§ 3.0 p.m.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been reached on apartheid in South Africa by the United Nations Security Council and what action the British Representative took.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the United Nations Security Council debate on apartheid which began on 21st March has been adjourned until 6th June. The United Kingdom Representative has not spoken so far. Our aim throughout has been to reach a consensus whereby the full weight of a united Security Council could be thrown behind the urgent search for a just and peaceful solution to the problems of Southern Africa.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, can my noble friend explain why there has been this long delay in reaching some conclusion on this subject which has now gone on for some months? Can he say whether the British Government support some restriction on investments in companies in South Africa which are practising apartheid as illustrated in last week's report about the inhuman and appalling conditions in the mines of Johannesburg?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I do not think that it would be the consensus of opinion that there has been undue delay on this problem. I have said that this particular and very important discussion has been adjourned until 6th June, so that not only this country but others can consider how usefully they can contribute to the search for a solution. It is very complex; it is a major question. One might say that there has been a delay of many years, not simply of a few weeks. If we invest a few weeks in talking to each other in order to achieve a consensus, surely that is a very good investment.
I turn to the other kind of investment which my noble friend raised. Here our 561 policy is clear. We do not place restrictions on normal civil trade with and investments in that country. However, we have made it clear that we expect British firms in their commercial dealings with the Republic to honour the spirit as well as the letter of Government policies.
§ Lord BARNBYMy Lords, as the Minister has indicated that this discussion will continue and that our Representative has not yet spoken, will that Representative be instructed to bear in mind that our trade with South Africa, and therefore the importance of employment in this country, will be given priority in considerations and expressions by our Minister on all matters, apart from ideological matters which in another country are not our business?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I think that my reply to my noble friend Lord Brockway put the position as to trade and commerce quite precisely. There is no change in the Government's attitude on these matters. From time to time it is a matter of priorities, but the basics are that we intend to continue civil trade with the SAR—and quite rightly so—while maintaining our political attitude on the question of apartheid.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, in view of the fact that the Government have taken some initiative to secure the payment of a living wage by British companies in Southern Africa, will they now extend that initiative to take in the conditions under which workers are employed, and the appalling and inhuman conditions which are to be found in many of the compounds of the mining firms of Johannesburg?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding the House of the fruitful initiatives which successive British Governments have taken in enjoining upon British firms their duty to take the lead in improving conditions in the employment of Africans of all colours. As to future progress, we see it primarily, but not only, as the encouragement of free trade unions for workers of all colours in the South African Republic.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, although I am entirely in favour of the 562 Security Council concerning itself with apartheid in South Africa, is it not equally important that the Security Council should concern itself with the previous Question which was raised by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, yes. There is no bar on the Security Council—which by definition is concerned with security, which after all is the basis of peace—considering that matter and indeed all matters related to peace and security. In the light of circumstances and evidence, I have no doubt that individual members of the Security Council will move in that direction. There are, after all, five permanent members, of which we are one.
§ Lord COLERAINEMy Lords, I was prevented by the intervention of the noble Baroness the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms from intervening in the last Question. I should like to ask the noble Lord a similar question. Does he regard the activities of the United Nations in Central and Southern Africa as being conducive to world peace or as being conducive to further disorder?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the answer is, conducive to world peace. The situations of danger and difficulty, of which we are all aware, have been well publicised and so have the failures of the United Nations. The successes of the United Nations and the part it has played in maintaining uninterrupted peace in terms of world disturbance for 32 years have not been so well publicised or well regarded. If the United Nations did not exist it would somewhere or other, like Voltaire's God, have to be invented.
§ Lord DERWENTMy Lords, should not some Back-Bencher come to the help of the Government Chief Whip by pointing out that we have now spent 29 minutes on Questions.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, may I, in my other role—the noble Lord the Leader of the House being absent—say that the cricketing score seems to indicate that this Question, even more than was so with the other, should be brought to an end.