§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement—the further statement which I promised the House on events in Rhodesia when 975 I had ascertained the views of Lord Pearce on the ability of his Commission to continue at work and following reports which Mr. Mansfield has been able to send to me. Since I last reported there have been further serious disorders in Rhodesia in the towns of Harare, near Salisbury, Fort Victoria and Umtali. The Rhodesia Government have also detained Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano. In the disturbances to which I have referred 15 Africans have died and many have been hurt. Whatever the circumstances which gave rise to these disturbances the casualties are a matter of the deepest concern and regret.
The form which the disorder has taken is that demonstrators, many of them youths, have indulged in looting, arson and stone-throwing and in every case, with the exception of Harare, the targets were other Africans and Asians and their property, as well as the African police. At Harare Europeans were stoned and injured.
§ Mr. KelleyOn a point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerWill the hon. Member raise his point of order later at the end of the statement?
§ Mr. KelleyThe House has been allowed insufficient time to consider a matter of urgent national importance. You, Mr. Speaker, have terminated questions on the coal industry dispute—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. KelleyMr. Speaker—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member must resume his seat when I am on my feet. The hon. Member has made a perfectly fair point. I allowed 20 minutes for the Private Notice Question because there is a very important debate on unemployment coming on later.
§ Mr. SkinnerThe coal mines are important as well.
§ Mr. SpeakerHon. Members must realise that the decision whether or not to allow Private Notice Questions is one for me. If every time I allow a Private Notice Question it is expected that half an hour of the House's time will be taken 976 up, I shall not allow them. I allowed the Private Notice Question today and I allowed 20 minutes for its discussion. It is a matter for me.
§ Mr. Harold WalkerFurther to that point of order. As you know, Mr. Speaker, I rarely trespass on the time of the House with a point of order, either at Question Time or at any other time, but I thought it was a long-standing custom of the House that when an hon. Member's constituency and constituents were the subject of discussion the hon. Member representing those constituents had the right to speak on their behalf. I repeatedly sought to catch your eye during questions to the Secretary of State for Employment when Doncaster was referred to—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The selection of speakers is a matter for me. I try to call as many hon. Members as possible. I should have liked to call the hon. Member, and at least 20 other hon. Members were rising. I did the best I could. It is a matter for me. Sir Alec Douglas-Home.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeBishop Muzorewa has appealed to the supporters of the African National Council for restraint. There is, however, evidence that there are elements in Rhodesia which are set on disrupting the work of the Pearce Commission by encouraging nation-wide disorder. There have been cases too of intimidation of those who had declared their support for the proposed settlement. The person and property of one African Member of Parliament who has openly favoured the proposals have been attacked.
The House will recall the sentence in the White Paper which read that there should be:
… normal political activities …provided they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner.This is at the heart of the matter. The reconciliation of normal political activity with the maintenance of law and order in present circumstances is clearly one of extreme difficulty.At my meetings with Mr. Smith in Salisbury and since then I have urged on him the importance of allowing the maximum political freedom. I cannot question his right, provided the minimum of force is used, to maintain security and 977 order. In answer to a question by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on 21st January, I gave Lord Pearce's summing up of the matter at that date. I would invite hon. Members to study it with great care. It is an admirably balanced statement. He concluded thus, that the conditions were such that he could carry on. He has not yet altered that view.
Out of 60 meetings planned so far by the Commission, 54 have been held and were completely orderly.
I would hope that everyone would agree that all Rhodesians should be given the chance to give their opinions to the Commission without being influenced by violence and intimidation from any quarter. This opportunity must be kept open. I trust that the Commission will be able to carry on its work, and I propose to leave that judgment to Lord Pearce and his team in whom Her Majesty's Government have complete confidence.
§ Mr. HealeyI welcome the assurance that the Pearce Commission plans to continue its work and share the Foreign Secretary's hope that it will be allowed to proceed with the test of acceptability without violence or intimidation from any quarter, a hope which has also been expressed by Bishop Muzorewa on behalf of the African National Council. In all other respects the statement of the Foreign Secretary is totally unsatisfactory and betrays a deplorable indifference to his responsibilities and those of the House.
The Foreign Secretary will recall that he is making a statement today because he was unable to answer the pleas last Wednesday by myself and hon. Members of both sides of the House and in another place for the immediate release of Mr. Garfield Todd and his daughter. The only reason why we were prepared to leave the matter there at that moment was that the Foreign Secretary said that he would send out an official, although he already had a diplomatic representative on the spot, to inform himself thoroughly on the circumstances of Mr. Todd's arrest and of other incidents which were referred to in the House last Wednesday.
Since last Wednesday, Mr. Chinamano and his wife, leading members of the 978 African National Council, have been arrested without any charge being made. Mr. Chinamano is known to many hon. Members on both sides of the House as one of the outstanding multi-racial moderates among the African political leaders in Rhodesia.
Since the Foreign Secretary's statement last Wednesday, the number of Africans killed by the security forces has risen to 15, and 50 have been injured by the security forces. We have had a speech from Mr. Smith whose threatening brutality was rightly criticised by one of the Foreign Secretary's hon. Friends at Question Time a few minutes ago.
On 21st January, Lord Pearce defined two fields in which the Smith rêgime had broken its promise to allow normal political activity, namely, the total denial of any political activity in certain areas and, secondly, the detention of some people simply to silence them.
Is it not totally unacceptable that the Foreign Secretary should come to the House today against this background and have nothing whatever to say about the denial of normal political activity, and is this not the breaking by Mr. Smith of a promise made personally to the Foreign Secretary? Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that he cannot, like Pontius Pilate, wash his hands of this matter, because the events to which I have referred are a direct result of his personal agreement with Mr. Smith? They constitute a promise made by Mr. Smith—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—to the Foreign Secretary and transmitted to this House as the whole basis of this agreement. Has not the Foreign Secretary learned from experience that it is a mistake to allow a dictator to break his promises and to break an agreement even when that agreement was intended—
§ Mr. John HallOn a point of order. Can the House be told whether we are entering a debate on Rhodesia—if so, many of us would like to join in—or are supposed to be listening to a question to the Foreign Secretary?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think the right hon. Gentleman has just drawn to an end.
§ Mr. C. PannellFurther to that point or order. Is it not the custom of the House, whichever Government are in power, that the leading spokesman for the Opposition is allowed approximately the same time as the Minister took in making the statement?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am very grateful for all this help on matters of order, but I would prefer to rule myself.
§ Mr. HealeyIn answer to the earlier point of order, or in comment on it, may I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall seek on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, at the appropriate time, an immediate debate on this subject? May I conclude by asking the Foreign Secretary whether he has not learned by experience that it is a mistake to allow a dictator to break an agreement, even if that agreement was intended to appease him?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI am glad that the right hon. Gentleman feels that the Commission should remain in the field and see whether the settlement is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia or not. The difference between me and the right hon. Gentleman is that I want a settlement which will give the Africans some chance of a tolerable political life in Rhodesia in the future. I have no intention whatever of washing my hands of the future of the mass of Africans, who I think would be served well by the settlement and have very little chance of anything but oppression and violence for years ahead unless such a settlement is carried through.
If he will read Lord Pearce's message, the right hon. Gentleman will see that he is not right about no political activity in the tribal trust lands in particular. Lord Pearce has said that it is not so. In answer to his last question, when I ask a man like Lord Pearce, a trusted and responsible person, to carry out a task, I am not in the habit of interfering with that man's task and taking it over, like some other people I know.
§ Sir G. Longdenrose—
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeAs I said, I have asked Mr. Smith, in respect of all detainees and in respect of all Rhodesians, indeed, to arrange for the 980 maximum political freedom that there can be. I have conveyed to him the extreme sensitivity of this House and my regrets that he has found it necessary to put Mr. Todd in internment. I hope that Lord Pearce is taking this matter up also with Mr. Smith. For the moment, it would be well to leave it there.
§ Sir G. LongdenWill my right hon. Friend ascertain from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and his leader whether they would now be prepared to use force in Rhodesia to bring the Smith régime to heel? If not, the position remains as it did on 14th March, 1968, when the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, told this House:
It is true, as we all recognise, that we have no ability to stop these hangings …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th March, 1968; Vol. 760, c. 1628.]and as it did on 22nd October, 1968, when the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) said:… we have been denied the physical power to control events on the ground …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1968; Vol. 770, c. 1096.]That was a realistic and accurate statement of the position then and it still obtains today.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeYes, Sir. As I understand it, the Opposition are not prepared to use force. If that is so, the only way to solve the problem is by negotiation—and the Leader of the Opposition was willing to indulge in negotiation. The trouble with the right hon. Gentleman is that he failed.
§ Mr. John MendelsonMust not the Foreign Secretary accept that the arrest of people like the Treasurer of the African National Council and Mr. Garfield Todd and his daughter is directly undermining the contention, which he has now put to the House several times, that he wants the maximum of ordinary legal political activity? Is it not quite clear that he has failed in his duty so far in reply to these questions to give a clear outline of the direct action that he is now taking to get Mr. Todd and the Treasurer of the A.N.C. released? Surely the right hon. Gentleman cannot leave it at this general statement, since the policy he has put to us would then be defeated by his own inactivity?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomePerhaps I should commend again to the hon. Gentleman Lord Pearce's statement, which, as I said, was very careful and balanced. He says that he is loth to make a premature judgment on allegations and counter-allegations which are, in our present state of knowledge, hard to evaluate. I shall hear further from Lord Pearce, but I have nothing more to add to that now.
§ Mr. TapsellHas Lord Pearce received a reply to his request for information as to the reasons why Mr. Garfield Todd and Miss Todd were taken into detention?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeAgain, I commend to my hon. Friend Lord Pearce's statement—
§ Mr. HealeyAnswer the question.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not interfere with my right to answer one of my hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman lives in a sort of continual state of political apoplexy. I wish that he would calm himself down—
§ Mr. Robert HughesOn a point of order. I apologise for raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker, during this very important discussion, but will the Foreign Secretary answer the House in such a way that back benchers like myself can hear what he has to say?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI think that that is more in the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite than in mine. I have said that I would ask my hon. Friend to read Lord Pearce's statement, in which he says that he has been in touch, of course, with Mr. Smith on these matters. So have I. The right hon. Gentleman—
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe House must recognise that there is a limit to the influence which we can exercise. The Leader of the Opposition will remember very well two of his Members of Parliament being ejected from Rhodesia—Dr. Bray and Mr. Ennals. The right hon. Gentleman could do nothing then except express a view.
§ Mr. BottomleyHow can it be said that normal political activity can take 982 place when Africans have been brutally murdered, many wounded and their national leaders not able to express a point of view? In addition, European liberal opinion, through Garfield Todd and others, is also being suppressed. Does this not confirm what many of us said from the beginning—that the whole of these proceedings is a farce?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe right hon. Gentleman, who is usually fair in these matters, is perfectly entitled to his point of view. I am also entitled to mine [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] I am entitled to mine, which is that, unless a settlement like this can be considered by the Rhodesian people, the future of the Africans in Rhodesia is not one that I should like to contemplate.
§ Mr. DixonWould my right hon. Friend tell us what his reaction is to the unmitigated glee with which hon. Members opposite clutch at any incident to ventilate an issue involving the lives of millions of innocent Africans in Rhodesia? Will he assure us that, if he chooses to call the Pearce Commission home, he will do so in the light of his own judgment and not in response to any irresponsible approaches from hon. Members opposite?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI have no intention of calling the Pearce Commission home. Lord Pearce and his colleagues can judge whether they can carry out their task. So far, they judge that they are able to do so.
§ Mr. David SteelWere we not right to understand last week that one of the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman sent his emissary to Rhodesia was to find out the grounds on which the Todds had been detained, and to satisfy himself that they had been implicated in stirring up violence? Is he now telling us that he is not so satisfied, but cannot do anything about it? If so, we should like to hear that. In view of the appeal by Bishop Muzorewa for restraint, would it not be more effective if he were given broadcasting time to make that appeal?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe bishop has made an appeal for restraint, which I hope is being heard. There have been no incidents since Friday in Rhodesia, so I hope that it has been heard. There is no doubt that there are many ways of 983 getting the bishop's opinion to people in Rhodesia. Mr. Mansfield has not been able to tell me so far the grounds on which Mr. Todd has been interned.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonWill the right hon. Gentleman reconsider some of the answers he has given, for example, about comparisons with 1968 and the expulsion of two hon. Members of this Parliament, in that at that time there was no agreement on the Table of the House of Commons?
Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that as he has reached agreement with Mr. Smith and is sponsoring this agreement in this House and elsewhere, he has every right to say to Mr. Smith that he, Mr. Smith, must carry out his agreement in the matter of political activities to make the fifth principle work.
While the right hon. Gentleman is considering these matters—I do not necessarily ask for an answer today, but I do ask that he says that he will consider them—will he consider whether the Commission is doing what this House intended and is not doing what was not proposed when it was first put forward, in that instead of sitting there receiving views, with the cases for and against being put by others in Rhodesia, it is now in the position of explaining the settlement and getting into arguments on behalf of the settlement, as reported. I am sure that this was not intended.
Will the right hon. Gentleman take this up, not in a hostile manner, with the Commission to see if this is what was intended? Should not this Commission operate like commissions, inquiries and courts, whether judicial or not, which are set up in this country to which cases are put by adversaries, be they lawyers and others; and does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Commission should not be involved in trying to sell the particular subject on which it may have to rule?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also take up with Mr. Smith the fact that beyond doubt his broadcast on Friday tried to trick the Rhodesian people—[Interruption.]—by saying that a vote against the agreement was a vote for the 1969 Republican constitution? This 984 cannot be the view of the right hon. Gentleman.
Since, therefore, this is totally false and since Mr. Smith has full television and radio at his disposal, while opponents of the settlement do not have television and radio by which to express a contrary view, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this matter up with the Commission and with Mr. Smith so that an unfair appeal, with which no hon. Member of this House would agree, will not invalidate any answer which the Commission may reach?
Will the right hon. Gentleman next consider whether it is not undesirable that one member of the Commission should seem to be making public statements to one newspaper in Britain, statements which some of us feel are to some extent prejudicial in respect of the Commission's inquiries?
In an earlier statement the right hon. Gentleman told us that he had insisted on detainees being able to express a view. Does he really think that the Todds can express a view from prison'?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe Leader of the Opposition began by suggesting that the Commission was trying to sell the settlement, and I do not believe that there is anything whatever in that. The Commission is perfectly entitled—
§ Mr. Harold WilsonI am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I think he misunderstood me. I did not say the Commission was trying to sell the settlement. I asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether its interpretation of its instructions to ensure that its desire to see that all those concerned in Rhodesia understood it has not led the Commission to the position where it is explaining the settlement to them. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that that is something which should be done by other people, black and white, in Rhodesia in view of the fact that there are Press accounts of people arguing with the Commission and the Commission being driven, I am sure unwillingly, into the position of defending the settlement?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI do not think so. The Commission must be entitled to explain the agreement. The Africans cannot possibly understand it unless it is properly and simply explained.
985 I of course agree with the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman put on Mr. Smith's broadcast, but the fact remains, and let us face it, that unless this settlement is accepted, the 1969 constitution will remain. I have been trying to impress on the right hon. Gentleman all the time that under that constitution there can be repression, and the answer to repression will be violence, and there will be an endless vista of bloodshed unless a settlement of this sort is made.
I will look into the question of television and radio to which the Leader of the Opposition referred.
When the right hon. Gentleman asks me, as he did, in effect, the other day, to withdraw the settlement—[Interruption.] In a public speech outside he suggested that we should withdraw the terms of the settlement—the answer is that we cannot do that. This settlement must be put before the people of Rhodesia and they must be allowed to judge it.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonI know that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent what I said in that statement. I in fact said that if he could not get satisfaction on the point an which he had insisted—freedom of political activity, a point about which he has made a great thing—then, in those circumstances, he would have to withdraw it. We have said that the last thing we want is for the Commission to be withdrawn—[Interruption.] We want to get an honest answer out of this Commission and it wants to give one.
What we cannot have—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not want this—is a situation in which the Commission is frustrated in working by a denial of political freedom, and the right hon. Gentleman rightly asked that there should be political freedom in the negotiations.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe right hon. Gentleman has been working against this settlement from the start.—[Interruption.]—almost before the terms were known. It must be for the Commission to decide whether it can properly do its work. The right hon. Gentleman always interfered with the people he appointed to do certain jobs, but I am not going to do that.
§ Mr. Evelyn KingIs it not self-evident, however strongly we feel, that there is certainly intimidation on one side and probably intimidation on both? Is it not, then, the principal function of the Commission to assess the value and effect of that intimidation, and should we not be wise to leave that assessment to it?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeMy hon. Friend has said in rather better terms what I have tried to say.
§ Mr. DribergDoes the right hon. Gentleman recall that in his original answer, which was presumably a prepared one, he did not rely on physical inability to control Mr. Smith but said "I cannot question his right" to do something? What statutory right does Mr. Smith have? [HON. MEMBERS: "None."]
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI said that I could not question Mr. Smith's right to maintain security provided the minimum of force was used.
§ Mr. DykesMy right hon. Friend has established, I think rightly, the difference between the two sides of the House on a genuine desire to see a settlement. Following his statement on Friday, is he equally confident that Mr. Smith still, as he said earlier, wants a settlement?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI do not know why Mr. Smith should have gone to all the trouble of signing the settlement if he did not want it. [Interruption.] I remind the House that in terms of independence for Rhodesia, this House has to do nothing until Mr. Smith has put through all the legislation which he promised in his own Parliament.
§ Mr. ThorpeDid not Mr. Smith give a personal guarantee to the right hon. Gentleman that normal political activity would be permitted? Is not the right hon. Gentleman therefore entitled to satisfy himself as to why Mr. Todd was interned? Is it not a fact that he does not know why?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because the bishop was not a member of a political party in the House there, he has been denied the right to broadcast, so that his appeal for law and order will not be heard? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he would be right to say that he will not be pushed around 987 any more, even though another ex-Prime Minister may be?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party would, I believe, also like me to withdraw the settlement.
§ Mr. Thorpeindicated dissent.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeWith great respect, he, too, falls into the error of quoting only one part of the sentence. I agree that Mr. Smith said that normal political activity should be allowed, but provided it took place in a peaceful and democratic manner. The second part must be a complement to the first.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonShould not those who are keen, as we are all keen, for normal political activity be the first to desire law and order in Rhodesia? Is it not extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition should criticise detention without trial in Rhodesia when fully approving of detention without trial in Northern Ireland, within the United Kingdom? Cannot we get rid of one piece of Opposition nonsense, namely, that Miss Todd is a political moderate?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeObviously the conditions in Rhodesia, as every hon. Member must appreciate, are of extreme delicacy and difficulty. I think that Lord Pearce is handling the matter extremely well and I must await further reports from him.
§ Mr. PagetDid the right hon. Gentleman hear a question put just now as to whether he felt Mr. Smith still desired a settlement? Mr. Smith was a little doubtful about a settlement, and he is a man who sometimes changes his mind. If he has changed his mind, ought we to make it easier for him by withdrawing the Pearce Commission?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI have no reason to believe that Mr. Smith has changed his mind.
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeDespite the differences of opinion which have been expressed across the Floor of the House today, is it not important that we should all recollect that both sides of the House are agreed that the Pearce Commission should continue its work? Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will convey to Mr. Smith and everyone 988 else in Rhodesia, including Lord Pearce, that the House is entirely behind Lord Pearce continuing the exercise?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI should certainly like to be able to do that.
§ Mr. HealeyIn that context, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary did not wish to mislead the House, but he has rightly placed great weight on the statement made by Lord Pearce on 21st January. If you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me, I shall quote the two references on which I hope the Foreign Secretary will comment. First, speaking of the refusal of political meetings in the tribal trust lands, Lord Pearce stated:
We cannot accept that a total denial of any political activities can be read into an agreement which does not specifically exclude them.This is one area where Lord Pearce must be told that normal political activities are not being permitted.The other was a reference, widely understood, to the arrests of Mr. Todd and, later, of Mr. Chinamano:
If people are detained simply to silence them, then even in existing conditions it is not allowing normal political activity.What the House wants and what it has not yet had is an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that he will press Mr. Smith to honour those parts of his agreement which, according to Lord Pearce, he has broken. This is one of the main matters which we shall wish to pursue with the Foreign Secretary when we come to debate the matter.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI did not think that there was anything to answer. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would pursue the matters. I agree that he has read out the quotations fairly.