§ 2.42 p.m.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy 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 instructions they have given the Bank of England to restrict access by British citizens living in Rhodesia to funds in Great Britain; under what legislation are such instructions given; and whether the Bank of England has any discretion to waive or impose regulations under these circumstances.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey)My Lords, the Bank of England administers the Exchange Control Act 1947 as the agent of the Treasury. It has been the policy of successive Governments, following the illegal declaration of independence in Rhodesia, to apply economic sanctions to that country. As part of this policy, the Treasury has instructed the Bank of England to maintain restrictive controls under the Exchange Control Act 1947 on all payments involving residents of Rhodesia. These controls extend to the assets in the United Kingdom of residents of Rhodesia, whether or not the individuals concerned are British citizens. 1294 The Bank of England authorises the release of blocked funds for humanitarian, medical and educational purposes, in line with the concessions contained in the United Nations Sanctions Resolutions. While the 1947 Act allows wide discretion in the granting of permissions, the Bank of England's aim is to apply Treasury policy regarding Rhodesia through the exchange control rules as equitably as possible.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I have in my hand a copy of a letter from Rhodesia saying that for the past 13 years, under successive Governments, the couple in question have applied to the Bank of England for permission to pay, from frozen funds, subscriptions to English newspapers and magazines. They have now received notification that for the first time, after 13 years, the Bank of England is no longer able to give the permission Is not that a rather ridiculous, puny, petty pusillanimous attitude, and is it not rather in line with the totally illogical treatment which Sir Humphrey and Lady Gibbs have also recently received?
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, if the noble Lord says that he has a letter in his hand I am perfectly prepared to accept that that is so. However, as regards commenting on the particular case, if he had been kind enough to have given me notice of it I should have been able to do so. I cannot do so because I know nothing whatsoever of the circumstances.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, what do Her Majesty's Government gain by continuing to impose these restrictions? After all, there are some quite decent and respectable people in Rhodesia who are not to blame because Mr. Ian Smith wanted to become independent. Why should they have to suffer because of his alleged guilt? Surely the time has come after 11 years—it may be even longer— when we should remove restrictions which impose anything of the nature of hardship on quite decent and respectable people, even though they continue to live in Rhodesia.
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, I do not want to enter into the wider question of sanctions because that is not really a matter for which I have any responsibility 1295 or indeed about which I have very much knowledge. However, for 13 years these people have been free to leave Rhodesia. The restrictions of which I have spoken do not apply to people who leave Rhodesia permanently for any other destination. Finally, may I say to my noble friend that his remarks ought to be addressed to Mr. Ian Smith because the fans et origo of the whole trouble is his illegal declaration of independence; and indeed, the hardships which may be said to affect these people derive as much, if not more, from the fact that the illegal Rhodesian regime imposes extremely strict exchange controls upon its residents.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, does the noble and learned Lord not agree that these little "meannesses"—because they are meannesses—do not in any way help a constructive solution of the problem, and is this not particularly true of the story as reported in the Press about Sir Humphrey Gibbs, which the noble and learned Lord will have seen because it was so widely reported? Will he at any rate be prepared to ask the Bank of England to exercise its discretion in these matters?
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, my attention having been drawn to the case which has been mentioned, I shall certainly take steps to ensure that Treasury Ministers look at it, but I cannot go further than that.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, will the noble and learned Lord bear in mind that, now we are in a position where accredited Ministers in Her Majesty's Government at home, do sit round the table with the leaders of Rhodesia, it puts a completely different complexion on the situation from that which existed a few years ago? Under those circumstances, would it not be a sensible, Christian gesture to rescind instructions given under the 1947 Act and allow the Bank of England to use its discretion as to a purely commercial decision?
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, the noble Lord will certainly be aware that that would be a breach of the appropriate United Nations Resolution, which dates from 1968.
§ Lord STRATHCLYDEMy Lords, I think that the noble and learned Lord suggested in one of his replies that people had the chance to leave Rhodesia. Would he have been grateful to Sir Humphrey Gibbs if he had resigned his situation as Governor-General of Rhodesia, bearing in mind that he did so much for this country, for our interests there and for the people of Rhodesia?
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, I have already said that in the context of this quite general Question about the Exchange Control Act and the policy thereunder—the policy of sanctions—I cannot comment upon a particular case. However, I have said that I shall take steps to ensure that Treasury Ministers look at the particular case. I do not feel that I can go any further.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, the noble and learned Lord probably correctly received the general impression of this House that we resent petty restrictions of this sort. In his narrow Answer, he said that it was all right for payments to be made for educational purposes. Subscriptions to Blackwood's and to The Daily Telegraph are surely educational. Are we to say that no British newspapers are educational in their sphere? Surely it is illogical to stop people in Rhodesia from reading both sides of the case and reading our papers and international papers to ensure that they are better informed and thus better educated.
§ Lord McCLUSKEYMy Lords, it would be right for me to draw the attention of Treasury Ministers to the remarks which the noble Lord has just made.