§ 3.8 p.m.
§ Lord MONSONMy 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 whether, in view of recent reports of increasingly severe violations of human rights:in Vietnam, including the seizure of private homes and personal possessions, the forced closure of churches and pagodas, the dispossession of small traders and the mass deportations to "new economic zones" and "reeducation" camps, they will re-consider their decision to provide financial aid to assist the Government of Vietnam in obtaining merchant ships on exceptionally favourable terms.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOENo, my Lords. The Government are deeply concerned about violations of human rights wherever they may occur, but we doubt very much whether this particular aid offer, or its withdrawal, would have any influence either way. To withdraw the offer already made would lay the Government open to a charge of bad faith and imperil the commercial deal of which aid would form only a small part. We shall be helping to meet the needs of the British shipbuilding industry for new orders as well as the serious needs of Vietnam.
§ Lord MONSONMy Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that, if aiding the British shipbuilding industry is the only criterion, one might as well provide landing craft to Cuba for use in Ethiopia, 353 Angola or anywhere else that takes the Cubans' fancy? Is the noble Baroness not aware that, quite apart from the recent increase in repression in Vietnam, over the past three years, an estimated quarter of a million people have been liquidated, a further 50,000 have committed suicide as a result of their treatment and many tens of thousands have been killed in various ways while trying to escape? Would she not agree that the British taxpayer would far rather that his or her money were spent in trying to assist some of the helpless refugees drifting about the South China Sea in fishing boats than in subsidising a ruthless, totalitarian régime?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I think the House will feel great sympathy with the sentiments behind what the noble Lord is saying to us, though I think perhaps his language was a little over-emotional, if he will forgive my saying so. Nevertheless, I cannot speak for all the British taxpayers. One matter about which I am absolutely certain is that they would prefer their money to be used to reduce unemployment. That is what this particular offer of aid would be going towards.
§ Lord ELTONMy Lords, does the noble Baroness accept the following propositions: First, that the country of Vietnam occupies a crucial strategic position on the edges of the Free World, where it is vital for us to preserve stability; that there is no sign of that stability being preserved by Vietnam; and that the money would be better used to help the economy of Thailand, which is a free country and an ally? The second proposition is this. It amounts very nearly to misrepresentation to refer to as aid the expenditure of money to supply subsidised tonnage to a shipping market that is already oversupplied.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, as the noble Lord probably knows, this is under the aid-trade contingency provision, and is not simply aid. It is, of course, an offer only at the present moment. I do not think that it ever helps the stability of the world, in however crucial a place, to leave unendurable poverty unaided. This is one of the main points of the British 354 Government's programme for aid to developing countries.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the British Council of Shipping has reported—and there can be no challenge as regards what it has reported—that there is a sharp decline in the number of orders for merchant ships in this country? Why should we provide favourable terms to Vietnam the result of which will be to furnish even more intense competition against British merchant shipping? Is my noble friend also aware, as regards the incidents related by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that a reputable newspaper, the Guardian, reports that in Vietnam children are being used as spies against their parents?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, the Government are absolutely aware of the present difficulties of merchant shipping and of the views of the British Council of Shipping. However, we have played a very active part in international discussions in the OECD and other places aimed at avoiding subsidy races and the worsening of over-capacity. The British shipbuilding output has been extremely stable over the years and it is those people who have brought about over-capacity who should bear the brunt of the adjustments.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, are the Government prepared, during the course of discussions on aid to Vietnam either in the form of merchant ships or any other proposals that may be made, to raise the persecution of the Buddhist Sangha and in particular the continued imprisonment of the six Bhikkhus from the An-Kwang Pagoda in Saigon, who have been detained since April 1977, who have not been charged and not been seen by the international observer? Will the noble Baroness ask the Government whether they would permit a foreign observer to visit those Bhikkhus and ascertain their present state of health?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I should find it difficult to give a commitment on the last part of the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. However, of course we are aware of these situations. I say 355 absolutely freely to the House, as I have said before, that it is extremely difficult to be consistent about the whole question of human rights and aid. The point is that where the poorest people in the poorest countries need to be helped, often the standards of human rights in those countries are very different from our own.
§ Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARDMy Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that the British taxpayers are the most exploited body of taxpayers in the world? Must we now be browbeaten into aiding our enemies? As regards unemployment, the noble Baroness is advocating the way to cause unemployment—namely, to pay our customers to buy our goods, which is economic madness.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, if that was a Question I shall answer it. We are, of course, aiding employment in the shipbuilding industries which are in the most deprived areas, employment-wise, of the whole country. The Government understand the difficulties of merchant shipping in general. However, all these matters must be taken into account and not equated but considered together.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, does my noble friend not take the view that both the Question and the number of supplementaries that have been asked have given a very unbalanced picture of what is happening in Vietnam? My Lords, although there have been happenings which all of us would denounce, the Vietnam Government have done great, constructive work in regard to education and the economy. Is not illiteracy virtually abolished in what was Saigon, and has not the production in the devastated delta reached a record during the past two years?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I do not have the detailed knowledge that my noble friend has as regards literacy and the other matters he mentioned. However, I think we must preserve a sense of proportion and a sense of justice in these matters. We must also consider commercial 356 interests, aid interests and human rights interests all together. Often they have contradictory particular effects, but there is no simple answer and it is no use anybody pretending that there is.
§ Lord ELTONMy Lords, does the noble Baroness in the pursuit of this equitable solution first of all have any reason to believe that the poor people, for whom she speaks and who survived this régime, are likely to receive any economic benefit from this offer? Is it not clear to her from what has been said in this House, or will it not be when she reads the record, that the offer which has been made is against both the humanitarian and the economic interests of this country and possibly also against the strategic interests and ought to be reconsidered?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOENo, my Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. There is nothing strategic about the offer of cargo vessels which are only of 16,000 tons. They are small standard cargo vessels. There is nothing strategic about offering them. I think that one ought to rid one's mind of that sort of suspicion in advance.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)My Lords, I think that we have had a good run on this Question and two Front Bench Questions have been asked as well.