HC Deb 28 November 1968 vol 774 cc719-21
Q4. Mr. Judd

asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Commonwealth Prime Ministers concerning the multilateral nature of the British commitment to Nibmar in Rhodesia; and what replies he has sent.

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend will realise that exchanges between Commonwealth Governments must remain confidential.

Mr. Judd

Will my right hon. Friend not agree that there is a good deal of concern because the Government have had to be facing in two directions at once with their commitment both to Nibmar and the "Fearless" proposals? Will he clarify the issue by withdrawing the "Fearless" proposals?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir. We shall not withdraw the proposals, and I explained at great length our reasons for putting forward the "Fearless" proposals and leaving them for acceptance. As for Nibmar, my hon. Friend is well aware of the position as I have explained it, though I know that he does not agree with it. We should need to feel that there had been a substantial change of circumstances to withdraw the Nibmar commitment.

Sir C. Osborne

Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the vast majority of our people hope that he will continue with his patient efforts to get an honourable settlement in Rhodesia and not give way to pressures that may lead to bloodshed in that country?

The Prime Minister

The pressures which could lead to bloodshed are those which have led, at any rate for the time being, to the rejection of the "Fearless" proposals. This creates an extremely dangerous situation of which the whole House is aware, despite our different views about how we should now go forward. He was right to lay stress on an "honourable" settlement. We shall not be prepared to conclude any agreement which does not thoroughly fulfil the six principles.

Miss Lestor

Referring to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), in the event or likelihood of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers rejecting the "Fearless" proposals as not representing those substantial changes regarded by my right hon. Friend as necessary to justify a retreat from Nibmar, would he recommit this House and the country to the Nibmar decision and withdraw the "Fearless" proposals?

The Prime Minister

My hon. Friend's question is a hypothetical one and does not recognise entirely the nature of Commonwealth conferences, which seek as far as possible to proceed by agreement. We do not take votes. I am aware that there will be strong feeling on Rhodesia and that this may be reflected in our discussions—and will be. I hope that we shall not spend eight days this time on Rhodesia, which is a British responsibility and, at the same time, not have even half an hour to discuss important issues of world affairs covering other parts of Africa and the wider world.