§ Q11. Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister if he will convene a special meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers to discuss further action to end the illegal regime in Rhodesia.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave on 21st November to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan).—[Vol. 754, c. 1135.]
§ Mr. PavittIn view of the fact that a compromise settlement which might leave power resting effectively with Mr. Ian 627 Smith and the Rhodesian Front would be totally unacceptable to most hon. Members on this side of the House, would my right hon. Friend reconsider this point, since it would be shown to be altering our strategy, and a special meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers for this purpose might make an effective change in the progress we should make?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that what my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary said on the issues involved here was largely acceptable to the House on Tuesday—indeed, both sides of the House—but I am not certain at this stage that a Commonwealth Conference would take matters further. At the last Commonwealth Conference we did, after all, spend a disproportionate amount of time on Rhodesia to the prejudice of other issues which ought to have been considered.
§ Mr. MaudlingDid not the right hon. Gentleman say on 7th December that it was agreed with Salisbury that there should be no public discussion of the particular issues involved? How does he reconcile this agreement with the Secretary of State's statement on Tuesday?
§ The Prime MinisterReally, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Last week hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that Front Bench were pressing for a statement. They agreed to wait, to be patient; and they were very patient, considering the time since my right hon. Friend's return. But we had to make it clear to Mr. Smith that the House was anxious to know what had happened in those talks, and when Mr. Smith was giving a completely distorted account, saying there was no real difference between us, it was about time to inform the House, and to tell him we were going to do so.
§ Mr. MaudlingWas there or was there not an agreement with Salisbury not to discuss, them? If, as the Prime Minister said on 7th December, there was an agreement, did he break that agreement, or did he tell Mr. Smith?
§ The Prime MinisterNo. There was an agreement not to do it without consultation. There was consultation before 628 the statement was made by my right hon. Friend. We informed Mr. Smith we were going to tell the House of Commons. I really think that the concern of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite for an illegal régime—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—to have the right to tell us whether we can make a statement in what is a legal House of Commons goes beyond anything they have done. I think we showed great restraint in not denouncing right away what Mr. Smith said instead of taking some time to consider it and then informing the House of Commons as soon as we could do so.