RHODESIA (Hansard, 13 June 1968)

§ Q3. Mr. Molloy
asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement concerning the latest situation in Rhodesia.

§ Q4. Mr. Sandys
asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to explore further with Mr. Ian Smith the possibility of a negotiated settlement.

§ The Prime Minister
I would refer hon. Members to the Answers I gave to Questions on 11th June.—[Vol. 766, c. 25–29.]

§ Mr. Molloy
Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will resist those pressures and suggestions which ostensibly seek to find a solution to the Rhodesian problem but in point of fact would mean giving in to the illegal regime? Will he assure the House that he will give the same support to the majority of the Rhodesians as we are giving to the Gibraltarians?

§ The Prime Minister
We have always made clear our position with regard to the acceptability of any settlement to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. That was first laid down by the previous Government, and we stand by it. We have also made clear that any settlement which is in full accord with the six principles which the House has accepted would be a basis on which we should go forward, but in view of all that has happened we should certainly need something more than just a signature on a paper to ensure that such a settlement would be honoured.

§ Mr. Sandys
In previous answers the Prime Minister stated the conditions which would have to be satisfied before he would be prepared to resume negotiations. May we assume that in his opinion those conditions are not at present satisfied and that he has no immediate plans to resume talks, even of an exploratory nature, with Mr. Smith? Could we be clear on that point?

§ The Prime Minister
I am afraid that that is true. The position is that although Mr. Smith changes his ground very considerably from time to time depending on—

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ The Prime Minister
That is something we have not done on this side of the House.

§ Mr. Faulds
Hon. Members opposite are a shifty lot.

§ The Prime Minister
We have stayed completely faithful to the six principles. 432 It is right hon. and hon. Members opposite who have ratted on what they said when they were the Government.

§ Mr. Woodburn
In view of the number of people who advise opening negotiations with Mr. Smith, have any right hon. and hon. Members opposite produced reliable evidence that Mr. Smith and his Government are willing to consider a reliable settlement?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir, because the position is that Mr. Smith at various times has insisted to me and others on a braking mechanism which the whole House must conclude is incompatible with the principle which requires unimpeded progress to majority rule. He went much further in a recent public statement to a distinguished British journalist—the whole thing was on the record. Mr. Smith repudiated any idea of ultimate majority rule in that statement. When the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) saw Mr. Smith he brought back certain ideas which I know he felt attractive, and these could have been pursued, but they have been repudiated since—

§ Mr. Heath indicated dissent.

§ The Prime Minister
They were repudiated in the interview to which I referred. Of course they were. What the proposals did not do—and this was a matter on which further eludication would have been necessary—was to provide any evidence that there would be the necessary blocking minority. There was no blocking minority in the proposals. That was why they should not of themselves be accepted, but we said that if there is a change of heart there we are prepared to follow it up.

§ Mr. Heath
With reference to the Prime Minister's last reply, I ask him to recognise that we do not accept that the proposals brought back by my right hon. Friend have been repudiated by a newspaper interview. But that is not the point on which I wish to question the right hon. Gentleman [Interruption.] We shall have an opportunity of debating this.
What I want to ask the Prime Minister is when the Government will be setting up their review machinery for passports, particularly in view of the proposals in the Order. As the Government have 433 refused to allow the Ombudsman to look into the existing case, will the Prime Minister recognise that the review procedure must be under an independent tribunal and that a Departmental Committee will not be satisfactory to the House? It must be a tribunal completely independent of the Government.

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may or may not accept what was the position in relation to his right hon. Friend's proposals, but we have all read the interview in the Sunday Telegraph and I do not think that he can produce any evidence to the House that there was a blocking mechanism as is required for the fulfilment of the second principle. I do not think that he can produce any evidence to suggest that. As the right hon. Gentleman says, the House will be debating Rhodesia in the very near future.
My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary intends to take the first opportunity after his return from the Commonwealth Conference at Kuala Lumpur to make a statement about the passport review procedure. Without anticipating that, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that it is genuinely independent.