§ Q8. Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent exchanges with the Prime Minister of Rhodesia.
§ The Prime MinisterOn the exchanges with Mr. Smith I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 29th April.
But hon. Members will have seen Press reports of the speech made by Mr. Smith last night opening his campaign on the 658 referendum for his so-called constitution, aimed at the permanent division of Rhodesia on a racial basis, in which he is reported as saying that it would "sound the death-knell of the principle of majority rule".—[Vol. 782, c. 1152–4.]
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonIs not this drifting apart of Britain and Rhodesia something which we all regret? Is it not in great measure a failure of the Prime Minister—
§ Mr. FauldsAbsolute balls.
§ Mr. Biggs-Davison—to respond to the request repeatedly made from this side of the House to try again, after the failure of his "Fearless" efforts, before the referendum became imminent? Was he not aware that Prime Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—even in Rhodesia are under pressure, and what has the Prime Minister done with the proposals which were sent to him from Salisbury weeks ago?
§ The Prime MinisterIn the first place he is not the Prime Minister—
§ Sir Knox CunninghamNor will the right hon. Gentleman be for long.
§ The Prime MinisterIn the second place, the hon. Member referred to drifting apart. Last night's speech certainly looked more like a slamming of the door than a drifting apart. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the lengths to which we went with the "Fearless" proposals. Many hon. Members may think that we went too far, but no hon. Member thought that they went too short of what was required. That was clear from our previous debates. If they were not picked up, we can only draw our own conclusions. Now the hon. Gentleman, who has been the self-appointed spokesman of the régime in the House, can tell the House whether he supports Mr. Smith's speech of last night.
§ Mr. WinnickMay I ask my right hon. Friend, first, whether the "Fearless" offer will now be completely withdrawn? Second, would he not agree that, in view of the remarks made yesterday in Salisbury, or elsewhere in Rhodesia, there can be no honourable settlement between Her Majesty's Government and the Rhodesian Front?
§ The Prime MinisterI did not quite hear, because of the noise against which 659 my hon. Friend was speaking, whether he suggested that the "Fearless" proposals should be withdrawn or redrawn.
§ Mr. WinnickWithdrawn.
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The position of the "Fearless" proposals remains exactly as it did after the end of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. Those proposals remain as the British Government's view and the view of most hon. Members in this House of the kind of solution which can one day be picked up. Certainly it is clear from the speech about which we read in the Press this morning that Mr. Smith has now surrendered to the extremists of the Rhodesian Front. This is a tragedy. I think that Mr. Smith had the opportunity of an honourable solution for Rhodesia, and we went to very great lengths, not only on board H.M.S. "Fearless", not only in the visit of my right hon. Friend, but subsequently, in repeatedly offering proposals but always getting the reply that they would not have this or that. Not at any point have we heard what they will accept.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsIs the Prime Minister aware that his instant interpretation of last night's speech gives the impression that he enjoys the situation? Does he not think in the circumstances, bearing in mind all that is involved, that he ought to have some inquiries made to make sure that he has got the real atmosphere of events in Rhodesia?
§ The Prime MinisterI have accurate reports. Far from enjoying the situation, after four years' effort on my part to get the six principles accepted in Rhodesia, which were substantially laid down by the previous Government and applied by us, certainly I do not enjoy any situation where those who have taken authority there reject the six principles. I hope that the hon. Gentleman equally will deplore the rejection of the six principles involved in that speech.
§ Mr. ThorpeIs the Prime Minister aware that, however great the criticisms that may be levelled against him, there are those of us who marvel at the dexterity of those who, on the one hand, support Mr. Smith and, on the other hand, reconcile their support with the oath of loyalty that they have taken in this House to the Crown? [HON. MEMBERS: 660 "Hear, hear."] Is he aware—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Noise, even in approval, takes up the time of the House.
§ Mr. ThorpeIs the Prime Minister further aware that, while there would be support for any honourable settlement which ended a situation in which the constitution put forward by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and torn up by the rebels, there are others who will be prepared to support the Prime Minister in sanctions, however expensive?
§ The Prime MinisterWhile not agreeing with the whole of the preamble, on the main Question the answer is "Yes, Sir". On the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, the position is that all of us in this House, according to our different conceptions of what should be the answer in Rhodesia, have tried to get a solution in Rhodesia. Sanctions were implied and, indeed, threatened by the previous Government. They have been applied. If, and I repeat if, last night's speech is to be read at its face value as a slamming of the door, the sanctions will continue.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeCan the Prime Minister help the House, because there seems to be a slight contradiction between one attitude of Mr. Smith and his latest speech? Is it true that in the latest communications to the Prime Minister from Mr. Smith, Mr. Smith has said that he and his colleagues still stick to the blocking quarter plus one. There appears to be some discrepancy, and perhaps it should be resolved.
§ The Prime MinisterThere is always a contradiction between what I learn from Mr. Smith in negotiations and what he says in meetings of the Rhodesian Front. This has been a problem that I have had to face, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that he had to face it as well.
It has been agreed that communications should be kept confidential, but certainly I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no suggestion by Mr. Smith in any exchanges that I have had 661 with him, on board "Fearless" or subsequently, that he would go back on the principle of the blocking quarter which we discussed and which we prevailed upon him to accept. The right hon. Gentleman now admits that he was wrong in thinking that Mr. Smith offered him any acceptable settlement last year when he was there.
While conducting these exchanges, Mr. Smith has been moving further and further in the opposite direction, under pressure, to accept a so-called constitution which rejects every one of the six principles, with its particular emphasis on apartheid.
§ Mr. Philip Noel-BakerIs it not clear that Mr. Smith's speech represents the death knell not of majority rule but of his régime. Will my right hon. Friend give us a White Paper showing what the United Nations is doing about sanctions and about any measures that he proposes to tighten them?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the question of the speech last night, Press reports at present refer to
the death knell of majority rule".Indeed, it went further, and seemed to refer to the present situation in Rhodesia as something which Mr. Smith intends should last not only for many years, if the quotation is true, but for hundreds of years in the future. That is what the speech suggests.I have had no communication from him to say that the "Fearless" terms have been formally rejected. They are there. But any message in terms of acceptance must be read against the basis of his speech last night.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Mr. Heath. Business Questions.