§ 2.39 p.m.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy 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 steps have been taken to replace our naval attaché—recently retired—at the Embassy in Chile, where there is also unfortunately a vacuum as far as the ambassador is concerned.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, the defence attaché in Santiago left in March after completing his tour of duty and there are no plans to appoint a successor.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her reply, which is most discouraging. Is she aware of what a very important post this is from the naval point of view? Is she also aware that Russian and Polish ships are proliferating South of Chile, and that we have no ambassador there, although the Chilean Navy is an old friend of ours, with whom we have always had the most friendly relations? Will she ask the Foreign Office to reconsider their point of view?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, we are indeed aware, as I am sure your Lordships' House is aware, of the increase in Soviet 823 fishing vessels all over the world, including the South Pacific. But this, in itself, would not justify the appointment of a defence attaché. We are also very much aware of our traditional friendship with the Chilean Navy, and we very much look forward to renewing it under a democratic Government.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that Service attachés and ambassadors are appointed to countries because they are useful to us, and not as an accolade or a sign of approval of the Governments to which they are accredited? Will the noble Baroness and the Government reconsider the reappointment of an ambassador to Chile?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEYes, indeed, my Lords. We are fully aware of the conditions under which we appoint defence attachés. But it has been the view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and of the Ministry of Defence since early last year that there is no justification for such an appointment in Chile.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, will the Government agree that if, for any reason, it is desirable to have diplomatic relations with any country, it is also desirable to have a Mission which is fully equipped to do the job?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, Her Majesty's Government have every confidence in the Mission in Santiago, which is competent in discharging its duties well.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, may I ask one further question? Is the noble Baroness aware of the tremendous sea coast of Chile—I am not interested only in fishing—and of the whole of that area of the Pacific, which is of interest to our Navy? Will she please ask the Foreign Office to reconsider this matter?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I am sorry to be what I know is very disappointing to the noble Baroness. We know of her interest in shipping of all kinds, but I am afraid 824 that this is a much larger question. I will, of course, report our Question and Answers to my right honourable friend, but this involves very much larger issues.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House whether the ambassador to Chile is not being reappointed because the Government are satisfied with the Mission as it is, or because they do not want to appoint an ambassador?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, an ambassador is not being reappointed because, among other things, the Government were gravely dissatisfied about the representations which we made over the torture and arrest of Dr. Cassidy, and this is a perfectly good reason.
§ Lord BLYTONMy Lords, does the Minister not consider that this fight is a fight for a job for the boys?
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to reappoint an ambassador until a satisfactory explanation has been given by the Chilean junta as to what has happened to as many as an estimated 2,500 people who have disappeared without trace in that country, including many, such as Mr. William Beausire, who have close connections with Great Britain?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEYes, my Lords. I can confirm that. I should also like to confirm that we are gravely disturbed by the unsatisfactory replies which we have had about Mr. William Beausire. I should like to point out, too, that the previous Conservative Administration when they were in power made representations about the human rights situation. What this Government have done is to put words into action.
§ Lord GISBOROUGHMy Lords, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied with the treatment that has been given to dissidents in Russia and to the thousands of people who have disappeared there? If they are not, why is our ambassador there?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, that is a very different question and, if I may say so, a rather naïve one.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government have the overwhelming support of the members of our Party in the decision which they have taken?
§ Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALA-MEINMy Lords, in view of the improved economic position in Chile, is the noble Baroness able to give some advice as to when ECGD cover for the medium- and longer-term will be restored?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I am sure that the whole House is aware of the special interest which the noble Viscount takes in Chile. However, as I am sure the noble Viscount knows, the ECGD cover for exports has been restricted to short-term credit transactions since 1972 when the previous Chilean Administration defaulted in respect of its commercial debts. And that is where the position remains now.
§ Lord MOTTISTONEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether or not it has been the case until recently that we have had a naval attaché on each coast of South America, among other things for defence sales? Therefore, could the Government say when they intend to reinstitute a West Coast attaché, in whichever country it may be?
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, that is a rather different question. May I emphasise that apart from the sale of arms, the official policy of the Government is not to cut off trade with Chile. We are not in favour of trade boycotts unless they are supported internationally and have international authority.
§ Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEINMy Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness did not quite answer my question—which was in respect of medium- and longer-term credit, especially in view of the strong economic position which currently holds in Chile.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, I should need notice of that particular question.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)My Lords, we have done very well on this Question. We ought to proceed.