§ 47. Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if he will move to appoint a Parliamentary Commission to go to Central Africa to prepare for the constitutional review of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir.
§ Mr. StonehouseWhy not? Why is the Prime Minister so determined to undermine the authority of this House in relation to the future of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland? Is he aware that the African political movement in the two Protectorates are determined to boycott the Monckton Commission because of its unsatisfactory composition? Is he also aware that an African Member of the Nyasaland Legislative Council has introduced a Motion to the effect that Africans have no confidence in the Monckton Commission and will not co-operate with it, unless its composition is changed and all political detainees are released to take part in the 1960 conference? In view of this, is it not fatuous to send a Commission out there at all?
§ The Prime MinisterI was asked whether I would set up a Parliamentary Commission, which was our hope, to associate both sides of Parliament with this Commission. I am only sorry that that hope was not in one respect fulfilled.
§ Mr. GaitskellHas the Prime Minister seen Sir Roy Welensky's comments on the terms of reference of the Monckton Commission? May I refresh his memory on this matter? Sir Roy Welensky said:
I would never be a party to any Commission coming out here to sit in judgment on 1647 the Federation and deciding whether it was to continue or not. You can say that—he said to the interviewer—in no uncertain terms.He went on to say that it cannot suggest alternatives to Federation, and added:I do not think this would be in their terms of reference.Could the Prime Minister say whether he agrees with Sir Roy Welensky's interpretation?
§ The Prime MinisterI made it perfectly clear in the discussion what was my view of the terms of reference and what the Commission could or could not do. I do not think we add to that at this moment by trying to take one statement against another and trying to make political capital out of it, for that is what the right hon. Gentleman is doing. I said that I believed that this Commission will do a great piece of work, and I also believe that it is the wish of a great number of Members on that side of the House—of the right hon. Gentleman's party—to join in it.
§ Mr. GaitskellSince one major reason why we felt unable to join the Commission was the terms of reference, will the Prime Minister kindly answer my question whether he does or does not agree with Sir Roy Welensky's interpretation?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman will put a Question on the Paper,—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I will do my best to answer it.
§ Mr. GaitskellReally, this is an extraordinary situation. Sir Roy Welensky gave this interview to the Daily Telegraph some days ago—it was reported on 8th December. It was surely known to the Prime Minister. Are we to say that he has not made up his mind what he thinks about Sir Roy Welensky's comments?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, but I think it is an extraordinary situation when the right hon. Gentleman tries to raise this—not on his own account, not that he thought it so important, by putting down a Question himself—but out of a supplementary question to a Question asked from below the Gangway.
§ Mr. GaitskellThe Prime Minister's answers get more and more extraordinary. He knows perfectly well that it is a well established convention in this House for the Leader of the Opposition not to put down Questions on the Order Paper. He knows perfectly well that it is in order and is normal for the Leader of the Opposition to raise issues of this kind in supplementary questions.
§ The Prime MinisterIt is quite in order, but I was asked to comment on a text without having the opportunity of seeing the text. The right hon. Gentleman's position in his party is so weak that he is trying to make up for it. I do not blame him, he is doing his best.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the Prime Minister aware that this kind of blustering and invective will not get him easily out of the hole he has made for himself? Why does he not answer the question and give us his comments on Sir Roy Welensky's interpretation?
§ The Prime MinisterI refuse to answer a question about a statement made by the Prime Minister of a territory in the Commonwealth without seeing the text.