§ Q2. Mr. David Steelasked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that he will not grant independence to Rhodesia so long as the government of that country remains under the control of a white minority; and whether he will permit the illegal régime to negotiate the future constitutional basis upon which there will be a return to constitutional government.
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have repeatedly made clear, independence will not be granted to Rhodesia except on a basis which is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole; and negotiations for a settlement must take place with a constitutional government in Rhodesia.
§ Mr. SteelDoes the Prime Minister recognise that the five principles, drafted, as they were, before U.D.I., and as an attempt to avert U.D.I., are vague and imprecise, and can he say whether he still stands by the letter he wrote to Dr. Mutasa on 2nd October, 1964, stating that the Labour Party is totally opposed to granting independence to Rhodesia so long as the Government of that country remained under the control of a white minority?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, I have answered many questions on the letter to Dr. Mutasa, and I have since met Dr. Mutasa in Rhodesia and discussed this question with him. The position of 1877 Her Majesty's Government is exactly as stated—and repeatedly stated—in the White Paper on the Rhodesian negotiations, and although the five principles may be in general terms, the whole purpose of our discussions before U.D.I. and of the present talks is to see that they are very categorically defined and agreed.
§ Mr. WinnickWould not the Prime Minister agree that South Africa is playing a very sinister rôle in helping the illegal régime in Rhodesia to defeat the policy of sanctions, and can the Prime Minister tell us what action he proposes to take by way of talks to prevent the South African régime in this sinister rôle they play?
§ The Prime MinisterThis does not arise out of the Question, so far as I can see. We have debated the position of South Africa, and while it is certainly true that South Africa has not accepted the principle of boycott, it is not making emergency arrangements, to help Rhodesia and is allowing only normal trade to continue.
§ Mr. Evelyn KingWhatever alternative to the Rhodesian policy may exist, in so far as the policy of sanctions is directed to influencing European opinion in Africa, is it not clear that it has now totally failed? It is not influencing them. But is costing the British balance of payments something of the order of £100 million a year. How long are we to continue a policy which is both failing and expensive?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I remind the hon. Gentleman that long supplementary questions leave less time for others.
§ The Prime MinisterThe enthusiasm of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) for dealing with the Rhodesian problem has never been very well marked, and I have no doubt that he would like to feel that the sanctions policy has failed. It has not up to this time led the European electorate to cause any constitutional changes, but it is having a very deep effect on the economy and on the illegal régime.
With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, he may like to take a little time in the Recess to work out what would be the effect on our balance of payments—which has been affected, of course, by 1878 the higher copper prices—if we were to try to sell out to the illegal régime, an action which would be unacceptable to the rest of Africa.
§ Q3. Mr. David Steelasked the Prime Minister whether there will be a period of direct British rule in Rhodesia following the ending of the present illegal régime.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 25th January last, and to the Answer I gave on 8th August to a supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
§ Mr. SteelCan the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on that section of the Lagos communiqué which referred to the Prime Ministers' accepting Her Majesty's Government's statements that a period of direct rule would be needed? How long does he envisage that this period would last, and to what purpose would it be put?
§ The Prime MinisterI stated this fully in my statement to the House on 25th January last after the conference. I said that it would never be intended to have direct rule from Westminster and that what we had in mind was rule by the Governor. I said that it might be minutes or hours, days or weeks, depending on how long it would take to negotiate an adequate settlement with a constitutional Government.
§ Mr. John LeeIs my right hon. Friend aware that a period of direct rule would be valuable as a form of education and preparation of the people of Rhodesia, bearing in mind that the present racialist gangsters have denied the people a proper period of preparation?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that I could best help towards a solution and a settlement by going further than I did on Monday when I stated that talks were being resumed. I expressed concern then about certain developments, Mr. Smith's speech and the treatment of the university, and it would not help towards a settlement if I were to go further.
§ Mr. MaudlingDoes not the Prime Minister agree that the constant use of the phrase "direct rule" makes the 1879 chances of an agreeable solution very much more remote?
§ The Prime MinisterIn referring to what I said on 25th January, I pointed out that it was not intended to have direct rule from Whitehall. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not suggest that we could negotiate any settlement with the illegal régime and that there need not be a return to constitutional government under the Governor.