§ Q3. Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Prime Minister what communication he has received from Mr. Ian Smith; and if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.
§ The Prime MinisterNone, Sir. I have nothing to add to what I said about Rhodesia in the Debate on the Address on 2nd July.—[Vol. 803, c. 81.]
§ Mr. KingAlthough I appreciate that there need be no haste, is it in the Prime 839 Minister's mind to seek to distinguish between approval of the régime, which we ought not to confer, and the continuation of sanctions which, after a lengthy period of trial, are seen as a costly failure and which have served to increase Mr. Smith's obstinacy rather than to reduce it? May we assume that we shall seek to do away with the psychological folly of the sanctions introduced by his predecessor?
§ The Prime MinisterI indicated our approach to the House in my speech—that we should make one further attempt to see whether it is possible to reach a settlement within the five principles.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Six."]—In the meantime, the sanctions remain.
§ Mr. RoseIn view of Mr. Smith's statement that there can be no going back on his action in asserting independence outside the Commonwealth, will the Prime Minister explain how there can be any meaningful negotiations short of selling out on those five principles?
§ The Prime MinisterThe onus is on us to see whether it is possible to reach a settlement.
§ Mr. Michael FootWill the Prime Minister say whether he still regards Southern Rhodesia, as administered by the Smith régime, as a police State?
§ The Prime MinisterI said in earlier days that there were aspects of it which I very much disliked and which could be described as aspects of a police State. In fact, some of these have been changed—[Interruption.] As regards the Press, some of them have been changed. The point is that we have to see whether a settlement can be reached within the conditions that we have previously described.