§ 17. Mr. G. M. Thomsonasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultations he has had with the Government of Southern Rhodesia regarding their sending accredited diplomatic representatives to foreign countries.
§ Mr. SandysIn the years before the Federation, the Government of Southern Rhodesia appointed representatives in Britain and South Africa. Since the dissolution of the Federation, they have, again appointed representatives in these two countries.
§ Mr. ThomsonIs the Secretary of State aware that my information is that they also have a diplomatic representative in the United States of America? Is it not a fact that the control of foreign policy in Southern Rhodesia is reserved to Her Majesty's Government here and that these diplomatic representatives are in fact unconstitutional? In view of the difference in attitude on some crucial international problems, would it not be worth while consulting the Government of Southern Rhodesia to get this matter on to a proper constitutional basis?
§ Mr. SandysThe diplomatic representative in Washington cannot be regarded as a representative of Southern
* [Note See OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1964, col. 853.]642 Rhodesia. He is part of the staff of the British Ambassador, in the same way as there was a member appointed by the Federal Government in the years before the dissolution of the Federation. The Government of Southern Rhodesia are in fact doing no more than they were entitled to do before the formation of the Federation.
§ Mr. ThomsonCan the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Southern Rhodesian on the staff of the British Embassy in Washington is responsible to the Foreign Secretary here, or has responsibility to the Southern Rhodesian Government in Salisbury? If the latter is correct, is not that unconstitutional?
§ Mr. SandysIt is unusual.