§ Q2. Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if he will now meet the Heads of Government of Zambia and South Africa to consider the Rhodesian situation.
§ Q3. Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister what recent communications he has received from Heads of Commonwealth Governments in regard to the situation in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.
§ Q7. Mr. Juddasked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to meet the Presidents of Zambia, Tanzania and other African countries and also the leaders of Portugal and South Africa to discuss the latest developments in Rhodesia.
§ The Prime MinisterI have no present plans for meetings with these Heads of Government to discuss the Rhodesian situation. On contacts with the Commonwealth, I would refer to my reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 19th March.—[Vol. 798, c. 198.]
§ Mr. DavidsonIs my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread admiration for the outspoken condemnation of 1647 apartheid, initiated by the Smith régime, by the Roman Catholic and other Churches in Rhodesia? Is it not a fact that Mr. Smith and his Government have revealed that they are out and out racialists, which we on this side of the House have always suspected?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that there will be very strong support not only for the idealism, but also for the courage shown by the leaders of the Catholic Church, by the leaders of the Anglican Church and by the leaders of the Nonconformist Churches, all of whom are in great difficulties about expressing in public what they said to me when I met them in Salisbury in 1965.
On the racialist nature of the present constitution and the régime's intentions, hon. Members may have heard, as I did, a British radio programme on an interview with Sir Roy Welensky in which, when asked about suggestions that there might be a last set of negotiations with the régime, he said that he did not see—I am paraphrasing, but the words are on record—how this could succeed because they were now committed publicly, in their own words, to a racialist constitution.
§ Mr. JuddDoes my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever the reservations and criticisms of inadequacies as they are seen in Government policy towards the crisis in Rhodesia, there is growing concern abroad and, indeed, contempt for the treacherous opportunism on the part of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite in their backdoor dealing, as is suspected, with the Smith régime? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the possibilities earlier of dealing with Rhodesia in isolation, Rhodesia now has to be seen as part of the Southern African situation as a whole, of which Portugal is an important part? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will do everything possible to pressurise Portugal on its totally unacceptable rôle in Southern Africa at the moment?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that, on the attitude of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary last week put the pertinent question to them, which no doubt, at their leisure, they will decide to answer. All I would say on that part of my hon. Friend's question is that, now that recog- 1648 nition—even the recognition of a consulate—has been withdrawn by all countries except South Africa and Portugal, if the Opposition want to persist in their policy they could probably find a cheap consulate to maintain a continuing Conservative Central Office presence to deal with the régime.
§ Mr. MolloyWill my right hon. Friend consider calling a special Commonwealth Conference because of the situation in Rhodesia and its rapid deterioration? We now see that the Churches are oppressed and that the principle of free speech is vanishing—[Interruption.] The Churches are being oppressed. If the Leader of the Opposition does not know it, he should—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must put a question.
§ Mr. MolloyI am leading to my question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want any help from the right hon. Gentleman. He might need some help from me—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes.
My point is that the Church, free speech, free Press and everything has now been attacked in Rhodesia. Therefore, will my right hon. Friend try to urge responsible Members on the other side of the House to join with him, as the Leader of the Liberal Party has, in condemnation of Rhodesia and support the United Nations on the principles of freedom and democracy as this House of Commons understands them?
§ The Prime MinisterThe Churches—I mean all the Churches—in Rhodesia are almost now the last remaining bastions of multi-racialism in that country. They know what is involved. They have said in the strongest terms this week that they consider that, because of their multi-racial operation on the basis of their church doors being open to worshippers of all races, they are in danger because of threats from the régime. Certainly the whole House, and the whole Commonwealth, would back the Churches in the stand that they have taken and will continue to take. I do not believe, however, that that is an argument for calling a special conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. We have had abundant discussions on all these matters at previous conferences. I 1649 am in regular touch with my Commonwealth colleagues on all these matters and we shall be meeting in January next year. I do not see the need, in the light of the argument used by my hon. Friend, for an earlier conference.
§ Mr. HeathThe Prime Minister knows full well that we on this side of the House have always condemned apartheid whether in South Africa, which the Prime Minister has recognised as a State, or in Rhodesia. We have also made clear our opposition throughout to mandatory sanctions by the United Nations, because it takes the matter out of the control of the British Government, as we saw at the last meeting of the United Nations.
Will the Prime Minister tell the House and the country the specific purpose of Government policy towards Rhodesia? Is it not right, as the question by his hon. Friend suggests, that there should be meetings between Government representatives and the other countries of Africa to consider whether a solution can be found? What is the precise objective of Government policy now towards Rhodesia?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is a question which I could turn back to the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition—[Interruption.]—but I will answer it. The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to refuse any recognition of a racialist régime, to refuse to recognise the racialist constitution, and to say that we will not put before this Parliament any proposals for independence in Rhodesia which do not fully honour, and can be seen to honour, the five principles which the previous Administration supported and on which they seem to have since ratted. This is our purpose and policy, and I believe that it is the policy not only of the vast majority of people in this country, but also of all civilised nations which have expressed an opinion on this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman must ask himself how far his own equivocal and divisive speeches on Rhodesia have contributed to encouraging the régime—I emphasise the word "divisive"—because that has been his aim on Rhodesia.
§ Mr. HeathThe Prime Minister knows full well that my speeches have repeatedly reiterated the support of this side of the House for the five principles which we set out when in Government, and I did so in the last fortnight. I therefore challenge the Prime Minister on that and ask him to withdraw that absolutely unjustified accusation.
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman objects to my use of the words "equivocal" and "divisive", will he explain how he came at the Tory Party conference to call for a great divide on Rhodesia? If "divide" is not divisive, will he explain the meaning of the term? Will he also make clear his answer to the pertinent question of my right hon. Friend—namely, whether, if he is talking, on certain unlikely assumptions, of a further attempt to get a deal with the racialist régime, he would maintain the sanctions, which alone could make any further dealings with that régime—even if they were regarded as possible—meaningful, or would take them off before talking?
§ Mr. HeathLet me make my position quite plain on that. I have never called for a great divide on Rhodesia, and the Prime Minister knows it. What we have done from this side of the House is to try to get agreement on Rhodesia, and the Prime Minister has dragged it down into the gutter. I have never suggested for one moment taking off sanctions before negotiations. The Prime Minister is denying any future possibility of negotiations, and his policy is therefore purposeless.
§ The Prime MinisterI am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has at last replied to my right hon. Friend's question. This means that a Conservative Government, if there were one, would continue sanctions. That is the first time we have heard that from the right hon. Gentleman. He and some of his hon. Friends abstained when sanctions were imposed; they voted against sanctions, and they supported the racialist régime in turning down the "Tiger" proposals. I am glad that he has said this; it helps to get a more bipartisan attitude. This is a very important step forward and I welcome it.
§ The Prime MinisterIf I am asked to withdraw what I said on the basis of the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that he has never called for a great divide on Rhodesia, I would ask him to look up the speech he made at his party conference, I think in 1968, although it might have been in 1967, when he called for a great divide on four issues. I cannot remember what the other three were, but I do remember Rhodesia. If the right hon. Gentleman denies that, let him look up his speech, as I have done.
§ Mr. ThorpeThe Prime Minister will recollect that the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) very properly reported in confidence to the Government the result of his discussions in Salisbury. The Prime Minister will have seen the suggestions that the Official Opposition have been having secret talks in Salisbury. Has he received a denial of this damaging allegation, or, alternatively, has he received any information from the Opposition relating to any such alleged talks?
Secondly, since Portugal and South Africa still recognise the sovereignty in law of Her Majesty the Queen and have diplomatic representation in London, should not we suggest that, if they do not withdraw their consulates, we shall have seriously to consider reducing the status of their missions from that of embassy to that headed by a minister?
§ The Prime MinisterIn reply to the first part of the question, I have not received any information from the Official Opposition on this point. If these accusations have been made it must be a matter for them. In reply to the second question, I do not think that bilateral action on our part with Portugal or South Africa is the right way. This matter is properly before the United Nations, and I believe that the United Nations would want to move as far as agreement can he reached in common on these matters.