§ Q5. Sir C. Taylorasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent developments in Rhodesia.
§ Q13. Mr. Hastingsasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer hon. Members to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and myself in the debate on 27th March and to the Answer given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to a Question by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home).—[Vol. 761, c. 1545 and 1662. Vol. 763, c. 232]
§ Sir C. TaylorDoes not the Prime Minister agree that the instructions given by the Government to Lord Caradon at the United Nations will further irritate the many reasonable people in Rhodesia who still hope for an honourable settlement?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, I do not agree at all. That point was dealt with yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at Question Time. What I cannot understand is that hon. Members who have complained that we were bearing the whole burden of sanctions now complain when we propose that it should be extended to other people and we should all work to make them successful; and still less can I 482 understand it when right hon. Gentlemen and the party opposite have made clear their support of the sanctions policy.
§ Mr. HastingsReferring to the Foreign Secretary's statement yesterday, will the Prime Minister make clear who is to report on the political affiliations and loyalties of British people in Rhodesia? Is the residual mission now to be reduced to spying on British passport holders? If not, who will report on them?
§ The Prime MinisterThere is abundant evidence on the breaking of sanctions and public statements made by these people. There is no question of spying. My right hon. Friend stated yesterday what the position would be. It is intolerable that people who, nominally British citizens, are actively aiding illegality should come and go as they choose between this country and Rhodesia. That is the reason, or one of the reasons, for the action we have taken.
§ Mr. John LeeWith regard to those who are actively aiding illegality, will my right hon. Friend instruct the Attorney-General to take proceedings against any such when they are within our jurisdiction?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend must be singularly unaware of the constitutional position of the Attorney-General, who acts in a quasi-judicial position in these matters and is not subject—nor have any of his predecessors ever been—to instructions either from the Prime Minister or from other political authority.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonIs it not sad that, when Mr. Ian Smith has publicly taken a stand against racialism—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonIs it not sad that when Mr. Ian Smith has publicly taken a stand against racialism, which he did in his recent speech on the subject, and when the Constitutional Commission has rejected apartheid, the Government should propose vindictive measures at the United Nations which can serve only to give fresh impetus to white extremism in Rhodesia?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is clear that in this House there are very different standards on how "racialist" is to be interpreted. So far as Mr. Smith and those in control in Rhodesia are concerned, the test is not what they say about apartheid or anything else. It is a question of whether they, or for that matter the Constitutional Commission, accept the six principles and give effect to them. So far, as I have made clear to the House, they have been moving further and further away from honouring the six principles. That is one of the difficulties we have had.
§ Mr. PagetHow does my right hon. Friend propose to exclude United Kingdom citizens from this Kingdom? Is he aware that conduct displeasing to the Government is not an answer to a writ of habeas corpus, and that this would require legislation removing from the subject not only rights conferred by law but rights conferred by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
§ The Prime MinisterI am surprised that so warm a supporter of the régime in Rhodesia can even talk about the Declaration of Human Rights. In the context of this question, my hon. and learned Friend is talking about people who are acting illegally and supporting an illegal régime which no one in the House should be supporting.
§ Mr. MaudlingThe Prime Minister's hon. and learned Friend was talking about the law and putting very definite questions. Why will not the Prime Minister answer them?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. and learned Friend was referring first to the Declaration of Human Rights. I gave my answer to that. Second, so far as the law is concerned, Rhodesia is in a state of illegality. It is our duty to deal with that by every civilised means within our power.
§ Mr. WoodburnCan my right hon. Friend say whether Her Majesty's Government have done anything to prevent Mr. Smith's régime from taking reasonable steps to bring Africans to a state where they are fit to play a part in the Government? What is stopping Mr. Smith from introducing all the demo- 484 cratic conditions that he claims he believes in?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, nothing at all. So far from preventing him from doing this, we offered, as did our predecessors, very substantial aid to help with an educational programme that would enable more Africans to qualify for the vote. He made it plain in reply, as did some of his colleagues, that if speeding education meant leading to more people having the vote he would slow it up.
§ Mr. SandysIf the Prime Minister is not prepared to resume negotiations with Mr. Smith, will he say what he considers will be the useful purpose of imposing additional sanctions?
§ The Prime MinisterThis was explained at very great length by my right hon. Friend and myself in the debate. We all understand and regret the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman could not be here to hear what we said. The position is that the régime, particularly those members of it with whom we could never negotiate after their actions of the past few weeks, have moved further away from the "Tiger" proposals. We have said that we are prepared, given a substantial change of circumstances to justify our going back to our Commonwealth colleagues, to negotiate with those in Rhodesia who are prepared to accept the six principles and the spirit of the "Tiger" agreement. This still remains our position, but so far there have been no signs to justify the opening of such negotiations.
§ Mr. ThorpeMay I revert to the question about United Kingdom citizens in Rhodesia. We opposed the Government's measures to exclude United Kingdom citizens from Kenya who wish to come to this country, exercising their rights of citizenship. Surely in logic United Kingdom citizens in Rhodesia should equally be allowed to come to this country, but if they are in rebellion does not it follow that as a matter of law they must be prepared to face the legal consequences of their rebellion?
§ The Prime MinisterThis is not so much a question of individual citizens. The House as a whole approved the policy of sanctions, and we are trying to make 485 it more effective. This includes the virtual outlawing of those who support the régime and those who travel abroad for the sake of breaking sanctions. We think that this is necessary to make the sanctions work. It will now obviously be a long haul, but I do not think that anyone in the House could justify our going back on the course we set ourselves or entering into a position of surrender to illegality and some extremely grave actions committed by the régime, which were condemned by the whole House a few weeks ago.
§ Mr. HeathIf the resolution is passed by the Security Council, do the Government propose to introduce legislation to change the law?
§ The Prime MinisterThere is no intention of changing the law—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I think that there will be Orders placed before the House. At this moment I am not in a position to say exactly what they will be.
§ The Prime MinisterBecause we have tabled a resolution in the United Nations which is still subject to discussion. [Interruption.] We have thought out very carefully what it means and spent a lot of time on it, but I am not in a position to say what it means in terms of legislation. The House will see the legislation when it gets it. What hon. Gentlemen opposite fail to realise is the very great problems and difficulties we faced and my noble Friend faced in New York with the very strong pressures from our fellow Commonwealth countries, which feel very strongly about this question of human rights, whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite feel, and also the condemnation of virtually the whole of mankind. For ourselves to have put forward this much more moderate resolution is something which hon. Gentlemen at least should support.
§ Sir C. TaylorOn a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory reply and the resolution tabled at the United Nations by the Government, I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment of the House at the earliest opportunity.