§ 2.43 p.m.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government to reconcile the statement made on December 7 by the Lord Chancellor in this House that the Government would be prepared to consider proposals from Mr. Smith with that of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations on the same day in another place that the Government could not deal with Mr. Smith in any way.]
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)My Lords, as I pointed out to the House, there are two separate Rhodesian problems, the short-term problem and the long-term problem. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State was speaking in one context and I in the other. In the Daily Mirror interview my right honourable friend the Prime Minister had said that it was open to Mr. Smith to make representations to the Governor and that we should consider any such representations received from the Governor, and in the debate I said:
The question has been raised: Would Mr. Smith be able to make a proposal? Certainly. It is open to Mr. Smith, now, to put before the Governor any proposals which he has to make, and any proposals which he makes will be carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government ".
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could give me clarification of two other points. First, does Her Majesty's Government consider that the excuses and explanations that have been made here and in another place will only make the people of Rhodesia view Her Majesty's Government with even greater mistrust and make the chance of negotiations even more difficult to obtain? Secondly, do they consider outbursts and personal remarks such as "small 815 frightened men", "not to be trusted", "liar", from Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers in keeping with their high office, and that they can materially help the situation?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, in answer to the first supplementary question, I do not think there has been any confusion at all except that those raising questions have confused the short-term problem with the long-term problem, which are two entirely different things. In answer to the second supplementary question, it is, I think, relevant to take into account those with whom we are dealing, and in the course of the debate I myself pointed out that the Order signed by the Governor declaring a State of Emergency was obtained on a direct representation by Mr. Smith to him that this was not a pelude to a U.D.I., when we in fact now know that it was.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, will the noble and learned Lord emphasis, in answer to questions of this sort, that this is not just a Rhodesian problem; it is a problem which affects Africa, our relations with Africans and Europeans, and our relations with the rest of the world?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I entirely agree with that, and that is why the House may feel that they ought to weigh their words when they make observations which are reported everywhere in the world.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERMy Lords, all noble Lords in this House have been, and I am sure still are, against U.D.I. But anyone who dares to criticise the Government's handling of this terrible situation is branded as a Smith supporter causing a rift in the British approach.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERI was trying to answer the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
§ BARONESS HORSBRUGHMy Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say 816 whether Mr. Smith has been clearly informed of the possibility of putting forward proposals through the Governor, as otherwise he might have been misled by what was said on one occasion in the other place?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, Mr. Smith knows perfectly well that that is the position, and indeed, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in the course of the Daily Mirror interview, he had already made proposals to the Governor. He is therefore well aware of his rights.