§ 2.41 p.m.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals for a purely internal second safeguard has been made from the British side during or since the "Fearless" negotiations.]
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place on October 22 last that:
We would have been prepared to dispense with a judicial-type review if, as part of a settlement, an undertaking were given that there would be no amendment of the entrenched clauses for a given period ahead—say, the 15 years mentioned in the White Paper ".He later said:Such a proposal could be embodied in a treaty between the two Governments …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 22/10/68, col. 1224.]But another suggestion, which had been discussed during the "Fearless" talks was that it could be embodied in the Rhodesian Constitution itself. This would have been a purely internal second safeguard; but Mr. Smith and his colleagues were not interested in it.The alternative second safeguard put forward by my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio during the Salisbury talks was also essentially an internal safeguard. Under this proposal the final decision would have rested with the Rhodesian electorate. The proposal provided for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to have a "sieving role"; but the Judicial Committee could have taken no action on their own initiative and their function would simply have been to eliminate frivolous demands for the safeguard to be put into effect. In any case my right honourable friend the Minister without Portfolio made it repeatedly clear that we were ready to discuss the details of this proposal. At the Salisbury talks Mr. Smith took no special exception to the limited role envisaged for the Privy Council, but maintained that 1025 the whole idea of a referendum was totally unacceptable.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, may I first apologise to the noble Lord for the fact that the grammar in my Question, with I think the connivance of the Table, seems to have fallen even below my habitual gamma standard. I should like to study what the noble Lord has said, and I would thank him for his full and considered reply to my Question.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I sympathise with the noble Lord on his grammar, and congratulate him on the rapidity with which he got his Question down. I think he will note that there is a little extra information in my Answer which has not been published.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, do we understand—I hope we do—from the Answer given to-day and from the most helpful reply of the noble Lord yesterday, that the proposal for a treaty is still wide open, and will be kept wide open?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I dealt with the noble Earl's point about a treaty yesterday. On another occasion I should be most happy to expand on the disadvantages of a treaty, especially the drawback that Mr. Smith himself was not interested in having a treaty registered at the United Nations. Indeed, I should have thought that between the two proposals—embodiment of the entrenched provisions in a treaty and embodiment in the Rhodesian Constitution, the latter would have been preferable to Mr. Smith.
§ THE EARL OF SWINTONMy Lords, I appreciate that. I was not able to remain in the House last night, but I have read with great interest and care what the noble Lord said. But in respect of whether the treaty would have to be deposited with the United Nations, is it not a great advantage of a treaty that, if there were a breach, it would be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Court?
§ LORD SHACKLETONNo, my Lords, this would not necessarily follow. I am speaking now without advice, but my recollection—it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, may be able to help me—is that both parties have to be 1026 willing to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the International Court unless there is provision by some special arrangements, I presume arising out of registration with the United Nations or otherwise.