HC Deb 28 November 1963 vol 685 cc467-9
Q2. Mr. Stonehouse

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Deputy Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.

Q5. Mr. Wall

asked the Prime Minister what specific terms for the independence of Southern Rhodesia were discussed during his meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia.

The Prime Minister

Mr. Smith's talks with other Ministers and myself covered a number of matters arising out of the dissolution of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland including the question of independence for Southern Rhodesia. I regret that I cannot go into details since the discussions were of course confidential.

Mr. Stonehouse

When the Prime Minister told Mr. Smith that he believed in majority rule, did he say that it was majority rule of all electors, majority rule of those who had reached the fourth form or majority rule of those who have an income of over £200 a year? Or did he, without qualification or equivocation, say that he believed in majority rule of all men irrespective?

The Prime Minister

I do not know how the hon. Member knows what I said to Mr. Smith, because, as I have said, the conversations were confidential and private. What I said to the House the other day was that, as a general principle, we believe in the recognition of the majority right to rule and the protection of minorities, and I think that is generally acceptable.

Mr. Wall

Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is absurd to try to define democracy as one-man-one-vote if, as happens in certain African countries, a vote can be cast only for one man and one party? Would he agree that the Constitution produced last year for Southern Rhodesia was presented to the electors of the country as an independence Constitution?

The Prime Minister

I think there is no doubt that the Southern Rhodesian franchise is one in accordance with the principle of majority rule. The issue is one of pace.

Mr. H. Wilson

While not agreeing with the last remark of the Prime Minister because we had a bitter fight on that Constitution and still regard it as fundamentally undemocratic, may I ask whether he recalls that in the debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech we pressed him very hard for a clear assurance about this and that despite past disagreements his answer on that occasion, and more particularly the answer of the Colonial Secretary the following Friday making it clear that independence would not be granted until there was a really democratic Constitution, and further the statement of the Colonial Secretary that he regarded this as a matter for Commonwealth consultation, is something we very much welcome. If that is to be the policy there can be agreement on both sides of the House on what the Government are doing.

The Prime Minister

All these matters are matters for negotiation between my right hon. Friend and the Southern Rhodesian Government. I hope that we shall be able to arrive at an agreement with Southern Rhodesia acceptable to both sides of the House.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Should we not remember that Southern Rhodesia now has a multi-racial Constitution which received the consent of the principal African nationalist leaders at the time it was introduced? Should we not also remember that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia has attended Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences for many years more than many of the Commonwealth countries have existed? Will my right hon. Friend give earnest consideration to the claims of Southern Rhodesia to independence at an early date?

The Prime Minister

It is very important that when Southern Rhodesia gets independence it should be generally acceptable to the Commonwealth. I think I must rest on that statement.