§ Q2. Mr. Murrayasked the Prime Minister whether he will seek to arrange a special conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, in view of the Rhodesian situation.
§ The Prime MinisterThere are no present plans for such a meeting.
§ Mr. MurrayIn thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he does not think that in the present serious circumstances, with the grave threat to Commonwealth unity, he might consider, if not a full conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, meeting some of the African Commonwealth Prime Ministers, if necessary at somewhere like Nairobi?
§ The Prime MinisterThis has, of course, been considered, but we are in close touch with other Commonwealth Heads of Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is in Lusaka and hopes to have the opportunity to meet other African leaders on his way back from Lusaka.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonDoes not the proposal that Sir Robert Menzies should visit Rhodesia show that the Prime Minister fully realises that Commonwealth statesmen can play a part in this situation? Despite his reply, will the Prime Minister still consider the possibility that at the right moment Commonwealth statesmen, whether Privy Councillors or some other suitable delegation, should go to Rhodesia to see what common grounds can be found?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir, I feel that the Commonwealth has a special responsibility here. As the Leader of the Opposition said last week, our aim must be to get Rhodesia not only constitutionally but fully established within the Commonwealth. I am, however, bound to say that all my efforts last year to get the situation handled on a Commonwealth basis were rejected by the then Rhodesian Government. Mr. Smith would not agree to a Commonwealth mission. He would not agree at any point to a mission of Commonwealth Privy Councillors. He flatly rejected every proposal for a mission of Privy 1632 Councillors, even from the British House of Commons.
§ Mr. HeathAs, I think the Prime Minister will agree, Mr. Smith agreed that Sir Robert Menzies should go to Rhodesia, could he not pursue the matter further by suggesting that Sir Robert Menzies might approach both President Kaunda and Mr. Smith to see whether it is possible for any arrangement to be made for safeguarding Kariba which would be satisfactory to both?
§ The Prime MinisterSir Robert Menzies was not willing to go to Rhodesia on his own as a special guest of the then Rhodesian Government. He was prepared to head a delegation of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I think that he is rather too senior a Commonwealth Prime Minister to be told whom he can and cannot take with him if he goes to Rhodesia. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition is not now suggesting that one of the most senior Commonwealth Prime Ministers should enter into negotiations with Mr. Smith.
§ Mr. HeathWhat I am suggesting is that if there are genuine doubts in the minds of the Prime Minister and of President Kaunda about the safety of Kariba, even after the assurances given by Mr. Smith in writing to President Kaunda on 22nd October, it is better to try to get a solution of this kind through a Commonwealth country rather than take unnecessary risks.
§ The Prime MinisterWe shall do anything within our power to ensure that no risks are taken with Kariba. If there is any possibility of a Commonwealth mission going to Rhodesia to talk to the legal Government of Rhodesia, and to anyone whom they think would help, that is a different matter. I should not, however, want to suggest to Sir Robert Menzies that he should enter into negotiations with illegal authorities.
§ Q6. Sir Richard Glynasked the Prime Minister what criteria he employed in selecting documents for inclusion in Command Paper No. 2807; and if he will place in the Library copies of all official documents mentioned in that Paper but not printed in it.
§ The Prime MinisterThe test of direct relevance to the negotiations, Sir. I will 1633 however consider whether any or all of the other documents mentioned, but not published, in Command 2807 might not also be made available to the House.
§ Sir Richard GlynWill the Prime Minister agree that a practical step towards resolving the Rhodesian tragedy would be for him to publish in the Library the full text of his letter to Mr. Mutasa, which is referred to repeatedly in Command 2807? Is he aware that many Rhodesians believe sincerely that in this letter he gave a firm pledge to coloured Rhodesians never to grant independence to the late Smith Government in any circumstances, and for that reason some of them believe that the negotiations on this side were not conducted fully and in good faith? Will he allay that belief by publishing the full text of the letter?
§ The Prime MinisterI will certainly consider that. I am not aware that Mr. Smith or anyone else in Rhodesia had the suspicion mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Mr. Smith repeatedly said that I was negotiating in good faith, as I understood him to be doing. I have made crystal clear many times, not only to those with whom I was negotiating but in my national speech in Rhodesia to the Press and television, exactly what our position was about independence and about majority rule.
§ Q9. Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on oil sanctions against Southern Africa.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to my statement of 23rd November.
§ Mr. WallWould not the Prime Minister agree that oil sanctions could be effective only if imposed on the whole of Southern Africa, and would he not further agree that this flight of fancy would be more logical than the mean and inhuman act in cutting off pensions to those who spent their lives in the service of the State merely because they live in Rhodesia?
§ The Prime MinisterThe difficulties of oil sanctions I have admitted very plainly to the House. We are certainly not rushing into this thing until we are satisfied about their effectiveness as well as fairness. Since the hon. Gentleman has mentioned pensions, the position is that we are at the present time going into the question of what action can be 1634 taken where humanitarian considerations are involved and where there is hardship caused, so that those concerned can get an advance on pensions being held in their names.
§ Mr. Michael FootCan the Prime Minister indicate to the House when the study of the feasibility of oil sanctions will be complete and when he thinks that he will be able to make a statement to the House about it?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is difficult to put a date on this. There are a number of countries involved. As I said yesterday, I suggest that it is not only a question of the supplying countries, nor again countries who are responsible for prominent oil supplying companies and also the countries responsible for the ships. There are very great complications and, so far as that is concerned, I do not know how long it will take.
§ Mr. HeathIs the Prime Minister aware that the statement he has just made about payment of pensions in Rhodesia is entirely contrary to the statement that he made yesterday and contrary to what the Financial Secretary, I understand, said last night? Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome this change, but why is it necessary to issue a statement as horrible as yesterday afternoon's——
§ Mr. William HamiltonOn a point of order—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am being addressed on a point of order.
§ Mr. HamiltonSurely the Question we are now discussing relates to oil sanctions against South Africa? The question of pensions seems to me to be entirely out of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has said anything out of order yet.
§ Mr. RankinOn a point of order. Is my right hon. Friend answering with this Question the Question which stands in my name, No. 14?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. That is not a point of order.
§ Mr. RankinIt deals with pensions——
§ Mr. HeathWhy was it necessary for the Prime Minister to make his statement yesterday, which he skipped over without giving the full implications to the House, and then withdraw it today?
§ The Prime MinisterI am withdrawing nothing and I skipped over nothing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the right hon. Gentleman could not understand what I was saying yesterday, that was his fault. Details have been published and the right hon. Gentleman, who all the time is trying to find some point of difference—[Interruption.]—and has been doing so ever since he came under attack from Lord Salisbury at Brighton, had better decide—does he support the policy of the Government? If not, let him put down a Motion of censure, provided that he is prepared to abide by the consequences.
§ Mr. HeathIs the Prime Minister aware that, from the Front Bench on this side of the House, we have given him general support throughout the negotiations and the policy which was carried out? This does not preclude the Opposition from rightful grounds of criticism such as his statement yesterday, which disguised the fact that pensions would not be paid and which he is now withdrawing.
§ The Prime MinisterMy statement yesterday referred to remittances—all remittances. My statement today—[Interruption.]—the right hon. Gentleman was rightly very concerned with other things yesterday and he directed his attention to them. He said that he would want time to study the economic and financial measures. We understood that and were ready for him to come back on this point. I said that it was fair that there should be two points of view about it. We have been concerned all along not to go on supplying sterling to the Smith régime and this is what we are stopping, but if there are humanitarian cases of hardship, we are trying to work out whether, through the mechanism of the Government of Rhodesia—the Governor—or in other ways, we can provide financial assistance in those cases.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am beginning to think that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. William Hamilton) was right——
§ Mr. William HamiltonThat is right.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. —that even the protagonists in this duel must not stretch the rules of order and develop a reference to pensions in a supplementary to a Question on oil. They must find other opportunities of debating pensions.
§ Mr. OrmeWould my right hon. Friend bear in mind that when oil sanctions are applied against Rhodesia, they will have the unanimous support of these benches and if, by the implementation of oil sanctions, it means an embargo and a blockade of the ports, that, too, will get our support? Has the Prime Minister noted the report this morning about the French position on oil and would he make a statement about that?
§ The Prime MinisterThe unanimous support from these benches will not include me until I am satisfied that such an oil sanction is workable and would be effective.
§ Mr. SpeakerNow that we have got back to oil, we can end the Prime Minister's Questions.