a position to give an example to other countries, and I warmly agree. It has done so in the past and it must do so in the future. However, I do not think that example should consist of intolerance, racial discrimination and the unspeakable abomination of apartheid. This country is capable of finer and higher examples than that, and it is upon that basis that, human and fallible as we are, we endeavour—

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has been there to see this unspeakable abomination; and, if so, whether he will tell us what it is, because I believe that the noble Lord is making it up.

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I should be detaining the House unduly if I went into detail about this subject. I believe that the majority of the people of this country, and the vast majority of the people of the world, agree with what I have said. Much as I respect and admire the noble Lord for his fine record, many of the things which he said in his opening speech fortify my feelings of repugnance towards the policy which is now being conducted, and in some ways intensified, in some parts of South Africa.

I turn now to my noble friend Lord Winterbottom, who has accepted what I said about the Statement made by the Secretary of State. I hope that he will have time to look up the Official Record of the discussion in the other place. He will find that the Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that this article in The Economist was incorrect. My noble friend also talked about morality, as he is entitled to do, and decried sentimentality. I hope that we shall never shed a capacity for sentiment, even in the hard conduct of international relations. He said also that we should not be sentimental about Allende's Chile. I have to say to him that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has nothing to do with sentimentality; it is based on facts, among them the violent deaths of a democratically elected President.

I think it was the noble Earl who mentioned other countries in Latin America where there have been coups, but I put it to him that on reflection he will admit that there is a great difference between those practically bloodless coups and what has happened in Chile. Secondly, as regards Chile, it is a fact. It is not a question of sentiment; a large number were slaughtered during and after the coup. I am sorry to say that there is no evidence of a letting up on this policy of killing one's opponents. The third point about Chile is that thousands of people have been detained and are still detained as political prisoners without trial. Then we have the vile treatment of the political opponents of the Junta and the massive exodus of refugees. These are not points of sentiment; they are points of practical argument. As the noble Lord quite rightly said, the Chilean people—

EARL COWLEY

My Lords, the noble Lord made mention of the fact that he did not consider that the coups which have taken place in Argentina, Brazil and Peru were as bloody as they were in Chile. I would ask him to look at what happened in Brazil in 1964 and then reconsider what he said.

LORD BARNBY

My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes, with regard to his statement about political prisoners in Chile, may I ask whether he is suggesting that they are greater in number than the political prisoners in Russia with whom we trade?

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

No, my Lords, I am not, and we have made it perfectly clear to Russia and any other country which engages in policies of oppression and the denial of human rights what we feel about this. As I said on another occasion in this House, we take what steps are open to us, case by case, country by country, to indicate as effectively as we can our abhorrence of these policies, and we provide encouragement for better policies to be followed.

I was asked four points in the Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, to which he spoke in a most interesting speech, with 99.99 per cent. of which I wholly disagreed. First, he asked the Government about what he calls their "discrimination" against certain countries such as Chile and the Republic of South Africa on the sale of arms. In regard to Chile the position is this—and I will not detain the House because this has been explained in another place as well as in this House: No further arms exports will be allowed; the warships now under construction or refit in the United Kingdom will be delivered and spares and equipment for them will be allowed. In regard to spares for Chilean air force aircraft Rolls-Royce, at the request of the Government, will seek to terminate their contract as soon as possible and have already given the necessary three months' notice of the termination of their contract to overhaul aero engines. As I have said, the decision to stop further arms sales to Chile was taken as part of our general review of our policy towards Chile as a result of the violent overthrow of President Allende's Government and the repressive measures taken against his supporters by the Junta.

I join with the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who stressed the longstanding friendship between the British and the Chilean peoples. Some of us in this House can join him in making specific familial references to this. We hope very much that this will continue and indeed will be restored by the Chilean Government. If the Chilean Government will retrace its steps and stop its repressive practices, reintroduce democracy and respect for human rights, then of course the Chilean nation will, as always, be as friendly as ever in the eyes of the people of this country.

I now pass to the second point in the first part of the Question. In regard to our attitude to South Africa, we have already made it clear that we shall continue to follow the policy which we pursued in our previous Administration of embargo-ing the sale of arms to South Africa. The detailed implication of the arms embargo is now under review and I will not elaborate further at this stage. Our policy is in accord with a series of United Nations resolutions calling on all member States to place an embargo on the sale of arms to South Africa. Our predecessors conformed with the United Nations resolution to a very large extent. The amount of arms which they made available to South Africa was not all that large. They deferred—and rightly so—to the resolution of the United Nations. We have decided that we should defer totally to that resolution.

EARL COWLEY

My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way for a moment, may I ask him what will happen to the Simonstown Agreement?

LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I will come to that in relation to my reference to the third point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser. We are deferring to the United Nations resolution, particularly the June 1971 resolution, I think totally. As members of UNO and anxious that there should be an international morality and an international practicality about these things, we are doing our best so far as we can to defer to those decisions.

The second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, concerned the plans of Her Majesty's Government for the surveillance and defence of the Cape routes. The current Defence review is a fundamental and very serious one covering the whole of the Defence programme of this country, our capabilities and our commitments during the whole of the forward period up to 1983-84. The noble Lord said that this was one glimmer of light in the darkness of Socialist Government. I think I can give him a little more than a glimmer. It is, of course, a fact that in this wide-ranging Defence review we are considering very carefully what is necessary for the security of this country and its trade in all its aspects. The noble Lord and your Lordships can therefore take it that this review will fully take into account the points which have been raised during this debate in relation to the future of our dispositions for our own security; and this covers the Simonstown point. The Simonstown Agreement will, of course, form part of the consideration of the Defence review. Moreover, assurances have been given by the Secretary of State for Defence that our allies will be fully consulted before any final decisions are reached, and this consultation will extend in the normal way to South Africa.

On the third point raised by the noble Lord—namely, the point about the estimated value of the trade lost and unemployment caused in the next year or two if the present policy is pursued—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, who quite rightly complained about the inadequacy of some Ministerial Answers to Questions. I share his concern because I have long experience of asking Questions as well as of trying to answer them. This is a Question which I do not think anyone could answer. It is simply not possible to give any quantifiable figure in reply to this Question, but this I can say. I have seen no evidence that any trade will be lost or any unemployment caused as a result of our decision to suspend further sales of arms to Chile and South Africa, and if such loss and such increased unemployment is caused it will be insignificant. Our policy in this matter has been consistent and has been made clear on several occasions, both when we were in Opposition and since we were returned to power. It is based on upholding principles and international obligations, so far as we can, and our national interests.

That brings me to the final point in the noble Lord's Question. He asked for evidence that trade with Africa as a whole will necessarily be lost if trade with the Republic of South Africa is encouraged, in view of the Statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on May 21, that to-day our trade with Africa as a whole has as much importance as our trade with South Africa. On this point I detect something of a non sequitur here, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Fraser. What the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd said, was of course a matter of fact; that our trade with Africa as a whole—and I think he understated it, careful and fair debater as he is—has as much importance as our trade with South Africa. In fact, this is something we can quantify and I shall do so in a moment.

In 1973 our total trade with South Africa, imports and exports, amounted to £774 million. I think the figure that my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale gave related to exports only, so the total trade of £744 million is in no way derogatory of the figure he gave. Our trade with the rest of Africa was slightly more than double, at £1,578 million, so that when my noble friend Lord Shepherd said that our trade with the whole of Africa has at least as much importance as our trade with South Africa, he was deliberately understating a very strong case.

This is the case. It is not that we are in fear of losing trade in the rest of Africa if we somehow unduly encourage trade with South Africa. We should show the black population of Africa, and show effectively, that we really do abominate apartheid, as they do. It is not a question of losing trade but it is a question of a continent going up in flames. The considerations are very wide-ranging. No man can foretell the effect of a mistake in this area, of not taking into full account the deep feelings which agitate the population of Africa and, indeed, of many other parts of the world, on this question of colour. It is the height of wisdom that we should tread warily; that at least we should not supply arms, especially when the international community has decided against it; that we should not be the one people to do so and thus indicate to the rest of Africa that we care nothing for their feelings on something which is fundamental to them.

My Lords, at the same time, although we withhold arms from South Africa, we want to see normal trade proceeding with that country. I have no doubt that it will, as it will with Chile and other countries with which we have differences of opinion which we show in appropriate ways. It is not our experience, where we have had to withhold arms in order to indicate our disagreement with policy, that in the long run (indeed, in the medium run) trade has suffered. I do not believe this will happen in the case of Chile or of South Africa. I believe and hope very much that in South Africa the forces inside that great country which are now working slowly towards a more liberal, tolerant, and democratic system (and there are such forces; they are Afrikaner—and English—speaking people working for progress) will understand that progress must be made, and its pace must be accelerated if we are to save the whole of Africa from greater difficulty and danger. The same is true of Chile. I am confident that we will see a return to democracy in that country, and further developments in the warm feelings between the two peoples. These have not been interrupted, even by a dictatorship.

My Lords, at the close of this short and valuable debate, I am sure your Lordships would join me in hoping that above all there should be in the next few years a new birth of tolerance and respect for nations and people, whatever their language, creed or colour.