§ Q3. Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister what further communications he has received from the illegal régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.
§ Q9. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister what further exchanges he has had recently with the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
§ Q12. Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister what was the date of the last communication received from the Rhodesian Prime Minister on a possible settlement on the basis of the "Fearless" proposals or otherwise.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer hon. Members to the White Paper (Command 4065) which was published on 3rd June.
§ Mr. MolloyWould my right hon. Friend not agree that, as yesterday the House gave full support to the people of Gibraltar based on the principle of free determination and on our historical association, it would now be the most venal hypocrisy if we did not advocate the same policy towards Rhodesia? Would he ask the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal Party to join him in condemning apartheid and racialism wherever it exists?
§ The Prime MinisterI thought that both right hon. Gentlemen had condemned it in the Rhodesia context. So far as self-determination is concerned, we have made it clear—this no doubt has been one of the stumbling blocks in the negotiations—as our predecessors made it clear, that no constitution is acceptable to the British Government or, we believe, to this House which does not give the people of Rhodesia as a whole the opportunity 1228 of determining whether they accept it. That is our position and will always be our position.
§ Mr. WinnickIn view of what has been said in Rhodesia in the last fortnight, would my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that any agreement between a British Government and the illegal régime would not be worth the paper it was written on? Does he not agree that the courageous statement by the Bishops in Salisbury last week was also a condemnation of the type of race poison which we had from the dishonourable Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) last night?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the first question, it was because we recognised the tendencies of members of the régime that in the "Fearless" proposals we insisted on watertight proposals and guarantees to ensure fulfilment of the six principles. The "Fearless" proposals were turned down by the other side to the dispute. Mr. Smith has now said in his speech that the new constitution he is proposing is a racialist one. To the extent that he is racialistic it will be condemned by every hon. and right hon. Member of this House.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) referred to one of his Parliamentary colleagues as "the dishonourable Member". He must withdraw that.
§ Mr. FauldsAbsolutely correct. That is the Member over there—unprincipled, un-Christian, undemocratic and racialist.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must restrain himself while I am dealing with his colleague.
§ Mr. WinnickI was quite conscious of what I was going to say, and what I said. My quarrel was with the right hon. Gentleman, not with you, Mr. Speaker. If you ask me to withdraw, I have no alternative but to withdraw.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonWhatever Mr. Smith may say about it, is it not the case that his proposals provide for a multi-racial Parliament? May I ask the Prime Minister, since he cannot impose principles on Rhodesia, whether it was 1229 worth while for him to let the "Fearless" negotiations, in which he was supported by this House, fail because of the external safeguards? Did he fully explore the possibility of a treaty between the two countries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does he propose to do nothing between the present time and the holding of the referendum?
§ The Prime MinisterEven the hon. Gentleman's continuing apologia for this régime over four years, I should have thought, would have reached its limit when he felt called upon to defend the new constitution on the ground that it is a multi-racial Parliament. It is even described by its author as a racialist constitution. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been among all the other hon. Members of the House in condemning it. But apparently his loyalty to the régime is greater than his loyalty to the six principles. So far as the last part of the question is concerned, we took the initiative in the face of great criticism in this House and abroad in initiating the "Fearless" discussions. We put forward fair propositions to them. We can now see why they have not been accepted in the light of the statement. They did not founder on the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It was always clear that we were prepared to accept any alternative effective second safeguard.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonOn a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister suggested that I have loyalty to a Government other than Her Majesty's Government. All that I have done in the matter of Rhodesia has been directed to British interests as I have seen them. Mr. Speaker, will you ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a point of political argument between the Prime Minister and the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. DelargyHas the attention of the Prime Minister been drawn to the protests made in Rhodesia by Anglican and Catholic bishops and by Methodist leaders in expressing their abhorrence at the Rhodesian Government's handling of the constitution issue, in expressing their detestation of the terms of the referendum, and in calling on people everywhere 1230 who cherish tolerance to join with them in their protest?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. I saw first on one day the protest by the Roman Catholic archbishop and four bishops, and on the second I saw the statement by all the Churches, except the Dutch Reformed Church, on this question. I would pay tribute, as I am sure would the House, to the great courage shown by the Churches in Rhodesia, not only during this last weekend, but even before U.D.I. in their very strong warning of the effects. I imagine that there is no hon. Member who does not deplore the treatment by the régime and its racialist supporters of the Anglican bishops in Rhodesia.
§ Mr. LubbockWill the right hon. Gentleman consider as a matter of urgency what additional steps can be taken before 20th June, other than a short-wave broadcast, to draw the attention of the white electors of Rhodesia to the almost universal abhorrence and condemnation in the United Kingdom of this racialist constitution?
§ The Prime MinisterI hope that what has been said in this House this afternoon will be reported in Rhodesia. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made a very strong speech on this subject this afternoon. I hope that early copies will be available to hon. Members; they certainly will be available in Rhodesia. Other methods are being considered.
I am quite certain that if all parties in the House were unequivocal in condemning the new constitution and in making clear that we can have no dealings with that kind of situation, this of itself would have a profound effect in Rhodesia. It would express, on behalf of the whole House, our recognition of our trusteeship for the 4 million people who will not be voting in the referendum.
§ Mr. FauldsWould my right hon. Friend not agree that Smith's latest move merely underlines what some of us have always maintained—that he had no intention of reaching a settlement on the six principles, that he is an avowed racialist and that he always was, still is, and presumably, short of Christian conversion, always will be, an unprincipled twister?
§ The Prime MinisterI am aware that my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends warned me against getting into negotiations with him. I still think that it was right to have the negotiations on board H.M.S. "Fearless". At the time there was no reason to think that he was not negotiating in good faith. I believe that if he had been able to work out the agreement and he could have got it through the racialist majority of his party, he would have signed the agreement and stuck to it. But it was clear that, when the chance came after H.M.S. "Tiger", he ran away under the racialist pressure of his own Right wing.
§ Mr. AmeryCould the Prime Minister explain why the Government appear to have made no attempt to explore the alternative possible second safeguards, such as a treaty, and those which were proposed by Sir Albert Robinson, in which Mr. Smith appeared to show some interest after the return from Salisbury of the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson).
§ The Prime MinisterMr. Smith occasionally appears to show interest, until you get him round the negotiating table. So far as a question of a treaty is concerned, we discussed it with him in 1965, not only here but in Rhodesia. In the end he turned it down and said realistically that what is important is what is in the treaty. We could not reach agreement. We offered him a number of alternatives to the safeguards, which he would not accept, including the possibility of safeguards confined to the internal Rhodesian position requiring no external safeguards. But he turned down the treaty on H.M.S. "Tiger" on the ground that it would have to be registered in the United Nations—not his favourite body.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. King, to ask Question No. 4.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamOn a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter again.