§ Q1. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will give further details of his proposal for an Act of Union with Rhodesia.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 20th December to a 241 Question by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Sir W. Teeling).—[Vol. 738, c. 293–4.]
§ Mr. MartenDid the proposals mean seriously that an elected Member from a multi-racial society in Rhodesia would have equal voting rights in this House to those of any other hon. Member here? Secondly, could the Prime Minister say why a great constitutional matter like this was not mentioned in this House before it was mentioned on television?
§ The Prime MinisterThis was, in fact, mentioned originally in September on my right hon. Friend's visit, when the House was not sitting. It was just put to Mr. Smith on the basis, of course, that if we were to pursue the matter further—and it was one of a number of possible constitutional proposals—we would only be empowered to make such an offer if it had the agreement of all parties in this House.
On the first part of the Question, the position so far as I have worked it out—it would have meant discussions in this House—would have been rather similar to the position obtaining in Northern Ireland.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamIn dropping his idea of an Act of Union, why should it have been right to reach agreement on independence for Rhodesia on the basis of discussions on H.M.S. "Tiger", and yet now impossible and apparently wrong to reach any such agreement for independence except on the basis of one man, one vote?
§ The Prime MinisterWe debated this fully just before Christmas. I remember the decision of the House, and I remember the support of the hon. Gentleman and others for the Rhodesian authorities in rejecting the "Tiger" agreement. It has become clear that, despite Mr. Smith's evident wish and, for a long time, his success in carrying his colleagues with him, he was overthrown by those extremists whom the hon. Gentleman and others opposite have been so active in supporting.
§ Mr. MaudlingReverting to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), why was this very important constitutional matter omitted from the Prime Minister's state- 242 ment in the House on 5th December and reserved for his television broadcast next day?
§ The Prime MinisterIt was not reserved for the television broadcast the following day. The House will realise the circumstances of 5th December. I was dictating that statement, and the House was kept waiting. I did not have time to prepare as full a statement as I should have liked. I would have been very happy to make it to the House, and should have done so.
§ Dr. GrayHas my right hon. Friend initiated discussions with African leaders regarding the constitutional proposals which he has just mentioned and which he mooted in conversations with Mr. Smith?
§ The Prime MinisterThis was mooted to Mr. Smith by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary during his visit in September. It was rejected by Mr. Smith at that time and not pursued further. On H.M.S. "Tiger" I suggested to Mr. Smith—and he raised no objection to i—that, following the "Tiger" discussions, leaders of the African parties in Rhodesia should be invited to London for discussions with them as well.