§ Q3. Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on his official correspondence with Mr. Ian Smith.
§ Q8. Mr. Hastingsasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Rhodesian negotiations.
§ The Prime MinisterI have had no such correspondence, Sir, and, as hon. Members well know, there are no negotiations. As for the visit of Sir Morrice James to Salisbury I would refer hon. 1296 Members to the Answer I gave on Tuesday last to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys).
§ Mr. WallIs there a time limit to the current talks, and, if so, when does it expire? Would the right hon. Gentleman also say clearly what is causing the real difficulty—the provisions of an independence Constitution or what he has termed "a return to constitutional rule"?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is not a question of what I termed it—it is a question of constitutional rule. I should have thought that the hon. Member would understand that the present régime is totally illegal and that it must return to constitutional rule. I have some difficulty, despite the extraordinary statement from the Rhodesian soi-disant Minister of Information about censorship, in going back on the assurance which my right hon. Friend gave at this stage, about making public the progress of the talks and of the exchanges, but I will go as far as I can.
In answer to the hon. Member's question, both matters are of importance. As I stressed in the House the other day, although I believe that it is possible to find the means of reaching a satisfactory and honourable return to constitutional rule—honourable to all concerned—there can be no agreement, obviously, unless the principles laid down by successive Governments are accepted, and, in particular, if anyone demands a braking method to hold back progress to constitutional rule, on which right hon. Gentlemen opposite know there can be no agreement.
§ Mr. HastingsWill the right hon. Gentleman lose no opportunity of impressing on the House and the country the appalling risks now of failure? Does he realise that, pending mandatory sanctions, the South African economy is on a war footing and that manufacturers have been warned against ordering capital goods either from this country or from the United States? In these circumstances, would it not be criminal folly to allow these negotiations or talks—whatever the right hon. Gentleman likes to call them—to founder over the question of legalities, or obsessive concern with legalities, rather than with 1297 the constitutional question, which means the future of the peoples of Rhodesia, which should come first?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that the last few words of the hon. Gentleman show at what level we should rank his contribution. If these talks founder, they will founder because those in Rhodesia will not accept the implementation of principles laid down by the previous Government and by this Government, which at any rate they have said that they accept——
§ Sir F. BennettThey do not trust you.
§ The Prime MinisterIf the hon. Gentleman wants to throw remarks of that kind about, many of us can confirm that the Rhodesians said that if they had been dealing with this Government all along and not with certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite, there might have been agreement. I am quoting from Mr. Smith whom some hon. Members opposite regard as the authority on these matters. That is what he said and I have quoted it in the House before and I said in the House and I said to Mr. Smith that I thought that it was unfair, assuring him that we do not approach these questions quite in the spirit of the hon. Members opposite——
§ Mr. SandysWe don't need to be defended by you.
§ The Prime MinisterSo far as the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) is concerned, his actions up to 16th October, 1964, need no defence; since then, his actions are incapable of defence. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Question Time is going.
§ Mr. WhitakerWill my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, in view of the recent history of Rhodesia and the fact that Mr. Smith broke solemn guarantees which he gave both to Her Majesty's Government and to the Governor of Rhodesia, many hon. Members are convinced that it would be wrong to give Rhodesia independence until majority rule is an accomplished fact?
§ The Prime MinisterI am well aware of many of the reasons why we should proceed with the utmost caution and this 1298 is what we have done. There have been broken pledges—[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—not by us. There were broken pledges before U.D.I. U.D.I. itself was a totally illegal act and we have recently had the further provocation of the proposed changes in criminal jurisdiction and in the powers of detention. All these, of course, are reasons why we must proceed with the utmost caution, but it has been the view of the Government all along not to follow the advice of my hon. Friend, but to say that if we can get full and guaranteed implementation of the six principles, we could proceed to discuss it again.