SOUTHERN RHODESIA

HC Deb 16 October 1969 vol 788 cc614-76

3.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart)

I beg to move,

That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th October, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not know how long the House wishes the debate to last. If it proceeds to seven o'clock it will be interrupted by private business and then we shall have to return to it.

There are a fair number of hon. Members wishing to speak in the debate. In any case, brief speeches will help.

Mr. Stewart

The effect of the Motion will be to continue in force Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act, 1965. That section enables Her Majesty in Council to take any action concerning events in Rhodesia. To fail to keep that section in force, therefore, would, in effect, be a denial of Her Majesty's sovereignty over Southern Rhodesia, so I do not think that anyone would wish to oppose the Motion unless he wants to give full support to the Rhodesian rebellion.

The form and text and the legal effect of the Motion are clear enough. But I am sure that it is right., even in what may be a half-day debate, if the House wishes—and I understand that this is its wish—to take the opportunity of the legal necessity to pass this Order, to look at the substance of the whole Rhodesian matter.

The last time that we debated Rhodesian affairs was very nearly a year ago—22nd October, 1968. Since then the House has been kept fully informed. There have been several Ministerial statements, there have been abundant Answers to Questions, there has been the White Paper, Cmnd. No. 4065, and there has been made available to the House the communique of the conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers at which conference Rhodesia was fully discussed.

If we ask what most notably has been made plain since that last debate nearly a year ago, the answer is that what has been made plain beyond doubt to anybody is the real nature of Mr. Ian Smith's philosophy and policy. Many hon. Members might have felt that we knew it earlier, but it has been made plain, I think, beyond anybody's questioning, in the events of the last 12 months.

I have in mind particularly the visit of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in November last year. This followed the discussions in Her Majesty's ship "Fearless" and was an endeavour to see whether there was any way in which the differences that remained could in fact be bridged.

I know that many people ask us and ask themselves the question: why do the Government go to all this trouble; not only the talks on board the "Fearless", but the further conversations in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster took part?

In our judgment, the answer was that it was important to make clear to everyone in this country and throughout the world, first, that we stood by the six principles, but, secondly and equally, that, provided the six principles could be secured, we were ready to be flexible and reasonable on anything consistent with that.

On 21st May, in a suplementary answer to the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), I said: …we have been prepared, and are prepared, to he flexible on details, on form, and even, within reason, on timing. But there is one matter that is not susceptible to compromise. Any settlement, to be acceptable, I would have thought, to anyone in this House, must be a settlement which would mean unimpeded progress within a reasonable time towards majority rule."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1969; Vol. 783, c. 445.] I emphasised in that answer our readiness, subject to that essential, to be as flexible as we possibly could.

Mr. Sandys (Streatham)

Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that there is any chance of reaching a settlement on the basis of that principle, or on any of the other five principles?

Mr. Stewart

That question has to be put to Salisbury as much as to me. I am certain that it would be totally wrong to reach a settlement that contravened that principle, or, indeed, any of the six principles. I will perhaps give a fuller answer to the right hon. Gentleman in what I later have to say. But I say now that it would be totally wrong to try to reach a settlement that contravened those principles.

It was perhaps the more necessary to undertake the exercise of negotiation in the visit of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, because Mr. Smith had previously asserted that a settlement with Britain was something that he regarded as a first prize. In the light of that statement it could have been argued that the British Government must make every effort, consistent with the principles, to achieve that prize. That effort we did in fact make, but Mr. Smith has made very clear since, that, despite his allegation that he regarded a setttlement with us as a first prize, he none the less completely rejected the six principles and the concept of majority rule, not only now or in the near future, but in any foreseeable time.

One other thing that has happened since we last debated Rhodesia has been the proclamation of what the illegal régime calls its constitution. It is worth while looking at this constitution and remembering, when we look at any part of it, that this is supposed to be a constitution for a country in which there are 19 people of African origin for every one of European origin. In a country so constituted, it is proposed that there should be a Legislature, one House of which should be a Senate containing 10 Europeans, 10 African chiefs paid by the Government, and three appointed members irrespective of race.

These proportions have to be seen against the proportions of 19 or 20 to 1 in the numbers of the two races in the total population. This composition of the Senate has especial importance because the Senate is supposed to be the guardian of the Declaration of Rights. One of the matters claimed for the constitution is that it contains a Declaration of Rights.

But this is not something like certain declarations of principle in the United States constitution, of which the courts are guardians. It is for the Senate to decide whether any particular piece of legislation contravenes the declaration of rights—a Senate composed of 10 Europeans, 10 paid chiefs and three others. In the Lower House there will be 50 Europeans, eight chiefs, and eight elected African members. This, again, has to be set against the proportions of the races in the population.

I want to try to deal with this as fairly and patiently as I can and to see if there is any way in which a case can be made for a constitution of this kind. It could be said, indeed it has been said, that although this is the composition of the two Houses at the outset, it is capable of alteration—that as Africans get more educated, get more prosperous and pay more taxes they will be entitled to greater representation. But there is not to be equal representation of the two races until the total amount of income tax paid by the whole African community is equal to the total amount of income tax paid by the whole European community.

One may notice, in passing, that nothing is said about the burden of indirect taxation on the African community. Suppose the African community were to decide that they would undertake this heroic task of so increasing their wealth that the total amount of income tax paid by them equalled the total amount paid by Europeans. It would be quite a long road because at present the European community pays about 200 times the amount of income tax that the African community does. So it would take a long time on any analysis. I suppose that some would say that the moral of this clearly is that the Africans must work, improve their education, and get themselves into a position to pay more income tax. Indeed, unless one says that, one cannot justify this constitution at all.

I can accept that it is possible in some kinds of community to establish the position where one can say, for the present we give exceptional voting rights to a particular section of the community by virtue of wealth or education; but it seems to me that one can justify that view—if one can justify it in any circumstances—only if the régime which promulgates such a constitution makes it overwhelmingly clear that it is giving to the less privileged community every possible opportunity to improve its education, to become more prosperous, whether as farmers, as professional men, or as trades people.

Let us look at what is happening. At the moment ten times as much is spent —[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members who interrupt will have an opportunity to speak later. At the moment, ten times as much is spent on the education of a European child as on the education of an African child. If we look at the extent to which children move from primary to secondary schools, among Europeans it is about 11 per cent. and among Africans 1 per cent. If we look at the ownership of land, the 230,000 Europeans, in round figures, will own rather more land than the 4,800,000 Africans. It is true that there is said to be a scheme to improve this, but the recent eviction from their homeland of the Tangwena tribe makes fairly clear what the real nature of the régime's policy is.

If the African happens to advance to the position where he may increase his wealth and voting rights in a town, we find the redefinition of areas in the town is such as to operate solidly to the disadvantage of the African who seeks either to be a shopkeeper or a professional man. What we have got, then, is a constitution which at the very best and on the most favourable interpretation nobody could say is not really racial; it is related to education and income, and so on, and, at the same time, makes it impossible for the less privileged race to advance in education and income.

It is not possible to escape the conclusion that by the publication and attempted enforcement of this constitution the Smith régime is making it quite clear that it rejects majority rule, not merely now but permanently; and that there is no way of reconciling the Smith régime's attitude, unless there were a complete change of heart and mind, with the six principles.

I make this point because of the suggestion that it might be right to enter yet further negotiations with the Smith régime. I can see three bases on which that might be done. One would be that there was a complete change of heart and mind in Salisbury and that everything which is represented by and embodied in this racialist constitution were thrown aside. If that were to happen, if that were an unmistakable indication of a complete change of heart and mind in Salisbury, then I do not think that anyone would object to reopening discussions with such a very different version of what we now have in Salisbury.

Failing that, what are the other bases on which one could enter into negotiation? One could do it on the basis of saying that this country still stands by the six principles but we are entering into negotiations because we believe that the things which divide us from Salisbury are not matters of principle but merely procedural difficulties which the greater wisdom of some people might be able to iron out. It might just have been possible to argue that before the "Fearless" talks. It might just have been possible before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy went and continued conversations there, but every procedural aspect has been gone over.

Even on the difficult matter of the second safeguard, we put forward proposals which would have meant a safeguard both beginning and ending its operation inside Rhodesia itself. I do not think that anyone who has acquainted himself with the course of the negotiations could argue that what divides us from Salisbury are mere procedural differences.

There is, of course, a third basis on which negotiations could be opened. That is the basis that this country has abandoned the six principles. I very much hope that what we have heard about proposals to reopen negotiations does not mean that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We must notice this. Unless there is a clear and unmistakable indication of a change of heart and mind in Salisbury, to talk about reopening negotiations will have the practical effect of encouraging the Smith régime to believe that what this country has in mind is the abandonment of the six principles.

I can understand and would fully agree with anyone who said, "When we get a new régime or a real change in Salisbury, negotiate". I can understand, but I could not agree with, someone who said, "Let us go and negotiate so that we can wriggle ourselves out of the six principles". It seems to me quite untenable in logic to say that we stick by the six principles and that, in face of the present régime and its present mind in Salisbury, we will pretend that we can negotiate. There is a real danger in doing so because it will give the impression that the six principles themselves are in question.

I have argued that it is vital for us to stand by the principles. I know that the question will be raised then, "When and in what circumstances do you see that change of heart and mind which is necessary if an honourable settlement is to be reached?" We have held, and still hold, the view that we must proceed with the rigorous application of the policy of sanctions ourselves and that we must use our best endeavours throughout the world to ensure that other nations do the same.

Recognising our own special responsibility, we have taken particular care in my Department to watch all over the world for potential breaches of sanctions, to take them up with the Governments concerned, and where necessary to report them to the United Nations Sanctions Committee. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) or anyone else who doubts this had better ask this question. I thought that the Conservative Party's view was that it would reopen negotiations with Ian Smith. I have given reasons why I do not think that that would be a good thing. But to say "Open negotiations with Smith and, what is more, in order to put him in an absolutely impregnable position in negotiations, say in advance that we shall get rid of sanctions" is not so much immoral; it is nonsensical.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

Since the right hon. Gentleman says that we have been active ourselves—and I accept that—in making sanctions work and have reported only alleged infringements to the United Nations, could he say how many prosecutions have been instituted by these other nations against alleged infringements by companies within their own territories?

Mr. Stewart

I could not give a figure offhand. I shall endeavour to ascertain the answer. I assure the hon. Gentleman that this has resulted in a more stringent application, but I agree that there is still room for improvement. It would be reasonable if some of the voices in the United Nations which continually criticise Britain would criticise countries which are less particular in this matter than we are.

I shall not pretend that the application of sanctions is an easy task or is anything like as complete as we should desire it to be. But, in judging the effect of the policy of sanctions and of the wisdom or unwisdom of abandoning it, we should contrast what is happening in Rhodesia with what Mr. Smith claimed would happen when he made the illegal declaration of independence. He did that, I think, in the genuine belief that, as he said, once independence was established the world would recognise the independent Rhodesia and investment and migrants would pour in; there would be, as a country in Rhodesia's position should be able to expect, an expanding and vigorous economy.

What has happened? No country in the world has recognised the illegal régime. Investment from abroad has dwindled to a trickle. Export earnings have shrunk by 40 per cent. I think that alone among all countries in the world the total national product per head is less than it was four years ago. Instead of the expanding opportunities which Mr. Smith sought to achieve for his people by the illegal declaration, he has led them down a path which gets narrower and narrower as the years go by.

I see the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) looking acute and interested. I read his letter in which he said, I think, that there had been an increase of 7,000 in net European immigration per year—

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

In the last 18 months.

Mr. Stewart

— in the last 18 months. If he compares the census taken in 1961 and that taken earlier this year, he will find that the total increase of the European population is only 7,000 over eight years, and that takes into account the natural increase as well as immigration.

Therefore, over these years, this is not a country to which people have wanted to go, to which people want to commit their capital or in which mankind wants to express confidence.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

Since the right hon. Gentleman is touching on economics, would he give the gross national product for Rhodesia for 1967 and 1968 respectively—the last measured year?

Mr. Stewart

I think that I am right in saying that that was given at Question Time last Monday. I have not the figure. If the hon. Gentleman will read HANSARD, he will find the answer there. I expect that the hon. Gentleman knows that one can read the next day the answers to Questions which are not reached orally.

Mr. John Biffen(Oswestry) rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Minister can deal with only one intervention at once.

Mr. Stewart

I am asserting quite definitely that the gross national product per head of this community has declined since illegal independence was declared. In that respect it is unique among all communities in the world. It is not what Mr. Smith led his people to expect when he embarked them on this disastrous course.

Mr. Biffen rose—

Mr. Stewart

The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to deal with this point later.

Mr. Biffen

The right hon. Gentleman is totally misrepresenting the position.

Mr. Wall

Would the Secretary of State agree that our Prime Minister was equally wrong when he spoke about weeks rather than months?

Mr. Stewart

Yes, I would. What I want to know is: do hon. Members rejoice over that or not?

Mr. Wall

We said that sanctions were wrong and would not work.

Mr. Stewart

If he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member may be able to make clear whether he wants the Rhodesian rebellion to succeed and whether he wants this racialist constitution to be perpetuated. That is the issue, which he has so often dodged.

It is to the position of a narrowing, disappointed community that Mr. Smith's disastrous and racialist policies have brought both the white and black populations of Rhodesia. It is a denial of what a community placed like that should have been able to enjoy. As long as Rhodesia is ruled by a racialist minority, this is the position that both we and mankind must maintain.

Behind the legalities of this Order, behind statistical arguments, there looms this gigantic question. Already, in certain parts of Africa there are forms of government which assert definitely and as a matter of principle that because a man has a black skin his political rights shall be diminished. It is of enormous importance to the world that that principle should not be extended. To that question—is it right to extend the principle of racial discrimination? —One must give a plain answer, "yes" or "no". The right answer is "no". That is the answer which Her Majesty's Government give and will maintain.

4.19 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Kinross and West Perthshire)

In introducing the Order, the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs used certain arguments with which I could not disagree. If Mr. Smith's proposed constitution for Rhodesia was adopted, of course Britain could not be a party to it. I have said that in the House before, and it is not disputed.

I do not have to go into the details of Mr. Smith's income tax regulations or educational policy to make the point. If the constitution goes through Mr. Smith's Parliament, he will introduce two rolls—one African and one European, with no common roll—and that, as far as we know from the constitution, in perpetuity. Therefore, there is no question that our Parliament or anybody in this country could be a partner in such an enterprise.

So there would have to be a change of attitude in Salisbury if we were to have a negotiated settlement. I cannot say whether that is possible or likely, or very unlikely, but there is no need to suggest that we in this House would have to wriggle to obtain a settlement. Let me take the "Fearless" proposals, for which the right hon. Gentleman bore part of the responsibility. He and his right hon. Friend then in charge of these matters were willing to consider, for example, a second safeguard operating not from outside Rhodesia, but from inside.

That would not be a wriggle. It would be an adaptation of the "Fearless" proposals which might be acceptable. I do not know whether it would be acceptable in Salisbury, but it might, and there might be other modifica- tions of the "Fearless" proposals which would be acceptable. I cannot tell, but at any rate let us be clear that on Mr. Smith's present constitution the arguments the right hon. Gentleman used would scarcely be disputed.

But the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary gave himself a much more uphill task when he tried to justify that part of the Government's policy against which we have always voted and upon which we warned him of the consequences, namely, mandatory sanctions. It was predictable, in fact it was certain, that with South Africa exempt from the sanctions net mandatory sanctions could not achieve the political results which the Prime Minister required. The right hon. Gentleman was warned what would happen and it has.

Rhodesians, even those who favour a settlement with Britain, have not been able to express their opinion inside Rhodesia without being accused of rocking the boat in a country under siege. In Rhodesia, the people who are really suffering from the economic sanctions are the Africans, and nobody can be indifferent to African unemployment.

In Rhodesia today there is for the first time in its history no voting roll which is common to the races. In other words, it is the beginning of the end of the multiracial society. Nobody can take any satisfaction in that. What is more, Rhodesia is more and more dependent on South Africa for investment and trade.

Rhodesia, it is true, has suffered an economic set-back—I think rather exaggerated by the right hon. Gentleman. Clearly, most of the tobacco growers have been made bankrupt. But there are discoveries of nickel, and with the price of nickel what it is there is a balance coming into the Rhodesian economy. At any rate, the economic pressure of sanctions is not, and cannot be so long as South Africa is outside the sanctions net, effective in bringing about the political result on which the Prime Minister's whole case rests.

These are facts of life, and they must be noted. I do not lay the blame on the British Government, but they are the results, first, of policies pursued by Mr. Smith when he took his very precipitate, action, and second, of policies pursued by the British Government, who have failed to take account of the psychological effect on people of British stock of a blockade.

When the British Government handed over responsibility to the United Nations, they lost control of the situation completely. Even the right hon. Gentleman's senior colleagues are losing faith in the Government's policy. He will have read what the Secretary of State for Defence is reported to have said on 2nd October: I must confess after several years' experi-that I am doubtful whether, even if sanctions were as effective as possible, they would be sufficient to change the situation in itself. Yet the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has nothing else to suggest today, except to try to stiffen the sanctions policy. It is evidently, in the mind of his colleague, a pretty forlorn chance.

But the business before the House is not a review of the whole Rhodesia policy. We have reviewed it many times. The business before us is an Order similar to one we have had before the House in previous years, and the question for the Opposition is whether to vote against it, or, as we have done before, to abstain.

I am influenced by a number of considerations. The new constitution proposed by Mr. Smith has not yet passed the Rhodesian Parliament, and timetables for constitutional reform slip. I need not remind the right hon. Gentleman of that. There is to be a General Election in Rhodesia in the spring, when the Rhodesian people will have a chance to express their opinion of the existing Rhodesian Government. [Interruption.] The Rhodesian electors on the roll will have a chance to express their opinion. That is a perfectly valid correction. They will have a chance to express their opinion, and they are the people who have been supporting Mr. Smith's Government. We shall see then whether they still support him and his policy.

The consideration that weighs with me most is the way in which this vote, if it were given today, would be interpreted in Rhodesia. Here in this House it would be a protest against policies which are rapidly becoming incredible. But it would inevitably be seen there as giving the green light to Mr. Smith to go right ahead to declare a republic and adopt his constitution, which includes separate development.

If the Rhodesian electors decide that they want these things, let them say so for themselves when the time comes, without an all-clear given by any section of Members of this House. It may be that when the Rhodesian parliamentary procedures are completed there will be a constitution on which a break with this country will be irreparable and formalised. But until that is done I would not like it to go out from any section of this House, let alone the Conservative side, that we want to see the final breach with Britain take place, or that we want to see the adoption of that kind of constitution for Rhodesia. I would not like either of those messages to go out from the House today.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

Would the right hon. Gentleman add to that a third message from the Opposition, particularly in view of their recent statements on the subject, that he reiterates the demand which he has made in the House on a number of occasions, that in any settlement majority rule in Rhodesia must be certain? Will he send out that message along with the others?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

A description I have always used on this is "uninterrupted progress". That may not be good enough for the hon. Gentleman, but "uninterrupted progress" means that one continues the process of bringing the Africans on to the common roll, but do not put a time limit to it.

My final reason for hoping that there will not be at any rate a substantial vote is this. I want to try to preserve complete freedom to the next Government of this country, whether Socialist or Conservative. Complete freedom will be necessary, because whatever Government succeeds the present Government they will have to review the policy towards Rhodesia in all its dimensions. I want us to be in a position to do this without any previous commitments which will fetter our freedom, so that we can look at this situation completely afresh. Therefore, I hope that we can abstain, as we have done before, on this Order.

In conclusion, I would say one thing to the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. At Question Time the other day one of his hon. Friends seemed to indicate that the Government might be seriously thinking that the United Nations might introduce another mandatory order affecting communications with Rhodesia, and that communications with Rhodesia might be cut. I cannot conceive any more irresponsible folly, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman why.

Will the Government really connive at a situation in which the only channel of communications to the Africans and to the Europeans in Rhodesia would be through South Africa? That would be total and absolute idiocy. So I hope that the Government will have no part in this. Should they do that, I have to say to the Government that, while we abstain on the Order today, we would then have to use all the parliamentary means at our disposal to oppose them in that action.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd (Portsmouth, West)

At the time of this crucial debate, as we approach the fourth anniversary of U.D.I., I think it best, as my right hon. Friend has suggested, that we try to look at the immediate situation in Rhodesia in the perspective of developments over the past year.

The first point which I think we should accept is that we have clearly failed to reach our objectives in Rhodesia. The Smith régime still rides high; police State methods are still employed; many hundreds of people are detained without trial simply because of their political beliefs. There is political manipulation of the educational content in schools and universities; apartheid, with all its ghastly implications, is about to be written into the constitutional basis of the country, and getting on for 5 million people living within Rhodesia are still denied their elementary civil and political rights, while 250,000 people alone prepare to entrench supremacy on the basis of a ruthlessly exploited majority.

Perhaps one of the most serious criticisms of the Government is that, throughout the Rhodesian crisis, they have failed to deploy effectively, in terms of the education of British public opinion, the mass of detailed evidence available of the human stories, the human tragedies, involved for the ordinary people of Rhodesia in the system which is followed by the Smith régime. It is my conviction that, if we are to maintain in Britain the enlightened public attitudes which are essential to sustain the Government in their policy, we should use this information in simple terms to counter the distorted propaganda of the Anglo-Rhodesian Society and others.

We are not only faced with failure in the context of events within Rhodesia; we are also faced with a fundamental, qualitative change in the international situation. Immediately following U.D.I., it was possible to argue that, whatever the rather superficial emotional reaction of "good old Smithy" slogans among the white electorate of South Africa, there was reason to believe that the political leaders of South Africa were extremely embarrassed by Smith's declaration of independence, that the last thing which the political leaders of the Republic of South Africa wanted was to see their internal security problems strained by having to take responsibility for security in an area in which there were approaching 5 million Africans and only 250,000 Europeans.

But now, as a result of the vacuum created by our failure to deal effectively with the situation, Rhodesia finds itself, and we find Rhodesia, firmly in the South African orbit. Economically. Rhodesia is underwritten by the Republic of South Africa. Militarily, she is firmly in alliance with the Portuguese authorities and the Government of the Republic. South African security forces, we know, are operating as far up as the Zambesi. Even if, initially, it was right to attempt to handle Rhodesia on its own, it is now impossible to have a viable policy towards it separate from policy towards Southern Africa as a whole. There are different forms of action which will be necessary towards different areas within Southern Africa, but all that action, different as it may be in differing areas, is inextricably inter-related.

First, let us examine for a moment the policy of sanctions in Rhodesia. It is clear from all the evidence available that, while sanctions have punished the people of Rhodesia—and one can argue about which section of the community they have punished more than another—they have not endangered, as yet, the Smith régime. They have also in certain respects been counter-productive, in that they have encouraged, for example, the development of import substitute industries. But it would be wrong, in my view, to suggest that the policy of sanctions as such has failed. What has failed has been the endeavour by the international community to apply a full-blooded policy of sanctions. We have so far seen, at best, only a half-hearted attempt.

How can we strengthen this policy of sanctions? Much more could be done. First, we could do a great deal more to focus world public opinion on sanction breaking, wherever it is located. If we focus world opinion in this way, it will acutely embarrass those involved in the operation and make their endeavours more difficult to fulfil.

Next, we should be pressing at the United Nations for an international inspectorate. It is quite clear from some of the episodes already reported in sanction breaking that Governments are reluctant to come into headlong conflict with important commercial interests within their territory if they are expected to take the initiative in locating sanction breaking. If an independent United Nations inspectorate were employed on this operation, Governments would be relieved of a great deal of their embarrassment, because they would then be following up the initiative of an objective international agency.

We should also be pressing for United Nations action to persuade member countries to make it illegal, as we have made it illegal, for ships carrying their flags to carry Rhodesian cargo. We should also press for international action to ensure that ships carrying suspect cargoes should be expected to produce evidence of where the goods were manufactured, copies of rail notes showing from where the goods were originally shipped and official certificates of origin.

We come now to the difficult question whether we should attempt to extend sanctions. I listened with great interest to the sound observations made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the extension of sanctions to communications, and I believe that the points he made are not to be dismissed lightly. What I have been sad to hear is the view expressed in this House, particularly from benches opposite, that it would somehow be inhuman to break family links between people in this country and white people living in Rhodesia. This is an emotional argument and completely irrelevant. We are concerned with the rights of 5 million people, oppressed and suppressed by a mere handful of 250,000 Europeans. There is one practical step which I believe we could take in the extension of sanctions at this juncture, and that is to consider more effective ways of boycotting international airlines which are operating services to Rhodesia.

I want at this stage to say that I endorse the argument that sanctions of themselves are unlikely to secure fundamental change. At best, they will create an environment within which, sadly but inevitably, more drastic political upheaval can occur within Rhodesia itself. On the other hand, the consequences of dismantling sanctions would be disastrous. To embark upon such a policy would be a blow to the morale of enlightened liberal groups of all races within Southern Africa. It would lead inevitably to our increased economic involvement in the economic life of Rhodesia.

It would mean that we were increasingly finding ourselves with a vested interest as a nation in a political and economic system based on exploitation. It would lead inevitably to pressure, both in this country and abroad, for diplomatic recognition, and it would mean that, finally, we had become identified, and in the last resort— a sad but possible prospect—we might even be indirectly supporting a fight on the wrong side.

Meanwhile, there are much more positive things we could be doing. Nowhere is this better illustrated than in education and training for Rhodesians in exile. It is true that we have been doing a certain amount in this respect, but our efforts have been at best half-hearted. For example, one hears evidence of students who have been denied an opportunity to reach the A-level equivalent in Rhodesia, but who are perfectly able to reach that level if given an opportunity, being denied the chance to come to this country with support to get their A-levels in order to go on to higher education here. If we are committed to a programme of education and training for Rhodesians in exile, one of the things we should be considering is extending the range of educational opportunities which we are supporting within this country.

As I have already argued, Rhodesia cannot be seen in isolation. My conviction is that the Government, the British people and especially the House must decide whether they are opposed to racism, Fascism and exploitation or whether they are not. Prevarication and double-talk can do nothing but harm Britain's interests. If we are opposed, and if we accept our special responsibilities in Southern Africa because of Rhodesia, we must go on to recognise that in our post-imperial phase we cannot possibly envisage military engagement, at least alone, and that it would be very wrong to encourage anybody within Southern Africa to believe the contrary. This would have been possible in the case of Rhodesia immediately before or after U.D.I., but now it is too late. That does not mean that we are neutral. The main drive for political change must and will come from within the area itself. We for our part must identify with those forces of change.

A major tragedy in the story of Southern Africa is that our self-proclaimed impotence has made Communism synonymous with all the legitimate aspirations of subjected peoples. In approaching Southern Africa as a whole, one of the things which we must do is to think through the issue of our trading relationship with the Republic, because unless we do that, we cannot hope to be effective in our pressure on the Rhodesian issue itself.

The fact is that even if we cannot as of now envisage economic confrontation with the Republic, while it is one thing to accept that, it is quite another to go on to argue that we see increased trade and increasing economic relations with the Republic as a future pillar of our economic well-being. It is inevitable that if we increase our economic involvement in the Republic, we will increasingly find ourselves committed to a social and political system in the Republic which is based upon exploitation and increasingly identified with the wrong side in the context of Southern Africa as a whole.

In any case, there is no need for us always to be so passive and defensive. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said of Europe, some will say that South Africa needs us as much as we need her, but I say that South Africa needs us more than we need her.

Secondly, I am convinced that we must go on to exert whatever pressure is possible upon Portugal, our ally, supposedly, in N.A.T.O. and to make it absolutely plain that we cannot tolerate and allow within N.A.T.O. an ally engaged in wars of colonial repression, as is Portugal in Southern Africa.

We must also make it far more clear than we have in the past where we stand on the issue of South-West Africa. I was extremely sad to see the muted criticism which was forthcoming from the British Government at the time of the recent illegal trials of the freedom fighters in South-West Africa. We should speak more clearly on this issue.

I come now to the issue of the freedom fighters themselves. I have the most profound respect for many of my colleagues on this side of the House and for many of those in the Government who recoil from the concept of violence, from the concept of the use of force as a means of settling any dispute, but I ask horn Members on both sides of the House to consider whether there has ever been an area of the world in which passive resistance has been more patiently tried over decades than within Southern Africa. We have at least to understand and appreciate why, in absolute frustration, the political leaders of the majority are increasingly compelled to feel that there is now no alternative to violence.

I am not suggesting that as of now we should become engaged in military support for the freedom fighters, but that we have a direct responsibility for supporting civil administrations within the areas of the Portuguese territories which have been liberated by the freedom fighters.

Finally, in this programme of positive action I am certain that in the context of a debate on Rhodesia it is right to say that we cannot do enough as a nation economically to support the development of countries like Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Zambia and Tanzania. This is essential if we are to have a viable policy towards South Africa of which Rhodesia is a part. For too long debates on Southern Africa have been dominated by the crude voice of vested interest on one side as represented by the Verkramptes and the Verligtes of the party opposite, and on the other side by the confused voice of well-meaning compromise. To save our self-respect, let alone our international reputation, we must decide where we stand and, having decided in the only way possible for a nation with the ideals on which we pride ourselves, we must follow consistently the policies which that decision dictates.

4.48 p.m.

Mr. Sandys (Streatham)

Of course, I fully agree with the Foreign Secretary and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) that we cannot in any circumstances approve the new Rhodesian constitution, which entirely contravenes the six principles which have been approved and supported by all parties and the similar principles underlying the 1961 constitution which I myself negotiated in Salisbury and for which at that time I secured the approval of representatives of all racial communities.

But condemnation of the new constitution does not of itself justify the indefinite continuance of sanctions. My first inclination was to vote against the Order as a protest against the futility of maintaining sanctions. But for the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend, I shall content myself with abstaining.

It is time that the Government came down out of the clouds and began to recognise realities. They should recognise that their policy has totally collapsed. With the "open door" into South Africa, sanctions have, as they were bound to, proved a complete farce. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) referred to sanction-breaking. Numerous foreign countries are either circumventing sanctions or openly ignoring them. More and more of our markets in Rhodesia are being stolen in this way by our competitors. At the same time, a serious additional burden is being placed on our balance of payments, and all this for no practical purpose.

The central aim of the Government's policy was to protect the constitutional position of the African population. Yet it has produced exactly the opposite result. The fact that Rhodesia is now travelling fast along the road to apartheid is in no small measure due to the Government's gross mishandling of the situation.

Hon. Members

Nonsense.

Mr. Sandys

The main responsibility for this deplorable development naturally rests with Mr. Ian Smith, who has allowed himself to be pushed by his supporters into adopting an intransigent and extremist position. But the failure to reach agreement was just as much due to the misjudgment and mistiming of the Prime Minister, who from the very start has shown himself to be hopelessly out of touch with reality. In successive negotiations with Mr. Smith, the right hon. Gentleman at each stage offered too little too late. If the Conservative Party had continued in office I am certain that—

Mr. Michael Foot

They would have given away everything the Rhodesians wanted.

Mr. Sandys

I am certain—

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

You would have ratted.

Mr. Sandys

If the Conservative Government had remained in office, I am certain that there would have been no U.D.I. and that Rhodesia would have achieved legal independence on terms no less honourable than those offered too late to Mr. Smith by the Labour Government.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister and I had already started talks with Mr. Smith about independence in the autumn of 1964, before the 1964 General Election. Had there not been a change of Government, those negotiations would not have been broken off, as they were by our successors. If we had been able to carry on, I have little doubt that after a certain amount of hard bargaining we would have offered Mr. Smith a package deal very similar to the "Fearless" proposals—but with the big difference that it would have been before U.D.I., not three years afterwards.

With all the hesitations and anxieties which Mr. Smith must have had about declaring illegal independence, I am sure that, if he had been offered anything like the "Fearless" deal, he would have jumped at it. It is hardly surprising that the terms he would have accepted in 1964, before U.D.I., were no longer sufficient to satisfy him in 1968, after three years of successful rebellion. Lost opportunities cannot be recaptured and it is no good imagining that Mr. Smith, even if he wished to do so, could now retrace his steps. Nor is it any good the Government waiting hopefully for him to be overthrown by the Rhodesian electorate and to be replaced by some other more liberal-minded regimé.

The Government must adjust their policies to the realities of the situation. Sanctions were justifiable only as a means of exerting pressure on the Rhodesian Government to accept a reasonable settlement on the basis of the six principles. But now it must surely be clear that any conceivable hope of a settlement on that basis has disappeared. Sanctions have thus completely lost their purpose.

Whether we like it or not, we must face the fact that there is nothing more we can do to influence the course of events in Rhodesia, and that the sooner we draw the logical conclusions from this fact, the better it will be for the peoples of all races in Rhodesia.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick (Croydon, South)

I suppose that the only satisfactory thing that I heard in the speech of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was the fact that he did not intend to vote against the Orders tonight. I strongly disagreed with the rest of his speech and I will try to explain why. There have always been some hon. Members opposite and some people elsewhere who have wanted us to take no action against the illegal régime since U.D.I. was declared in November, 1965.

Some have said outright and some have implied that we should recognise the illegal régime as such. The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), in his letter to The Guardian today, makes the very point. He says that a Conservative Government should recognise the realities of the situation, but no Conservative Government, he added, would be able to negotiate the constitution that Britain would like to see. It is quite obvious from his letter that he would like us to draw the line, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and recognise the illegal régime.

My views are the very opposite. If the situation in Rhodesia was different, if it was the very opposite and we had a majority of whites who were oppressed and penalised and persecuted by a black minority, I would be just as opposed to such a régime as I am opposed to the existing Rhodesian régime. I am not anti-white nor pro-black; I am against racial persecution. What we are fighting in Rhodesia is the same type of racial evil which has existed in South Africa for so many years.

Mr. Hastings

In that case would the hon. Gentleman like to give the House his views on the Government of the Sudan and various other African régimes?

Mr. Winnick

We are debating Rhodesia. This is the whole essence of why we are continuing sanctions. We have racial persecution in the Rhodesian situation. While I recognise some of the feelings of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, I must say that the Conservative Front Bench has been very ambiguous, to say the least.

The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), like his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, knows very well the type of political organisation which is the Rhodesian Front. He understands the type of people who make up the Rhodesian Front, and its leadership, yet last week, once again, at the Brighton Tory conference, we heard from the Conservative leader that a Tory Government would make another attempt to find an agreement with the illegal régime.

The impression he gave to Tory delegates was that if it was a Tory Government in power instead of the Labour Government, a solution could be found, based, I assume, on the five principles. What I find amazing, and I sometimes find myself in disagreement even with my own Government on this issue, is that people think it is possible for any agreement to be reached between Britain, based on the five or six principles, and the Rhodesian Front. The Rhodesian Front came into office in December, 1962 to maintain and extend white supremacy. It did not come into power to find a solution for a multi-racial society in Rhodesia. Indeed, it was deeply critical of the Government which was in office in Rhodesia at the time. The Rhodesian Front was the extremist organisation.

Does the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire really believe that if he was doing the negotiating, if he had supreme responsibility on behalf of a Government and a country, he could find an agreement with the Rhodesian front, based on the five principles, which would lead to majority rule in due course? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is too honest a politician to believe that it is possible. If he believes otherwise, I shall gladly give way to him now.

I believe—and I have said so outside this House—that if we were to abandon the 4 million non-whites in Rhodesia it would be to Britain's lasting shame and discredit. Of course, it would be easy. Of course, it may be that it is not very popular to pursue the policies which we are pursuing. Such policies are costly. It is easy to make fun of the sanctions policy. It is easy to make such speeches, and no doubt we shall hear a number later today, but what is at stake is the very honour of our country. What is at stake is the responsibility which Britain has towards the non-whites.

Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have spoken about hardship to the African. I know that sanctions result in hardship to the non-whites. I am aware of that, but what the Africans are concerned about is that we shall not abdicate all our responsibilities. What the Africans are aware of is that if Britain were to recognise the illegal regime, and if we were to drop sanctions we would be well on the way to doing just that, there would be a complete break in the constitutional position between Britain and Rhodesia. There would be no hope whatsoever. Their only remaining hope in Rhodesia lies in Britain.

Some of my hon. Friends believe, and perhaps they are right, that in the final analysis the only way this problem can be solved is by fighting, by violence —and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) more or less made this point. I hope that that is not so, but, as my hon. Friend rightly said, there have been very few struggles in human history where people have won their fight for freedom against oppression without resorting to arms. I should not here in Britain, where I have my democratic rights and privileges, preach to the Africans about whether they should engage in warfare. That is a matter for the Africans to decide, but if there were a final break, if we abandoned all our responsibilities towards Rhodesia, what alternative would the Africans in Rhodesia have but to resort to warfare? What alternative could there be?

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said, during the last few months more and more measures have been taken by the illegal régime towards establishing in Rhodesia the type of society that exists in South Africa. Measures have been taken which discriminate not just against Africans, but against the coloured people, the people of mixed blood. Despite the segregation measures and the hardships which arise from them, there are still those who say that the British Government should try to reach an honourable solution. There is no honourable solution which can be reached between Britain and the Rhodesian Front.

It always amazes me that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are critical of our own immigrants, who urge repatriation in one way or another, who resent the fact that there is a coloured minority in Britain, and who have been extremely intolerant, take a different attitude towards Rhodesia. I see that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is present. He criticised the fact that we did not have an opportunity in the House for a debate on immigration. He has made remarks about Rhodesia. I hope that he will not at a later stage say outside that the House of Commons has refused to debate the Rhodesian issue. We are debating it now, and if the right hon. Gentleman has strong feelings on the subject I hope that he will exercise his right and try to take part in the debate.

What a difference there is between what has been described politically as the Powell-ite approach to our own coloured immigrants and the attitude towards the white immigrants in Rhodesia. If this was taken to its logical conclusion, some of the speeches from this side of the House would be far more extreme on behalf of the Africans than the speeches now being made.

We should carry on. We should not surrender. We should not abandon our responsibilities.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What in?"] My answer to that is our responsibility towards all the people of Rhodesia, and particularly towards those who have been denied their elementary rights. I wish that some hon. Gentlemen opposite would try to understand the responsibilities which Britain has towards the non-whites in Rhodesia. I wish that some of them would stop giving comfort to the illegal régime. I wish that they would recognise that it would be to our lasting shame if we were to do as they suggest and give up the fight.

I hope that we will carry on. I am in favour of extending sanctions. I hope that stronger action will be taken against the sanction busters, particularly a number of Western European countries who have a very poor record in this regard. Certainly, hon. Members on these benches fully support what my right hon. Friend has outlined, and the continuation of our sanctions policy.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) has got his wish sooner than most of us get most of our wishes.

The House this afternoon is debating a proposal to renew the operative part of a Statute which begins with the statement that Her Majesty's Government in this country have jurisdiction in and over Southern Rhodesia, and responsibility for Southern Rhodesia. I do not believe that there can ever have been another statement on our Statute Book which is so completely unrelated to the facts of the real world.

Ever since those words received the Royal Assent, and indeed before, the Queen's writ has not run in Southern Rhodesia. We do not have jurisdiction in or over Southern Rhodesia. In relation to a Government, whatever may be the case with an individual, there is no meaning in the expression, "responsibility" where there is no power. A Government cannot be responsible for doing that which it has not the power to do; and ever since those words were put on our Statute Book, the Government of the United Kingdom have had no power in Southern Rhodesia.

Of course, anything which this House, together with another place, enacts and which receives the Royal Assent, is the law of the United Kingdom. Be it false in fact, be it absurd in content, it is still the law of this country so long as it remains unrepealed. Nor would I dispute that there are circumstances in which legal fictions, statements of law which do not exactly correspond with the realities of the world, can be useful and even salutary. I do not believe that the case we are discussing this afternoon is one of those.

Those words were enacted nearly four years ago in order to initiate a policy of sanctions, to bring duress to bear upon the rebellion, upon the illegal régime, in Southern Rhodesia. A number of people from the very beginning believed and predicted that the consequence of this attempt to exert pressure by sanctions would be as futile as previous attempts.

But if it appeared so to many, even at the outset, how plain is that today, after four years. It really is the ultimate in self-deception for the right hon. Gentleman to try to persuade the House that there is any real prospect of the duress of sanctions succeeding. He admitted with great candour that the Government's own expectations—expectations voiced almost four years ago—had been signally defeated. I doubt whether anyone in this House or in this country really believes that sanctions will put an end to the rebellion or to the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia.

It is on a different ground that my hon. and right hon. Friends, with increasing reluctance, have hitherto supported the renewal of this legislation. They have done it on the ground that they believed that there was—or that there might be—a possibility of a settlement between the United Kingdom and those who have the actual power in Southern Rhodesia. Let me say what I mean by the word "settlement". I mean an agreement which would result in this House legalising the Government in Southern Rhodesia. I mean an agreement to which effect would be given by legislation passed through this House.

That is a different and much more reasonable motive for supporting the Act, which is to be renewed or not, as the vote may decide. Yet, when we look at the realities, even from the beginning, what chance was there? I will not follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) into the "might-have-beens", which I would gladly share with him. If any man in the world could bring these two irreconcilables together—I am anticipating in using the word "irreconcilables"—it is my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home).

The hon. Member for Croydon, South invited me to say in this House what I have said on the subject outside the House. I shall say something that I have said emphatically over and over again outside the House, and which has often not been to the liking of my hearers. It is that in my place in this House I could not vote for any legislation which would legalise a constitution for Southern Rhodesia under which there would not be evident and relatively early advance to majority rule. I would not quibble with the formula of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). The reality is quite plain, with whatever words we may seek to clothe it. I do not believe that it could be to the honour, or consistent with the principles, of this House to legislate for any constitution which did not do that.

But I also do not believe that there is the possibility of an agreement upon such a constitution between any Government in this country and any foreseeable future Government in Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, the idea—even before this year —that there could be a settlement that any of us would accept was barely conceivable. But what possibility there was, has sunk below the horizon in the last 12 months.

During the last 12 months, overwhelmingly, those who have power in Southern Rhodesia have resolved upon declaring themselves a republic. They, too, in a way, have come to terms with the reality of their act. For long they tried to think that they were loyal to the Queen. This, too, was a self-deception. There is no such thing as loyalty to the Queen as a person. When we speak about loyalty to the Queen we mean loyalty to the Queen and the Queen's law—to the Queen as the maker and upholder of the law. It is impossible to say "I break the law, but I am loyal to the Queen."

That impossibility the Rhodesians have at last come to recognise. They have recognised it openly; and, for good measure, as the Foreign Secretary told the House this afternoon, they are—I hope that the phrase is not too painful—within weeks rather than months of passing through their Legislature and bringing into accomplished fact a republican constitution for their country which is acceptable and tolerable to no Member of this House. Therefore, the argument that this legislation which we are asked to renew keeps open the possibility of a settlement has no reality.

There are two other grounds on which I have heard the case for it argued. They were not urged by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, although I have heard him urge them on other occasions. One is that, true though all this may be, though sanctions have failed, though settlement may be ruled out, still, by maintaining this Act upon our Statute Book and by continuing to implement sanctions—if that is what it is—we show our reprobation of the internal affairs of Southern Rhodesia. I have given some indication to the House of what my feelings about that matter are; and I will go further and say that I foresee no happy future for that country on its present course, or any course that I anticipate.

But is this a reason— because we deplore, because we reprobate, from our standpoint, the way in which the internal affairs of another country are conducted —for maintaining on our Statute Book the statement that we are the Government of that country, and for continuing in action measures of duress which we recognise to be futile? The world is half full of tyrannical régimes of various kinds. Half Europe groans under a kind of tyranny which we are happy to think has nothing in common with the liberties we ourselves enjoy.

Because we would have wished that events in Czechoslovakia a year ago had been otherwise do we therefore say, "We are responsible, and we will pass an Act to say that we are responsible, and we will institute sanctions"? The world will be a far worse bedlam than it is, if nations who dislike the manner in which others nations conduct their affairs proceed to attempt to impose upon them duress which they have no ability or power to carry through to a successful issue.

Mr. Winnick

The right hon. Gentleman makes a comparison with Czechoslovakia. We all deplore what happened in Czechoslovakia, but can he, with his logical mind, see no difference between the tyrannies of Eastern or Western Europe and the tyranny in Rhodesia? Have we no responsibility in Rhodesia at all?

Mr. Powell

I have pointed out that there is no meaning in responsibility where there is no power—that we cannot be responsible for doing what we cannot do. There may be a responsibility—I find it more difficult to decide —for individuals to express an opinion, and I know that the hon. Member feels a strong responsibility to express his reprobation. I would not wish to dispute that right—perhaps that duty—with him.

Of course, he is right in saying that tyranny comes in many forms. But what I do say is that it is nonsense to claim that because we reprobate a régime, that justifies us in maintaining this Act in our law and doing what we are doing under this Act.

I come, finally, to what is perhaps the most difficult argument to answer. There are those who say, "But we are now mandated by the United Nations. We have to maintain this Act in vigour because we are obliged by the United Nations to carry on the actions which Section 2 of that Act authorises". I believe that here we have to go to fundamentals. We have to decide where responsibility for the governance of this country lies. If it be true that a mandate of the United Nations is in that sense binding upon this nation, binding to oblige this nation to maintain on its Statute Book an evident absurdity, to oblige this nation to engage in actions which are futile and in any view damaging, then responsible government is lost. We can no longer call to account who-every sits on the Government Front Bench and say, "Why have you brought us to this pass? Render account of your policies".

The right hon. Gentleman did not use this argument this afternoon; but I believe that it has to be faced. I do not believe that any Government could or would come to this House and say, "You cannot criticise, you cannot discuss what we are doing because we are mandated". We cannot take refuge behind the United Nations. We have to take, one way or the other, the decision for ourselves. This decision must be ours.

I say that to maintain any longer this farce—a legal farce and a practical farce —is not to the credit of this House; it is not for the welfare of this country; and it can do not a particle of good to anyone anywhere in the world. On the contrary, the only result is to enable us to practise self-deception and to deceive those anywhere else who are prepared to be deceived. It should go, and it should go now.

5.22 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

I am glad to have the opportunity of following the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who has, indeed, spoken in more moderate terms than people might imagine from his peroration, and I would seek, first of all, to underline the moderate aspect of his speech.

I might say to him in passing that I think it is highly desirable in the conduct of democracy in this country that he should state in this House strong views that he may have on particular subjects. Every one of us who has the honour to be a Member of this House, particularly when he wishes to state opinions of a highly controversial nature, should seek to state them in this House because it is in this House that such opinions can be best examined. I am glad that he has, at any rate, stated this view on this subject in the House and I hope that he will follow this practice on the other subjects on which he has such pertinent opinions.

I underline, first of all, the moderate aspect of the right hon. Gentleman's speech so that it shall not be mistaken. It is quite clear from what he said that he would he no party to recognising any settlement with the régime in Southern Rhodesia which did not accept the certainty of majority rule.

Mr. Powell

indicated assent.

Mr. Foot

I see that the right hon. Gentleman nods his head. When I used that phrase earlier, interrupting the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas Home), I was quoting his words exactly as well. He made a slight qualification of them, but it is not necessary for us to quarrel about those words. The right hon. Gentleman has also said that he would not accept an agreement unless there was certainty of majority rule. I believe that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite owe a further obligation to the House and the country in that respect, because if that is their view, that it is absolutely impossible to have a settlement which does not make certain majority rule there, I think they should have stated that opinion more clearly at the recent conference in Brighton. If they had emphasised that point as strongly as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West did at the beginning of his speech, it would put a different complex on the speech. It would certainly put a different complexion on it in Rhodesia.

They have no intention whatsoever, as we have seen from experience as well as from their statements, of accepting a situation in which majority rule would be certain; and particularly when the right hon. Gentleman is upbraiding this House for engaging in self-deception and for making propositions which are more fictitious than real he should not in the same speech give an indication that there might be a possibility of an agreement, at the same time underlining that he would not be a party to any agreement without its guaranteeing certainty of majority rule.

The right hon. Gentleman may say that he made no suggestion of any such negotiation. In other words, if that be the case, he is proposing that we should abandon the proposals that lay in this Order, that we should wipe this fictitious proposition from the Statute Book and that we should then proceed to a fresh policy from that point. Incidentally, the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us whether he intends to vote against the proposition—[Interruption.] I understand that he is going to. I do not know whether he will carry his right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) with him, but we shall watch the vote with great interest. I think it would have been impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to have delivered a speech of that nature and then not have led his friends, such as there may be, into the Lobby. I think that clears up that aspect of the matter.

The right hon. Gentleman, however, in the rest of his speech was not as logical as he purported to be. He says that we must take this action of wiping this proposition from the Statute Book because it has no effect, because we have not the power and we must not pretend any longer to assume responsibility. I understand that point of the argument. But he does not follow through the consequences of adopting the course which he advocates.

The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire has shown some hesitation, and one of the reasons why he showed hesitation and was not prepared to vote against the Government's proposition today was perfectly reasonable. I do not think he carried that far enough, but it was a reasonable argument. He said that it would be taken partly as meaning that his party was possibly approving the constitution which has been accepted by the Government in Southern Rhodesia. That is what the right hon. Gentleman argued. He said that one of the reasons why he did not propose to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West into the Lobby was that he believed it would be interpreted in Southern Rhodesia as in some sense support for this action which the Southern Rhodesian régime has taken since we met on the last occasion. I think he is quite right.

But the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West does not seem to worry about those consequences. He does not seem to care that the result of the action he advocates would be to give a great victory to the Smith régime. That is one of the reasons why I sought to underline at the beginning of my remarks the moderate part of his speech, because the parts which will be reported in Southern Rhodesia tomorrow will not be the moderate parts of his speech. They will be the immoderate parts. It will be the parts which carry the implication involved in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire. But at least it is better for the country that the split in the Conservative Party on this subject, as on some others, should be underlined in the Division Lobbies tonight, and that is what is to occur.

I should myself draw a different conclusion from the events of the last two or three years and the way in which the sanctions policy on which this Government and the country embarked has not achieved the results which we should have desired. There may be a few hon. Members opposite, those whom we used to describe as members of the "Aid and Comfort Committee", who rejoice at the failure of sanctions; but for the rest, many hon. Members opposite, Liberal Members and others, and all hon. Members on this side, they are genuinely disappointed that this policy has failed or has not achieved the results which we had hoped for at the beginning. [An HON. MEMBER: "Failed.") In some respects, failed. It would be foolish for us to deny that. Certainly, what we have to face is that those policies have not fulfilled the expectations which were expressed by the Government and the hopes which all of us on this side held.

It is right that, in accepting the Measure before us tonight, we should recognise what has failed. In my opinion, the failure has been different from that delineated by hon. Members opposite. They have suggested that sanctions have failed and the policy has partly failed because they have bolstered the resistance of people in Southern Rhodesia. In some respects, that has been the result, but it is not the fundamental reason for the failure. The fundamental reason for the failure is that the Government and this country at large have not yet recognised what the situation is in Southern Africa, what are the fundamentals of the situation, and what was the purpose of the Rhodesia Front.

The Rhodesia Front came into being in order to sustain white power in Southern Rhodesia. That was its purpose. That is what it worked for, what it manoeuvred for and what it negotiated for. That is why many of us held the view that, if the "Tiger" settlement had been accepted, that would have been an even worse defeat than what confronts us now. If the "Fearless" terms had been accepted, that would have been an even worse defeat than what faces us now. Why?—because they would have made majority rule very far from certain. All the examinations which we could make of the "Tiger" terms and the "Fear- less" terms illustrate that the white minority would have been able to retain their power in Southern Rhodesia for as long as we could estimate.

Therefore, the fundamental reason for the failure of the Government's policy, or, rather, Parliament's policy, because Parliament accepted the proposal, is that we have misunderstood the nature of the problem in Southern Africa and the nature of the problem in Southern Rhodesia. We have underestimated what we are up against. We have underestimated the power and determination and the devilish machinery which lies in the hands of those who are determined to maintain white supremacy in Southern Africa. We have tried to dodge the issue of which side we are on. We have imagined that there is some sort of compromise which can besmirch the issue.

I think I know on which side the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would come down. When he says that he would not agree to a settlement which denied majority rule, I accept the word when he says it, but the tone of his speech and the result of his action tonight, if he carries it through, will be to help to fortify the forces of white supremacy in Southern Africa. That is the way it will be interpreted, and certainly the way it would be interpreted if the Opposition Front Bench were to follow his course, if not on this occasion then on some future occasion, as they sometimes do.

The House must recognise the true nature of the situation which we face in Southern Africa. No one can underestimate its significance. We have suffered a defeat. We suffer a defeat as long as the 4 million people to whom the Foreign Secretary referred suffer the oppression from which they are now suffering, as long as their leaders are in prison without trial—a position they have been in throughout the period when we have been responsible for this state of affairs—as long as many of them have no means of expressing their views, no newspapers in which they can argue, no public meetings at which they can state their opinions. They are living in what the Leader of the Opposition once described as a police State.

Of course, it is an ignominy for this House to have to sit under that state of affairs. There is no escape from it in the course advocated by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, for that would merely compound it, it would merely line up this Parliament and country on the side of a success and triumph for white supremacy in Southern Rhodesia and all over Southern Africa.

I hope that at long last Her Majesty's Government will learn some of the fundamental lessons from what we face in Southern Africa. What we face there is what the black people of Africa have to face—what they will do about a tyranny which is growing stronger and stronger, what they will do about a tyranny which is becoming fiercer and fiercer, which is extending its frontiers by every form of negotiation, compact and military arrangement, which is seeking to build across the whole of Southern Africa a great compound in which its policies are maintained, with rigorous police rule on a worse scale, perhaps, even than Hitler sought to establish in some parts of the world.

The question facing us today, therefore, is whether our country will learn from these events, and whether we shall make up our mind that Britain stands on the side of freedom whatever may be the colour of the people concerned, that we stand for equal citizenship in this country, in Wolverhampton, in Southern Rhodesia, and throughout the whole of Africa. That is the way in which we must range our forces. It may mean economic sacrifice. I hope that one of the results of this country's success, which I am glad to see, in escaping from the worst of our balance of payments problems will be that we shall use the opportunity to face more boldly and squarely our responsibilities to our fellow citizens of the world in Southern Africa.

We are not discharging those responsibilities now. We should certainly not discharge them by following the course suggested by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, although I honour him for having the courage of the convictions of some others, and I wait to see at the end of the debate how many follow him into the Lobby. I hope that on this side not merely shall we repudiate his doctrines in the Lobby but we shall learn the lessons of this defeat and learn to prepare for some victories for white people and coloured people all over the world in the future.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire)

On my reckoning at least, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was well below par this afternoon. He sought to attack the logic of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and then set out to confirm almost every conclusion which my right hon. Friend reached. To quote him, he said again and again that the policy had failed. That is just what my right hon. Friend said. He said that the Government here had completely misunderstood the nature of the problem, If that is not what we are trying to establish from these benches. I do not know what it is. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government had completely underestimated the power which lies on the other side.

My right hon. Friend did not say that he approved the Rhodesia Front. Even those who have been intimately connected with Rhodesia for as long as I have—that is, all my life—do not approve of everything done by the Rhodesia Front. But those are the facts of the situation, and the hon. Gentleman's speech confirmed them in almost every word.

The hon. Gentleman talked about giving comfort to the Rhodesia Front or the white Rhodesians. I can tell him what will appear on the front page of the Rhodesia Herald tomorrow morning. It is not so likely to be the words spoken from this side of the House as the insult he uttered to Rhodesia in saying that they were worse than Hitler's police State. It was a wretched, foul thing to say. They do not merit it, and he should withdraw it.

This debate has almost taken on a ritual quality by now. We have it every year. It is a pity that it should be squashed into such a brief period on a day that is otherwise non-controversial in the House, that it should be almost shamefacedly fitted in in that way.

Nobody can possibly deny—neither the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, nor the two other hon. Members opposite who have spoken—that every objective of sanctions, both the Government's objectives and those of my right hon. Friends, have failed. They are illusory by now. The measure of the failure is the buoyancy of the Rhodesian economy, whether we like it or not.

It is here that I take issue with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I am sure that he did not seek to mislead the House, but the figures he adduced this afternoon and his picture of the state of Rhodesia's economy are false. It simply is not like that, and it is alarming that he should be led to believe, as he clearly does, that that is the position.

I was out there again this summer, as a number of us were, and the right hon. Gentleman should know that the domestic exports from Rhodesia have held almost to the figure of 1967, in spite of one of the worst droughts in Rhodesia's modern history. That is a disaster in Southern Africa on a scale that we in this country cannot imagine. Their imports of capital goods were allowed to rise a great deal, and that caused a very slight deficit of £1.6 million on the balance of payments. But there cannot be the slightest doubt, on the indications to date, that the figures for 1969 will show a considerable improvement, one of which in almost any circumstances Rhodesia would be proud.

I asked the right hon. Gentleman about gross domestic product, and he could not answer. He said that the question had been answered earlier in the House. It has not. Gross domestic product was up by 5.5 per cent. in 1968 over the previous record year of 1967. Output in the construction industry, which is always indicative in any country, went up by over 30 per cent., from £35.7 million to £46.8 million. Tobacco output, naturally, was down by about 40 per cent. and textiles by under 1 per cent. With those exceptions, in every sector of agriculture and industry output was up. Rhodesian iron and steel is recovering, and even sugar exports are moving. It is not surprising that in those circumstances Rhodesians are not particularly interested in discussions or negotiations of the kind envisaged in this House up to now.

It is more difficult to measure the price we are paying for all this. It is almost certainly not the cost of policing sanctions or replacing Rhodesian imports to this country that matters so much. That can be put right, at least to some extent. But the losses to the sterling balances and the invisibles will never be computed. Rhodesians know—and they negotiate all over the world—something of the amount by which traditional institutional investors in London have turned away as a result of what they take, rightly or wrongly, to be the incomprehensible reaction of the British Government to a political situation. [Interruption.] Whether they judge it or not, it has cost us, so far as is definitely known, between £360 million and £370 million to the balance of payments, and that could be just a fraction of the net total. If one considers the falling off in profits at Lloyds, for insurance, it dates from the U.D.I., and the gradual rise in reinsurance in both Bonn and Switzerland from the same time. I doubt whether we shall ever know the extent of that damage.

It is difficult to argue rationally on this matter any more because there are hon. Members opposite—by no means all—who have developed a psychopathic hatred of the white Rhodesians and the South Africans. There are almost wistful references to the blood bath which is supposed to come, but does not and will not. It is as though they needed a sort of totem pole around which to dance this ritual dance. Repression undoubtedly exists in Rhodesia. Of course it does, but it exists in so many other parts of the world with which hon. Members opposite deal without a qualm and to which they make no reference in the same context as Rhodesia.

But there is a much more honest controversy between us on both sides of the House. I believe that there are a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and perhaps some of my hon. Friends, who hold it to be necessary to break white Rhodesian rule to obtain African political advance. But I at least, and I think a number of us, would argue with respect—because I know that these views are sincerely held—that they are based first, on an exaggerated notion of the merits of our political system applied in Africa. There are so many examples to prove it that I need not quote them. Second: they seek to promote the African interest in Rhodesia by risking the destruction of what has been built up instead of building further.

Alas, after what has happened, Rhodesia will now follow South Africa, to some extent at least. Of that there is no doubt. This cannot be avoided any more. We all most sincerely share one objective, which is the welfare of all the people there. Certainly I do, as a Rhodesian.

I say this to the House: it is not necessarily the evolution of the Bantu people of South Africa that is the most significant development for us to note; it is the evolution of the Afrikaaner people. Despite their beginnings, their qualities and their courage, the Afrikaaner people were shaped by history into a narrow, at times even morose, land-hungry frontier's people, their hand against all men. This has been a result of so much of their history, in which we, of course, have been involved. But the last 20 years of power are having their effect. I base this on two undoubted facts; first, the division within the Nationalist Party, which was referred to by one hon. Gentleman in somewhat contemptuous terms, but is of enormous significance to what we are discussing; and, second, the effect of the "outward policy", the successful contacts South Africa is making with countries north of the Zambesi, even though those contacts may not be admitted in public at this stage, for obvious political reasons.

The implication of this is clear. The barriers will in the end come down, and there have already been small but significant beginnings. This process above all should be encouraged, and a responsible Government in this country would do so. But this Government are doing the reverse.

So the logic of this matter is now beyond a peradventure. Those of us who predicted its results have nothing further to gain from supporting a policy which causes grave damage to our national interests and to the strategic interests of the free world—which are becoming more and more important in relation to Southern Africa as the months go by; a policy which attracts the contempt of our allies and so many of our friends abroad, even though they acquiesce in it; which damages the interest of those it is specifically intended to aid; and which no longer has any recognisable objective.

Nobody on the other side of the House, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on, has given us a single justifiable objective for the Government's policy. It has failed. So they say that we must go on with it. What nonsense that is!

So to my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends I say, "Negotiate in due course, of course we must, but not in the sense that we have up to now understood negotiations with Rhodesia in this House". For the time for argument about independence—and so long it has been—is now over. During my short visit to Rhodesia in the summer I talked to Rhodesians of every opinion from left to right, in business and on the farm, and they all confirmed, whatever their opinions of the Rhodesia Front, that negotiation on constitutional matters or about independence was no longer a possibility.

It will be our duty in the Conservative Party when we return to power to mend the bridge, and above all to put an end to this disgraceful period of internecine strife, of blindness and hyprocrisy. We can make a start this afternoon by voting against this Motion, and I propose to do so.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

I conceive that there is a very serious spilt in the Conservative Party on this issue. It must be fundamental. I hope that the majority of Conservative hon. Members want to be loyal to the Crown and the constitution of this land while the minority, who do not think much of the policy, wish to oppose it.

No doubt the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) will get great prominence in the Press and will be quoted all over the world. This always irritates and annoys me, because he has gained his prominence by exploitation of that terrible human weakness which makes some people feel annoyed because others have a different pigmentation of skin than they have. If this is the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's eminence it is the most disgusting basis of eminence I have ever known. It follows from that that I am suspicious of what he calls the facts of life. He has tried to say that because we in this country at the moment have no control in Rhodesia we should abandon our responsibilities and, in abandoning them, we should abandon our principles. That seems a supine and loathsome policy to take because at a particular time one does not seem to be winning. I can imagine what Winston Churchill would have said about such an attitude.

When we examine the career of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West we see what a disaster he has been in his time. He was the Minister who, when he had responsibility for housing, said that he would solve our housing problem within 12 months. We have seen the "success" of that. I hope that the people of this nation will look very carefully at utterances coming from the right hon. Gentleman. I sincerely hope that the majority of his party will not accompany him into the Lobby tonight for, if that were to happen, it would not merely encourage the Fascist reactionaries in Rhodesia, but would encourage evil people all over the world.

What has grieved me in recent times is that often what is bad, evil and unjust is referred to as Hitlerism and people all over the world, yellow, brown or black, whenever they discuss politics of this country—as they have every right to do—seem to equate—they may be wrong to a degree but there is some substance in their argument—what they understand as Hitlerism with what they understand Powellism to be. I am ashamed that that should happen in my country.

Mr. Wall

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What has this to do with the Order we are debating?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay)

I am quite sure that the hon. Member will relate his remarks to the Order.

Mr. Molloy

I also find it irritating that Conservative hon. Members have a remarkable capacity for "dishing it out" but are not keen to take it. I shall continue on this theme for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will tell me when I am not in order, not the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). If the hon. Member has aspirations to your position, he should make them known on another occasion.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West strongly asserted what he considers to be the facts of life. He quite rightly pointed out, as has been pointed out by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), and it is the gravamen of their argument, that at the moment sanctions are failing, they have not been successful and people in Rhodesia are not doing too badly. Apparently it does not matter about principle, about democracy or anything that this House of Commons stands for, commerce seems to be doing all right. It does not even matter to them, it seems, if Christianity is not doing so well, they are quite willing to acknowledge that commerce has written its title deeds on the altar cloth. They might be able to accept that, but to us on this side of the House it is totally repugnant.

When the Prime Minister embarked on this policy of sanctions I thought that because the world had gone through the most horrible war in history and we had been fighting fascism and people who do not like Catholics, Jews or people of other colours, there would be such a revulsion to this sort of behaviour that there would be whole-hearted support from those involved who could apply sanctions that would have brought down this Rhodesian régime.

There are white Rhodesians who are equally as disgusted at the behaviour of the rebels as anyone in this House. I have often said in Questions to the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary that I wish they would make overtures to people in Southern Rhodesia, white lawyers, white journalists and white trade unionists who wished to see a halt to what I think all of us would agree is the inexorable march to Fascism going on in Rhodesia at the moment. I hope that some cognisance will be taken of my plea to make greater efforts to encourage people in Rhodesia, irrespective of colour, to receive aid and succour from this nation to try to put decency back on the agenda in that country.

It behoves us in this nation to say quite clearly that, while it might be correct in a technical sense to say that the Government have no direct effect yet in Southern Rhodesia and that we should pack the whole thing in, if in moments of great strain and stress our fathers and forefathers had adopted a similar attitude it would have been a total disaster for all mankind. We in this country have given the world lessons in democracy and decency. We have been second to none in that. It is very regrettable that those lessons have not taken root properly in Southern Rhodesia.

One of the solutions which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West might have in mind is that if the 4 million coloured people in Rhodesia should ever get power they might say to the 250,000 whites, "How much do you want us to pay for your passage back home?" That is as absurd a suggestion as the one which he makes in this country. Another dangerous thing is that, regrettably, there are black men who have now lost their patience. They have a great deal in common with the right hon. Gentleman. They might say to him, "Clear out every black man, yellow man, Jew or Irishman from the United Kingdom. We agree, and we hope that he will agree to clear out every white man from Africa, including those in Southern Rhodesia". That is the maniac policy of people who think like this. This could only end with people being at one another's throats and there would be a blood bath.

I therefore hope that our efforts in this House will encourage other Governments and Parliaments to realise the seriousness of the situation and to make sanctions a success so that a serious conflagration can be avoided. If this policy were given the earnestness which it deserves in other parts of Western Europe and Eastern Europe and the world it could be successful. Decent people in Rhodesia, black and white, could work together to build their nation into a decent nation and join the comity of decent world citizens and in this way could make their mark in contributing to the decency of mankind. It will not be possible to achieve this with the present régime.

What is much more important is that I hope that other parts of the world which have a responsibility in supporting decency and democracy will support us in our policy of making sanctions work so that decent people in Rhodesia, black and white, are encouraged to believe that one day they will be able to take charge of their own affairs and bring their country back into the British Commonwealth of Nations and to take their proper place in the comity of mankind.

6.1 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I have listened to this debate with great sadness. I paid only a very brief visit this summer to Rhodesia and South Africa. I have never spoken in the House before on South African or Rhodesian affairs, but I wonder whether the policies being adopted in this country are helping either the Africans or the Europeans. It is very difficult, amid the political strife, to assess the feelings of the people of all races.

I found it very disconcerting that the Foreign Secretary never once referred to that section of the British community in Rhodesia who desire to see practical progress made among the African communities. There is a distinct difference between the right wing of Mr. Smith's party and those who do not agree with him and who would welcome really practical progress among the African communities. The Foreign Secretary never made any reference to the people in Rhodesia who take a progressive view. He therefore gave no encouragement whatsoever to that section of the community who really wish their country to go forward in a progressive way towards establishing a community spirit, to whatever race they belong.

I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), but he obviously feels as strongly as I do that we should not rule out, as the Foreign Secretary did, everybody in Rhodesia if they do not belong to the African community. I do not call that statesmanship. I call it prejudice.

I had a Question on the Order Paper the other day for oral answer, but it was not reached, about what I think is a deplorable decision of Her Majesty's Government to influence other countries to close consulates in Rhodesia. This is a very narrow-minded decision. There are many people of all nationalities from all over the world living in Rhodesia who, like British subjects, may require advice and guidance from their consulates. If the Foreign Secretary believes that people who are not taking part in the political conflict must be deprived of the normal administrative practices which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has supported throughout the world, he must be taking leave of his senses.

The Written Answer to the Question which I tabled was that we were carrying out a resolution passed by the United Nations. I have always tried to support the United Nations, just as I tried to support the old League of Nations, because of the idealism on which both bodies were founded. But I am not inclined to support the attitude of the expanded United Nations in its desire that the British Government and other nations should close consulates in Rhodesia whose purpose is to support, not the political, but the ordinary commercial, family and travelling interests of hundreds of people who have nothing to do with this great conflict. The idea that the United Nations should impose an obligation of that kind on us makes me tremendously angry.

In spite of the present Government and Great Britain's difficulties in the world, I still consider that we are the greatest nation in the world, not necessarily because of what is happening today, but because of the traditions which we have fostered throughout the world. We have made a great contribution and the fact that our power is not as great does not make me any less proud of the part which our country has played. The Foreign Secretary's belief that it is right that we should ask a section of the community to forgo their rights to protection and guidance to which we have subscribed for very many years deserves the strongest condemnation.

I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) say that if the Government had any ideas of extending the withdrawal of communications from the Rhodesians we would oppose them root and branch. I think that the whole of Great Britain would oppose them root and branch.

When I was out there I saw some very well-written and knowledgeable articles in the Rhodesian Herald by a retired district officer. While we are engaged in this violent political conflict between the two sides of the House, when Conservative Party policies are under attack, it is right that we should pay a tribute to the work carried out by our Colonial Service for many years. We never even bother to mention what it has done and tried to do to help in the pro- gress of the people over whom we have responsibility. It tried to operate justice and maintain order, and did so effectively.

This retired officer had a very different approach from the arguments that flow from one side of the House to another as to what the Africans really want. I could not help wondering whether the advice of this officer had been sought by the Government. Under our peculiar administrative system we do not know what advice is accepted or rejected. We would be much more competent to take decisions if we knew what people in the field, handling the problem in African countries, thought about matters. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will read these articles. I am not voting against this Order, but I do not believe that he has put it forward in the correct way.

We have introduced some very strange regulations to do with Africa, partly presumably to please the Africans, and partly to please the left wing of the Labour Party.

Mr. Roy Roebuck (Harrow, East)

Steady!

Dame Irene Ward

Why should a person not have the right to fly in whatever plane he chooses over any country? I flew out by South African Airways and a jolly good Boeing 707 it was. [Interruption.] I flew there in a VC10. I probably followed the developments of the VC10 with a great deal more detail—

Mr. Speaker

Order, we are not debating the VC10.

Dame Irene Ward

I am not debating the VC10, but I am pointing out that I flew out in a VC10 and returned in a Boeing 707. I do not believe that any Government or set of individuals have the right to decide that they will not have an aeroplane from South Africa flying over their country. The air does not belong to Nigeria, or Kenya, or Tanzania, or Zambia. The air belongs to the world. This Government have pandered to people too much and have introduced all sorts of niggardly regulations.

No country really thinks that the British Government are doing well in handling the problems of South Africa and Rhodesia. The future really depends on this country trying to support the progressive people, no matter what their colour or race, in Africa. We are not giving a lead to the progressive people in Rhodesia through the Foreign Secretary's presentation of this Order. I have to support my party's decision not to vote against this Order, but I much regret that decision.

I hope that the Foreign Secretary will think deeply about the way he has handled this matter. He did not say one thing about what the Rhodesians did for us during the war. It is right to point out to the African community occasionally that they probably would not be there at all but for such men as fought in the King's Royal African Rifles—there were many Africans, too, I know—who joined together to ensure that freedom should survive. It is a very regrettable situation and I am glad to have had the opportunity of seeing that in South Africa and Rhodesia there are many people who want to make progress without being involved in this frightful and devastating and political conflict.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. John Lee (Reading)

I feel that I am unequal to the task of following the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), if for no other reason than that I would almost certainly be out of order if I attempted to do so. This debate has at least served one useful function in that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) has at last smoked out the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). At last we have had, very belatedly, a contribution from him on the Floor of the House relating to one of his controversial views.

I do not suppose that it would be one which will endear him to his Central Office any more than most of his contributions, but at least we know where we are with him. We know that he condemns the régime in Rhodesia and believes that there is absolutely nothing whatever that can he done about it. We do not know where the Opposition Front Bench stands. The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) told us that the next Government, and he said whether it be Conservative or Labour, would have to review the situation in the light of events.

The right hon. Gentleman went on, as did all of his colleagues, because they are united on one thing if nothing else, to say that the policy of sanctions had been a failure. What we want to know from the right hon. Gentleman is what will be the purpose of the review and what is to follow? At no time have the Opposition made it clear, when they have expressed doubts about these Orders or have been tempted to vote against them, what they propose to do. They say they will attempt to negotiate. We want to know what will happen if those negotiations break down.

It is perfectly clear that the Smith régime has not the slightest intention of honouring any of the principles which have been annuciated in the House by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and by my right hon. Friends. It is perfectly clear that, with few honourable exceptions, the white Rhodesians, like the Gadarene swine and the yahoos of Shan-kill Road, move further and further to the right and it becomes less and less likely that we shall have someone with whom to negotiate. There may be this much in the argument that sanctions have made them more obdurate. I have never doubted that sanctions by themselves were inadequate, but I have always supported the use of force in Rhodesia.

Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have not only condemned sanctions or doubted their efficacy, but made it perfectly clear that, like the Prime Minister, they were not prepared to use force. The House is entitled to know just what they would do. I suspect that it would be nothing more or less than abject surrender. When he was asked to settle this problem one way or another in the lifetime of this Parliament in case there should be a Conservative Government, it was rather disingenuous of the Prime Minister to say that, because the Opposition were committed to this policy, there would be continuity in these matters.

I do not think for a moment that the Opposition would honour the bipartisan policies. I believe that, after a show of protest, they would cave in. If they attempted otherwise, they would be faced with a massive revolt from their right wing, and if they get into office at the next election they will have a very large right wing, to judge from the selections which one has seen lately of candidates such as Mr. Harold Soref. We know what kind of Conservative Government it would be and what kind of Conservative House of Commons it would be.

We are therefore, entitled to ask the Government, if they want to get this matter settled and to redeem our promise to the Rhodesian people as a whole, to settle this problem within the lifetime of this Parliament. I believe increasingly that the chances of a Labour Government after the next election are greater, but one cannot rely on that and it is, therefore, only right to try to settle this problem within the lifetime of the present Parliament.

My right hon. Friend has been subjected to a certain amount of ridicule about that phrase "weeks rather than months", and that is understandable. But the House is entitled to know just how long he envisages this policy going on. Will it be a matter of doing this year by year, however long the Government are in office? That could well be the prospect unless we are prepared to use other methods.

My right hon. Friend has shied away from the use of force, as have the Government as a whole, but if they want the policy to succeed within a reasonable period and do not want the situation to continue as in the last few years, with no more than a moderate measure of success secured by sanctions, what supplementary measures do they intend to take to make the policy successful?

I have some suggestions. One was anticipated earlier in the debate—the immediate extension of sanctions to communications. I should like the opinion of the Attorney-General on the legality of people like the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) visiting a country which is in a state of rebellion. They are dealing with people who have committed an act of high treason against the Crown, and I should have thought that on any interpretation of the law that would put them in peril. However, we have never had an answer on this subject and it is about time we did.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has suggested on other occasions that we should be prepared to fly military aircraft over Rhodesia. This would represent a challenge to the illegal régime, to show whether it was prepared to go to the length of firing on British Servicemen. Those of my hon. Friends who are somewhat inhibited from the use of force in Rhodesia have always feared that there might be difficulties if British troops were called upon to fire, but it would be very much easier if we had been fired at first, just as it will be much easier in Northern Ireland, now that a policeman has been murdered by the Paisleyite yahoos, to use military force to put down the extremists in the Orange Order, should that become necessary. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider that suggestion.

If the Government will not in any circumstances consider the use of any concerted form of military force against the illegal régime, at least internally, there is an intermediate stage between the total imposition of mandatory sanctions and the use of force. This would be to do what was done technically after the American Declaration of Independence when we declared war on the Americans. Even if it were not followed by actual military operations, this would at least put in peril anybody who was dealing with the Rhodesians. It would enable us to declare as contraband the goods of those who were trading with Rhodesia, and the policy which led to the kind of episode which occurred outside Beira not so long ago when a tanker was stopped could be followed much more systematically and those who defied it would be in much greater peril. If it reached the stage when the Navy was used to sink ships carrying goods to Rhodesia, we would have a clear position at international law.

Mr. Hastings

Does the hon. Gentleman think that aircraft carriers might be useful for this purpose? The only one available has been taken away because of barnacles on its bottom.

Mr. Lee

I would use such forces as we still have. I have never been a pacifist. I have abstained from supporting new arms for this country in defence debates because in this country we persist in manufacturing nuclear weapons, but I am certainly prepared to use all manner of conventional weapons in support of these policies.

The law of treason is perfectly clear. Whatever view may be taken of the Joyce case after the war—and many of us had our doubts about its application—it is the present law. Those who persist in having dealings with Rhodesia, certainly if we were to carry out the kind of policy suggested, should have no doubt about the position in which they could be placed. As one hon. Member on this side of the House who may well be supporting the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on capital punishment, I have no doubt as to what should be done.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

There is an attractive simplicity in the approach of the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee). We look forward to the comments of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on his suggestion of a declaration of war not followed by hostilities, but presumably renewed every 12 months by an affirmative Resolution.

There are many things that one could say about this subject, but at this hour, in this debate, I conceive it to be my duty not to say them, because other hon. Members wish to speak and the time is very short. Nor, perhaps, is it useful. We have had speeches which have traversed the general state of our relations with Rhodesia. There have been faults on both sides, and the catalogue of errors did not start in 1964 on either side.

By fateful steps, however, we have arrived at our present position, in which we are frozen in a posture of menacing hostility to what was Britain's best colony, the most stable, the most modern, the most loyal and the only British territory, whether ruled directly or indirectly, which was developing without debt to Whitehall a non-racial society.

Our governing error has been to pay regard to people's declarations rather than their practice. Those who had come to Lancaster House and signed high-sounding declarations of free, universal democracy were given independence, our blessing, a mace and a presentation copy of Erskine May. What they did thereafter has seemed to trouble no one. Exclusive black nationalism in African territories causes very little stirring of conscience on the British left. A fully developed double standard is in operation.

The Foreign Secretary developed a full comparison between the social condi- tions of native Africans and of white people in Rhodesia. Why did he not make the comparison between the standards enjoyed by native Africans in Rhodesia and those enjoyed by native Africans elsewhere in Africa? The answer is easy and I will give it for the right hon. Gentleman. It is because that comparison would not help his argument.

Of course, the standards are higher still in the Republic of South Africa, but the Foreign Secretary could hardly found an argument on that. Nor could anything convincingly be said about—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

Will the hon. and learned Member give way?

Mr. Bell

Make it brief.

Mr. Haffer

The standards, no doubt, of the Russian people are much higher than they are in most States in Africa. Does the hon. and learned Member accept that they have complete freedom?

Mr. Bell

The hon. Member has slipped into error: Russia is not actually in Africa.

Nor could anything convincingly be said about giving independence to Mr. Ian Smith. We have refused independence, on terms which are not available now, to all Mr. Smith's predecessors, from whatever part of the political spectrum they came. I must express the opinion that settlement has always been politically impossible for the Prime Minister unless he was prepared to quarrel with the left wing of his own party. He was not. He was bruising them enough with his incomes policy and could not, or would not, add a Rhodesian settlement.

After four years, therefore, we are preparing to renew sanctions for a fifth year. No one really thinks that they will do anything. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), who seemed to boggle at nothing, rather like his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, did not expect sanctions to effect any change. Nor did the hon. Member for Reading. He said that we could riot stop them, however, because that would be wicked. The Secretary of State for Defence does not think that sanctions will, or could, work. The Foreign Secretary did not seem to think that they would work, but he, too, seemed to think that we had to go on because we really could not stop.

On that logic, we shall be here next autumn renewing the sanctions for a sixth year, not because anyone thinks that they will do anything, but rather on the ground which deterred some from supporting reform of the law on adult homosexuality. They thought it wrong that there should be a law against it, but that since we had one we really could not repeal it.

In this context, I can see only one course tonight. To condemn a policy as misconceived, pointless and harmful and not vote against it does not make sense to me. Three years' running I have opposed the renewal of sanctions and not voted because my party thought that a vote would be misunderstood abroad. That excuse for abstention gets thinner each year. It is now transparent. Accordingly, tonight it is my intention, with some of my hon. Friends—

Mr. John Lee

Will the hon. and learned Member give way?

Mr. Bell

I am sorry, no.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Interventions prolong speeches. There are still other hon. Members who wish to speak.

Mr. Bell

For that reason, it is my intention and that of some of my hon. Friends to divide the House tonight against the Order, because I am convinced that it is high time that this nonsense was now stopped.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the House wishes to take a decision before 7 o'clock, speeches will have to be brief.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

As I believe that I was one of the first Members of the House to say in public that sanctions would never work—that was at a meeting at Brighton five years ago—I take no pleasure in the present relationship between Britain and Rhodesia. I have worked for some years to try to find a compromise between our two countries. I believe that it might have been possible at the discussions in H.M.S. "Tiger", but the possibility of a compromise was lost. It was lost because the Prime Minister lost his temper and then insisted on an interim Government of four months which he knew no Rhodesian politicians of any party would accept.

I then hoped that the rather more sensible suggestion made on board H.M.S. "Fearless" would be accepted and I believed that it might have been if only we had got over the difficulty of the second safeguard, the appeal to the Privy Council. I certainly did all I could to see that those suggestions were accepted. Unfortunately, they broke down, too, because of the insistence on a second safeguard.

I do not believe that a compromise is now possible. Therefore, we have to face the facts. Do we go on with sanctions or not? Do we vote for the Order or not?

I should like to give three reasons why I believe that we should not continue with sanctions. First, they do not work. That is fairly clear from the debate today and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) quoted some figures. I want briefly to quote other figures regarding the Rhodesian economy which have been given to me by a former Member of the House who has just returned from Rhodesia.

In 1967, European agricultural gross sales were £66 million. This year they are expected to be £100 million. The mineral output of Rhodesia in 1967 was valued at £33.7 million. This year it is expected to be around the £60 million mark. The manufacturing index has gone up by 12 per cent. since U.D.I. and the wholesale trade index by 20 per cent. Net European immigration during the last 18 months was three times that of the previous three years. Last year there were 23,000 visitors to Rhodesia on business and nearly a quarter of a million on holidays. These figures show how sanctions have failed to bring about the results desired by many on this side of the House—that is, to bring Mr. Smith again to the conference table—or the result desired by many on the other side of the House of bringing down the Rhodesian régime. They have failed to do so. They have lost the battle.

One of the most patent failures is the Beira blockade. Its futility is universally acknowledged. I understand that it has been recommended that it should be removed this month, but that was not done because of the effect that it would have upon hon. Members below the Gangway on the benches opposite and its effect upon the United Nations.

Secondly, the blockade is hitting the Africans. I will not quote my own experience, although I have taken the trouble to see and speak to Africans in Rhodesia, which some of those who make long contributions to our debates have never done. I wish to refer to a letter which appeared in The Times from a clergyman who said that he had spent five months among the Mashona and found that the present policy, far from aiding them, is gradually starving them. I am quoting from The Times of 2nd October. He went on to say: the missionaries also complain of their inability to get funds out for building schools, clinics and hospitals. He concludes by saying that The Mashona are a happier people than the English even though we continue to persecute them. That is the view of one person who should know.

Another letter appeared in The Times in September referring to the position of the son of the writer who wanted to work for Africans in Rhodesia. His father wrote: Exactly who are sanctions meant to punish? My son is going to teach Africans under the auspices of an organisation outside politics and only concerned to support the Christian missions, yet he is treated as a criminal. These actions are a by-product of the Order which we are discussing, and I suggest that they are doing a bad service to the good name of Britain not only in Africa but in the world.

Thirdly, I am opposed to sanctions because they are against Britain's best interests. I understand the views of some hon. Members on this side of the House who have said that we must have sanctions to persuade, or force, Mr. Smith to the conference table. There have been two conference tables which have failed, and we are not likely to get another.

By continuing sanctions we are preventing the people referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), the more progressive people in Rhodesia, from forming a political party or an alternative government. We are consolidating all people, black and white, behind Mr. Smith, at great cost to our trade, at great cost to ourselves and, in doing so, we are indulging in the pinpricks referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne-mouth, and visiting our indignation on for example an old man of 86 who was forced to go from Salisbury to Pretoria to collect the renewal of his passport. This is the kind of disgraceful pinprick that does our country no good in the world.

I do not like the new constitution of Rhodesia; like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) I, too, would vote against it. It is not the kind of constitution which was thought of in the "Tiger" or "Fearless" proposals and I thoroughly disapprove of it. I certainly do not want a republic. I have used what influence I can to prevent that coming about, but I can now do nothing about it and, as the Foreign Secretary knows, this House can do nothing about it.

I have said for many years that sanctions would not work. Would it be right to abstain today and let the Order go through without a vote? I do not believe that it would and, therefore, I propose also to vote against it in the hope that next year my party will follow me into the Lobby. When, after next October, if not before, we again form the Government of this country I hope that we will face up to the facts of life whether we like them or not.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

May I pay a tiny compliment to the administration in connection with the machinery of sanctions. Hon. Members may have observed in today's Press reports of difficulties said to be experienced on his arrival in Ragland to attend a family funeral in Loughton, in my constituency, of Mr. Len Thompson, who is a Rhodesian diplomat and former private secretary to the Rhodesian Prime Minister. I met Mr. Thompson by chance in the House, and he has told me of the courtesy and consideration which he had received from the officials concerned with him, and he would like, and I certainly wish, that to be placed on record. This should be said, because so many distressing instances occur of petty pinpricks such as have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall).

The Foreign Secretary did not justify his Order to the House except as an impotent gesture of superior moral rectitude. It has been admitted in this debate in all quarters that the policy of sanctions has utterly failed, even though the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) preferred to say that the policy of sanctions has not succeeded. I will not quarrel about that.

There are on the benches opposite, those who, admitting that sanctions have failed, would like to take even more stringent action against Rhodesia. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee), in a blood-curdling speech, spoke of using guns and the gallows. What he did not tell us was, with what troops, with what aircraft, by what routes he would invade Rhodesia, and in the end he came down to the curious notion of a declared but bloodless war.

That is the deep division in the benches opposite. On the one hand, there is the admission of the total collapse of the Government's policy; on the other, there are hon. Members who want to involve Britain in an extension of sanctions throughout Southern Africa, whereas the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and one of the few constant factors in their disastrous policy, has been the avoidance of a confrontation with South Africa, on which they are quite right. This is the great dilemma which right hon. and hon. Members opposite must sort out for themselves.

For my part, I oppose the Order and, for reasons which have been given in full by my right hon. and hon. Friends, must vote against it. No more than my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) do I want to give a green light to this new constitution, but I am surprised that the Foreign Secretary devoted so much time to the constitution which it is proposed to introduce in Salisbury when, according to the thinking of the Government, any constitution they propose to introduce in Salisbury must be entirely illegal.

Of course, I do not like this constitution; indeed, I argued against the republic with Mr. Dupont and other leaders in Rhodesia, but who am I, who are any of us, to say what shall and shall not? We have not the power to determine the constitution of Rhodesia which has been, in practice, as independent as New Zealand, since 1923, and even if we had the power, I doubt whether we retained any moral right to determine the constitution of Southern Rhodesia, after the other constituent parts of the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland had attained their independence as Malawi and Zambia respectively.

I do not like the constitution, but, when one thinks of what has happened under other multi-racial constitutions, so-called, after the application of the principle of one man, one vote in other parts of Africa, I do not say I agree, but I am not surprised that Europeans, possibly Asians and some Africans in Rhodesia prefer the principle of parity between European and Bantu to any other form of constitution.

It is best now that we consult our own interests after the total collapse of the Government's policy. It has been well brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and others that sanctions, having destroyed our trade to the benefit of our competitors, are a gross liability to the British economy which is still under stress and difficulty.

There is the strategic argument, also. The Red Fleet shows the red flag in the Red Sea, in the Atlantic, in the Indian Ocean. The Chinese, the Russians and the East Germans are in occupation of Zanzibar which has become an African Cuba within the Commonwealth. If N.A.T.O. is necessary, surely all the more necessary is a South Atlantic Pact extending into the Indian Ocean. This requires the co-operation of three countries. It requires the co-operation of the Portuguese, our allies of centuries, our allies in N.A.T.O. and partners in E.F.T.A. But the mention of Portuguese allies arouses derision on the benches opposite. It requires the co-operation of the Republic of South Africa. It requires the co-operation of Rhodesia. The only ports in Africa which would certainly be at the disposal of the Western world in the event of hostilities happen to be either South Africa or Portuguese.

No wonder that even Her Majesty's present Government are determined to avoid a confrontation with South Africa. I am convinced that they are in anguish trying to find a way out of the morass in which they have landed this country, and that they know, as this debate has brought out, that the Order is a futile folly which will make us even more the laughing-stock of our enemies and the despair of our friends.

6.49 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles (Winchester)

I wish to raise one point which has not yet been mentioned in the debate. I wish to register a protest against the immorality of sanctions. The Government, with the support of both sides of the House, have spent over £200 million

a year on economic aid to under-developed countries in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.

Naturally, I support that expenditure and would like to see it increased. But nobody from the Government benches has said where lies the morality in selecting one little country in Africa and purposely pushing down its economy, to the detriment to blacks and whites alike, in pursuit of a political objective which is quite clearly beyond our grasp.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 26.

Division No. 351.]	AYES	[6.50 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Ensor, David	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Alldritt, Walter	Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)	Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Allen, Scholefield	Faulds, Andrew	Lee, John (Reading)
Anderson, Donald	Fernyhough, E.	Lestor, Miss Joan
Armstrong, Ernest	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Ashley, Jack	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lipton, Marcus
Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Loughlin, Charles
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Foley, Maurice	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)	McBride, Neil
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Forrester, John	McCann, John
Barnes, Michael	Fowler, Gerry	MacColl, James
Beaney, Alan	Fraser, John (Norwood)	MacDermot, Niall
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Freeson, Reginald	Macdonald, A. H.
Bessell, Peter	Garrett, W. E.	McGuire, Michael
Bidwell, Sydney	Ginsburg, David	McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Binns, John	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Mackie, John
Booth, Albert	Gregory, Arnold	Mackintosh, John P.
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Maclennan, Robert
Boyden, James	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	McNamara, J. Kevin
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	MacPherson, Malcolm
Buchan, Norman	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Harper, Joseph	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Cant, R. B.	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Carmichael, Neil	Hattersley, Roy	Marks, Kenneth
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hazell, Bert	Marquand, David
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Heffer, Eric S.	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Concannon, J. D,	Hilton, W. S.	Maxwell, Robert
Crawshaw, Richard	Hobden, Dennis	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Cronin, John	Horner, John	Mendelson, John
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Mikardo, Ian
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Millan, Bruce
Davidson,James(Aberdeenshine,W.)	Howie, W.	Miller, Dr. M. S.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Hoy, Rt. Hn. James	Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Molloy, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Hunter, Adam	Moonman, Eric
Delargy, H. J.	Hynd, John	Morgan, Elystar (Cardiganshire)
Dell, Edmund	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Devlin, Miss Bernadette	Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Dewar, Donald	Janner, Sir Barnett	Morris, John (Aberavon)
Dickens, James	Jeger, George (Goole)	Moyle, Roland
Dobson, Ray	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Murray, Albert
Doig, Peter	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Newens, Stan
Driberg, Tom	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Norwood, Christopher
Dunnett, Jack	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	O'Malley, Brian
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Judd, Frank	Oram, Albert E.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Kelley, Richard	Orbach, Maurice
Eadie, Alex	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Oswald, Thomas
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Kerr, Dr. David (W' worth, Central)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Ellis, John	Lawson, George	Padley, Walter
English, Michael	Leadbitter, Ted	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	Ryan, John	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Pardoe, John	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)	Wellbeloved, James
Parker, John (Dagenham)	Sheldon, Robert	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.	Whitaker, Ben
Pavitt, Laurence	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	White, Mrs. Eirene
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)	Whitlock, William
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)	Silverman, Julius	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)	Skeffington, Arthur	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.	Small, William	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry	Spriggs, Leslie	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Rankin, John	Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Rees Merlyn	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Richard, Ivor	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)	Swain, Thomas	Winnick, David
Robertson, John (Paisley)	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy	Woof, Robert
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth (St.P'c'as)	Tomney, Frank
Roebuck, Roy	Tuck, Raphael	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Urwin, T. W.	Mr. William Hamling and Mr. loan L. Evans.
Rose, Paul	Varley, Eric G.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
NOES
Biffen, John	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Smith, John (London & W' minster)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Wall, Patrick
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Montgomery, Fergus	Wiggin, A. W.
Donnelly, Desmond	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Woodnutt, Mark
Goodhew, Victor	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Gurden, Harold	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hastings, Stephen	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Mr. Ronald Bell and Mr. John Biggs-Davison.
Hay, John	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Resolved,

That the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th October, be approved.