SOUTHERN RHODESIA (UNITED NATIONS SANCTIONS) ORDER

HC Deb 15 July 1968 vol 768 cc1177-213

10.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson)

I beg to move, That the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1020), dated 28th June 1968, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved. This Order in Council is, apart from some necessary technical changes, in the same terms as the Order which was passed in this House by a majority of 76 on 17th June and rejected by a majority of nine in another place. Its reintro-duction in its present form is essential so that Her Majesty's Government remain in a position to carry out their international obligation without interruption.

The contents of the Order were fully explained in the debate on 17th June, and I hope that it will be to the convenience of the House if I take up no more of the time of hon. Members at this stage. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, 1 shall be glad to reply to any points raised when I wind up the debate. I ask the House to approve the Order.

Mr. Speaker

I remind the House that this debate can last only one hour and 30 minutes.

10.15 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home (Kinross and West Perthshire)

The changes made in the new Order compared with that which came before us a short time ago are no doubt sufficient to meet the Parliamentary rules, but as the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs has said, it has not materially altered the substance of the previous proposals. The Order defines the actions which the British Government propose to take in response to the requirements of the mandatory clauses of the United Nations resolution applying sanctions to Rhodesia. In our opinion, they add up to a complete boycott of investment, trade and contacts between people. Therefore, it is idle to pretend that they are not designed to force a political settlement by breaking the Rhodesian economy. It is to that aspect of sanctions that we on this side of the House have consistently objected, and therefore we shall vote against this Order, as we voted against the last.

If we persevere in the debate, it is for two reasons. First, from time to time we have succeeded in our debates in modifying certain injustices. Second, we still have our eye on the main chance— [Interruption]—perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite will allow me to say, the main chance of achieving a negotiated settlement.

Under the first heading of modifying injustices, there now exists—and this would not have happened but for our debates, to which all parties contributed —the Advisory Committee on Passports under Mr. Justice Cairns, which reviews cases of passports already refused under the Government policy of 1966, and re-examines the cases in which the Commonwealth Secretary has given his decision. The approach can be made either by the individual or the right hon. Gentleman himself. I have a letter from the Commonwealth Secretary dealing with an individual case with which I shall not bother the House. I understand that as a result of our debate dual passport holders are no longer required to make a declaration of political intent when they apply for a passport. That is a complete vindication of our previous debates and an example of how, all hon. Members having contributed to this, the Executive can be influenced by debates in the House.

The passport system and its operation are complicated by the United Nations resolution. There is no doubt of that, for otherwise we should not have had the case the other day of the Cape Coloured teacher, Mr. Jack Jenkins, who was refused a passport. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can say how such a mistake can occur. Does it occur because there is confusion over what I have previously described as a black list?

One cannot pursue the passport matter, except as it is related to the Order, but another casualty of the resolution, and therefore to some extent of the Order, is Zambia. I called attention to this in our last debate. She is not exempted from applying the resolution in full. The Prime Minister said in the House on an earlier occasion that the resolution specially recognised Zambia and other land-locked countries. The implication was that in some way the sanctions could be avoided, but that is not so. It is true that the resolution provides for special assistance to Zambia and other land-locked countries, but the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that it cannot begin to touch Zambia's financial problems, such as that of the revenues earned by the disposal of her copper by means of the transport routes through Rhodesia. Therefore, there is only one answer for Zambia, and that is to go on trading through Rhodesia. What becomes of the sanctions policy when there is the large hole of South Africa, and Zambia and other countries, in order to keep themselves alive and their economies going concerns, are compelled to go on trading?

Again—and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would give his attention to this—what is the position now of British businessmen who are connected with companies operating in Rhodesia? My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has had certain correspondence on this matter and he has given me leave to quote from a letter which the right hon. Gentleman wrote to him: Taking the example used in your letter, if he"— the businessman— imports raw materials for the purposes of his business (or, as a director, manager or secretary of a company, assists in or connives at such importation) he will be guilty of an offence against the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that there is nothing in the Order to stop businesses sending members of their staff from this country to take up positions with their Rhodesian subsidiaries". In other words, the chairman of a company can send staff out to run the business in Rhodesia but, if they try to import the materials on which the business runs or if they try to export the product which the business manufactures and thus could keep itself alive, they are guilty of an offence. Can the right hon. Gentleman clarify this further? It would be the product of a mad-house and really laughable if it was not so serious, because this attaches a penalty now under the law.

Therefore, what is a business to do? [Interruption.] We must have clarification when a businessman is in danger of breaking the law. Apparently a businessman can freely send people out to Rhodesia to manage and run a business, but the moment he imports materials on which the factory's life depends he is guilty of an offence under the law. If that is so, let the right hon. Gentleman confirm it. But I can only repeat that this would be the politics of a mad-house and would be laughable.

Finally, I turn to what I have described as the main chance in which we are interested. There have been certain political developments in Rhodesia. They could, and I think they should, lead to renewed contact between the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Smith. It is notoriously difficult to measure the internal political stresses in another country. It is bad enough here, but to try to do it in any other country is even more difficult. But there have been— and this is a serious point—significant and deep-running differences between, for example, Mr. Harper and Mr. Smith. I cannot tell whether Mr. Smith has now definitely concluded that he and his Cabinet would support a blocking quarter of African votes so that the Africans have unimpeded access to a common rôle with the European, access that cannot be eroded. That is the distilled essence of the matter; that is what the real dispute between Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Smith's Administration is about.

However, I am sure that Mr. Smith is in complete control of his party. There is new evidence of that today. He has quarrelled with a leading member of his Government and that member has had to leave the Government. There must, therefore, be a considerable difference between Mr. Smith and that member. Therefore, I think the time is now ripe for the right hon. Gentleman to take time by the forelock and find out whether Mr. Smith is now ready to approach a new agreement with the right hon. Gentleman and Her Majesty's Government based broadly on the "Tiger" approach and on the proposals which I brought back from Mr. Smith to the Prime Minister not very long ago—[Interruption.]

Mr. John Lee (Reading)

Will the right hon. Gentleman now disclose the contents of those proposals?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

I have already explained that if there is to be a successful negotiation it is better that the terms should not be disclosed piecemeal. If the right hon. Gentleman can use those proposals—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Noise, from either side, is not argument.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

If the right hon. Gentleman can use those proposals at some future time, well and good. I think that now there may be a new opportunity to get back to a settlement something on the lines of "Tiger". Some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite did not like that settlement. I thought that it was fair. The right hon. Gentleman should cease to pursue the sterile and negative policies which have been a feature of the Government's approach during the last few months and should have another try at negotiation.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South)

As I listened to the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), I felt a deep misgiving about the line which he has taken. I remember that three years ago the party opposite, by its speeches and its votes, was committed to the policy of sanctions. It seems to me that since then the Smith Administration—it cannot be called a Government—has moved far along the road towards apartheid. Yet as I listened this evening to the right hon. Gentleman, it seemed to me that his party had abandoned sanctions and had reverted to its traditional rôle of appeasing racialist dictators. That is plainly what Mr. Smith and his colleagues have become.

By giving their encouragement and support to those dangerous men, the Opposition are proving very poor friends to the European settlers in Rhodesia. The Europeans there are now faced by a double threat, which grows more serious every day. There is the threat of which the word "insurgency" is used. I need not say that I deplore the use of armed force in any international or inter-racial dispute if there is any hope whatever of a peaceful settlement. But we are this year celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to the principles of which all parties and all Governments in this country have been committed since 1948. A week or two ago, the Leader of the Opposition went to make a speech across the road to celebrate this anniversary.

The third paragraph of the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads as follows: … it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law". The point I am making is that that Declaration, to which everybody is committed, comes very near to recognising a human right of armed revolt. The exercise of the right has often proved to be mistaken.

Perhaps the freedom fighters in Rhodesia are mistaken, but the grim fact is that the human rights of Africans in Rhodesia have been savagely repressed and the result, the foreseeable result, the result foreseen in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has been that the freedom fighters have taken up arms. Let no hon. Member underestimate the menace of the freedom fighters—

Mr. Speaker

Order. With respect, we cannot discuss the freedom fighters on the Order, which is concerned with certain specific sanctions.

Mr. Noel-Baker

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, my argument is that the danger of bloodshed in Rhodesia is so great unless economic sanctions succeed that it is vital that this House, this Government and this nation should do everything in their power to make the economic sanctions succeed.

If I may finish what I have to say-it is only one more word—about the question of insurgency and freedom fighters, it is that unless I am misinformed, the freedom fighters have begun to secure the support of the African population of Rhodesia. Let hon. Members read the article in the Guardian this morning, and study the map which shows the territories which are now held permanently by the freedom fighters and the places where actions with the freedom fighters have taken place.

I remember the last words spoken to me by Field Marshal Smuts, when I had the honour to hold the office of Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. It was a few months after his defeat in his last general election, and the Nationalists had begun their drive towards apartheid. He said to me, as I left him, "If they go on like this it will end in bloodshed, and if there is bloodshed it will not be the blacks who will leave Africa." This is the fact which faces the Europeans in Rhodesia today.

That is why I argue that the best hope of avoiding bloodshed is to make the United Nations economic sanctions so effective that the Smith régime comes crashing down. The party opposite, eager for appeasement, suspicious of international institutions, constantly repeats that sanctions have been tried and failed. I reply that only now are real sanctions beginning to be applied. I wish that total mandatory sanctions which are now in force had been applied in 1965. I believe that the whole matter might have been liquidated long ago.

But even the partial sanctions, tardily adopted, have produced a very great effect. In June, U Thant gave us some figures based on reports which he had had from the Governments who had been consulted. He gave the figures of Rhodesian exports and imports in 1967, when he compared them with the figures for 1965. In 1965, before sanctions took effect, exports from Rhodesia were £137 million. Last year, they were £16 million, a cut of £121 million—more than 80 per cent. In 1965, imports into Rhodesia were £77.8 million. In 1967, they were £22 million, a cut of 70 per cent. So heavy was the loss of the Rhodesian farmers on the tobacco market that last year the United States exported £35 million worth more of tobacco than they had done before. The farmers are those who are suffering the worst. And, in consequence, there is facing Mr. Smith the very grave problem of the African unemployed.

The Financial Times last week had an article which said that, if present trends continued, within a period of time, the unemployment problem would amount to ½ million Africans for whom Mr. Smith could find no work. The businessmen are beginning to be very anxious. In April, the Financial Times printed an article which had the headline, "No anxiety about sanctions". Last week its article had the headline, "Rhodesia's winter of discontent". Let hon. Members read that article and see how, item after item, on the short-term and the long-term prospects, the businessmen now are feeling anxiety about the future.

Sanctions have not failed. Even partial sanctions have produced a great effect. I believe that the Government should persevere, and that if they pursue the policy of securing other Governments' help they will in the end, perhaps not so very far hence, bring Smith down. I would urge on the House and on right hon. and hon. Members opposite that they should listen to their former colleague, Lord Alport, who came back and reported not long ago: "I know it's no use talking to Smith". Sanctions must succeed, and I trust that the Government will persevere in their present course.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

Let us be clear about one thing, and that is why we are having this debate. It is because the Tory peers, egged on by the Tory Front Bench in this Chamber were led to vote against the previous Order, which was supported by the vast majority of the people—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is the place where we hear quietly things with which we disagree.

Mr. Lubbock

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maud-ling) declined to answer when I asked him last time we debated this matter whether the Tory Front Bench had put the Tory peers up to vote against the Order. I can only deduce from his silence that that was the case, and that all that has happened in the last few weeks is the result of a secret meeting— [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will come to this Order.

Mr. Lubbock

I was saying that the reason why this Order is being debated at all this evening is because of the action of the Tory peers, and this is a despicable manoeuvre on the part of the Tory Party which the Leader of the Opposition, although he may now giggle and smirk on the Front Bench, will live to regret.

Neither on the last occasion nor on this has the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said what the Tory alternative policy is. It has been spelled out precisely in many debates what policies this country might follow. We could either continue the present sanctions, which have been proved, I think that it will be admitted on both sides, ineffective; we could intervene with military force in Rhodesia, as the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) would probably like—

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Smethwick)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Lubbock

—we could capitulate to the racialist régime, or we can have the present Order.

What I should like to ask the Tories is to say plainly to the people before the end of this debate what they would like. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) would give in to the illegal régime tomorrow, but I always understood that this was not the official Conservative view. When, in past debates we have discussed sanctions, the Tories have gone with the Government to the extent that these measures had to be taken to bring Smith to his senses. They have altered their tune under pressure from their Right wing. I ask the Leader of the Opposition whether he will condescend to make it plain to the House what his policy is today, because the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire has not told us that tonight—[Interruption.]

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. When hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to intervene, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) must decide whether or not he will give way.

Mr. Lubbock

I have decided, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition wishes to intervene—[Interruption.] I am not fussy— or the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire or the right hon. Member for Barnet, I shall be happy to give way—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We will now come back to the Order, I think.

Mr. Lubbock

We will come back to the debate, which is really about what is the real policy of the Tory Party. The right hon. Gentleman has said this evening that he has an eye to the main chance, but if he thinks that what he has said represents the majority opinion in the country he is grossly mistaken. The people will not be held up to ransom by a small racist clique—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Chair wants to hear the debate. Mr. Lubbock.

Mr. Lubbock

—a small racist clique of individuals such as Mr. Harper, who, I am glad to see, has now been dismissed. But let not the right hon. Gentleman delude himself into thinking that because of the dismissal of Mr. Harper the Rhodesian régime has suddenly become a group of people with whom we can properly negotiate. This is only the beginning of the road if Mr. Smith really wishes to show an earnest of his intentions. He could long ago have introduced a constitution based on the six principles. If Mr. Smith had done that we would have been in a position, as the right hon. Gentleman says we are, to begin negotiations today, but I am not convinced, and I do not think that anyone who has studied the ques-tion can be convinced, that merely because of the dismissal of Mr. Harper Mr. Smith has put himself into a position in which we can discuss alternatives—

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Lubbock

No, I have already said that I will not give way.

The right hon. Gentleman may shed crocodile tears, as he did on the last occasion. He is not concerned about the Zambian people, or his hon. Friends would not have opposed aid to the people of Zambia. He knows perfectly well that in the United Nations resolution, for which I am proud that this country voted, we have provided for increased aid to Zambia, not only by Great Britain but all those who want to bring the Smith régime down.

Mr. Sandys (Streatham)

How many are going to give aid?

Mr. Lubbock

If the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) wishes to intervene, I will give way to him. I was hoping that later he would give us the benefit of his opinion.

Mr. Faulds

He has not prepared a statement. Give him time.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are wandering away from the debate into personalities. Mr. Lubbock.

Mr. Lubbock

I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Speaker, but these little pinpricks do not worry me at all. The right hon. Gentleman is free to intervene any time he likes.

I should like the Conservative Party to make its position plain on where it stands on aid to Zambia. I heard hon. Members of the Opposition say that they do not wish to increase aid to Zambia to help her to improve her position.

Mr. Sandys rose—

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Sandys.

Mr. Sandys

The hon. Member asks about aid to Zambia. In my view we ought to give no aid to Zambia so long as they take part in organising and tolerating and condoning infiltration of murderers and saboteurs into Rhodesia.

Mr. Lubbock

The right hon. Gentleman's intervention is most instructive, I am glad that I gave way to him, because he has put to the House a point of view exactly opposite to that of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, whose judgment I more respect on this issue.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

On a point of order. The hon. Member so far has made quite a long speech without one reference to the Order or any part of it. Is that in order?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls). He must, however, leave the Chair to decide what is in order. Mr. Lubbock.

Mr. Lubbock

The views of the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire on aid to Zambia are infinitely preferable to those of the right hon. Member for Streatham. If we are to make sanctions effective, aid to Zambia has to be increased. It cannot come from Great Britain alone; she must be supported in this task by those other members of the United Nations who have voted for and supported us on the resolution presented there.

I have said what I want to say, and I conclude by asking right hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative Party to state clearly, before we end the debate, what is their policy. I sat through and listened carefully to the debate on the last occasion and at the end of it I was as much at a loss to know their views as I had been at the beginning. The only purpose of this, the second debate on precisely the same Order, is for the people of this country to know what the Tory Party believes on this issue

10.46 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

This Motion is the result of a reference to the United Nations which I believed to be so wrong that I resigned the Whip in order to vote against it. It is an Order presented to us by the Government, but not because it is their policy. Indeed they confess that they do not like a good deal of it. We are asked to accept it because they put themselves into a position in which they had to accept policies from somebody else.

Clause 13 contains a statement which is construed—and was put there so that it could be construed—by the Afro-Asians as support of the United Nations for violence and murder. That is why Clause 13 was put there. It was put there in sufficiently ambiguous terms so that we could say that it did not mean that, while they could say that it did mean that. I do not think that that is a happy position for us to find ourselves in. I was opposed to this because I believe it to be illegal and a misuse of the United Nations—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The clause to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers is not in the Order which we are discussing. He must come to the sanctions dealt with in the Order.

Mr. Paget

It is in the United Nations resolution.

Mr. Speaker

We are not debating the United Nations resolution. We are debating the sanctions which the hon. Member has before him.

Mr. Paget

With great respect, in introducing the Order on the last occasion the Minister said that it would implement a resolution of the United Nations. Surely that entitles me to look at that resolution, which is all that I want to do.

I oppose the Order because it implements a resolution of the United Nations which I believe to be illegal and most injurious to the United Nations. In support of that belief, I quote Mr. Dean Acheson, Secretary of State to Mr. Roosevelt, and Mr. Truman, and one of the founding fathers of the United Nations. He was one of the three men fundamentally responsible for the Charter and he is probably the most distinguished living international lawyer. He said: The central issue involved in the assault by the United Nations and the United Kingdom against Rhodesia is a patent illegality despite a layer of bland sanctimony. In my opinion, that sums the position up accurately.

It is illegal for a large number of reasons. First, it is illegal because it was not supported by the concurring votes of the permanent members—which was not only a requirement in the original Charter, but a requirement reconfirmed by amendment of Article XXIII as late as 1953. It is illegal because either this is a colonial rebellion, in which case it is excluded from the responsibility of the United Nations by Chapter 2(7)— after all, the United Nations is not a Holy Alliance whereby colonial Powers band themselves together to repress colonial rebellion; that was not the idea of Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Stalin—or it is an international dispute, and it is only in an international dispute that the United Nations has jurisdiction. That involves the recognition of Rhodesia as being an independent non-member State. Only on those conditions has it any jurisdiction and then a right of hearing is required by Article XXXII before action is taken.

Again, when one comes to the threat of international peace, which again is the foundation for this, what is the threat? The domestic policy of Rhodesia is not acceptable to some of its neighbours. These are precisely the grounds which Hitler gave for Czechoslovakia and Poland being invaded. When, on television the other night, it was proposed to call evidence to support the United Nations respect for law, the only evidence came from a man whose experience was with war crimes trials where the victors sat in judgment on the vanquished for a crime whose first ingredient was being on the losing side.

I also object because I believe that this use of the United Nations is entirely mischievous. In a speech which I made in the House more than 20 years ago I pointed out that the position was not the position of the League of Nations where the many were much stronger and there could have been effective coercion if the many had stuck together. That was never the position under the United Nations. Great nuclear Powers emerged from the war and no majority could coerce and, therefore, the United Nations was organised really as the secretariat of a great-Power concert to make the decisions of the great Powers compulsory as far as the rest of the world was concerned. This depended on the veto, because unless there was great-Power concert there was nothing on which it could act.

Mr. Stanley Henig (Lancaster)

On a point of order. I understood that we were discussing the implementation of an Order against Southern Rhodesia. The hon. and learned Member is giving his interpretation of what the United Nations is about. If it is in order for him to do that, will it be in order later for others to put him right on what this is really all about?

Mr. Speaker

I recognise the threat in the hon. Member's point of order. We are discussing sanctions, and I have already suggested that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) might come to the Order.

Mr. Paget

I was concluding by saying that this departure from the veto is represented by this officious and impotent meddling, which is what we are doing here. We have this agreement. The Afro-Asians wanted war so long as somebody else fought it, and they wanted action against South Africa—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The war we are talking about is sanctions. The hon. and learned Member must address himself to the sanctions.

Mr. Paget

I shall endeavour to do so, Mr. Speaker.

When the House originally, I think most mistakenly, consented to sanctions, we were told that their object was to promote negotiations. All other objects were excluded. Now the pretence that they are to promote negotiations has been abandoned. The next thing was that they were to promote a return to legality or to topple Smith. Whatever else they may succeed in doing, it is not that. Instead, we are resorting to a petulant attempt to punish where we cannot correct.

It is the black Africans of Rhodesia who suffer primarily. As my right hon. Friend has pointed out, this will mean perhaps half a million African unemployed, and for an African on a subsistence diet unemployment and famine come very close together. That is what we are seeking to do in this attack on the economy. But the Rhodesian economy will unquestionably remain viable, though perhaps at a lower level. The idea of areas being held by infiltration fighters is the most utter nonsense. The Rhodesians' power to maintain order is underwritten by South Africa. They have the full might of South Africa behind them in that.

The cost to our balance of payments continues. For three years I have been able to tell the House with complete accuracy what the effect of our actions was in Rhodesia, and what would happen there. I read in the New Statesman an article by Mr. Hatch of quite astonishing nonsense, in which he said that these increased sanctions have led to this dismissal of Mr. Harper. That is exactly the opposite to the truth. There is a split in Rhodesia: Mr. Smith and his friends still value the British connection and want a link here, and Mr. Harper and his friends want a republic and a close link with South Africa.

That is the issue, and by everything we do that makes the link with Britain seem less attractive, by everything we do that makes it less likely that terms with Britain, which Mr. Smith wants, are available, by that much we weaken his position and strengthen Mr. Harper's. That is really the reason why all this time Smith has had to move to the right, to demand more and more, because we have steadily been making the link with Britain less and less attractive.

Now we come to a situation in which Mr. Smith has been able to take action against Mr. Harper. That is not because of strengthened sanctions. It is the reverse; it is because the Rhodesians, rightly or wrongly, have taken the House of Lords vote as a commitment by the Conservative Party to recognise Rhodesia and come to terms. That action made it appear in Rhodesia, probably rightly, that the link with Britain and terms with Britain would be available. They at least take the view, possibly rightly, possibly wrongly, that Mr. Smith is far more likely to remain a Prime Minister two years hence than the present Prime Minister of Britain.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is too much interruption from the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends.

Mr. Paget

The hon. Gentleman shouts "Shame". Does he really believe that the Rhodesians do not think that Mr. Smith is likely to last longer than—

Mr. Faulds

What office did you want?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) must learn to behave in the House. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that this debate is for an hour and a half; he has had one-sixth of that time.

Mr. Faulds

On a point of order. I had never understood, Sir, that in this House manners were more important than opinions. I do not apologise for my manners, and I have every intention of stating what I feel in the House.

Mr. Speaker

This is an interesting confession of faith. It has nothing to do with the rules of the House.

Mr. Paget

The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) asked me what office I wanted. I am very glad I did not get it. But let us leave that aside and come back to the debate.

The real tragedy is that the United Nations has been diverted to this matter and, because it is in this state, nobody even suggests that it might do something about Czechoslovakia where there is a real threat to peace. It is irrelevant there. We know that the Russians would tell the Security Council where to put it.

Again, we have the tragedy of Nigeria; massacre and slaughter on a Hitlerian scale. There we have the power. We could open Port Harcourt. A marine commando could establish and impose a cease-fire. This tragedy could be stopped, it is within our power, and it is something which we could do which would be of value. Instead, we simply divert ourselves and the United Nations to upset an economy, when we cannot upset a régime; we make its government more difficult when we have no alternative government, no means of government, no change that we can establish. It is a shocking policy and a shocking mess in which to find the United Nations.

11.4 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth)

At the beginning of this year I spent a few days in Rhodesia, and hon. Members may like to hear what the ordinary people in Rhodesia will think of the Order. The test for them and for this House should be simply this: will the Order help to bring peace, or not? If it helps to bring understanding and a peaceful settlement, then I would support it, but because I think that it will do the opposite—and I will tell hon. Members why I think it will do the opposite—I will vote against it.

I believe that the Order will fail in the objective the Prime Minister has set out to achieve, and that the ordinary Rhodesian people to whom I talked will never surrender or negotiate under duress, and this is duress. The Rhodesians said to me at great length that they were the same breed as we are ourselves and, just as we would not submit to the horrors of Hitler, they will not submit to the horrors we want to impose on them. They are not prepared to be browbeaten by sanctions any more than we were prepared to be brow-beaten by Hitler. For this reason I am convinced that these additional sanctions will make a settlement more difficult, if not impossible, and I think the policy is wrong.

The Prime Minister's policy, I remind hon. Members opposite, is that he hopes to produce or induce a more moderate element in Rhodesia that would accept his policy either inside the Smith régime or as an alternative to it. These sanctions will make it impossible for a more moderate element to take charge of affairs in Rhodesia and, therefore, to co-operate with the Commonwealth Secretary and the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister says—and his hon. Friends support him—that Mr. Smith is the prisoner of his own Right-wing extremists. They said to me in Rhodesia that our Prime Minister is the prisoner of his own Left-wing extremists, and it is those members who are trying to make the Prime Minister stick narrowly to the Nibma policy that makes a settlement all the more difficult. This is why this Order is such a tragedy.

The tobacco farmers who are suffering greatly and feeling sanctions severely —I stayed for a weekend on a tobacco farm—said they believed that at the very best the British Government were prepared to risk imposing a second Mau Mau upon them or at the worst to turn their country into a second Congo. [Interruption.] I am reporting to the House what was said to me out there, what people really believe. [An HON. MEMBER: "What did the coloured people say?"] Because they genuinely believe this I am convinced that the ordinary moderate decent people in Rhodesia will never submit to these sanctions and this Order. That is why I think it is such a tragedy that the Government are trying to impose this on them.

I make a practical suggestion. I saw many of the business and trade people, and most of the Ministers, too.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me?

Sir C. Osborne

No. I promised to take only five minutes.

Mr. Mendelson rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) is not giving way.

Sir C. Osborne

Not in five minutes.

Mr. Mendelson rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Louth is not giving way.

Sir C. Osborne

The Rhodesian people made this suggestion.

Mr. Mendelson rose—

Sir C. Osborne

For God's sake, sit down man.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston-upon-Hull, North) On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you had sat down, was that the sort of reference to be made to you?

Mr. Speaker

Sir Cyril Osborne.

Sir C. Osborne rose—

An Hon. Member

Go and play with your toys.

Sir C. Osborne

I am trying to report to the House what I discovered, and I thought hon. Members would like to hear it. The majority of Rhodesians have very high regard and respect for the Commonwealth Secretary and he is a man they would trust. The Rhodesians suggested to me that if only he could go out there again with the Lord Chancellor, who also created a great impression out there, there would be a chance—I believe there is still—of a settlement.

I cannot believe that any one on either side of the House would prefer war to peace, but there will be no peace through this Order. It is because I believe this so deeply that I beg the Government not to force this through but to have one more look at the situation and try to secure a peaceful settlement, and it is because of that that I feel compelled to vote against the Order.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd (Portsmouth, West)

I find myself among those who give a cautious welcome to this second edition of the Statutory Instrument. The real tragedy to many of us must be that Instruments of this kind were not introduced immediately after U.D.I. I believe that we have to look at the Instrument in the context of the U.N. resolution, the provisions of which it is intended to make effective. On the one hand, I am certain that we can welcome the speedy response on the mandatory clauses of the resolution. On the other, I am certain that we all share some misgivings about the ambiguities in the Government's position towards those clauses urging positive action in support of the liberation movement and freedom struggle of Southern Africa.

I believe that there are two weaknesses in the international background to this Order. In the first place, there is to be no independent international investigatory machinery and, in the second place, there is to be no international enforcement machinery. When we embark upon the quite expensive operation involved in this Instrument, I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure us that, if enforcement action becomes necessary, the Government are willing to contemplate appropriate ways in which it can be undertaken.

The next point on which I believe we need some reassurance is what the action of the Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Secretaries will be if there is a deliberate attempt by the Governments of South Africa and Portugal to undermine the provisions of the resolution. But while it may be one thing to say that, at this stage, we cannot envisage a headlong confrontation in economic terms with South Africa, it is another thing to say, as is being said by some members of the Government, that we hold as one of our highest priorities the expansion of trade with South Africa. There seems to be a contradiction here which is essentially relevant to this Instrument.

There are two other specific weaknesses in the Instrument. First, it is well known that businessmen in Britain not infrequently pay visits to Rhodesia without their passports being stamped. Why is it that the Government have felt unable to recommend that, save on humanitarian grounds or grounds of emergency, visits to Rhodesia should be prohibited unless undertaken with prior Governmental approval? Next, we should like to know why the Government have felt unable at this stage, when trying to bring home the gravity of the situation, to undertake action in terms of an embargo on postal and telecommunications?

The next point on which we should like some comment from my right hon. Friend concerns our attitude towards Zambia as the consequences of this new measure become known, because no country has paid a higher price for the international action following U.D.I. than Zambia. We are frequently told that £24 million has already been subscribed by Britain towards Zambia, but this is not good enough because the distortion of the Zambian economy continues and we have a lasting obligation to Zambia.

The next point in relation to Zambia is that, at this juncture, as international action is intensified, she becomes still more vulnerable in defence terms, and if we really mean business in the context of the Instrument we should be told what the Government intend to do in fulfilling our defence commitments to Zambia as well.

The real value of the Instrument is that, even if it does not secure the immediate downfall of the régime in Rhodesia, it will deny it the fruits of victory and will thereby help to keep the issue alive. The significance of the measures being taken is that they will enable the freedom struggle on the spot to continue. There are some extraordinary misconceptions in the House about the freedom struggle. There should be no illusions about the freedom fighters. Freedom fighting has obviously come to stay It is obviously going to pass into the leadership of increasingly militant people. The failure by this House and this country to demonstrate beyond doubt our commitment to the interests of the majority in Southern Africa will ensure that the situation deteriorates into an ugly racial confrontation with untold cost in terms of human suffering.

11.16 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett (Torquay)

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I managed to catch your eye in the first debate after U.D.I. was declared. I remember that on that occasion I condemned, as I still condemn, U.D.I. as being both wrong and foolish. At the same time, I then said that in my view sanctions in Rhodesia, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) said a few moments ago, would be more likely to prevent a political settlement than to attain one. All I would say is that it is worth considering now who has been proved right in that proposition.

As I understand it, having listened to every debate on this subject, the position of the Government is that even after what has taken place, it is still the duty of this Parliament to continue to enforce sanctions even though, in the words of Ministers in the past, it is admitted that they are bound in the first place, and probably in the second place, to hurt innocent people. This was confirmed by the Secretary of State. We all know that it is always the poorer sections of the community who get hurt first, whereas the better-off White Rhodesians can, in the present boom conditions in South Africa, always manage to get alternative means of improving their economic position.

We are told that even though we are bound to hurt innocent people it is still our job to keep on enforcing these sanctions. We are told that it is right to continue enforcing the sanctions even though they are very expensive to our balance of payments at this critical time in our economic history. The reason, we are told, is that this is such a great moral issue that it transcends all other matters, including our balance of payments.

I have never been convinced by this argument since the Prime Minister said that this great moral issue could not be extended to cover the case of an economic confrontation with Portugal or South Africa. A great moral issue which can be measured in terms of hard currency that one needs to earn hardly amounts to a great moral issue at all. There is no great moral issue involved if we say that we can afford to have a battle with Rhodesia but not if it means real damage to our economy through confrontation with South Africa or with Portugal.

We are told that we must support these sanctions even though they have been proved ineffective so far in obtaining a political settlement. The Secretary of State himself—I do not say that he was trapped—was frank enough to say recently that, so far, they had had the effect of strengthening the régime in Salisbury and not weakening it. We are told that even though it has not proved successful up to now in attaining a political settlement, nevertheless, we must go blindly along this path.

I wish to put three alternative propositions to the Government. First, in any form of retaliation or sanctions we should be guided by the fact that if they are going to hurt anybody, they should be calculated to hurt the régime in Salisbury and not the people. Second, we should have due regard to our economic position, our balance of payments and the realities of the situation. Third, our efforts in the matter of sanctions—or of ending them—should not hinder a negotiated settlement. Those are the three propositions.

Are not those three conditions exactly, almost in his own words, what the right hon. Gentleman told the people of Gibraltar when he was last on the Rock, when they recently asked for retaliation against Spain? That, word for word, is what he told the people of Gibraltar— that the policies should hurt the Spanish Government, but not the Spanish people; that they should have due regard to our economic position, because we could not afford an economic fight with Spain over a moral issue; and, thirdly, that they should not stand in the way of a negotiated political settlement with Spain.

Perhaps we can be told tonight why one set of rules applies in one case, but not in the other. How many more months and years are we to go on with this sterile policy which is not getting us anywhere? Is the Secretary of State to come here again in one, two, three, or four years, if the Government are still in office, and tell us that all he has to say is that we must go on with the sanctions because we have nothing else? Is there no point at which the Government will realise that this policy has failed and review it fundamentally and from start to finish?

11.21 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard (Barons Court)

Like the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett), I have listened to and taken part in most of the debates on Rhodesia since the days of U.D.I. in 1965. Going back to those debates, it is distressing to see the movement in the views of the Conservative Party. I hope that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) will accept it from me that I say this with no great pleasure and that it is most distressing to men of good will on both sides of the House and outside it to see either of the two great parties of State giving in to its extremists. The Conservative Party has given in to its extremists, and the right hon. Gentleman was put up to try to justify an unjustifiable case.

What did we get from the right hon. Gentleman as opposed to what we have had from his so-called supporters? There has been no disavowal from the Conservative Front Bench of the whole policy of sanctions, nothing resembling what the hon. Member for Torquay has said, that they have been against sanctions since 1965, that the policy has totally failed and should be scrapped. We have had none of that exercise.

First, the right hon. Gentleman patted himself on the back for persuading the Government slightly to amend their policy on passports and, secondly, he shed a few crocodile tears about Zambia, and I found that extraordinarily distasteful. Thirdly, he said that, in view of the slight political change which has taken place in Salisbury, there should be a fresh attempt at negotiation.

That is what the Front Bench has said, but that is not what the back benchers have said and it is high time in the interests not only of the House of Commons, but of the country and the whole world, that the Conservative Party made crystal clear where it stands. Over the weekend, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said, I believe, that the Conservative Party had to be led from the centre. Whether it has to be led from the left, from the centre, or from the right, it is time that it was led.

There are three simple questions which we all have to ask about this Order. The first is whether the general policy of sanctions which the House and the country have followed since U.D.I. is broadly right. At one stage, the Opposition Front Bench agreed that it was right and there was the famous debate about oil sanctions when the Opposition Front Bench supported the sanctions and when 30 or 40 of the Conservative Right wing went into one Lobby and some of its Left wing went into the other. Is that the position now? Does the Conservative Party still support the general policy of sanctions? Does it believe that the imposition of economic sanctions is the right way to deal with the whole Rhodesia problem?

Until this debate, I had always believed that that was the policy of the Conservative Party. Some of us on this side of the House who, in November, 1965, had the greatest misgivings about whether the policy of economic sanctions was right, nevertheless went along with it. Certainly, having gone along with it at that time, when three years later it looks as though it is now having some economic effect in Rhodesia, this is not the time to go back on it.

Secondly, should we continue that policy? I was interested in one illuminating flash that came from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire when he said that we should make a fresh attempt to negotiate. Why should we make a fresh attempt to negotiate? Because, said the right hon. Gentleman, there has been a change in the political situation in Salisbury.

I ask again: because or in spite of sanctions? Is it because over the period of three to four years the Rhodesian Government, and Mr. Smith in particular, have realised that this country is not prepared to hand over the permanent government of 4 million black Africans to the entrenched white minority rule of 200,000 Europeans? If that has sunk home in Salisbury that might account for the change. If that is the reason, that is a very strong reason not only for continuing with the policy of sanctions, but for trying to intensify it.

The third question is whether, by this Order, we make the general policy of sanctions more or less effective. Obviously, sanctions will be more effective. They will be more effective for two reasons. First, they will apply to a larger quantity of goods, and, secondly, they will be enforced by a larger number of nations. For those two reasons, I believe that this policy of applying mandatory sanctions will make the general economic strains on Rhodesia that much greater. If the policy of sanctions was not going to be effective we would not have had the speeches that we have had from the back benches opposite. If hon. Gentlemen opposite believed that this policy was an ineffective gesture, I do not think that the hon. Member for Torquay would have made the speech that he did. Nor do I believe that some hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would have been howling and giggling as much as they have.

Therefore, I conclude that the three questions that have to be answered are: first, do we accept the general policy; secondly, do we continue with that general policy; and, thirdly, does this Order make that policy more effective? The answer from this side of the House is yes, and it is time the right hon. Gentleman gave a clear answer for his side of the House.

11.27 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)

I had not intended to intervene, but for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker). Who would have thought, 18 months or two years ago, that a former Secretary of State would have almost revelled in the statement that there were 500,000 Africans unemployed and very substantial hardship amongst Rhodesian farmers?

Most of us in this House originally voted for sanctions on the basis that they were not vindictive. We have moved a long way from those days. The Government know perfectly well that the more the incidence of sanctions is screwed down the less enforceable they are and that, if sanctions are not enforceable they achieve at once the worst of every known world. They drive all moderate opinion straight into the arms of the more extreme. If anybody suggests now that the present government of Rhodesia are more moderate than it was in the days of Sir Roy Welensky or Mr. Field, the answer is that it is not. We have heard some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen talking in retrospect as though if Sir Roy Welensky were still in power he would be somewhere to the left of Mr. Gladstone. This is what happens if we go on with sanctions which are not enforceable.

I have never understood the double thinking of the Labour Party about the limitation of power. In other parts of the world—the Far East, the Persian Gulf, and elsewhere—it almost revels in the limitation of power to which it has brought to this country. We have to get out of the Persian Gulf and the Far East by 1970 because we have neither the power to stay nor influence to exert in that part of the world. But in some curious way, in Rhodesia, the Government will not accept any limitation of power. I am all for the six principles— [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in spite of the jeers. There are only two ways of getting the six principles, or anything like them. Either we negotiate about them, or we enforce them. If the Government cannot enforce them, they have to negotiate.

There are some hon. Members opposite who wish to enforce them. Let me say straight away that quite apart from other reasons, logistically any idea of using force is out. It is a complete nonsense. Therefore, if the Government cannot enforce them, they have got to negotiate. The longer they put off negotiations, the more difficult they become and the less likely they are to get what they want.

The sanctions boat is so full of water before it leaves port, and is shipping water so badly, that it is not seaworthy. That is what happens when we have the United Nations mandatory sanctions, which are not enforceable and when half the members of the United Nations are laughing at us behind our backs. I beg right hon. Gentleman opposite to take time by the forelock and negotiate before it is too late and final disaster settles upon them.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. George Thomson

The only comment that I would like to make on the remark of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) that he and his party are all for the six principles is that these days they seem to be all for the six principles in principle so long as they are not asked to put them in any way into practice.

The general issues which have been raised in this short debate about the United Nations and other wider matters were thoroughly thrashed out in the long debate that we had on 17th June. At the end of that debate, the Opposition suffered a decisive defeat in the House and a moral defeat in another place, where all those of both the great independent groups of opinion who voted voted with the Government and against the Conservative Opposition. I therefore want to confine myself, in the few minutes at my disposal, to answering some of the points which have been raised during tonight's debate.

The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), who opened the debate for the Opposition, asked about the position of British firms and their directors in Rhodesia. Perhaps I might put the matter on record since it is, I know, of great concern to many business undertakings. The Rhodesian subsidiaries of British registered companies are within the scope of the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order that we are discussing.

If a subsidiary's activities are among those which are forbidden by the Order, the subsidiary commits an offence, but the directors, whether or not they are resident in Rhodesia, do not necessarily share in the company's criminal liability. They are liable only if they assist in, consent to or connive at that offence or if it is attributable to any neglect on their part.

The right hon. Gentleman quoted from a letter which I had sent to his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and he poked a little gentle fun at some of the terms of that letter, in which I had said that British business men could still travel to Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote the letter fully, and perhaps I might now do so. I said: We are not prohibiting travel to Rhodesia. I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is urging that we should prohibit travel to Rhodesia. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) that we have deliberately kept communications open, because we think that this is important in terms of influencing opinion in Rhodesia and bringing about the settlement which we all seek.

I went on in the letter to say, however, that There is nothing in the Order to stop businesses sending members of their staff from this country to take up positions with their Rhodesian subsidiaries. There are a variety of reasons for sending staff to Rhodesia and many need not, in fact, involve the persons concerned in any sanctions-breaking activity. That was the point which the right hon. Gentleman omitted. But if someone working in Rhodesia contravenes the provisions of our sanctions legislation he will be rendering himself liable to prosecution. I must ask the Opposition whether they support or oppose us on this, because there is no difference of principle in what we are doing from what we have been doing. The position as described above", as I said in my letter to the right hon. Member for Barnet, has, of course, applied for a long time to transactions involving the goods and commodities that were covered by the previous Security Council resolution of 16th November, 1966. What is happening here is that the matter is being applied more extensively, but there is no difference of principle. We carried the Opposition with us in the past, and I do not begin to understand how the Opposition now manage to justify the adoption of their present opposition to the Order.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about the case of Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins, coloured citizens from Rhodesia who arrived in a liner from South Africa a few days ago. He raised once again the bogey: is there a black list? I have tried to be very frank with the House about this and to make the matter as plain as possible. Of course, the situation in which Mr, and Mrs. Jenkins found themselves was that they arrived in this country with travel documents issued by the illegal Rhodesian régime. These come under the United Nations resolution and this Order, but since they started from Rhodesia before the Order was made we allowed them to come into this country, although that is not allowed once the Order is in full operation.

It was then discovered that their legal position was confused because they did not have proper legal entitlement to be considered pre-I.D.I. Rhodesian citizens, and it seemed they might be South African citizens. We provided them with documentation, with certificates of identity, on which they could continue their journey, and resolve their own status when they got back to their own country.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) all raised the special position of Zambia and also that of some of the other countries in a similar situation, and I would like in reply to them, to say that we have always recognised that those countries, Zambia and Botswana and other countries, have a special position, and have done what they can to free themselves from dependence on Rhodesia for goods and services. We have certainly done much to help them, but I know that great difficulty still remains for Zambia and other countries.

That is why the Government suggested, in the course of the discussions in New York, that the difficulties of these landlocked States should be specifically recognised in the United Nations resolution. That proposal did not meet with general approval and we did not press it, but the United Nations Charter, as the House will know, does contain provisions protecting the position of countries like these, and that position, of course, remains.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West raised the question of contingency aid for Zambia, and so did the hon. Member for Orpington. As the House knows, President Kaunda is due to arrive in this country tomorrow for talks with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are very glad to welcome him here, and I am sure that the question of economic sanctions will be an important topic amongst others which will be discussed. For our part, we have given altogether so far £24 million in special contingency aid related to the situation created by I.D.I., and the Zambian Government know that further support of this kind cannot be supplied by the Government in present conditions.

We have, however, a substantial continuing aid programme for Zambia in various other fields such as technical assistance, and we hope that one of the results of the United Nations resolution will be to persuade other members of the United Nations, as the hon. Member for Orpington said, to do what we have been seeking to do during the last two years, and to match the kind of aid which we have given so far.

A number of hon. Members, and especially the right hon. Gentleman, have pointed out that, since we last debated Rhodesia, on 17th June, there has been a good deal of political activity in Salisbury. In particular, there has been the announcement on 4th July of Mr. Harper's resignation. It is still too early to assess the consequences of this resignation, but I think that we should be careful not to rate them too high. The House will know that the Rhodesia Front Party executive has been meeting in Salisbury today and that a large majority has supported Mr. Smith.

We will, of course, watch carefully for any signs of a more liberal attitude on the part of the rôgime. If we had good reason on other grounds to believe that the rôgime were ready to return towards an acceptance of our six principles, then the dismissal of Mr. Harper will help to increase confidence in the prospects for an honourable settlement. But, so far, there has been no sign from Salisbury that Mr. Smith has abandoned his reservations about majority rule, or his belief in the need to retain provisions which would allow retrogressive amendment of the constitution.

Indeed, one can only record that if Mr. Smith is to the left of Mr. Harper there is no evidence that he is to the left of his own Whaley Commission— indeed, rather the contrary. And the Whaley aim of ultimate parity between the races at some unspecified time in the future is patently inconsistent with the six principles that the right hon. Gentleman laid down first of all and that we have carried on. Since 17th June, Mr. Smith has failed to respond either to our suggestion in that debate that he should publish the proposals he made to the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire so that public opinion in both countries could make its own judgment about them, or to the challenge to declare that he was ready to accept a real blocking mechanism.

It is, as it always has been, our object to work for an honourable settlement consistent with our principles and pledges, as soon as the right conditions exist. Though any lessening of extreme Right-wing influence in Salisbury is to be welcomed, we shall need more evidence of the elimination of this influence and more proof that the régime is ready to return to the principles laid down by successive Governments. I can, however, assure the House that once we do see hope of making some real progress we will not be slow to follow it up. Meantime, the best hope, in my view, of making progress is to make an international reality of the new United Nations resolution. The Rhodesian leaders are most likely to be ready for a settlement acceptable to the international community when they become convinced that the alternative is an endless political and economic isolation.

The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) talked about morality. The difference between South Africa and Rhodesia is that we have a direct responsibility for Rhodesia. I do not understand the position of hon. Members opposite on this issue, but if they are not prepared to take their stand with us on the morality of the responsibility for about 93 per cent.—the African population in Rhodesia—let me put British interests to them, because in seeking to turn down this Order tonight they are refusing to face the businessmen and exporters of other countries with the same sort of burdens that they are prepared to see our businessmen continue to carry.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 242.

Division No. 281.]	AYES	[11.42 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Bishop, E. S.	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Albu, Austen	Blackburn, F.	Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Blenkinsop, Arthur	Cant, R. B.
Alldritt, Walter	Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Carmichael, Neil
Allen, Scholefield	Booth, Albert	Carter-Jones, Lewis
Anderson, Donald	Boston, Terence	Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Archer, Peter	Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Chapman, Donald
Armstrong, Ernest	Boyden, James	Coe, Denis
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)	Braddock, Mrs. E. M.	Conian, Bernard
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)	Bradley, Tom	Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Crawshaw, Richard
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Cronin, John
Barnes, Michael	Brown, Rt Hn. George (Belper)	Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Barnett, Joel	Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Bence, Cyril	Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Dalyell, Tam
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Buchan, Norman	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Bidwell, Sydney	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Binns, John	Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechtord)	Parker, John (Dagenham)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Delargy, Hugh	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Pavitt, Laurence
Dell, Edmund	Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)	Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Dempsey, James	Judd, Frank	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Dewar, Donald	Kelley, Richard	Pentland, Norman
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John	Kenyon, Clifford	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Dickens, James	Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)	Perry, George H. (Nottingham S.)
Dobson, Ray	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Prentice, Rt. Mn. R. E.
Doig, Peter	Kerr, Russell (Feltham)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Dunn, James A.	Lawson George	Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Dunnett, Jack	Leadbitter, Ted	Probert, Arthur
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Rankin, John
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Reynolds Rt Hn G. W.
Eadie, Alex	Lee, John (Reading)	Richard, Ivor
Edelman, Maurice	Lester, Miss John	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lever Harold (Cheetham)	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Ellis, John	Lewis' Ron (Carllsle)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire S.)
English, Michael	Lipton, Marcus	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Ennals, David	Lomas Keneth	Robinson,,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Ensor, David	Loughlin, Charles	Robinson,, W.O.J. (Walth'stow,E.)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Luard, Evan	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
FAULDS, ANDREW	Lubbock Eric	Roebuck, Roy
Fernyhough, E.	Alexander W. (York)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Fletcher, Ted (Dartington)	McBride, Neil	Sheldon, Robert
Foley, Maurice	McCann, John	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	MacColl, James	Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)	MacDermot, Niall	Short.Mrs.Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)
Ford, Ben	Macdonald, A. H.	Silkln, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Forrester, John	McGuire, Michael	Silverman, Julius
Fowler, Gerry	McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Skeffington, Arthur
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Mackenzle,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)	Slater, Joseph
Freeson, Reginald	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Small, William
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mackie, John	Snow, Julian
Gardner, Tony	Mackintosh, John P.	Spriggs, Leslie
Ginsburg, David	Maclennan, Robert	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Gourlay, Harry	McNamara, J. Kevin	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Gregory, Arnold	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Grey, Charles (Durham)	Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)	Swain, Thomas
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Manuel, Archie	Swingler, Stephen
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	Marks, Kenneth	Taverne Dick
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)	Marquand, David	Thomas,' Rt. Hn. George
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Maxwell, Robert	Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.	Mayhew, Christopher	Thornton Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Thorpe Rt Hn Jeremy
Hamling, William	Mendeleon, J. J.	Tinn, James
Hannan, William	Mikardo, Ian	Tuck, Rapheal
Harper, Joseph	MilIan, Bruce	Urwin T. W.
Harrison. Walter (Wakefield)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Varley Eric G.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Haseldine, Norman	Mitchell, R. c. (S'th'pton, Test)	Wallace George
Hatterslev, Roy	Molly, William	Watkins, David (Consett)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Moonman, Eric	Watkins Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Heffer, Eric S.	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Weitsman David
Henig, Stanley	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Wellbeloved, James
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Morr,s Charle. R (Openshaw)	Wells, William (Walsall)
Hilton, W. S.	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Whitaker Ben
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)	Moyle, Roland	White, Mrs, Erene
Hootey, Frank	Murray, Albert	Whitlock, William
Horner, John	Neal, Harold	Willev Rt. Hn. Frederick
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Newens, Stan	Williams Alan (Swansea, W.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborought)	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Williams Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton E.)	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Howell,, Denis (Small Heath)	Norwood, Christopher	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Howie, W.	Oakes, Gordon	Willis, Rt. H. George
Hoy, James	O' Malley, Brain	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Orbach, Maurice	Wilson William (Coventry, S.)
Hunter, Adam	Orme, Stanley	Winnick, David
Hynd, John	Oswald, Thomas	Winstanley, Dr. M.P.
Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Owen, Will (Morpeth)	Woof, Robert
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Wyatt, Woodrow
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Palmer, Arthur	Yates, Victor
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Park, Trevor	Mr. J. D. Concannon and
		Mr. loan L. Evans.

NOES
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Cower, Raymond	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Allason, James (Hemel Hempatead)	Grant, Anthony	Nott, John
Astor, John	Grieve, Percy	Onslow, Cranley
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Awdry, Daniel	Gurden, Harold	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Balniel, Lord	Hall-Davies, A. G. F.	Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Batsford, Brian	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Bell, Ronald	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Peel, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Percival, Ian
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Peyton, John
Biffen, John	Harvie Anderson, Miss	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Biggs-Davison, John	Hastings, Stephen	Pink, R. Bonner
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Hawkins, Paul	Pounder, Rafton
Black, Sir Cyril	Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Blaker, Peter	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Heseltine, Michael	Prior, J. M. L.
Body, Richard	Higgins, Terence L.	Pym, Francis
Bossom, Sir Clive	Hiley, Joseph	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Hill, J. E. B.	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Braine, Bernard	Hirst, Geoffrey	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Brewis, John	Holland, Philip	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hordern, Peter	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter	Hornby, Richard	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Howell, David (Guildlord)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Hunt, John	Ridsdale, Julian
Bryan, Paul	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N & M)	Iremonger, T. L.	Robson Brown, Sir William
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Burden, F. A.	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Royle, Anthony
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Russell, Sir Ronald
Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)	Jones, Arthur (Normants, S.)	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Carlisle, Mark	Jopling, Michael	Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Scott, Nicholas
Cary, Sir Robert	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Scott-Hopkins, James
Channon, H. P. G.	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Sharpies, Richard
Chichester-Clark, R.	Kershaw, Anthony	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Clark, Henry	Kimball, Marcus	Silvester, Frederick
Clegg, Walter	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Sinclair, Sir George
Cooke, Robert	Kitson, Timothy	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Cordle, John	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Speed, Keith
Corfield, F. V.	Lambton, Viscount	Stainton, Keith
Costain, A. P.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Stodart, Anthony
Craddock, Sir Berestord (Spelthorne)	Lane, David	Stoddart-Scott Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Summers, Sir Spencer
Crouch, David	Legge-Bourite, Sir Harry	Tapsell, Peter
Crowder, F. P.	Lloyd,Rt.Hn,Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Lloyd, Ian (p'tsm'th, Langstone)	Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Currie, G. B. H.	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Longden, Gilbert	Teeling, Sir William
Dance, James	Loveye, W. H.	Temple, John M.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	MacArthur, Ian	Tllney, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Digby, Simon Wlngfield	McMaster, Stanley	van strauhenzee, W. R.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)	vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Doughty, Charles	Maddan, Martin	Vickers, Dame Joan
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Maginnis, John E.	Waddington, David
Drayson, G. B.	Marples, Rt Hn. Ernest	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Marten, Neil	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Eden, Sir John	Maude, Angus	Wall, Patrick
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Walters, Dennis
Emery, Peter	Mawby, Ray	Ward, Dame Irene
Errington, Sir Eric	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Weatherill, Bernard
Eyre, Reginald	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Farr, John	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Whltelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Fisher, Nigel	Mill, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Miscampbell, Norman	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Fortescue, Tim	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Foster, Sir John	Monro, Hector	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	Montgomery, Fergus	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Calbraith, Hn. T. G.	Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)	Woodnutt, Mark
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Worsley, Marcus
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Wylie, N. R.
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Younger, Hn. George
Clover, Sir Douglas	Murton, Oscar
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Goodhart, Philip	Neave, Airey	Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Goodhew, Victor	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Mr. Jasper More.

Resolved, That the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1020), dated 28th June, 1968, made by Her Majesty in Council under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Harper.]