§ Q2. Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position on Rhodesia.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)I have nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on 19th January.—[Vol. 739, c. 648.]
§ Mr. WinnickCould the Prime Minister tell us when it is likely that there will be a progress report on the effects of United Nations mandatory sanctions? After all the time he has been involved in this particular question of Rhodesia and looking back over the last two and a half years, does he feel that if the Conservative Opposition had played straight on the issue it would have been easier to have ended U.D.I.?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the first point, my hon. Friend will be aware, of course, that a report is due on the functioning of sanctions, I think, next month at the United Nations. With regard to the second question, certainly the confusion among hon. Members opposite has not helped in these matters, but I think the problems are too deep-seated and we are dealing with men who are far too intransigent for this to have been the issue. It is, of course, a fact that in Mr. Smith's mind—and he was only too ready to accept what he was repeatedly told in the period after the "Tiger" talks—the Labour Government would be out in three months and the Conservatives would be there to give him what he wanted.
§ Mr. LubbockWhat is the latest position regarding the bank notes manufactured in Germany for the illegal régime? Do powers exist to prevent the export of those notes to Rhodesia?
§ The Prime MinisterI think this is subject to appeal and is sub judice and I ought not to make any comment on it.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithIs the Prime Minister aware of the genuine and continuing doubt felt among many lawyers as to the basis and validity of the Government's reference of this matter to the United Nations and the consequential action under Chapter VII, which has not been dispelled by the statement of the Lord Chancellor in another place? Will he therefore take steps to see if an advisory opinion cannot be considered from the International Court?
§ The Prime MinisterI am aware that some lawyers, including the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), take those views. I shall certainly inform the Lord Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman does not agree with him, but for my part I accept the authority of the Lord Chancellor in this matter.
§ Mr. HeathThe Prime Minister will have seen the most recent speech by Mr. Smith in Salisbury in which he indicated that he and his colleagues were considering moving towards an entirely fresh constitution for Rhodesia, that some aspects of this constitution indicate a movement towards apartheid, which would be most undesirable, and that this only confirms the fears which so many of us on this side of the House have held for a long time. May I put this question to the Prime Minister? In these circumstances, is he prepared to allow the general situation to go on developing without taking any action of any kind whatever and only waiting for the report of U Thant at the United Nations?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with the right hon. Gentleman in expressing concern about the move to apartheid and also the hints of a republic, but it was not this side of the House which voted to support the rejection of the "Tiger" agreement by Mr. Smith when we all now know that Mr. Smith wanted the "Tiger" agreement and was over-ridden by the very extremists who were encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. HeathThe Prime Minister may go on trying to deceive the rest of the world about what—[Interruption.] All he 764 is doing is succeeding in deceiving himself. Will the Prime Minister now address himself to the question and give the House a serious answer?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not deceive myself about the right hon. Gentleman's vote. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will reply to the right hon. Gentleman's preamble first and then reply to his question. I do not deceive myself about the right hon. Gentleman's vote, which is on the record in this House, and which he could have avoided by an honest Amendment to our Motion.
As to the second question, the right hon. Gentleman will know that it is no good at all entering into discussions with Mr. Smith on this question, if that is what he is suggesting, because we did have discussions with Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith wanted to carry them out. He actually, as I have told the House, had a majority in his Cabinet half-way through the discussions, but the extremists took over. We are not going to negotiate with those extremists.
§ Q4. Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Prime Minister what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the submission to Parliament of any settlement with Rhodesia which involves independence before majority rule.
§ The Prime MinisterThe position is as set out in the Answers I gave to Questions on 20th December.—[Vol. 738, c. 1175.]
§ Sir J. Langford-HoltIs it right to say that the conditions laid down in paragraph 10 of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué refers to an illegal régime? Would the Prime Minister make quite clear what are the conditions under which a return to legality is possible? Is it a return to the 1961 Constitution—nothing more and nothing less?
§ The Prime MinisterI have answered this question on previous occasions. The answer to the first part of the Question is that paragraph 10 of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué, both (a) and (b), is now in force. With regard to a return to constitutionality and an ending of the illegal régime, they could go back immediately to the 1961 Constitution and we could negotiate from there. This has been made clear in previous answers.
§ Mr. MolloyWill my right hon. Friend now consider calling a conference with other African leaders, in view of the serious situation and the whole question of Rhodesia, which is now a world matter and not merely a British matter?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not sure if my hon. Friend means a conference of African leaders in Rhodesia. I dealt with that question in answer to Questions the other day. If he is referring to African Commonwealth leaders, this matter was discussed very fully and at great length as recently as September. We are in the closest touch with other Commonwealth Prime Ministers, both in Africa and more widely.
§ Mr. MaudlingThe Prime Minister was prepared a few weeks ago to contemplate independence before majority rule. Is it a fact that he is now not prepared to contemplate independence before majority rule under any Government whatsoever in Rhodesia?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I made that perfectly plain in my statement on 20th December. After a very hard fight with the Commonwealth, when the whole future of the Commonwealth was at stake, we secured their reluctant agreement to three months more to try to get an agreement with Mr. Smith and his colleagues or anyone else in Rhodesia, because my right hon. Friend met sections of all opinion there. This was wantonly rejected by the Rhodesians after they had every chance, on the basis of proposals which many people would have felt went a very long way on our behalf. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too far."] Many, including many Commonwealth leaders, would have felt they went too far. We went to the limit in trying to reach an agreement. We had exhausted the three months. I was not prepared to go on seeing the risk of the Commonwealth being destroyed for a bunch of racialists in Rhodesia.
§ Mr. MaudlingDoes that mean that, whoever might be the Government of Rhodesia, the terms from now on are unconditional surrender?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman, most unusually, is talking nonsense here. There is no question of unconditional surrender. The only surrender we are asking for is the 766 surrender of an illegal rebellion. That is what we are asking for. We asked for it on the "Tiger" and offered some very attractive terms, in some ways more attractive than the Conservative Government's 1961 Constitution, which the Conservative Government rightly said was never a basis for independence. We went to great lengths to secure a package which would have meant the end of a rebellion. They decided that their rebellion was more important than an agreement.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeDid not the Prime Minister say just now that he would not concede independence to any Government before majority rule?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman must have studied many times, because he has made important speeches on this, the statement of the Commonwealth Conference which on 20th December I said was in force. That statement said that we would not commend to the House proposals which would involve independence for Rhodesia ahead of majority rule. I said that on 20th December. [HON. MEMBERS: "Any Government?"] Certainly any Government—independence for Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman knew this perfectly well on 20th December. I remember his comments at the time. So far as that is concerned, the Rhodesian people, a legal Rhodesian Government, could enjoy all the very extensive degree of self-government that they had had before independence, but they chose rebellion as their course and they rejected the idea of deserting that rebellion. At the end of the day rebellion was more important than independence.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister realise, as apparently right hon. Members opposite fail to realise, that, if a legal Government were formed in Rhodesia, we should expect that Government to act legally?
§ The Prime MinisterYes. The very basis of a return to legality would mean that we would then be dealing with a legal Government in Rhodesia. The difference between this side of the House and the other side of the House is that we draw a sharp distinction between legality and illegality, as my right hon. Friend does. We should be able to 767 negotiate with them, I hope, to get improvements in the Constitution—improvements, I hope, to take account of some of the "Tiger" proposals. We would be prepared to discuss easements that they might feel helpful. But Rhodesia chose independence and rebellion, and right hon. Members opposite backed them in their choice.
§ Mr. HeathLeaving aside the Prime Minister's last ridiculous sentence, is the Prime Minister really saying that, if there were to be a moderate Government in Rhodesia who accepted the constitutional proposals worked out on the "Tiger", with suitable interim arrangements, he would not then be prepared to go back to the Commonwealth and see whether independence could be granted before African majority rule? Is that what he is really saying?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman really must not work himself up into a rage on something—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which he has known to be the position since 20th December and which he has known would be the position from the Commonwealth communiqué. Indeed, he made an appeal to the Rhodesian people to reject the Commonwealth communiqué and he got his answer. He can now be landed with the answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered his question three times this afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman does not understand it, I will tell him again. The position is, as I said on 20th December, that we have now withdrawn any suggestion that we can commend to the House independence ahead of majority rule for Rhodesia. We said it in September. They had three months. We said it in December, against the right hon. Gentleman. We have been saying it ever since, and some day the right hon. Gentleman will realise what it means.
§ Mr. HeathI put this direct question to the Prime Minister, because I believe that it is of immense importance. If there is a moderate Government coming to power in Rhodesia who are prepared to accept the constitution worked out on the "Tiger", with suitable interim arrangements, will the Prime Minister then go back to the Commonwealth and ask them whether it is possible to arrange for 768 independence before African majority rule?
§ The Prime MinisterWhile the right hon. Gentleman's definition of a moderate Government may be different from mine, he has correctly stated the position. We are operating the agreement made by the Commonwealth. If the right hon. Gentleman would now start to use his influence to get a moderate Government accepted —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I have answered the question. If the right hon. Gentleman, for a change, would now encourage the forces of moderation, if a new situation were created, of course we would discuss it at the next Commonwealth Conference. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Of course we would discuss the situation, as we always shall be discussing the Rhodesian situation, at the next Commonwealth Conference. But we are bound by the agreement with the Commonwealth, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should now help to get a moderate Government and stop[Interruption.]—by his votes and by his speeches supporting the extremists who rejected moderation.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot argue by noise.