§ Mr. Dingle FootI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to give any assurance that they will raise at the Commonwealh Prime Ministers' Conference the question of the future of the Mandate for South-West Africa in accordance with the Resolution passed by this House on 15th December, 1960.With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like, very briefly, to explain the grounds for this proposed Motion and why I submit that it comes within the terms of Standing Order No. 9. On 15th December last, there was a debate in the House, as you will recall, on the Mandate for South-West Africa. There was, on that occasion, a remarkable degree of unanimity. Almost every hon. Member who took part, on both sides of the House, with, I think, only one exception, condemned— —
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. and learned Member will appreciate that I am not allowed to allow him to make now the speech he would make if I were to accede to his application.
§ Mr. FootWith respect, if you accede to my request, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a quite different speech later, but I should like merely to state the basis on which I am putting my argument in asking for your leave.
As I was saying, on that occasion there was a remarkable degree of unanimity in the House and, finally, this Resolution was passed, without a single dissentient voice:
That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take action in the United Nations and in the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to ensure that the Government of South Africa carries out the solemn obligations it undertook in accepting the Mandate for South-West Africa, or surrenders it to the United Nations so that alternative trusteeship arrangements can be made.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1960; Vol. 632, c. 729.]As I have said, there was no dissentient voice to that Resolution.What has happened since then? The Government have taken no action in the United Nations—quite the reverse. Only three days after we had passed that Resolution in the House, six Resolutions on the subject of South-West Africa came before the General Assembly of the United Nations. On five of them the United Kingdom representative abstained. He abstained on a Resolution condemning the application of apartheid.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that the hon. and learned Member must be beyond the limits of his application now. Perhaps he will look at it and remind himself of what it is.
§ Mr. FootI was endeavouring to say that, so far, Her Majesty's Government have taken no steps either in the United Nations or elsewhere to implement the Resolution passed by the House, and it was to that point alone that my observations were directed, showing quite clearly that the Resolution of the House was disregarded by the United Kingdom representative in the General Assembly three days after the Resolution had been passed.
Now we come to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference——
§ Mr. C. OsborneNo.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithIt is quite in order. The hon. Member should read the Standing Orders.
§ Mr. FootWe now come to the Conference which begins today. On Thursday last, I asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations
whether he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the future of the Mandate for South-West Africa.The right hon. Gentleman replied by referring me to the speech made on 15th December by the then Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations, now Lord Alport.I then asked him:
In view of the terms of that Resolution, what action do the Government propose to take at the Prime Ministers' Conference?He gave me this reply:I am not aware that this subject will necessarily be raised at the Prime Ministers' Conference."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd March, 1961; Vol. 635, c. 1721.]Accordingly, I put yesterday a Question to the Prime Minister. I asked the right hon. Gentlemanwhether, in view of the Resolution of this House on 15th December, 1960, Her Majesty's Government will raise at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference the question of the future of the Mandate for South-West Africa.The Question was not reached at Question Time, but about six o'clock yesterday evening I received this Written Answer from the Prime Minister, in answer to my Question and other Questions:As I have stated, the proceedings of our meetings are confidential. I am not prepared to say, indeed it is not for me alone to decide, whether this or that specific subject will be discussed. But I have no doubt that all the large issues of the day will be discussed, formally or informally, by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1961; Vol. 636, c. 22.]In my submission, that answer makes no sense at all. It is, of course, not for the Prime Minister alone to decide what the agenda of the Conference will be, but nothing can prevent him from raising this matter if he chooses to do so, that is to say, if he chooses to comply with the wishes of the House. So we are really left in this position—that in spite of the Resolution of 15th December and the failure of Her Majesty's 481 Government to take any action at the United Nations, or even to support any action taken by other member States, we have not the slightest assurance yet that the Government will so much as raise this matter at the Prime Ministers' Conference.This comes, I submit, within the terms of the Standing Order. No one will deny that it is a matter of great public importance. It is important in two ways. First, the issues involved have engaged the attention of the United Nations over many years, and, secondly, there is a question of very great importance to all of us here, whether the Government, having concurred in a Resolution of the House which has been carried without dissent, are entitled thereafter completely to ignore it.
Next, I would submit that this is a definite matter. We are concerned with the refusal of the Government to give the House an assurance to which, as I submit, the House is clearly entitled. Lastly, it is urgent because the work of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference begins today and unless my proposed Motion is allowed the House will almost certainly have no opportunity of discussing this matter and making its views known before the Conference ends.
It is on these grounds that I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that my Motion would fall within the Standing Order.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to give any assurance that they will raise at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference the question of the future of the Mandate for South-West Africa in accordance with the Resolution passed by this House on 15th December, 1960.The hon. and learned Member gave me private notice of his intention to make this application and I can only express my extreme gratitude to him for that, because it gave me time to consider the matter carefully. However, as a result of that consideration, I reached the conclusion that I was quite unable to accede to his request.