HL Deb 05 June 1984 vol 452 cc502-6

3.34 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the visit of the South African Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister on Saturday, 2nd June; The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a brief Statement about the visit of the South African Prime Minister and Foreign Minister on Saturday, 2nd June.

"We had over five hours of discussions. I was accompanied by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary and my honourable friend the Minister of State. The meeting was a working one, and the discussions were comprehensive and candid. They covered the problems of Southern Africa as a whole, including Namibia. There was considerable discussion of the internal situation in South Africa. I made clear to Mr. Botha our desire to see peaceful solutions to all the region's problems.

"On Namibia, we agreed that early independence for Namibia was desirable and should be achieved as soon as possible under peaceful conditions. We also agreed that all foreign forces should be withdrawn from the countries in Southern Africa so that their peoples can settle their destinies without outside interference. The withdrawal of South African forces from Angola is an important first step in this process.

"On the internal situation in South Africa, I expressed our strongly-held views on apartheid. I told Mr. Botha of my particular concern at the practice of forced removals and raised the question of the continued detention of Mr. Nelson Mandela. Mr. Botha gave me an account of his Government's recent constitutional measures and of the appointment of a Cabinet Committee to make proposals for the political future of the black population outside the homelands.

"I believe that the South African Prime Minister now understands much more clearly where Her Majesty's Government stand on all the major issues. My talks with Mr. Botha are part of the process through which we and other Western and African countries must continue to press for the sort of changes we all want to see in Southern Africa."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement. While we had doubts about the wisdom of this particular invitation, we are glad that the Prime Minister was able to raise most of the points which cause us acute concern in this country. May we assume that during the part of the discussion which dealt with the internal affairs of South Africa the Prime Minister stressed our unconditional opposition to apartheid?

We welcome what the Prime Minister has said about Namibia. Can the Leader of the House say whether any timetable has been agreed, and when free elections under United Nations' Resolution 435 will take place? The Prime Minister referred to South African troops but not. I note, to Cuban troops. Can the noble Viscount say whether the withdrawal of Cuban troops is still a sticking point?

We warmly support the Prime Minister's plea on behalf of Nelson Mandela, in regard to his long, and totally indefensible, detention. We noted what the Prime Minister has said about the homelands. Can the noble Viscount say whether the Prime Minister made representations regarding Mr. Botha's policy of uprooting black Africans from their villages, and in particular the case of the villagers who claim that their land was given to them by Kind Edward VII in 1904? As I understand it, this village is in the Eastern Transvaal. Is it not the case that the villagers have already petitioned Her Majesty the Queen and the Prime Minister? Can the noble Viscount say whether that specific case was discussed with other equally objectionable cases? Furthermore, and finally, can the noble Viscount confirm whether the Prime Minister made plain that the African National Congress headquarters will, in fact, remain in this country?

Baroness Seear

Lords, we on these Benches would also wish to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made in another place. As I think the House is aware we, too, were not happy when this invitation was issued. We should like to know whether the Government feel that the publicity which Mr. Botha is already extracting from this visit is being sufficiently countered by international publicity covering the statements made by the Prime Minister, so that the impression is not given that in fact Mr. Botha was received with less criticism than appears to have been the case from the Statement that has been made. Surely this is a matter of international publicity of considerable importance.

We are glad, since this visit did take place, that it was handled in a relatively low-key way, and that there was no impression of feting Mr. Botha when he came to this country. I should like also to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that we are glad that the Prime Minister raised forcefully the questions of apartheid, of Namibia, of forced removal, and of Mr. Nelson Mandela. One wonders, listening to the Statement, how much of a meeting of minds there was and what response came from Mr. Botha, or whether the Prime Minister's protests about apartheid were met with a completely blank response. One wonders whether any of the other issues that she raised appeared to extract any concessions whatsoever or any adjustment at all of Mr. Botha's point of view, particularly the question of Namibia. That is surely one of the most outstanding political questions of the time.

One is merely told that early independence is desirable and should be achieved as soon as possible under peaceful conditions; but is there any evidence that the speeding up of the solution to the question of Namibia is likely to take place or has been helped in any way by this visit? We would agree that the visit has been successful, if there is any evidence that any change is likely to take place as a result of it.

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for the questions they have raised. First, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the Prime Minister felt that it was important that she was able to raise the various points of criticism that this country had of the regime in South Africa; that she was able to explain in person to Mr. Botha our very strong opposition to apartheid. This she most certainly did in the strongest terms.

So far as Namibia is concerned, I have to tell the noble Lord that, as I understand it, there was no clear understanding about a timetable. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister made it very clear that she could not accept that a settlement in Namibia should be formally linked to the presence of Cuban troops in Angola, although she recognised the political necessity of dealing with this particular problem. I do not think there is any evidence that has been given to me that substantial progress was made on that matter.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, for what he said regarding Nelson Mandela. The Prime Minister pressed Mr. Botha very hard on this point and expressed the very great concern that there was in this country. She also said that his release would be an important gesture of national reconciliation, and I think that was something which should have been stressed. The Prime Minister raised the question of those people who claimed that they had their land from Edward VIIth in Kwa Ngema. She pressed that matter very strongly also.

To turn to the ANC, she made it very clear that as long as the ANC were acting within the law of this country and were pursuing their ways within the law, that was something which they were entitled to do in this country.

The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, also raised the question of the expressions of opinion on apartheid, and I am grateful for that. I believe that the way in which the visit was handled and the publicity attached to it—the really strong views this country had—should have got across both to Mr. Botha and indeed to a wide audience. I know there are those who do not take that view. The Government believed it was right that views should be put in a dialogue to Mr. Botha and be put strongly, as they were. The noble Baroness said she was glad it was done in a low-key manner. That was certainly the case. I think it will be seen to have been the case.

On the question of any response, I understand that Mr. Botha explained his constitutional proposals to the Prime Minister. As I understand it, she took note of those matters without accepting that they went as far as she or anyone in this country would necessarily wish; but she heard what he had to say on that particular point. Regarding speeding up the settlement of Namibia, clearly this was an important part of the efforts of all the different countries in Europe which Mr. Botha has visited. The Prime Minister did her best. We shall have to see what effect all that will have had on Mr. Botha in this particular process.

Lord Boyd-Carpenter

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many people in this country who welcome the fact that a discussion has taken place between our right honourable friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Botha, and believe that nothing but good can come from that? Is it not in general a good thing to have discussions at the highest level with the Head of Governments with whose policies one disagrees?

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. There is no doubt that the Government believe that a dialogue of this sort with people in the world with whom we disagree is right and is important. Those who seek to suggest that such a dialogue should not take place will find it very difficult when they choose between where a dialogue should take place and where it should not. That is a problem they have that we do not, because we believe such a dialogue is right. I do not think anyone in this country—or indeed in this House—would doubt that the Prime Minister would express her views with the utmost force. I understand she most certainly did, and if that is right I do not doubt (for many of us will have had a similar experience from time to time) that Mr. Botha was left in absolutely no doubt as to what she felt.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, will the noble Viscount tell the House whether the Prime Minister made any representations to Mr. Botha regarding the release of Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, and other political prisoners? Can he say whether the confidence expressed on his side of the House that everybody agrees that this was a good visit, would be endorsed by the millions of Africans in South Africa? Can he further say in a continuation of a question which I asked before the recess whether any discussion was held about the position of the African National Congress in this country and its right to pursue its championing of the African cause just as any other emigré organisation?

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am sure the House will understand if I repeat to the noble Lord what I think I have already answered to other noble Lords. As he did not hear it, it is perhaps important that I should do so. On the first point, the Prime Minister expressed considerable concern at Mr. Mandela's continued detention. As I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, she pointed out to Mr. Botha that Mr. Mandela's release would be an important gesture of national reconciliation, and I am sure the noble Lord would endorse that.

As to the question of the ANC, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I also made it perfectly clear that all the people in the United Kingdom are entitled to the protection of United Kingdom law. Members of the ANC are free to engage in political activities provided that they do not break the law. That position was made perfectly clear to Mr. Botha.

Lord Oram

My Lords, can the Leader of the House say whether before the invitation was issued to Mr. Botha the Government carried out consultations with our Commonwealth partners? If not, was there not a considerable risk of damaging our relations with those partners?

Viscount Whitelaw

My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give information of the particular consultations that took place before this invitation was issued. It was given on the authority of the Prime Minister and the British Government, and it was on that basis that it proceeded. I believe that it will be seen in retrospect, despite the many doubts that were expressed beforehand, that a dialogue of this sort did on this occasion have value, and I hope it will be seen to have some effect, although we cannot yet see how much.

Forward to