§ Q4. Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.
§ Q7. Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister what is the latest position concerning the Rhodesian situation.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio on 18th November.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasCan the Prime Minister assure the House that in seeking a settlement with the Smith regime he will abide by diplomatic usages and not resort to diplomatic bullying which, according to The Times, he used in dealing with our German allies?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the hon. Gentleman wants to rely on Press reports of that kind he is entitled to do so. It is not for me to disillusion him on that. The statements in the Press were quite false, so were the statements of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. It is not the practice, and never has been, for messages between Heads of Government to be published. I very much regret that on this occasion there were leaks in Bonn, inaccurate leaks, when the Foreign Secretary and I saw the German Ambassador, not in the circumstances so picturesquely described 300 by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday.
§ Mr. MolloyIs my right hon. Friend aware that most of us on this side of the House are more concerned with bullying and vulgar behaviour towards the majority party leaders in Rhodesia rather than any attitude which my right hon. Friend might adopt towards Mr. Smith? Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to an article in The Guardian of 14th November which seriously challenges in detail the estimate of the "Fearless" settlement on majority rule being obtained within 15 years and suggests, with considerable evidence, that if this settlement were imposed no agreement could be achieved by the year 2000?
§ The Prime MinisterI read this article immediately on publication. Its author is an extremely distinguished authority on constitutional matters in Rhodesia. We have subjected some of the assumptions and calculations to a very careful check, and I have to say, with great respect to the author, that we do not accept the conclusions about what the timetable for majority rule would be under the 1961 Constitution, whose operation we set out to safeguard by insisting on the six principles.
§ Sir J. RodgersMay I ask the Prime Minister whether he saw the German Ambassador, and would he recognise that—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This Question is about Rhodesia.
§ Sir J. RodgersThe Prime Minister answered a question about the German Ambassador. Could he confirm that he saw the German Ambassador—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The fact that the original supplementary question went wide and the Prime Minister went equally wide does not mean that the hon. Gentleman can go as wide.
§ Sir J. RodgersDoes the Prime Minister recognise that those who provoke leaks will probably suffer from leaks in the long run?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the hon. Gentleman, in his snide remark, suggests that we were in any way involved in 301 leaks on the occasion when, as I have already said, I, with two of my right hon. Friends, saw the German Ambassador, he should withdraw it. These remarks were put out officially in Germany by official spokesmen. I deplore this, and I have not known it in four years of communication with nearly 100 Heads of Government.
§ Mr. Michael FootMay I return to the question of Rhodesia? In view of the leading part which this matter is bound to play at the forthcoming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, would my right hon. Friend consider making a firm declaration before the conference that the Government stand absolutely by the pledge of no independence before majority rule which was voted for by this House and which was in the terms of the pledge given to the last Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? Would he agree that only such a declaration as that can hold the Commonwealth together?
§ The Prime MinisterThere are three questions there. First, the basis on which we approach the very important forthcoming conference will be that described by my right hon. Friend and myself in he recent debate on Rhodesia. We shall stand by the position endorsed by the large majority of the House on a vote only three or four weeks ago. Secondly, as far as Nibmar is concerned, my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio has confirmed in the House and in repeated meetings with African leaders that the pledge which has been given remains until we can get a sufficiently substantial change of circumstances to justify going back and discussing that matter again. Thirdly, if my hon. Friend really wants to suggest that any Commonwealth country values the Commonwealth link so little that it would be likely to secede from the Commonwealth or involve the break-up of the Commonwealth, this is a very serious suggestion about the Commonwealth link and the value of the Commonwealth partnership.