§ 42. Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister what requests he made to the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa for arrangements to be made for him to meet Chief Luthuli and other African leaders during his visit to that country.
§ 49. Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the facilities made available to him on his recent South African tour to meet African and Asian leaders.
§ The Prime MinisterThe arrangements which were made for my brief visit to the Union of South Africa did not enable me to receive deputations from, or meet representatives of, parties not represented in Parliament.
§ Mr. StonehouseIs the Prime Minister aware that he is being less than frank with the House? Are we to understand from his reply that he made no request to meet Chief Luthuli and other African leaders of 9 million people in the Union? If he made that request and it was refused, will he consider inviting Chief Luthuli to this country?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I saw representatives of the United Party and the Progressive Party and I had the opportunity of meeting Mrs. Ballinger and Mr. Patrick Duncan of the Liberal Party. I received requests from three other organisations, the Union of English-Speaking South Africans, UNESSA, the Federal Party and the African National Congress. I wrote to them to say that I had received a number of requests from different groups who wished to put their views to me in person, but arrangements had been made for my brief visit to South Africa which did not enable me to receive deputations from organisations not represented in Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I added:
As you will be aware from reports of my speech … I have already expressed my views at length on some of the matters you raise in your letter.
§ Mr. HamiltonIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that fine words are not enough? Will he assure the House that he was not actively discouraged from seeing those African leaders, and can he tell the House how he reconciles the concept of a multi-racial Commonwealth with the continued membership of a country which does not practise it? Would he not agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir G. Nicholson) that the time has come for South Africa to get out of it?
§ The Prime MinisterThose are very large issues and to raise them or to try to answer them in question and answer would be quite irresponsible and wrong for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. DugdaleIs the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he himself did not suggest that he might see any Africans at any time? Is he telling the House that the South African Government refused his request, or did he simply go there asking nothing about seeing anybody and leaving it entirely to the South African Government?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is not uncommon when one is a guest of a country, whether it be Ghana, Nigeria, or, even, Colonial countries, still more independent Commonwealth countries, to fall in with the arrangements made by one's host. I think, however, that, whether I saw particular people oar not, I was quite aware of their views and I tried in a speech at Cape Town to combine what seemed to me the proper attitude for a guest of an independent Commonwealth country with expressing the views and purposes of our country in trying to deal with the problems of Africa.
§ Mr. FernyhoughBefore the Prime Minister's visit, did not the host ask him whether the programme submitted met with his wishes and would he not then have had a chance to have said that he would like to meet people other than those suggested to him by the Government of South Africa?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not believe that it is in the interests of the very purposes which the hon. Member has in mind, certainly not in the interests of the Commonwealth, for me to try to answer the details of those supplementary questions.
§ 43. Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister which were the main problems discussed during his visit to Africa; with which spokesmen of the peoples of Africa he was able to discuss them; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime MinisterThroughout my tour I made a point, so far as possible, of speaking to representatives of all shades of opinion. With permission, I will circulate a concise account in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
These conversations were for the most part private, and I do not think I should say anything about the topics which were discussed.
§ Mr. DribergTo what extent, however, before going on the tour, did the Prime Minister agree the arrangements for the tour?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, the arrangements were broadly agreed, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to read the account which is rather long and which I propose to 1416 circulate. If he has any further Questions to put after that, I shall try to answer them.
§ Mr. DribergThe Prime Minister says they were agreed broadly—including the arrangements for South Africa?
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Stonehouse.
§ The Prime MinisterThe discussions between—
§ Mr. StonehouseOn a point of order. I have not yet asked Question No. 44.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am in no way contradicting what the hon. Member has said, because my eye was not upon him at the material moment, but I have no power to compel the Prime Minister to answer and we did not seem to make progress if hon. Members shouted at him, so I called Mr. Stonehouse.
§ Mr. DribergFurther to that point of order. With great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman was apparently just rising to answer my supplementary question.
§ Mr. SpeakerClearly, if the Prime Minister was about to answer, I should not seek to frustrate his intention. I had not myself observed that fact, because the right hon. Gentleman is slightly occluded by those sitting in front of him. Mr. Stonehouse—Question No. 44.
Following is the information:In Ghana I had talks with Dr. Nkrumah, other Ministers and members of the Government Party, and also with a delegation of leading members of the Opposition United Party.In Nigeria my principal discussions were with the Prime Minister and the Premiers of the three Regions. I also met other Ministers and opposition leaders.In the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland I met the principal representatives of the four Governments. I also met deputations from the main political parties, the United Federal Party, the Dominion Party and the Central Africa Party; and, in addition to the local representatives of the above parties, the African National Congress and the United National Independence Party in Northern Rhodesia; and in Nyasaland the Malawi Congress Party, the Congress Liberation Party and the Nyasaland Asian Convention. I also spoke to many other representatives of various communities and interests.In the Union of South Africa, besides my private discussions with Dr. Verwoerd and 1417 other Ministers, I met representatives of the Opposition Parties represented in Parliament and the Council for Coloured Affairs. In Basutoland, the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Swaziland I met, besides the Resident Commissioners, prominent persons of all races.
§ 44. Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister what request the Prime Minister of the colony of Southern Rhodesia made to him, during their official conversations in Salisbury, for the deletion of the clauses in the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia giving power to the United Kingdom Government to veto legislation passed by the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia which is discriminatory against Africans; and if he will give an assurance, similar to that which he gave to Africans in Northern Rhodesia and in Nyasaland, that this protection will not be withdrawn from the Africans of Southern Rhodesia except with the full agreement of the Africans so protected.
§ The Prime MinisterThe discussions between Sir Edgar Whitehead and myself were confidential, and it would not be in accordance with Commonwealth practice to say anything about them. As regards the second part of the question in the event of any change being made in the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia, the interest of Africans would of course be given full weight.
§ Mr. StonehouseWhy does the Prime Minister draw such a distinction between the 2 million Africans in Southern Rhodesia and the 5 million in the two Northern Protectorates? Does he not realise that the Africans in Southern Rhodesia regard this country's protection over their rights as seriously as do those who live in the two Northern Protectorates? Will he confirm here and now that there will be no question of changing the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia and withdrawing these clauses, except with the express agreement of the Africans in Southern Rhodesia?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The position of Southern Rhodesia is considerably different from that of the two Northern Protectorates, which are Colonial Territories. I make it clear that in any change—if there were to be a change, and I am not saying that there will be—the interests of the Africans will, of course, be given full weight by Her Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. WallIs it not a fact that Southern Rhodesia has been internally self-governing since 1923, and did not my right hon. Friend notice during his visit that race relations in Southern Rhodesia were considerably better than in many other parts of Africa?
Mr. Prime MinisterI think there are continued improvements which we owe to the leaders of opinion in that country.
§ Mr. MarquandThe Prime Minister informed the House on Tuesday that he was not aware that Sir Edgar Whitehead had said that one of his conditions for attending the Constitutional Review in 1960 was that this clause should be suspended or taken out of the Constitution. Has he now had an opportunity to look at what Sir Edgar Whitehead said? Is it not true that Sir Edgar Whitehead threatened that he would not participate any further unless this power of the British Parliament was taken away from it?
§ The Prime MinisterI am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has asked that supplementary question, because I have looked at the full report of Sir Edgar Whitehead's remarks, which are rather longer and more correctly reported than in the Press cutting which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me. It is quite clear that Sir Edgar Whitehead was not saying that he would not participate in the review conference unless his conditions were met, but he was putting up that he would not agree to anything unless his conditions were met. In other words, he was not making a preliminary condition for entering the conference. He was setting out, as people often do before they start negotiations, what he hoped to get out of it.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have been guilty of an error. I should not have allowed the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) to ask that supplementary question, because of a Question he has put down to be answered later. I am sorry. He was too quick for me and I had forgotten the later Question.
§ 48. Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister why, during his tour of South Africa, he agreed to open Turfloop College, one of the five segregated Bantu colleges being established by the Union Government.
§ The Prime MinisterI did not open the Bantu University College at Turfloop.
§ Mrs. CastleIs the Prime Minister aware that the Daily Mail carried a most distressed article written by Mr. Henry Fairlie regretting very much that the Prime Minister had agreed to take this action and thus apparently to lend his support to what Mr. Fairlie described as a "showpiece" of apartheid? Can he say whether he kept his arrangements so private that even the Press did not notice them?
§ The Prime MinisterAll I said was that I did not open it. In the course of a rather long day travelling about the Northern Transvaal I was taken to and shown the still unfinished buildings of this university.
§ Mrs. CastleIn view of the Prime Minister's amendment to his reply, may I now ask him if he does not think that it is most unfortunate that he should have visited this segregated Bantu College, which is part of a long-term plan of the South African Government to destroy the long-standing multiracialism of the Cape Town and Witwatersrand Universities—[Interruption.]—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Lady will soon bring her supplementary question to an end.
§ Mrs. CastleI am very anxious to do that, and I would be able to do so if hon. Gentlemen opposite stopped taking the conduct of the business of this House out of your hands. Mr. Speaker—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—I am not surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like this question May I ask the Prime Minister if this visit was included in the plans for his tour before he left for South Africa?
§ The Prime MinisterIf one goes to a country it is as well to see what is going on there. That does not mean that one approves of it. I expressed my broad views in the speech I made. It seems sensible to see what is going on in a country.
§ 57. Mr. Awberyasked the Prime Minister what opportunities he had while in South Africa to meet representatives of the coloured people for the purpose of discussing with them their 1420 particular problems; what requests he made for such facilities; who were the people he thus met; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime MinisterThe Union Government arranged for me to meet the Council for Coloured Affairs on 5th February in Cape Town.
§ Mr. AwberyA moment or so ago, in answer to a supplementary question, the Prime Minister said, "When I go to a country I want to see everything that is to be seen." Am I to understand that when he went to Africa he decided to see representatives of 20 per cent. of the people and to ignore the other 80 per cent.? Was he invited to see the representatives of the large majority of people in Africa?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I said, I saw representatives of the coloured people, and in speaking to them I made it clear that I was speaking not merely to the statutory body but to the coloured community as a whole.
§ Mr. DribergCan the Prime Minister now answer the supplementary question which he was unable to answer a few minutes ago and which is directly relevant here? Can he say whether the arrangements for his visit to South Africa were among the arrangements for the tour which were broadly agreed in advance? Did he in fact specifically ask to see African people?
§ The Prime MinisterA general picture of the tour was given to me. I repeat that when one goes to an independent Commonwealth country it is right and proper, as a guest, broadly to follow the wishes of one's host in what one says, and in regard to those to whom one speaks. I think I went as far as the traditions of our Commonwealth independence allow. I certainly tried to do so as courteously as I could in spite of being the guest of a Parliament and stating views which I knew were not friendlily received by them, but which, nevertheless, were received with great courtesy. I thought that by far the best course was the one I followed which was to state our views without trying to impinge in any way on the independence of a Commonwealth country.
§ Mr. GaitskellWhile the guest must take account of the views of the host, 1421 it is usual for the host to take account of the views and desires of the guest. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a general impression that he wished—
§ Viscount HinchingbrookeThe right hon. Gentleman did not behave like that at his Khrushchev dinner party.
§ Mr. GaitskellThe longer the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) remains in this House the worse his manners become.
Is the Prime Minister aware that there is a general impression that he wished to meet representatives of the coloured communities, but was not allowed to do so? Would it really do very much harm if he made that plain?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman held my position and realised the character of the Commonwealth, the importance of maintaining its independence, and the many difficulties that face it in the future, and if he had in mind the conference we are about to hold in May, he would not press me to go beyond what I have said.