South Africa: Trade Delegation (Hansard, 27 October 1987)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Beaverbrook
My Lords, officials both in the UK and overseas provide information and advice on the market to business visitors to South Africa, whether they travel to the market as individuals or as members of a trade mission. South Africa remains an important market for our exporters. Such assistance is available to members of the United Kingdom-South Africa Trade Association and is not contrary to any of our undertakings on South Africa.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his noble friend Lord Whitelaw, the Leader of the House, last Thursday told this House that the British Government had carried out meticulously all the undertakings of the Nassau Commonwealth Conference of two years ago regarding the sanctions then imposed? Was not one of those sanctions to reduce by all means possible trade between the signatories and South Africa? Is it not the case that the United Kingdom-South Africa Trade Association has already arranged to have a briefing from British consular officials in Johannesburg followed by a British consular reception? Is this in keeping with our undertakings at Nassau two years ago?

§ Lord Beaverbrook
My Lords, I can confirm that a pre-departure briefing has already been given by officials. Our commercial offices in South Africa will provide the usual range of briefing and assistance available in all posts overseas. We observe our international undertakings on trade with South Africa.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, that really does not answer the question. I have asked the noble Lord whether it is not the case that at Nassau two years ago all the members of the Commonwealth agreed that they would dissuade, by all means possible, trade between their countries and South Africa. Is this the way in which the British Government interpret that dissuasion? Is it not the case that the British Government are actively encouraging trade associations and companies in this country to trade with South Africa completely against the undertaking given in Nassau two years ago and in London one year ago?

§ Lord Beaverbrook
My Lords, as I said, we continue to stick by the undertakings given, but we continue to believe that civil trade with all countries, including South Africa, should be determined by commercial considerations and not by the character of the Government of those countries. In line with the undertakings agreed in Nassau, we do not provide the funding for this visit to South Africa.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what he has said places us in an even more invidious position in relation to our Commonwealth partners? Does he agree that Her Majesty's Government took a step towards sanctions, albeit a small one, in Nassau? In other words, they underlined the principle that sanctions were possible. Secondly, does he agree that what he has just said went totally contrary to the spirit of the Vancouver summit? Will he ask his right honourable and learned friend to look at the situation carefully, because we seem to be encouraging this kind of relationship not just as a commercial venture but with glasses of champagne? Will he ask his right honourable and learned friend to look at this matter carefully, because, as I said the other day, the future of the Commonwealth may well be in jeopardy?

§ Lord Beaverbrook
My Lords, of course we, and no one more than my right honourable and learned friend, keep this matter under constant review. But we believe that sanctions have been counterproductive and that United Kingdom companies are a positive force for good in South Africa.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, when the noble Lord says that sanctions are counterproductive, he is merely repeating what his right honourable friends have said. What evidence does he have for saying that? Is it not truer to say that real sanctions have never been properly put into effect?

§ Lord Beaverbrook
My Lords, that can only be a matter of opinion. I have stated the Government's view.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is not taking steps which will make them unemployed an odd way to help the black population of South Africa?

§ Lord Beaverbrook
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is it not also the case that it is the black people of South Africa who are most strongly in favour of sanctions?

§ Lord Beaverbrook
My Lords, that is of course a very important body of opinion. But we believe that the best interests of South Africa are served by our continuing to trade and, as I said, we believe that many UK companies are a positive force for good in South Africa.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, is that accounted for by the fact that it is the black inhabitants of South Africa who know least about economics? Is the noble Lord aware that the Government are greatly to be congratulated if the follies of sanctions are put well behind us? These are people who fought with us in two wars. They should be our friends. For my part I congratulate the Government on any action taken to make them so.

§ Lord Beaverbrook
My Lords, I fully acknowledge what the noble Lord says.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the support for this promotion of trade in South Africa is against the spirit of the Nassau agreement? The question is not whether we are in favour of sanctions but whether we are prepared to accept the implications of the Nassau agreement in agreeing to restrict trade in certain areas.

§ Lord Beaverbrook
My Lords, how the noble Lord interprets the spirit of the Nassau agreement is a matter for him, but we abide by that agreement.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I am not talking about the spirit of the agreement at Nassau. I am talking about the letter of the communiqué signed by this Government which was repeated, as I have said before—

Noble Lords
Question!

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
—by the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House, last Thursday. Is it not the case that in the first six months of this year trade between this country and South Africa increased by 11 per cent? Will the noble Lord address himself to the direct question? Do the Government agree with the communiqué which they signed in Nassau and repeated in London 12 months ago that it is incumbent upon every member of the Commonwealth to reduce trade between their countries and South Africa by all means possible? If he accepts that undertaking, how can he then say that it is in the interests of South Africa to encourage trade?

§ The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)
My Lords, we are reaching the position when your Lordships may feel that we have continued this Question long enough. Part of the problem in so continuing is words attributed to me. I am therefore in two positions at the same time. I am seeking to represent the view of all your Lordships 413 that we have probably had long enough time on one Question, while my own remarks appear to have occasioned some part of the Question. This is a dilemma which I have to face. I shall deal with it simply. I shall look into exactly what the noble Lord has been asking and I undertake to write to him on the matter justifying my remarks, which I believe to be fully justified. I do not expect that the letter that I shall write to the noble Lord will in any way satisfy him but I shall do my best.