HC Deb 01 April 1963 vol 675 cc32-9
The First Secretary of State (Mr. R. A. Butler)

I will, with permission, make a short statement.

This is my first opportunity of informing the House about the talks on Central Africa which, as the House will be aware, were concluded last Friday afternoon. The object of these talks was to find a basis on which a conference might later be held.

At the outset, I should make it clear that Her Majesty's Government took no decision on these complex matters until all the Governments concerned had had an opportunity to put forward their views. In the light of the views expressed it was necessary for Her Majesty's Government to consider what was the best course to pursue in the interests of all concerned. Her Majesty's Government have accepted that none of the territories can be kept in the Federation against its will, and they have, therefore, accepted the principle that any territory which so wishes must be allowed to secede.

Her Majesty's Government are convinced that this decision was essential before further progress could be made towards their declared objective of policy in Central Africa, that is to say, the evolution, of an effective relationship between the territories which is acceptable to each of them.

Because that is their objective, Her Majesty's Government have also clearly stated that they consider it necessary that before any further changes are made there should be renewed discussion in Africa not only on the transitional arrangements required, but also on the broad lines of a new relationship.

I have this morning received a letter from the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia asking for certain assurances about the future granting of independence to Southern Rhodesia. This will require close consideration by Her Majesty's Government and I cannot at present take the matter further. I will, however, keep the House informed of any developments that may occur.

Mr. Strachey

Is the First Secretary of State aware that we on this side of the House welcome his acceptance of the principle that any territory which so wishes must be allowed to secede from the Federation? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this question of secession is an entirely different question from the question to which he refers in the latter part of his statement, that of independence for any of the territories? Is he aware that, while we are all anxious to see these territories become independent members of the Commonwealth, we consider that none of them should become independent until it is well on the way, at any rate, to a democratic system with a franchise which gives effective representation to all races?

Would the right hon. Gentleman also agree that no one, by any stretch of imagination, could describe the present Southern Rhodesian Constitution as fulfilling that condition and that neither, for that matter, does the Northern Rhodesian Constitution fulfil that condition? Would he therefore agree that the next step for both territories should be the preparation by this House of a new Constitution containing a broader franchise and better representation? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore give an assurance to the House that he will not consider independence for these territories until and unless they have new Constitutions based on a substantially broader franchise than at present?

Mr. Butler

The question of the Northern Rhodesian Constitution is a matter which I also discussed with elected Ministers of the Northern Rhodesia Government and it is agreed that we shall carry these discussions further after the first round of discussions about future relationship—that is, to take one thing at a time.

As for the Southern Rhodesian Government, I cannot go further than my statement that Her Majesty's Government have now under consideration the request of the Southern Rhodesian Prime Minister.

Sir T. Moore

Is it not a tragedy that this great and noble conception of a multi-racial community should be at an end? Will my right hon. Friend, in his decision on a possible alternative, therefore see that the same ideals that Sir Roy Welensky had in mind are maintained?

Mr. Butler

Yes, Sir. It is quite clear that the Federation, in its day, achieved a great deal and we are all of us aware of the services rendered by Sir Roy Welensky and the Federal Ministers. What Her Majesty's Government had to come to a conclusion about was whether we could keep people in the Federation against their will, and we came to the conclusion that one can never build up a satisfactory relationship in Central Africa unless and until it is by consent and agreement.

Mr. Grimond

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the end of Federation will require legislation and an Order in Council and that the future of common services will then become the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the economic services are continued and the economic links, at any rate, are maintained between the three territories? Will he make clear that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to abdicate their responsibilities for seeing that there is constitutional progress in Southern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler

The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is, "Yes, Sir." Legislation will be required.

The answer about economic links is that they will have to be discussed, I hope, between the Governments principally concerned, namely, the Northern and Southern Rhodesian Governments, in whose two interests the economic links axe so important. Naturally, Her Majesty's Government will play their part in helping to work out the economic links and I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing up that subject.

On the third point, about abdication in relation to Southern Rhodesia, both under the late Southern Rhodesia Government and the present Southern Rhodesia Government we have never hesitated to put forward our view of the advantage of representative Government.

Mr. Wall

Is it my right hon. Friend's intention to negotiate future economic links between three sovereign independent Governments? If so, will he resist pressure from the Opposition, the United Nations and the United States and concede the principle of independence to Southern Rhodesia, which is now practically conceded to Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. Butler

The principle of independence has not, in fact, been conceded to Northern Rhodesia. All that has been agreed is that there shall be future talks about the future Constitution of Northern Rhodesia which Northern Rhodesians hope will lead towards independence in the end.

The important issue of Southern Rhodesian independence, to which my hon. Friend attaches so much importance, is now under the urgent consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. A. Henderson

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to safeguard the repayment of £114 million worth of Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland stock which was subscribed by people in this country with the blessing of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Butler

That is one of the many very difficult matters which will come up for consideration in the future.

Sir G. Nicholson

While welcoming what my right hon. Friend has done up to now, may I ask whether he is aware that two facts stand out a mile? The first is that our responsibility towards Southern Rhodesia is moral rather than statutory, but that that moral responsibility knows no difference of race, creed or colour?

Mr. Butler

I would accept that we have moral responsibility towards all the territories in Central Africa and not just one.

Mr. Brockway

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can confirm that Mr. Winston Field has indicated that he will not take part in a conference for the reconsideration of the Federation unless his Government are granted independence? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be the strongest opposition, both in the House and more particularly in Southern Rhodesia, if the right hon. Gentleman gives recognition to a minority Government against the wishes of the great majority of the people of that territory?

Mr. Butler

I think that Mr. Winston Field's representations relate to independence at a future date, namely, in relation either to the secession of one of the territories or to the independence of one of the territories. He is most anxious that other territories should not go ahead without his getting what he wants. That is a more literal representation of what he feels. This must be considered very carefully by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Wall

I have given you previous notice, Mr. Speaker, of my intention to ask leave to move the adjournment of the House. Would it be right for me to do so now?

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

Not immediately. I will give the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) an opportunity later.

Mr. Berkeley

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the sympathy and support of the overwhelming majority of Members of this House in the most difficult decision which he has had to take? Is he further aware that there are some hon. Members, at least, on this side of the House, who could not agree to the granting of independence to Southern Rhodesia on the existing constitution?

Mr. Butler

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It certainly has been a very heavy responsibility and I have regretted very much some of the personal disagreements that have had to take place in the course of accepting this decision. I regret them very much and I express my regret not only to the House, but to others who are outside.

On the second point, I can only answer my hon. Friend by saying that Her Majesty's Government have this under consideration.

Mr. Strachey

Will the right hon. Gentleman go at least as far as recognising that it would be an act of great irresponsibility on the part of Her Majesty's Government to, in the First Secretary's words, give Mr. Field what he wants without the most determined effort to get the situation in Southern Rhodesia back on to a constitutional and Parliamentary basis under a Constitution which makes it possible for the two races to be represented effectively in Parliament?

Mr. Butler

I will take note of what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) wishes to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Wall

I 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 request by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia for the immediate granting of the principle of independence. This matter is of obvious public importance, Mr. Speaker, as it affects several million of Her Majesty's subjects. As for its urgency, I should like to remind you that last Friday, as has been announced by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary today, the Government conceded the right of secession to Northern Rhodesia and decided to call a conference on Central Africa to discuss not only the dismemberment of the Federation, but the setting up of a new association between the three component territories.

At the same time, the Prime Minister of the Federation and the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia made it clear that they would not attend the conference unless the principle of independence to Southern Rhodesia were granted. In my submission, a power vacuum now exists in Central Africa and a very explosive situation is developing.

The Federal Government's authority has now been undermined in the area and I suggest that Her Majesty's Government have little direct authority in Southern Rhodesia under the existing Constitution. The forces of disruption and subversion are, I believe, already gathering in this area of the world and I believe that an immediate decision should be made by Her Majesty's Government.

In submitting this request, it is not my intention to ask for a debate or postmortem on the Federation. The decision is made and must be accepted. The Government must, however, have expected this request from the Southern Rhodesian Government and it is clear that as we are to have the Budget on Wednesday, and the debate upon it is to be continued nearly until the Easter Recess, the House will have no opportunity of debating this vital subject before the Recess.

I therefore submit, Mr. Speaker, that because of the situation in that area, the House should have a chance of expressing its opinion before the Executive makes the final decision to answer Mr. Field by either a "Yes" or a "No".

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter or urgent public importance, namely, the request of the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia for the immediate granting of the principle of independence. I cannot hold that to be within the Standing Order. My information is that any change in the status quo one way or the other requires legislation.

Mr. Fell

I 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 granting by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Northern Rhodesia of the right to secede from the Central African Federation. I shall take only one minute of the time of the House in explaining the slight difference between this request and the application which has just been declined, Mr. Speaker. It is simply that the catalyst of the disruption of the Federation was the granting of the right to secede to all three territories. That was taken late last week and my fear is that this may lead, first, to the premature disintegration of the Federation before its responsibilities are over, and secondly, to a consequent threat to public order in the Central African Federation.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member 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 granting by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Northern Rhodesia of the right to secede from the Central African Federation. I am afraid that catalyst or no, the point is the same. It would require legislation.