§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, may I now ask for an Answer to the Private Notice Question which I asked some time ago?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I will answer it now. I apologise for the delay in making it. It is in reply to a Private Notice Question elsewhere by Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, which runs—
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, with great respect to the noble Earl, I have put a Private Notice Question to the noble Earl and I should like it answered. I am not speaking on behalf of any member of the Liberal Party—I would not claim to do that. That is why I was hoping that at some stage the noble Earl would explain why it was necessary to wait so long, not for a repetition of a Statement made in another place but to answer a Private Notice Question in this House. It may be the case, and I hope it is, that the Government speak with the same voice in both Houses, and that I may get the same Answer as has been given by the Prime Minister in another place. I suggest—and perhaps we need not pursue it now—that it is a matter for consultation between the usual channels, to see whether it is necessary in future to have such a long delay in answering in this House a Private Notice Question which may elicit from Her Majesty's Government an Answer in precisely the same 712 form as one which it is proposed to be made in another place.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I stand rebuked, and I am sure that the rather laborious sarcasm of the noble Viscount—
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDAs I say, my Lords, I stand rebuked by the rather laborious sarcasm of the noble Viscount. I cannot do more than stand rebuked. As a matter of fact, I was trying to be helpful to the House by explaining what the Question was, because I thought that otherwise the House might not quite understand what the Statement was about. But the noble Viscount caught me out in a verbal infelicity, and I offer him, and the House, my apologies. I was only trying to tell the House what the Statement was about. With the leave of the House, I am making a Statement in the same terms as those being used by the Prime Minister elsewhere. I hope that that fits in with the wishes of the noble Viscount.
The Prime Minister is making this Statement elsewhere, in reply to a Question by Mr. Jeremy Thorpe which runs as follows:
"To ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a Statement about the purported dismissal of Her Majesty's Governor in Rhodesia by the Smith régime in Salisbury."
The Statement of the Prime Minister, which I hope I may be allowed to reproduce in his own words, runs as follows:
"The House will have seen with regret and noted with contempt the action the illegal régime have taken in purporting to replace the Governor by Mr. Dupont. I repeat that the Governor holds his office during Her Majesty's pleasure and can be removed only on Her Majesty's instructions. As I warned earlier in the week, this is an act of treason.
"Honourable Members will have noticed that in carrying through this illegal procedure the persons concerned appear to have been unable to 713 secure the services of the Chief Justice or any other judge and had to use a justice of the peace. The House, too, will have noticed the contemptible action of the illegal authorities in the form of the pressure put on the Governor, Lady Gibbs, and their loyal staff.
"I would conclude only with this. Honourable Members who know Sir Humphrey Gibbs and who have had an opportunity of forming some impression of Mr. Dupont will, in making the inevitable contrast, be able to measure the extent to which Rhodesia has been degraded and her people abused by the events of the past seven days."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement of the Prime Minister.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for answering the Question in the same terms as the Prime Minister has answered in another place, and, in fact, repeating the Prime Minister's Answer. I am sorry that the noble Earl thought I was being sarcastic or, indeed, laboriously sarcastic. That was not my intention. My intention was to ask him to consider through the usual channels this delay, which is getting longer and longer. We were not, in fact, asking for a Statement be repeated here, but for an Answer to a Private Notice Question. Surely, it is not necessary, when an Answer to a Question has been carefully prepared, as this has, that we should have to wait in this House until twenty minutes past four to receive the Answer. That is all I am putting to the noble Earl. I do not press him to answer to-day, but I think that it is a matter for consideration between the usual channels. I am not being sarcastic about that; I am being entirely serious.
May I turn to the Answer which the noble Earl has given? I do not propose to comment on the language used by the Prime Minister, but I am glad that he has drawn attention to this farce, this façade of appointment of a so-called Governor in succession to His Excellency the Governor of Rhodesia; and to the fact that no part in that farce was played by a member of the Bench of Rhodesia, and that, apparently, it was necessary to secure the services of some justice 714 of the peace for some form of what would appear to be illegal oath-taking.
Might I ask the noble Earl this question? Is it the case, as the Daily Telegraph to-day reports, that as Mr. Smith was assuring a Press conference yesterday that he would not do anything to inconvenience or embarrass the Governor the Governor's cars were, in fact, being driven away, and his official staff and servants were being ordered to leave Government House, in addition to the Governor's telephone having been cut off, upon the instructions of Mr. Smith? Can the noble Earl confirm that? Because if it is true it would seem difficult to reconcile that with the statement that Mr. Smith is reported to have made in relation to his attitude towards His Excellency the Governor.
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I would begin by apologising to the noble and learned Viscount. He has known me long enough to know that my reference to laborious sarcasm was not intended really seriously. But I would also apologise to the House for the delay. I think, as a matter of fact, that there was some slight slip-up. There is usually a very good machinery for informing us. As soon as the notice came through, I was here ready to make the Statement, but we did not receive the message. There is no secret about that. It has happened in the past, may I say, when the noble and learned Viscount sat on this side and we sat opposite. But, at any rate, I think that an apology is owing to the House and I would tender it, certainly, for the lateness of the Statement.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for what he has just said. I do not have an official confirmation of the report in the Daily Telegraph, but I would personally suppose it to be correct. I have always found the Daily Telegraph remarkably accurate in matters of this kind, and I have seen the same kind of thing in other papers.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will find whatever means are available to him to convey to the Governor and his household the warm admiration of Members of this House at their staunchness and loyalty in what is perhaps the most difficult situation into which a British Governor has been placed.
§ LORD ALPORTWill the noble Earl also say that we look forward with expectation to the time when, as a result of the Governor's leadership and loyalty, Rhodesia will be able to put an end to the present régime and return hopefully and successfully to allegiance to the Crown?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I will certainly make sure that on behalf of the Government and, I hope, the House I convey the messages suggested by the noble Lord. May I say, with respect, that I do not think there is any noble Lord in this House who is more worthy to initiate those messages than the noble Lord, Lord Alport.
§ LORD CITRINEMy Lords, would the noble Earl tell us whether the Government have any official information that the cutting-off of the Governor's telephone in Rhodesia was associated with messages which were supposed to be passing by telephone between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor? Could he also tell us whether Mr. Smith's associates were tapping those messages?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I am afraid that I have no information on the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine.
§ LORD WADEMy Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it is most important that we should get all possible support to the Governor and to other representatives of the Queen? At the same time—and I hope this is not going too wide—would he agree that, while imposing sanctions, it is most important that we should give a clear assurance of security for the future to all those who remain loyal to the Crown?
§ THE EARL OF LONGFORDMy Lords, I certainly agree with the first point made by the noble Lord. I think the second point was covered in a way of which he would approve by the Prime Minister in his broadcast.