Transkei

HC Deb 17 November 1976 vol 919 cc1313-4

6. Mr. Biggs-Davison

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what tests Her Majesty's Government applied in considering whether or not the Transkei met the criteria for independence.

Mr. Rowlands

We tested the evidence available on the Transkei and the process by which it had achieved its purported independence against our legal criteria and in the light of all the relevant circumstances at the time.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

When the independence of, for example, the ex-High Commission territories and Malawi was recognised, were not those States at least as dependent as is the Transkei today on the former administering Power, so was not the Government's attitude decided not by objective criteria but by hypocrisy and double standards?

Mr. Rowlands

It was not decided by hypocrisy or double standards; it was based on an assessment of the case and the process by which the Transkei reached independence. if he compared that with the way in which we brought to independence the other States he mentioned, the hon. Gentleman would find a considerable difference.

Mr. Powell

Do not the Government find it bitterly ironical that, as part of the European Economic Community, the United Kingdom itself is not able to satisfy the legal criteria for recognition as an independent State?

Mr. Rowlands

I have not noticed any difference in our status in that respect.

Mr. Hooley

Does my hon. Friend agree that by the criterion of acceptability to the world community the Transkei has fallen flat on its face, in the light of the United Nations vote by 135 to nil not to accept it as an independent State?

Mr. Rowlands

It has been supported neither by any of our EEC partners nor by the United Nations.

Mr. Maudling

The hon. Gentleman talked about evidence. Will he make available to the House the evidence on which he claims to have acted?

Mr. Rowlands

The evidence lies in the provisions of the Transkei Act. If the right hon. Gentleman studies them, he will realise that the Act is an extension of the Bantustan policy of South Africa and not the birth of a new nation.