§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of their commitment to the Five Principles, they can confirm or deny the statements being made in Salisbury that the November Settlement Proposals will be implemented by Her Majesty's Government if "responsible Africans" find them acceptable.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have made clear that any settlement must be in accordance with the Five Principles. But they have reserved judgment on the methods to be used in any future test of acceptability. Her Majesty's Government have not therefore indicated how the Fifth Principle could be satisfied.
§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness very much for that reply and for that recommitment to the Five Principles, may I ask whether she is aware, first, that the statement that there is a wish to re-examine the methods by which the test should be applied gives rise to great disquiet, not only on these Benches but throughout the Commonwealth? Secondly, is she aware that she has not answered my Question about the statements emanating from Salisbury?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, to speak on the last point first, if I may, I thought that I had answered the noble Baroness's Question because I said that "Her Majesty's Government have not therefore …" In other words, they are not our statements and there is no basis in fact for them. On the question of the methods, I think that it was generally agreed in the debate that we had in this House that we could not have another Pearce Commission. But it was also agreed, I think, that the Fifth Principle should be carried out; and that we affirm.
§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, while again thanking the noble Baroness for reaffirming the Fifth Principle, I should like to ask her whether she does not realise that the disquiet caused is because of their saying that they will alter the methods of applying the Principle. Not to answer an extremely authoritative report in the Sunday Mail in Salisbury, from a source which is extremely close to the régime there, saying that Her Majesty's Government would accept a decision by "responsible Africans", only adds to that disquiet. Could she not do something to dispel it?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, with all respect to the Press, in this country and elsewhere, I think that some reports always cause disquiet, although they may not in fact have substance. There have been no communications of the nature suggested in the article, which I did in fact see.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Press Mr. Smith and his Minister met tribal chiefs yesterday on the basis that they should represent the Africans, and that he is not prepared to tolerate an African Opposition Party within the Assembly?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BEHELVIEMy Lords, what Mr. Smith does within Rhodesia we have, unfortunately, no power, and have had no power since 1923, to prevent.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, do the Government still accept the test of acceptability?
§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALEMy Lords, does my noble friend Lady 1505 Tweedsmuir imagine that the noble Baroness opposite is unwilling to talk? If so, it would surprise me.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I am sure that I can say to my noble friend that there was no question that the noble Baroness opposite would not be willing to talk. I am sure that she would on any occasion; and very well, too.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, to clarify a supplementary answer, could the noble Baroness direct the attention of the House to the Resolution in the Rhodesia debate where this House reached a conclusion on the form of consultation to be undertaken with the people of Rhodesia as a whole? I should not have thought, if I may put it in this way, that the House came to a view that the Pearce Commission provisions might not be repeated.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I do not think that that was the sense of the debate in any way. I think it was certainly the sense of the debate, with which Her Majesty's Government entirely agreed, that there should be a test of acceptability.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she will bear in mind that if there is any weakening of the criteria for the test of acceptability there will be grave disquiet in this country?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord need have those fears. What we have always said, and said during the debate, was that this was the time for all races within Rhodesia to try themselves to come to some conclusion.