HC Deb 08 November 1978 vol 957 cc1111-45
Mr. Speaker

Before we begin the debate, and so that the time will not be taken out of it, I inform the House that I already have the names of 12 right honourable and honourable Members who have indicated that they hope to participate. It is a one-and-a-half-hour debate, and I hope that that will be borne in mind.

10.17 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen)

I beg to move, That the draft Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th October 1978, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved. Yesterday I explained the importance that the Government attach, as does the world, to the strict enforcement by all countries of economic sanctions against the Rhodesian regime. Failure by this country to renew the order would raise serious doubts in the minds of the international community at large about our intentions over Rhodesia. It would be fatal to any attempt to convene an all-party conference for us to be clearly in breach of our international legal obligations under the United Nations charter and for us to cease to give effect to the requirements of the relevant Security Council decisions.

The renewal of section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 is not concerned simply with the enforcement of sanctions. While section 2 provides the powers from which some, though not all, of our sanctions controls stem—others derive their authority from legislation such as the Exchange Control Act 1947—it also provides the basis for a number of other important measures. These include such humanitarian instruments as the Southern Rhodesia (Marriages, Matrimonial Causes and Adoptions) order 1972, which has the effect of enabling recognition to be given in the United Kingdom and elsewhere to marriages, divorces and adoptions that have taken place in Rhodesia, and the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia orders, which provide powers for persons appointed by the British Government to look after the external assets of the bank for the ulti- mate benefit of the people of Rhodesia as a whole.

Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth)

More humbug.

Dr. Owen

Many of these orders are very difficult to interpret. They have been in operation under successive Governments. If they are humbug, as the hon. Gentleman says, they have been humbug which has been perpetuated by successive Governments.

Section 2 of the 1965 Act also provides constitutional powers which, as I mentioned yesterday to the House, would enable speedy action to be taken to give effect to a transitional constitution for Rhodesia, should this be negotiated in the context of an agreement stemming from an all-party conference. This is most important. If, as I hope, we reach a stage when we require to give legal form to a Government in Rhodesia as a result of successful settlement negotiations, we should need to be able to do so quickly. A transitional council will need to be established immediately. Then. if we make it legal, sanctions will be lifted.

In 1965 the Government made an order under section 2 of the Act—the Southern Rhodesia Constitution order 1965—with the object of consolidating the position with regard to the illegality of the regime. It has been suggested that if section 2 were allowed to lapse the Rhodesian regime would automatically become a legal Administration. This is not the case. The regime's illegality does not depend in any way on the 1965 order, and nothing short of formal legislative action, by or under the authority of this Parliament, can now confer legality on any Administration in Rhodesia.

Hon. Members will appreciate from what I have said that, if section 2 were to lapse through failure to renew it, the loss of powers in certain fields could be a positive impediment to implementing a settlement. It could also cause hardship to individuals who would be affected through the loss of such instruments as the marriages order.

During the last two (lays the whole House has discussed a wide range of topics relating to Rhodesia, and we have heard a great deal of criticism, on the one hand, about failure to enforce sanctions and, on the other hand, about the maintenance of sanctions. It is true, and it has been acknowledged in all parts of the House, that the Bingham report has shown up our own errors in implementing sanctions. But our performance in implementing sanctions generally, in the Commonwealth sanctions committee under successive Governments, and in alerting other countries to breach of sanctions by individuals or organisations in their territory, is not one on which we should be defensive. We ought to be clear about that.

We have maintained consistently over the years one fundamental position. In this House, since 1965, we have never accepted UDI. Many thought that we would weaken. Many thought that we would give up and that eventually the world would tire and, after a few years, simply accept the illegal regime as the de factoGovernment. The fact that this has not been done is the single most significant achievement of sanctions. We may be criticised for not—

Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stafford and Stone)

Tell us about the oil sanctions.

Dr. Owen

The right hon Gentleman has actually listened to some of these debates. He participated in part of the debate and some of his speech was devoted to this subject. It is very useful to have had the full discussion we have had over the last two days and the extended hours of last night. I have listened to practically all the speeches that have been made in the debate.

The fact that we have never accepted UDI has been the single most significant achievement of sanctions. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) is a great expert in these matters. We may be criticised, and some people have criticised us, for not using force to overthrow the regime in 1965. But, having decided not to use force—

Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. What we are criticising is deception—deception of this House and of the nation.

Dr. Owen

The hon. Gentleman should not make the mistake of thinking that all remarks refer to him. We shall deal with him in due time.

Contributions have been made in the debate, views genuinely held by some people, criticising the fact that no force was used in 1965. I have not criticised that decision. I believe that that was a political reality given the circumstances of 1965. However, we would have been subject to criticism had we shifted our ground on the basic decision not to accept UDI. I believe that it has been to the credit of successive Governments and of this House that for 13 years, despite a lot of criticism from many 01 the same people who are making the noises this evening, we have not been prepared to compromise on this issue.

In asking the House to agree that section 2 of the 1965 Act should be renewed for a further year, I hope that this will be the last occasion—[HON. MEMBERS: " Your last."]—on which a renewal order is put to the House. Many people, when moving an order like this one, have hoped that it would be the last occasion. I do not think any of us delights in the fact that the order has had to be renewed year after year. I very much hope that over the next few months, well before this time next year, we shall be able to achieve a settlement which could result in this House being asked to approve an Order in Council establishing a new, legal transitional Government and leading to an independent constitution and independent Government after fair and free elections.

We shall strive to bring the parties together and to promote a peaceful settlement. We need a settlement which will give all Rhodesians confidence in the future. It is vital that we should maintain the powers that we have under section 2, and I urge the House to approve the draft order.

10.28 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

This is a short debate and I shall put my points to the House as concisely and clearly as I can, compatibly with the importance and complexity of the matter.

Rhodesian sanctions have had a long and troubled history. Of that we have heard much in the two days preceding this debate. But there is no need now, in the context of this specific motion, to plough the sands of the past. The motion tonight has to be judged in the context of the present situation, of circumstances as they are and as they can reasonably be expected to evolve.

The justification for the continuance of sanctions depends, and can only depend, on the proposition that the present situation in Rhodesia constitutes, in the words of article 39 of the charter, a threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression as to require and to justify sanctions under article 41 of the charter.

That it is the present situation to which regard must be had is clear from the wording of the past resolutions of the Security Council. Logically this must be so. A past situation, a historic event, cannot, as a matter of law or the correct interpretation of the charter, justify the imposition of sanctions now. So we must see what it is that the proposition put before us by the Government asks us to believe.

By seeking to justify this order, the Government ask us to believe that the internal agreement—the transitional Government—is a threat to peace and security. They ask us to believe that a multi-racial interim Administration, preparing for free elections and preparing to comply with the six principles, is a threat to peace and security. They ask us to believe that a democratic, multi-racial, non-Marxist Zimbabwe, respecting the rule of law, is a threat to peace and security.

Is any of these things a threat to peace and security, a breach of the peace or an act of aggression? But that is what the Government ask us to believe. I can only say to them, in the words of the Great Duke of Wellington to the gentleman who greeted him as "Mr. Jones"" Sir, if you would believe that, you would believe anything." How can such a situation be a threat to peace and security? Only on the basis, I suggest, of the wicked animal in the French proverb: "This animal is wicked: when he is attacked, he defends himself."

I have had the advantage of discussing the constitutional aspects of this matter with two members of the Executive Council—with Chief Chirau and with Mr. Sithole—and I have no reason to doubt their constitutional propriety or the sin- cerity of their intentions. The threat to peace and security, the acts of aggression at this time, comes not from within Rhodesia but from forces outside, from guerrillas and terrorists based in other countries, led by men with scant regard for democracy and anxious to impose, by one means or another, including the use of force, their own personal hegemony in a one-party State. Or perhaps—to be fair to them—they seek to apply the old Communist formula for a two-party State: one party in power, the other party in gaol. Therefore, if there is a case for sanctions today, they are directed against the wrong target.

Then there is the question of the United Nations. The United Nations has jurisdiction to impose sanctions against Rhodesia under article 41 of the charter only if the criteria of article 39 are met, which in this case currently they are not. As for the status of Rhodesia and its Administration, this is a matter not for the United Nations but for the domestic jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, which is confirmed by section 1 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965.

If the United Kingdom accepts the internal agreement as a provisional Government of the self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia, which was its pre-1965 status, pledged to and preparing for free and fair elections, the position in law is clear: it is a matter for the United Kingdom, and the United Nations has no jurisdiction to impose sanctions to compel an alternative form of government.

If there is doubt about this—I do not think there is, but I am never dogmatic on these matters—the right course is to refer the matter to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion under article 96 of the charter. No doubt the Minister who is to reply will tell us why he has not initiated such a move.

Sanctions are a historic legacy from the very different situation of 1965, and time has eroded their justification and disproved their efficacy. Consider the difference between then and now. Imagine if at the time of the decision that this House made in 1965 there had been a multi-racial Administration in Rhodesia pledged to free elections and in the process of dismantling the apparatus of racial discrimination. Does anybody believe that in those circumstances sanctions would or properly could have been proposed in such a context? Sanctions, no; rather would a paean of praise and thanksgiving have gone up that plural democracy and multi-racial freedom were to be the lot of that large and lovely land.

I believe that as a matter of fact and of law there is, in the present situation no case for the imposition of sanctions. Therefore, I shall do as reason dictates and wisdom suggests and vote against the order tonight.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

In an earlier debate on Rhodesia on 20th July 1972, I quoted Lord Goodman as saying: if on the day of UDI the Labour Government had sent in a single platoon of Scots Guards by air and had caused them to march up the main street of Salisbury under a pipe band with instructions to arrest Smith, there would have been no opposition and that would have been the end of the Rhodesian rebellion." —[Official Report, 20th July 1972; Vol. 841, c. 1118.] Whether or not Lord Goodman was right in his diagnosis, in that debate in 1972—when the Conservatives were in power—I asked whether it was true that the reason why force was not used at that time was that the chiefs of staff had said that on no account would they fight for a loyalist black Government against white traitors.

Whether that is true or not, one truth has emerged in the course of the last two days' debate. It is that if there was any substance in the claim that failure to use force was the result of the refusal by the Army leaders at the time to use that force, they were encouraged by Conservative Members. The people who have supported and encouraged the white racialist regime in Rhodesia throughout have been Conservative Members [HON. MEMBERS: "We are not racialist."] Of course they were racialist. They were even worse racialists in the early years of UDI.

Now Conservative Members have changed their tune. In reading the successive debates on the Rhodesia sanctions over the last 12 years, one sees that the changes have been remarkable. They were the supporters of the racialist regime, and there can be no doubt that it was a racialist regime. From the beginning the Smith regime was a white regime, and it is only recently that it, too, has changed its tune.

When I asked these questions I got no answer. In that debate of six years ago I said: The Africans of Rhodesia will take their own freedom. The need, therefore, is to recognise that the sooner that occurs the less will be the bloodshed. The sooner the Africans of Rhodesia acquire their own freedom, the less serious will be the consequences to the white minority of that country. The longer the white minority hangs on to power, the more disastrous are the consequences ultimately likely to be for them."—[Official Report, 20th July 1972; Vol. 841, c. 1119.] There would be no need for the sanctions order to be in force now if that had been recognised in 1972 by the then Government.

The idea that the blame for this situation rests only with the Labour Government is nonsense. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) said that he. too, did not know what was going on. We are entitled to say "Why did he not ask?". One reason why he did not ask was that people in his party did not want him to ask. They were the people who were encouraging the breaking of sanctions, and there is no doubt about that at all. They were very reluctant to carry on the sanctions imposed originally by a Labour Government. Indeed, many of them time and again voted against the reimposition of sanctions.

The proposals were described by many Tory Members as "Labour sanctions" It had to be made clear to them that they were not Labour sanctions but British sanctions adopted by a British Government. Many Conservative Members are the friends of Smith. They are now concerned because their friend is down on the ground and they want to lift him on to his feet. I do not blame them for that, but it is they who have changed their position in this matter.

In 1972 the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw), who was then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, said when replying to that debate that we should seek a period of sober reflection which, as all parties know, is the best thing for Rhodesia today to make racial co-operation easier. We would not dispute that. But the hon Gentleman then said: I must again stress that Her Majesty's Government have no power to control events on the ground in Rhodesia and that, much as we may regret it, there is little or nothing we can do about detentions there."—[Official Report, 20th July 1972; Vol. 841, c. 1118–26.] That was the view of the Conservative Government at that time.

The sanctions which have been brought in by a Labour Government and which have been renewed year after year are once again being renewed to bring this matter to a reasonable settlement. I hope that the majority of hon. Members will vote to support sanctions, as they have done in the past. However, I appeal to those hon. Members who have consistently voted against these proposals to change their minds and come into our Lobby with us.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

In the 13 years since 1965, I have on every occasion voted against the proposition which is now before the House, but I have rarely troubled the House with my reasons.

The Foreign Secretary, in the speech with which he opened the debate yesterday, categorised variously hon. Members who in the past had voted against this proposition. I did not find that I fitted into any of those categories. I was not in favour of UDI; there is no sense in which I have ever been a supporter of Mr. Smith or of the regime. From the beginning I believed that it was a disastrous mistake that they should have separated themselves from this country, and I foresaw no happy outcome of that action for them or for anybody else.

My reasons were of a different kind altogether. It is section 2 of the 1965 Act which formally the House is asked to renew tonight, but that section is essentially subsidiary to the declaratory section with which the Act begins. It is as well that the House should be reminded of its terms: It is hereby declared that Southern Rhodesia continues to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and that the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom have responsibility and jurisdiction as heretofore for and in respect of it. It would be difficult to cram so much falsehood into so few lines.

Those words were applied to a territory which had never been administered by the authority of Her Majesty's Government and the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was a territory over which—it may or may not be by our decision, but at least it was a decision that we had then taken, and the Foreign Secretary reminded us of it—we would not use force. Whether or not because of that decision, we were destitute of any means of exercising authority thenceforth in that territory and could, therefore, have no responsibility, as responsibility without the power to act is inconceivable.

It was from the declaration of the 1965 Act a proposition that might seem more conceivable to have come from a Byzantine court or from the summer palace of the Chinese emperors than from this House, that there followed the miserable course of events of which we have been examining a part in the past two days in the context of the Bingham report. It started with mere delusion. In that mood of delusion, we proceeded to impose sanctions to terminate the rebellion—I remember well that that was the terminology of the time. It was to be the means whereby the rebel territory was to be brought back into its obedience. However, facts soon started to break in, and from delusion we passed to self-delusion.

The phrase "weeks rather than months" has been hung round the neck of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) like a wine ticket round a carafe. [Laughter.] I am sorry if that should have been taken personally rather than metaphorically. But I have reason to remember that the right hon. Gentleman was by no means alone in that view at the time when he used those words. I can distinctly remember that those of us who were disposed to oppose the continuation of sanctions after the first 12 months were warned "You may very well put yourselves in the wrong; for it is touch and go, and there is every probability that sanctions will succeed."

Time passed, and from self-delusion we moved to hypocrisy. That was the Bingham age. In the past two days the House has been examining, 10 years late, with mock astonishment the fact that in 1967–68 sanctions were not working. It is futile to attempt to set up another body to examine who knew what. The fact is that everybody knew and yet nobody knew. Nobody knew and yet everybody knew. That was because we were determined, all of us collectively, not to know.

One of the most effective speeches of the two-day debate has been that of the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who asked the House straight out "Do you think that it would have been practicable in 1968 for a Minister to have said from the Dispatch Box ' Sanctions are not working. The oil sanction is not working because it cannot work, could not work, for the reasons that were convincingly, crushingly, explained by the Foreign Secretary yesterday '?". The answer to the right hon. Member for Fulham was No ". We had entered upon a course of deceit; and we conspired together to remain in that course of deceit.

I was not surprised to learn from the Bingham report and elsewhere that towards the end of the 1960s there was a general loss of interest in sactions. The reason why is only too obvious. But then a change in the real world came about that rescued us from that embarrassment. The collapse of the Portuguese empire in Africa totally altered the situation. It meant that force, direct force, force that we could not remotely control or foresee, would be brought to bear in Rhodesia. Make no mistake: the change in the locution of both sides of the House in regard to Rhodesia has come about as a result of the application of force. What happens in Rhodesia will be decided by force.

As we are asked again to renew our empty affirmation of 1965, Ministers and Opposition spokesmen talk about our influence and say that we must maintain sanctions because to remove them would be to destroy our influence. The Foreign Secretary was under a misapprehension when he said yesterday that it was a point that I had often made that, "having forsworn force", we therefore had "influence rather than power". But influence is not separate and different from power. It is a method of exercising power in circumstances where it seems more likely to produce results and is more convenient than the direct exercise of power. Wherever influence is exercised it is exercised because behind it there is power of some sort—not necessarily military power; often it is economic power.

We sit here talking about bringing the parties to a conference, using empty ter minology about what are figments of our imagination. There will be a conference when those concerned decide respectively that they have won or lost; and that conference will not necessarily lead to any firm or lasting result if one of the parties decides that it has a chance of gaining power at the expense of the other parties to the contract. It is not in our power to influence what will happen in Rhodesia. It is not even in our power to foresee what will happen there. That is irrelevant to the question whether we should reaffirm for the thirteenth time what we wrongly affirmed in 1965.

Neither is our obligation to the United Nations as a member of the United Nations relevant. That has been demontrated with legal force by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith); but I find a more simple demonstration of it. Both the British Government and the Administration of the United States were perfectly ready to engage in negotiations and enter into agreements in Central Africa upon the basis that, if their conditions were fulfilled, they, without so much as " by your leave " to the United Nations, with a bland assumption of United Nations acquiescence, would remove sanctions. There is no escape for us by saying Of course this is a nonsense; but we are obliged to continue with it, because we are bound by a resolution of the United Nations ".

This debate is about ourselves. It is about our honour and about, if such a word may still be used without laughter, our greatness. No country is great by self-deception. There is no honour in pretending that one has power that one manifestly does not possess. Britain today is seen by the world to be a nation which fools itself; and, because we know in our hearts that we fool ourselves, we are unable to break out of and deal with our more tangible difficulties.

Tonight's decision is about us, about whether we shall stop fooling ourselves and pretending. That does not become easier with the progress of time. It is more difficult now than it was 13 years ago. It has got more difficult with every year. Falsehood becomes more hardened as one repeats it. The attribution to oneself of qualities one does not possess becomes more difficult to disavow the oftener it is reiterated. But in the end we have to escape from our own folly; and for doing that there is no time like now.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Grocott (Lichfield and Tam-worth)

I shall not follow the fine distinctions drawn by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) between the meaning of " influence " and the meaning of " power ".

I should have thought that the fact that the whole House seems to attach importance to the decision that we are taking tonight suggests that, although we have tried to exercise responsibility without power in Southern Rhodesia, this decision is of some considerable significance. It is of considerable significance to countries and to friends in Africa. Time and again as I have listened not only to this debate but to the previous two days on much the same subject, believer as I am in open government, I have wished that some of the comments of Opposition Members would not be able to escape to the outside world and be read by our friends in Africa.

Having recently visited two countries in Africa—the Sudan and Somalia—which have thrown the Russians out and look to the West for friends, I can tell the House that the greatest damage being done to British and even to the so-called Western interests in Africa—interests which Opposition Members say they are defending—is the fact that a substantial number of people in influential positions in this House and outside are seen consistently to be supporting white racialist regimes in Rhodesia and in Southern Africa.

Friendly countries in Africa—Kenya, Tanzania and such like—would dearly like to be able to stand up at the OAU and elsewhere and proclaim their support, allegiance and friendship for the West, but they are profoundly and severely embarrassed by the repeated association of this country, all too often under Governments of both major parties, with racialist regimes in Southern Africa. I wish that Opposition Members, when they claim to be defending British and Western interests, would remember that.

I think that it is right to consider what would have been the effect on British interests if the advice of that wing of the Tory Party—a wing which has grown even stronger in the four years that I have been a Member of the House, is dominating the Opposition Front Bench and is likely to have a profound effect on the foreign policy of the Tory Party in Opposition—had been followed in the last few months since the internal settlement in March.

The Government had an extremely difficult decision to take at the time of the internal settlement. Decisions on foreign affairs are a greater test of statesmanship than decisions on domestic policy. Events move more quickly and there are more variables. The decisions have to be taken with far worse and weaker information.

If we had decided to recognise the internal settlement in Rhodesia, as the majority wing of the Tory Party wanted us to do, what would have been the inevitable consequences? If the analysis is wrong, let us consider it.

The inevitable consequences would have been at least twofold. One consequence would have been that the rest of the African countries would have had to decide about black leadership within Rhodesia, there then being, as there are now, two sets of black leaders in that country. One set is the group of the internal settlement and the other is still fighting. The internal settlement leaders have received the Smith stamp of approval, and until recently the Vorster stamp of approval, followed by the Botha stamp of approval.

I ask any hon. Member who is willing to look at the matter dispassionately: what is the inevitable kiss of death for any black nationalist in Rhodesia if it is not to receive the Smith seal of approval? Is it conceivable, was it ever conceivable, that African nations when faced with the choice between backing one of the alternatives would back those nationalist leaders who had received the approval of the man who for 13 years had determinedly and consistently tried to deny all the nationalists their legitimate aspirations?

Therefore, inevitably, if Britain had in any way shown support for the internal settlement, the consequence would have been a diplomatic isolation as great as at any time since the Suez fiasco. We should have been backed internationally by no one save South Africa. Is that the way in which Conservative Members try to further British interests in the African continent?

What would the other consequence have been? Surely there would have been no point in backing the internal settlement unless we had backed it with something more than language. Here I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South that if one is to try to exercise some kind of power in this situation it means some kind of military support.

Therefore, 13 years after we should have acted militarily we should have been asked and expected to give military support to an already tottering internal settlement, faced with civil war, backing Smith in effect 13 years after we should have had the guts to use force to put him down. We should have been faced with the opposition not only, and predictably, of the Communist world but of all our friends in Africa, many of them wanting to be, and being, genuine and sincere friends.

Mr. Michael Mates (Petersfield)

When the hon. Gentleman talks about force, will he say who should have used what force 13 years ago?

Mr. Grocott

Thirteen years ago the British Government should have been prepared to use force, as they did in all their other colonial territories when faced with rebellion, to put down the Smith regime. There is no doubt, I regret to say, that had Smith had a black face instead of a white one Conservative Members would have been demanding the use of force to put him down.

So, if we had misguidedly followed the advice of Conservative Members, we should have been faced with complete diplomatic isolation, supporting by force a regime that was bound to fail. I must ask myself what is the justification for Conservative Members' support for the internal settlement and what is the sincerity of their support.

I was not in the House 10 or 13 years ago. What was the enthusiasm then of hon. Members such as the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and the rest for men such as Sithole and Muzorewa? Were they keen supporters of Sithole? Were they trying to get him out of detention? At the time of the Pearce Commission, were hon. Members from Brighton and the rest saying "We must listen to the bishop on this issue. He clearly represents African opinion. We must be careful"? Of course not.

The only reason why such Conservative Members are prepared to back the internal settlement in any way is that they know, as the world knows, that the black Africans who have gone along with the settlement have capitulated to Smith. Everything that has happened since then has made it perfectly plain.

Where do we move in British policy from the present position? The first move is surely to recognise the reasons for the establishment of the internal settlement and to recognise, as the right hon. Member for Down, South did, that the only reason why Smith has shown the remotest interest in democracy, the remotest interest in reaching an internal settlement, is that he is losing the war against those in Rhodesia who are prepared to fight for freedom and for their democratic rights. There would have been no shift in Smith's position had that not been the case.

It is with no great pleasure that I say that those who have fought for their freedom in Rhodesia and who continue to fight are bound to inherit the new State when eventually freedom is achieved in that country. That has always been the case elsewhere. Elsewhere in Africa, whenever a group of people have been prepared to fight, it has always been the fighters who have taken over. This is regrettable. I wish that matters had never reached this stage. I wish that there had been a transition, as there was in Kenya. But, regrettably, if the ruling clique is so intransigent that a fight is inevitable, the regime that takes over is a much less pleasant one, much more military-based and much less likely to respect many of the traditions which perhaps we hold dear. But that is a fact of life, and it will have to be recognised in Rhodesia.

Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Sithole and the rest would not be part sharing power in Rhodesia today if it had not been for the fact that black Africans in Rhodesia were prepared to fight for their birthright. If we ever had a situation in this country where 4 per cent. of the population dominated Parliament, the Civil Service, the armed forces and industry, I hope that there would be one or two amongst the remaining 96 per cent. who would have the guts eventually to fight for their rights, which is exactly what black Rhodesians have done.

When we come to reach a settlement in Rhodesia, when we make it plain that the internal settlement is no basis for the final solution of the problem of Rhodesia but that we must back those who are prepared to fight for their freedom in Rhodesia, and when we conclude that only by ditching Smith is there any possibility of reaching any settlement in Rhodesia, I hope that we shall not compromise our position by friendship with South Africa, which is the shark where Rhodesia is the minnow. I was disturbed by what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at the beginning of this debate. He almost showed pleasure about the possibility of reaching agreement with South Africa on Rhodesia. The South Africans will have to realise, as the Rhodesians do now, that in the long run they are bound to lose, just as Opposition Members are bound to lose. Despite their numerous visits to Rhodesia, they seem to have learnt nothing.

I hope that those of us who are concerned about Western and British interests will back and support the renewal of sanctions.

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon (Hexham)

I believe that we should both support and recognise the internal settlement as set out in the March agreement. I also believe that the present Government bear a very heavy responsibility, bearing in mind the way in which they have refused to help moderate black Africans inside Rhodesia and instead have chosen to give aid and comfort to the black terrorist guerrillas outside that country.

I believe that the March agreement was in accordance with the five principles which we have supported. I might say to the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) that it is also in accordance with the sixth addendum which the then Prime Minister added on 25th January 1966 when he told the House that a sixth principle must be added, namely, the need to ensure that, regardless of race. there is no oppression of majority by minority or of minority by majority."—[Official Report, 25th January 1966; Vol. 723, c. 42.] Some Government supporters seem to have forgotten the sixth addendum altogether.

What all of us in this House have tried to achieve from the outset is what the internal settlement guarantees, namely, a free, independent, multi-racial democracy. That, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, is exactly what the Patriotic Front and Mr. Mugabe in particular do not guarantee and do not want, because they have said clearly that they want one man, one vote, one Marxist party, and probably only one election.

At the same time, we have all been agreed on the aim of bringing Rhodesia back into a legal relationship with Britain in a way which will restore also her international recognition. It is because of that that I believe that we must be very careful not to let our disgust at the way the Government and the Foreign Secretary have handled matters lead us in an emotional atmosphere to call tonight for the unilateral lifting of sanctions.

Undoubtedly sanctions have remained largely unenforced and unenforceable, and undoubtedly, as we on this side of the House have said from the outset, mandatory sanctions should never have been imposed and the Rhodesian issue should never have been handed over to the United Nations as a matter involving a breach of the peace. But the fact remains that, however regrettable that was, we did it, and we cannot entirely, on either side of the House, escape the consequences of that action.

As Sir Alec Douglas-Home, as he then was, told the Conservative Party conference in 1973, The British Government of the day put its signature to a resolution of the Security Council of the United Nations which is binding on its members, We are a permanent member, and we are in the habit of keeping Britain's word. We do not, and individual Conservatives do not, pick and choose which laws we obey and which we do not, nationally or internationally. That is a principle upon which I believe we ought to stand. It is not a principle upon which the Labour Party and the present Government have always stood. It is on that principle that we must stand, and it is in that sense that I believe, as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, that this debate is about us, about how a British Parliament behaves in relation to its international obligations.

Our purpose is to restore legality and international recognition, and that is why I fear that we would only play into the hands of our enemies if we were to argue for a unilateral breach of our own international obligations. That is why I believe that what the Government should do is to recognise the internal settlement and in consequence go back to the United Nations, reassert British responsibility, which should never have been abrogated anyway, and state that the basis upon which sanctions were imposed no longer exists and that they must therefore end. I believe that that is the right way to proceed, and it is for that reason that I think it would be wrong to vote against the order.

Mr. Powell

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what course he would recommend if agreement in those circumstances could not be obtained in the United Nations?

Mr. Rippon

I think that that is the first step that we should take. We should reassert our responsibility and say that the basis on which the sanctions were imposed does not exist and, therefore, we feel entitled to end them. I think that that would be a proper reassertion of our position in a proper way.

Meanwhile, I think that we are entitled as an Opposition to protest at the way in which the Government have handled this matter. That can properly be done by abstaining on this motion. Certainly, for my part, I would not suggest that those of us who have from time to time supported the Government on this issue could conceivably go into the same Lobby as a Government and a Foreign Secretary who have consistently since the March agreement betrayed moderate blacks and whites alike.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I had no intention of speaking in the debate until I listened to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He is someone we listen to with the greatest of respect. We all listen carefully to what he says. He is right in one essential, and that is that we are in the position we are today as far as Rhodesia is concerned, and Mr. Smith has arrived at the position he has arrived at, precisely and only precisely because sections of the people in Rhodesia were prepared—unfortunately, it was the only way they could do it—to take up arms against the Smith regime. That is the great difficulty we face. It is force that has led us to this situation.

I was a Member of this House when UDI was proclaimed. I remember the debates of that time. We had three choices before us. We could have washed our hands of the situation and said that it did not matter and we would accept UDI. We could have put troops in. We decided, as a country and a Parliament, not to do that. The only thing that we could then do was to try to apply sanctions as the alternative to force.

In this debate we are concerned with ourselves. Our honour is at stake. It at the time of UDI Tory Members had wanted to accept it, they should have said so. There were one or two who did. They were the honest ones, the ones who consistently supported Smith. But the majority of Tory Members went along with the concept of sanctions because they knew that that was the only alternative that the Government had.

In this issue we are concerned with being able to look at people, in Africa in particular, and say "We are standing by decisions we made at the time of UDI because they were right". It is clear that regimes which have secured power in Africa have not always turned out the way many of us would have wanted. They have ended up as one-party States, as anti-democratic. But I put it to Tory Members that they were once supporting some of the politicians who today are leading certain African countries as the Heads of one-party States. Yet they were once the so-called moderates.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

Which ones?

Mr. Heffer

Amin. Tory Members were saying that he was a moderate who had to be supported against others in Africa.

I, too, have a long memory. Many Conservative Members do not seem to understand the lessons of history when they are staring them in the face. I and other hon. Members can remember when Kenyatta was someone who had to be imprisoned, yet he ended up as a great man. Everyone went to his funeral and said what a fine man he was and how much he did for his country. I remember Makarios.

I was in America when Castro acted and when he applied to the Americans for aid. They turned their backs on him and he ended up in the Russian camp. We have acted stupidly in the past over Africa. Because of our actions, we have driven many of these political leaders into the Russian camp. Let us remember, however, that when we were in trouble, in the Second World War, we were not averse to getting ammunition and support from the Russians, with whom we were fighting a common enemy.

Let us face the realities of what we are talking about. Conservative Members have learnt nothing. They never seem to learn anything. But people will get their self-determination whether the Conservatives like it or whether we like it. Our honour is at stake, and, therefore, I ask hon. Members to support the motion in favour of the order.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedford-shire)

For me, the saddest aspect of this long debate is not simply that much of the argument has seemed to be ill-founded but that it is so fatally repetitious. It is as though we never learn. Only events in Rhodesia change. Here it is like a dedicated act of collective paralysis every year.

Labour Members, with so little real knowledge of the country they condemn, and only their violent prejudice to guide them, fulminate against the Rhodesians. My right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench conscientiously point out the latest category of foolishness and hypocrisy of the Government, they wring their hands, and then they advise us to do nothing about it—and so we go on, with all the measured descent of a Greek tragedy.

When the history of this time is written I believe it will be said that this was the moment when the British went off their heads. It is not the Rhodesians that we should be lamenting today. Their lot is hard enough, God knows. They are told constantly that their position is desperate and that the only proper thing for them to do is to hand over their arms and surrender their destiny to others. But what do they do? They carry on farming behind the barbed wire, they balance their books, they join the reserve, and they fight on. Their decision is clear. Their determination cannot be doubted. These are the qualities that we used to admire in ourselves.

What of us now? What really lies behind all the duplicity and posturing of the Government and the uncertainty of the official Opposition? I think it is because we have become conditioned for so long to a whole pantheon of myths and fables that we no longer recognise reality in international affairs. We defer and genuflect to phantoms. We run away from shadows. If we cannot again learn to distinguish between reality and conventional myth, our fate will be sealed more certainly than is Rhodesia's. That really should be the theme of these two days of debate.

What, then, is the reality of sanctions? Some of us implored our Conservative colleagues, 13 years ago, whatever their views might be about the Rhodesian crisis, to have nothing to do with a policy that must fail. They did not listen. It failed. The proponents claimed proudly afterwards that at least it damaged Rhodesia. What a brave boast! Yet sanctions have never in all this long time brought the settlement nearer by one single day. Yesterday. for an hour, we heard the author of that policy explaining why it had turned into a dishonest farce. Of course, it was everybody's fault but his own. I never thought to hear such a tortuous and demeaning speech in this House. But he did us a service, nevertheless. He demonstrated what sanctions really are, and that is what we are being asked to support this evening.

What is the truth about the Labour Government's position? After all, it was a Labour Government who instituted the policy in the first place, who limply handed the problem to the United Nations, who finally handed such influence as was left to the Americans, and who then sabotaged the only useful initiative, the Kissinger proposals, that the Americans ever took. It is the Labour Government who have now altogether abandoned the initiative to a muddled American Administration, and who have thus been led deliberately to damage the internal settlement. Finally, it is they who have now sent arms to Zambia to defend the guerrilla camps.

A few months ago, in June, I think, Mr. Charles Douglas Home, in a very intelligent article in The Times, aptly described the Foreign Secretary's policy as one of "malign neglect". It has changed since then. Now one can term it "active enmity" towards the settlement. And why? I suppose that if he really could tell us what is in his mind, instead of what he told us yesterday, the Foreign Secretary would say that we cannot afford to distance ourselves from the Americans. But what do the American Administration want? The only discernible policy that I can see is to install Nkomo before the Russians do, in order to avoid, almost at any cost, confrontation with the USSR in Africa, and even that will not work. Between them, the British and the American Governments have made the sixth principle impossible to implement, and it is a wicked deception to pretend otherwise.

The only way to demonstrate to the nation, to the Rhodesians and to the world that we oppose this dismal and cowardly folly is to vote against the order this evening. By failing to do this, my right hon. Friends—I am sorry to have to say it—condone everything that the present Government have done and are doing. No words of mitigation, no protestations of good will, no wringing of hands, will avail. They condone it if they sit on their hands tonight. And what, with respect, are they frightened of? Is it the United Nations, the EEC, the OAU, or even the Nigerians? Why can they not see that a firm stand for their convictions on this issue would do so much to enhance the influence of the next Conservative Government let alone the fact—it is a small consideration of no importance to Labour Members, I know, but nevertheless a consideration—that it would support the wishes of the British people?

In July last, Senator Helm's amendment very nearly put an end to sanctions in Washington. It failed by only three votes. That trend, if my information is right, is strengthening. I believe that the United States will soon come to its senses and that the policy will change, probably through Congress. When that happens, do my right hon. Friends think that the American Administration will be deterred by terror of the United Nations or the OAU? I doubt it very much.

We in this country are safe only when our foreign policy is in the hands of men who understand the realities of power and, thus, the dangers that face us. There is not much sign of this throughout the debate so far. But there is, nevertheless, something that the rest of us can do. I fear that there will be no Camp David in this story. Why did the Prime Minister intervene so rapidly yesterday when it was suggested? He will not risk what is left of his reputation on a certain loser, that is sure. It is too late for appeals to reason. We are concerned with an armed and ruthless struggle for power—nothing less. The only course is to support the solution nearest to our aspirations. There will be no other. It is and it always has been the internal settlement, and the Foreign Secretary knows it perfectly well.

With all its inevitable limitations, the internal settlement is still an achievement beyond the wildest dreams of most of us who know Rhodesia. If we wish to support it, we have to vote against this order.

Finally, I go so far as to say that if we wish to try to put an end to the most shameful episode in all our imperial and post-imperial history, we have to vote against this order this evening. The time for temporising is long past. We oppose sanctions tonight or we carry the responsibility and the guilt for the consequences, each and every one of us, for ever more. Much is at stake. I hope that enough of us will be worthy of this hour.

Several Hon. Membersrose

Mr. Speaker

I call the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). Perhaps I may tell the hon. Gentleman that if he finds it possible to contain his speech within a period of five minutes, I shall be able to fit in the speech of another hon. Member before the winding-up speeches.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

In discussing the sanctions on Rhodesia tonight hon. Members ought to realise that although it is a small debate in the House of Commons, people in Africa and all of Asia, and in many nations elsewhere, will look upon its outcome. There is one thing that will disturb millions of ordinary people, not to mention those in our own country—that is, that one of the real tragedies that we have witnessed tonight is the unconstrained glee and happiness that we have heard from Conservative Members in the joy that they are experiencing because up to now sanctions have failed. That failure has brought to the Tory Party—the party of law and order—much joy and happiness.

We heard from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that he condemned sanctions. We heard him say that they would not work. He was not even prepared to vote once in their favour to see if they could work. He said so. As usual, we had a superb, brilliant construction of a speech, with its usual feet of clay. What the right hon. Gentleman ought to have done was to consider the possibility of sanctions playing an effective part.

Who were the people who contributed to ensuring that they did not? They were folk from South Africa, the multinationals and people thriving on deception. The Tory Party has agreed with them tonight. That is where the Tory Party stands.

We then had a remarkable speech from the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). The essence of it was that while this Parliament might be legal he could not agree with it, while the Government of the United States might be legal he could not agree with it, while the United Nations might be legal he could not agree with it, but as a good Tory he could agree with the illegal actions of an illegal regime. He put the hallmark on the hypocrisy of the party to which he belongs.

Let us remember not only that we are defending the honour of the House of Commons and our nation with regard to Rhodesia itself, but that millions of people will want to know whether we still have the guts and the courage to carry on with this policy. In the interests of humanity and peace, which must come, I hope that we will vote for the continuance of sanctions this evening.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)

I contribute to this debate as someone who in the past has consistently supported a bi-partisan and united approach to Rhodesia. I recognise that on this occasion it is difficult, and there will have to be powerful arguments, to persuade anyone to change that stance. But in my own judgment I have now arrived at the careful conclusion that the situation in Rhodesia is so dire, and the circumstances have changed to such effect, that the time has come to end sanctions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) said earlier today that the arguments against renewal of sanctions, or in favour of them, were political rather than economic. That is correct, and I should briefly like to examine those political arguments. It seems to me that there are three. First, one can argue that the imposition of sanctions is an effective political weapon in terms of wresting concessions from Ian Smith. But would anyone deny that he has made substantial concessions? Even without putting a value judgment on the nature of the present situation, I suggest that if that degree of concession had been made 10 years ago sanctions could easily have been lifted at that time.

Furthermore, I believe that one of the most powerful arguments for renewing sanctions is that Mr. Smith or the interim Government might yet delay the process of elections in Rhodesia. But I strongly believe that the deciding influence is not a continuation of sanctions but the security situation within Rhodesia, and the decline in morale forced by the military situation and the exodus of people from that country. That is the factor within Rhodesia which will force them to make concessions or hold elections—it is not the continuation of sanctions.

The other political argument for continuing sanctions, is that by doing so one exerts a political influence on the Patriotic Front leaders to come to the negotiating table, in the sense that if sanctions were lifted Rhodesia will be able to import the means to deal more effectively with the internal security situation. But to that I say that surely within the past few weeks the test has been applied. The interim Government of Rhodesia, together with the British and American Governments, arrived at an agreement that they would come to the negotiating table and that an offer of participation would be extended to the Patriotic Front leaders.

Nobody should underestimate the substantial concessions made by the interim Government of Rhodesia on the five points on the agenda for such discussions. If it is argued that sanctions can be used to persuade Patriotic Front leaders to come to the negotiating table, I say that the ball is firmly in the court of the Patriotic Front. If its leaders fail to come, surely it will be clear beyond all question of doubt that they have rejected any last vestige of a chance of a peaceful solution and a constitutional agreement. Such appears to be the case.

The third and final political argument which can be adduced in favour of renewing sanctions is that we should keep faith with our international obligations and that we should try to lessen the impact of reaction against this country if they are not renewed. There it is a question of judgment. I ask: do we really underestimate so greatly the influence that we still have in world councils, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to believe? Surely we overestimate the unfavourable reaction that many other countries will have, because they need to trade with us as much as we need to trade with them.

On this issue I believe that the time has come not to be equivocal. I believe that the circumstances have changed to such an extent that, if we accept section 1 of the Act, we must recognise that it is now necessary for us to say where we stand on this issue. By acquiescing tonight we shall be acquiescing in the renewal of sanctions. For those reasons, which I believe to be self-evident, we should be pragmatic, we should have the confidence internationally to say what we believe, and in doing so we need have no fear of incurring recriminations or holding ourselves to blame in years to come. For those reasons, I shall be voting against the renewal of sanctions.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)

As I had the opportunity to speak in the debate yesterday, I think it right to restrict my remarks tonight to two or three minutes.

We have to make a judgment about the order, first, in relation to how best we can help the people of Rhodesia to achieve the central objective, which is to bring Rhodesia back to legality, to obtain international recognition so that we bring that country to a genuine independence based upon majority rule. Secondly, we must make a judgment about British credibility in the international world in view of the obligations that we entered into. That is not a light matter. Many years ago, whether we agreed with it or not, we undertook in this Parliament to enter into certain obligations; and they were entered into. As my right hon and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) said so powerfully, it is not right for us now to choose which obligations we shall fulfil and which we shall not.

I gave our judgment about those matters yesterday, and my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) and for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) gave them again today. I do not think that it was quite fair for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) to suggest that we want to do nothing about it. Certainly we do not condone what the Government have been doing about the matter and we have condemned their handling of it.

The Foreign Secretary, in moving the acceptance of the order, said that he had hoped that last year would be the last year. He is not the first Foreign Secretary who has said that. However, as a result of the initiative taken last year and, even more, because of the creation of the internal settlement at the beginning of March, there was reasonably good reason for the right hon. Gentleman to hope that it might have been the last year. We believe—I am sorry to say this to the Foreign Secretary again—that if matters had been handled differently, by a different Foreign Secretary, very probably—I do not want to put it higher—we would not be faced with this order tonight. But we are now in this position.

We have made our judgment—that, notwithstanding our criticisms of the Government, in all the circumstances, for the moment things are best left as they are.

The Foreign Secretary said that he was moving the order, as he has to do, for a further year, but naturally we hope that long before that time is up he will be able to bring the matter back to the House because there will have been a return to legality, there will have been international recognition, and sanctions can be lifted. So we certainly hope that it will not endure for long. However, for the reasons that I gave yesterday, we believe that the best judgment for us to take in the present circumstances on this matter is to leave things as they are.

11.41 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands)

Over the last two days, the issue and the principles of sanctions, and their continuation and their role, have been debated at great length. Perhaps the additional point raised today emerged in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who cast doubt on their legality.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to think that the Security Council was mistaken in its decisions or assessments and in characterising the situation in Rhodesia as a threat to peace, but he is in error in suggesting that the decision was unlawful, as I think he did.

Under the United Nations charter, the appreciation of the question whether a situation falls within article 39 is within the discretion of the Security Council itself. Provided that the decision is adopted by the requisite majority and that no permanent members vote against it, that decision becomes lawful. It is then binding on all members of the United Nations under article 25.

Sir D. Walker-Smithrose

Mr. Rowlands

I have very little time and I want to answer all the questions, so I cannot give way.

Quite apart from the question of the role of the Security Council, nothing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman said had any bearing on the motion. It relates to the renewal of sanctions under an Act of Parliament which confers certain powers on the Government of the United Kingdom. That Act was passed long before the Security Council took its decision and the powers which it confers are necessary not only to give effect to the decisions of the Security Council but for a wide range of other purposes.

There is no legal reason why this order should not be renewed tonight. There is certainly no moral or political reason for not passing it. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) made this point right from the beginning and again tonight. If we did not do so, if we showed the world, and Africa in particular, that we were not willing to commit ourselves until majority rule had been established and the fifth principle met, until fair and free elections had been held, until international acceptance had been gained, we should be reneging on our responsibilities and saying to the rest of the world "We no longer care. We are not willing to stand up and be counted, to stand by the internationally binding commitments, made and accepted by successive Governments." That is why, throughout these two days, support has been expressed on all sides for the continuation of this order.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) gained a great cheer from many hon. Members when he stated his position. He has held his views consistently for 13 years. The vast majority of the hon. Members who cheered him do not support his central proposition—that we have no influence. His belief is that the war will go on, the battle will be fought on the ground and the results will be determined entirely by such a conflict. He denied the influence of this House and any form of negotiation.

Many hon. Members who cheered the right hon. Member do not support that position, even though they oppose sanctions. Many do believe that we have influence, and some have wanted to exercise that influence in favour of Mr. Smith from the first day. Others have wanted to exercise influence to give support to the internal settlement. We want to exercise our influence to achieve an all-party conference, which is the only way in which we can get a peaceful transition to majority rule.

Those who cheered the right hon. Member for Down, South were denying any influence that this House or successive British Governments might have in helping Rhodesia towards peaceful majority rule. Perhaps the right hon Member has converted other hon. Members to his cause, but I would not have thought that that was evident from the two days of speeches that we have heard.

No Government have accepted the Rhodesian situation or have been willing to wash their hands of it like Pontius Pilate. Successive Governments have tried to influence efforts to bring about a peaceful transition to majority rule. Part and parcel of that process has been the continuation of and willingness to uphold and stand by sanctions.

The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) in a courageous speech repeated his long-standing view that if Members of his party also did not stand up and support—or at least not oppose—sanctions, they would be destroying the credibility that we have in Africa and in the international community generally.

There are many Conservative Members who will not go into our Lobby tonight but who realise and appreciate that they should be with us. Nevertheless we strongly urge and recommend to the House that this order be renewed for another year.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 121.

Division No. 2] AYES [11.48 p.m.
Abse, Leo Cox, Thomas (Tooting) George Bruce
Allaun, Frank Craigen, Jim (Maryhill) Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Anderson, Donald Crawford, Douglas Ginsburg, David
Archer, Rt Hon Peter Crawshaw, Richard Golding, John
Armstrong, Ernest Cronin, John Gould, Bryan
Ashley, Jack Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Gourlay, Harry
Ashton, Joe Cryer, Bob Graham, Ted
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Grant, George (Morpeth)
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham) Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten) Grant, John (Islington C)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Dalyell, Tarn Grocott, Bruce
Bain, Mrs Margaret Davidson, Arthur Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Hardy, Peter
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Davies, Rt Hon Denzil Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Bates, Alf Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Bean, R. E. Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Beith, A. J. Deakins, Eric Hayman, Mrs Helene
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Heffer, Eric S.
Bidwell, Sydney Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Henderson, Douglas
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward Dempsey, James Hooley, Frank
Blenkinsop, Arthur Dewar, Donald Horam, John
Boardman, H. Doig, Peter Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Dormand, J. D. Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Douglas-Mann, Bruce Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Duffy, A. E. P. Huckfield, Les
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Dunnet, Jack Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Bradley, Tom Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Edge, Geoff Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Ellis. Tom (Wrexham) Hunter, Adam
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) English, Michael Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Buchan, Norman Ennals, Rt Hon David Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Buchanan, Richard Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Janner, Greville
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Evans, John (Newton) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Campbell, Ian Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Jeger, Mrs Lena
Canavan, Dennis Faulds, Andrew Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Cant, R. B. Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. John, Brynmor
Carmichael, Neil Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Johnson, James (Hull West)
Carter, Ray Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Flannery, Martin Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Cartwright, John Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston) Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Clemitson, Ivor Foot, Rt Hon Michael Judd, Frank
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S) Ford, Ben Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Cohen, Stanley Forrester, John Kelley, Richard
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Kerr, Russell
Concannon, Rt Hon John Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Conlan, Bernard Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald Kinnock, Neil
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Freud, Clement Lamble, David
Corbett, Robin Garrett, John (Norwich S) Lamborn, Harry
Cowans, Harry Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Lamond, James
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Orbach, Maurice Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Leadbitter, Ted Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Stoddart, David
Lee, John Ovenden, John Stott, Roger
Lestor. Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Owen, Rt Hon Dr David Strang, Gavin
Lever, Rt Hon Harold Padley, Walter Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Palmer, Arthur Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Pardoe, John Swain, Thomas
Litterick, Tom Park, George Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey Parker, John Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Lomas, Kenneth Parry, Robert Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Loyden, Eddie Pavitt, Laurie Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Luard, Evan Pendry, Tom Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Lyon, Alexander (York) Perry, Ernest Thompson, George
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Phipps, Dr Colin Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson Prescott, John Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
McCartney, Hugh Price, C. (Lewisham W) Tierney, Sydney
McDonald, Cr Oonagh Price, Willam (Rugby) Tilley, John
McElhone, Frank Radice, Giles Tinn, James
MacFarquhar, Roderick Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Tomlinson, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince) Richardson, Miss Jo Tomney, Frank
McKay, Allen Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Torney, Tom
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor Roberts, Gwilym (Canunock) Tuck, Raphael
Maclennan Robert Robertson, George (Hamilton) Urwin, T. W.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Robertson, Home Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
McNaroara, Kevin Robinson, Geoffrey Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Madden, Max Roderick, Caerwyn Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Magee, Bryan Rodgers, George (Chorley) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mahon Simon Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. Rooker, J. W. Ward, Michael
Marks, kenneth Roper, John Watkins, David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Rose, Paul B. Watkinson, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Weetch, Ken
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Weitzman, David
Mason, Rt Hon Roy Rowlands, Ted Wellbeloved, James
Maynard, Miss Joan Ryman, John White, Frank R. (Bury)
Meacher, Michael Sandelson, Neville White, James (Pollok)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Sedgemore, Brian Whitehead, Philip
Mikardo, Ian Selby, Harry Whitlock, William
Millan, Rt Hon Robert Sever, John Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) Williams, Rt Hon Allan (Swansea W)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby) Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Shore, Rt Hon Peter Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Molloy, William Short, Mrs Renee (Wolv NE) Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Moonman, Eric Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Morris, Alfred (Wy'henshawe) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R. Sillars, James Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Silverman, Julius Wise, Mrs Audrey
Morton, George Skinner, Dennis Woodall, Alec
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Woof, Robert
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederic* Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Murray, Rt Hon Ronals King Snape, Peter Young, David (Bolton E)
Newens, Stanley Spearing, Nigel
Noble, Mike Sprigs, Leslie TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Oakes, Gordon Stallard, A. W. Mr. James Hamilton and
Ogden, Eric Steel, Rt Hon David Mr. Donald Coleman.
O'Halloran, Michael
Aitken, Jonathan Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Kershaw, Anthony
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Fry, Peter Kimball, Marcus
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East) Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Bendall, Vivian Gardiner, George (Reigate) Knight, Mrs Jill
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Langford-Holt, Sir John
Benyon, W. Glyn, Dr Alan Latham, Michael (Melton)
Biggs-Davison, John Goodhart, Philip Lawrence, Ivan
Boscawen, Hon Robert Goodhew, Victor Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Braine, Sir Bernard Gorst, John Lloyd, Ian
Brotherton, Michael Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Loveridge, John
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Griffiths, Eldon McAdden, Sir Stephen
Burden, F. A. Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell) McCusker, H.
Channon, Paul Hannam, John Macfarlane, Neil
Churchill, W. S. Harvle Anderson. Rt Hon Miss MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Hastings, Stephen Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Clark, William (Croydon S) Hawkins, Paul Mates, Michael
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Holland, Philip Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Dodsworih, Geoffrey Hordern, Peter Mawby, Ray
Drayson, Burnaby Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Mayhew, Patrick
Dunlop, John Hutchison, Michael Clark Meyer, Sir Anthony
Durant, Tony Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John James, David Moate, Roger
Fairbairn, Nicholas Jessel, Toby Molyneaux, James
Farr, John Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Montgomery, Fergus
Fell, Anthony Kaberry, Sir Donald Morgan, Geraint
Fookes, Miss Janet Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Mudd, David Ross, William (Londonderry) Tebbit, Norman
Nelson, Anthony Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) Wakeham, John
Newton, Tony Scott-Hopkins, James Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Normanton, Tom Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Wall, Patrick
Osborn, John Shelton, William (Streatham) Warren, Kenneth
Page, John (Harrow West) Shepherd, Colin Wells, John
Paisley, Rev Ian Shersby, Michael Whitney, Raymond
Pattie, Geoffrey Sims, Roger Wiggin, Jerry
Pink, R. Bonner Skeet, T. H. H. Winterton, Nicholas
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch Smith, Dudley (Warwick) Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Price, David (Eastleigh) Spence, John
Rees-Davies, W. R. Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Sproat, Iain Mr. Ronald Bell and
Ridley, Hon Nicholas Stainton, Keith Mr. Nick Budgen.
Ridsdale, Julian Stokes, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 24th October 1978, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

Back to