HL Deb 11 November 1970 vol 312 cc776-96

4.47 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD BARNBY

My Lords, the anomalous procedure of the House has separated me by quite a long time from the conclusion of the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, but now I do not propose to follow him in his philosophical, analytical review of the misfortunes, or advantages, that might come from a further attempt to solve this intractable problem which has, over the years, in this House aroused emotion and passion, that I feel have often clouded the realities of the facts in Rhodesia itself. It is regrettable that so much has been poured out over these years with regard to Rhodesia—and the same might apply to Southern Africa as a whole—by many who, if they have been there at all, know only relatively little about the area.

My noble friend Lord Lothian, in moving the Order, reminded us of negotiations, or discussions, which may quickly begin. Therefore, I realise that moderation and care are appropriate in what one says to-day. I should like at once to express my gratitude for the courage and candour with which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, put to the House the reality of this problem—which is, of course, whether or not this Order, which is so controversial, should be extended. I think that the Order is not constructive; it is destructive. It makes me think of the trustees of a large estate which is being reorganised, who apply for a development order on a portion of the estate which has already been disposed of. That is what moves me to-day to record my view. I ask for the indulgence of the House when I give three reasons why I feel strongly about it.

First, it would seem that Rhodesia has had substantive independence since 1923, when she paid £2 million for it as an earnest which was accepted by the Treasury. Secondly, it can be said that under the Charter sanctions have doubtful validity in law. That was fully explained by the noble Marquess on December 8, 1966. They have effect only from "usage", as was accepted by the noble and learned Lord then on the Woolsack. Further, Rhodesia was denied opportunity to put her case. Thirdly, the British Government defaulted on their undertaking given at the establishment of the Federation, that the Federation would be dissolved only by the agreement of the four contracting parties. In fact, there was unilateral action.

Sanctions were imposed because of an alleged threat to peace. There has been perfect order in Rhodesia ever since. The only threat to peace comes from the terrorists launched from neighbouring countries with whom Rhodesia has maintained the utmost correctness. The procedure of those terrorists infringes the Charter, so it is those other countries who are disturbers of the peace. As has been said by several speakers, the main sufferers are the black Africans, and that must be so if foreign capital is prevented from going in to build up the infrastructure which alone can give more employment to the expanding African population.

Externally, it is British trade which suffers most. It is nonsense to suggest that we risk the loss of substantial trade with the black African dictatorships. Quality, value and service would always ensure that the trade came to us. Sanctions are being progressively eroded, and that means a loss of prestige to Britain. Can the commander of any ship or regiment maintain authority if he is denied the force of Queen's Regulations? Assistance in peril, the sacrifice of lives in battle, and then the subsequent withholding of trust is something that I simply cannot understand.

I turn to the gracious Speech at the Opening of this Parliament. Five principles were mentioned, but why not "certain" principles? Can any diplomatic conference succeed if in advance it is demanded that all the points at issue shall be accepted? That is not practical, realistic negotiation. I express my perplexity at the "Fearless" proposals in Cmnd. 3793, which for greater accuracy I shall quote. Paragraph 8 on page 9 states: Where the Constitutional Council has not made an adverse report, any person who is a citizen of Rhodesia may, within a specified time, ask for a certificate from the Constitutional Council that there is a case for consideration by the Judicial Committee. If English means anything, that means that Rhodesia would then be placed for a period under the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in Whitehall. Can it really be expected that the constitutional Republic of Rhodesia will now surrender its independence, except by force?

To the Government I submit that recognition of the unobtainable and the exercise of forgiveness are not infrequently the highest acts of statesmanship. To my friends on this side of the House who may still think that punishment is necessary, whereas forgiveness would be more appropriate, I would recall the words of that great American Patriot, Daniel Webster, in his historic appeal to the then American colonies to break with the Crown: Why put off longer the Declaration of Independence? The nations then will treat with us, which they can never do while we acknowledge ourselves subjects in arms against our Sovereign. Nay, I maintain that England herself will sooner treat for settlement with us on the footing of Independence, than consent by repealing her Acts, to acknowledge that her whole conduct towards us has been a course of injustice and oppression". My Lords, this Order seeks to destroy the course of history. I record my dissent from it.

5.1 p.m.

LORD FORESTER

My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long and I shall certainly try not to repeat what your Lordships have already heard on this subject. I say only that I agree entirely with all that was said by my noble friends Lord Salisbury, Lord Winchester and Lord Barnby. But there is one aspect which I think should be stressed, especially after last Saturday, when I saw on television a most atrocious, bigoted and untruthful presentation of Rhodesia. I suppose it was composed by some very Left-wing employee. Anyhow, what I should like to stress is the enormous good that the European Rhodesian has done towards the African Rhodesian. First, there has been the bringing of law and order to the country. They can all now sleep safely in their beds. This was primarily due to the Rhodesian Front Government. Then there is the building of Salisbury, which is to my mind the most beautiful city in the world, with magnificent roads; and health centres are now all over the country. One even came to my farm, and I went there only about a fortnight ago. There was an excellent white lady discoursing to the Africans on birth control; and when your Lordships realise that the average number of children in a family is, I believe, over eleven, you will see that that is a subject that is very important.

Last, but not least, there is the training of Africans in the tribal trust areas. This is being undertaken by an organisation—they call it "Tilcor"—of capable and dedicated Europeans. I went over many of those areas teaching the Africans to grow tea—that was new—early tobacco, maize and beans, and the Africans were pretty responsive. They certainly liked being lent tractors, et cetera, and they liked growing the crops. The only trouble was that, having grown them, if one fellow grew a bit more maize than he wanted to eat himself he just did not bother about it. They were not yet what one might call commercially minded. The only difficulty in these tribal trust areas is that training costs a lot. This is where sanctions rear their ugly head. There are, I believe, vast sums of money, under the Beit Trust, ear-marked for the advancement of the Africans. Those funds are frozen in London, so they are a lot of use! I do not know whether it would be possible to have some amendment of the sanctions which might "unfreeze" some of these amounts of money which are specifically for the use of our African friends.

There is one other point which I should like the noble Marquess if possible to clarify. Several of my friends out there have Rhodesian passports. They cannot get British passports because their fathers were born in India, or for some reason like that. They say they do not come to England because if they do they might be sent home—and, of course, that would be a very expensive trip for nothing. Whether that is true or not, it would be very useful to have the position clarified. If it is not true and a man will not be sent back merely because he has a Rhodesian passport, perhaps that fact could be publicised.

That is all I have to say, my Lords, except that, as has been said by other speakers, if these "talks about talks" do not come off—and when I read the paper this morning I felt rather encouraged to see that Mr. Smith had definitely said at a Press conference that he was prepared to alter his Constitution in return for British concessions; I thought that was going quite a long way—I hope we shall not leave sanctions in existence until the 21st century, or perhaps until the advent of another Labour Government, who, let us say, might enjoy renewing their spite.

5.7 p.m.

LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK

My Lords, may I first add my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Winchester on his very interesting maiden speech. It is surely most encouraging that the noble Marquess should come all this way from Salisbury to London to be able to give us his views at first-hand. I very much hope we shall hear him again, many times, in the future.

My Lords, as some of your Lordships know, I visited Rhodesia earlier this year. At the conclusion of my trip, having had the opportunity to meet Rhodesians from all walks of life, both white and black, I put it to Mr. Smith that I was reluctantly forced to the conclusion that it was now too late for our two countries to reach a negotiated settlement based upon the Five Principles, and he agreed with me. His reply at that time was that he agreed with my conclusion in this matter. "Henceforth", he said, "the world will have to accept us on the basis of our new Constitution". But he then added an expression of hope that at some future date negotiations would take place with regard to resuming normal relations.

I think it is right that no one should be under any illusion as to the magnitude of the difficulties we are now faced with regarding a settlement. Many noble Lords from all sides of the House will doubtless agree with the words of my right honourable friend Mr. Enoch Powell when the day before yesterday in another place he said that the prospects of a settlement on the only terms that the House could talk about beggared the imagination, and that the Foreign Secretary knew that the chances of a settlement were negligible. Nevertheless, of course it is right that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary should make one more approach; and if the previous Administration had not hoisted us on to the hook of the United Nations, I believe his task would have been very much easier. In this respect I am encouraged to see the firm line which we took in the Security Council yesterday, making it clear that we shall not be dictated to from outside. However, be that as it may, if we are honest with ourselves we all know that sanctions will not topple the Smith Government. While I agree, with some reluctance, not to oppose this Order this afternoon, I must express the hope that that ludicrous waste of our money, our manpower and our warships—namely, the Beira Patrol—be discontinued at the earliest opportunity.

My Lords, I beg Her Majesty's Government to conduct their forthcoming discussions with the Rhodesian Government, if there are any, in the utmost secrecy. This, of course, applies equally to the Rhodesian side. Let us return to a form of diplomacy which was practised by our forebears some hundred years ago, and which was singularly more effective than that of recent years, when every move is featured in a blaze of publicity. When the talks have either failed finally or have succeeded, as we all hope they will, then the world can be told the facts.

What of the Commonwealth? This obviously is an important factor. In my view, there is nothing mystical about the Commonwealth. It is in the main a collection of countries who over the years were developed, educated and guided by us and who ultimately were brought to independence by us. Many of them belong to the Commonwealth, if the truth be told, because of what they can get out of their membership and not because of what they contribute towards it. Should we be successful in reaching settlement with Rhodesia and should certain of our Commonwealth partners decide to leave the Commonwealth, then so be it! What matters, as Her Majesty's Government stressed clearly over the issue of the possible export of arms for external defence to South Africa, is that they will do what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom.

My Lords, hope springs eternal; and I believe that the Foreign Secretary will carry with him the best wishes of the vast majority in this country if he enters into actual negotiations; but we must be prepared to give and take on both sides. I repeat my earlier plea for a total security blackout with no inspired or uninspired leaks until the matter has been decided one way or the other.

5.12 p.m.

LORD HANKEY

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is not going to divide the House. It is obvious that we are going to approve this Order whatever happens; but I should like to say a few words on this occasion.

I think it is unfortunate that to some degree both Front Benches have got themselves so committed to the policy which we are following and I can quite see that it is embarrassing for them. My noble friend Lord Salisbury and I have a good many painful memories in common because we were both associated with the episode when we tried to stop the Italians invading Abyssinia with the aid of economic sanctions only. Those measures, I recall, were completely ineffective. In the end the League of Nations and the British Government, who had led the League of Nations, had to give way.

I believe it is time to recognise that a solution is imperative to both sides in this very embarrassing question and that we should try to reach it before the situation in Africa deteriorates any further. I should really like to see a "trade union" of Back Benchers on both sides to press our Front Benches, and the Government in particular, to go forward to see what solution can be arrived at—and, above all, that we do not get ourselves out on a limb any further.

I do not much like the Cartesian approach to this question, with five sacred Principles which absolutely have to be sanctified. It is really very difficult to negotiate—and I speak as a diplomat with 38 years' experience—on a basis like that. Although I think that the Five Principles are very good in themselves, I should like to say that there are a good many other questions which ought to be considered. There is the question of access to jobs; there is the question of access to education and equality of opportunity. All these are questions which could be held to be vaguely covered by the Five Principles; but when it comes down to it what is going to be the effect on the African and European population? These are questions of purely practical government which have to be settled in a practical way.

It seems to me that the important thing now is the machinery which is going to be used for reaching a sensible settlement. I only hope that the Government will not get into a meeting at Prime Ministerial level without the most careful and elaborate preparation. Really, I do not like the idea of Prime Ministerial meetings which are in effect a desperate throw of the dice. I do not think that it has paid before and I do not believe that it will pay again.

It may be asked, "What are we now to do?". What strikes me as deplorable is that we took away our diplomatic representation from Salisbury and we do not now have any very good means of talking to these people. I think that we ought to recognise that we must have a good channel of communications. I should like to see a really first-class young diplomat with a good knowledge of both black and white Africa and a good sense of negotiation, sent to Salisbury to open a mission again. It would be a mission of sorts; it could not be quite the ordinary sort of mission; but a formula could be found. The ground for a settlement could be prepared by somebody who can find solutions for difficulties. We do not want the sort of diplomat who has "a difficulty for every solution". If that could be done I think that in the long run we should come to see that some sort of practical solution might be possible. Probably we cannot get complete satisfaction; I agree with what has been said about that on both sides of this House. Probably we shall have to put up with something not very satisfactory; but I believe that it is time to recognise that a solution really ought to be found.

5.17 p.m.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, I hesitate to take part in this debate but the time is early yet and I feel that it is fair to reinforce what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and in some measure to protest at the length of time taken over the Statements in the middle of a debate. The result was that a large number of noble Lords here cannot have heard the first part of the debate and a large number of those who did must have forgotten it. I hope that noble Lords opposite realise that the House extended a good deal of "law" over our rules in the length of time employed, particularly since one of the longest questions came from a noble Lord who made his maiden speech only yesterday.

That being the case, I should like to hark back to the admirable maiden speech by the noble Marquess, Lord Winchester, which contained a point that I had at the back of my mind to make in regard to sanctions. I have no connection with Rhodesia, I have never been there—although I hope to go there at the first opportunity, because I have many friends and ties of different sorts—and the only visible suffering I have endured from the present situation has been the disbursing of 1s. 2d. in order to receive a photograph of a horse winning a race. However, the postal arrangements have been adjusted since then.

In this debate no mention has been made of the position of the Church, and the absence of the Bishops from their Bench is striking. Long before I became a Member of this House, I remember saying in another Assembly connected with the Church exactly what the noble Marquess said earlier in the debate. To clerics whom I regarded as being most injudicious, practically crazy, in their recommendations in regard to the situation in Central Africa, I said, "Look out! You will be driving Rhodesia into the arms of South Africa." I will not say that that is happening, but it is something that might very easily happen.

But we are debating sanctions, and I go back to the noble Marquess's speech in which he pointed out—and the point was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Forester—that it is the poor people, the poor Africans, who are really suffering, who are feeling the pinch of these sanctions. Both the noble Marquess and the noble Lord, Lord Forester, mentioned agriculture and the fact that expenditure on agriculture has had to be curtailed due to the pinch, such as it is, of the sanctions. But I believe I am right in saying that the very first curtailment, the first expenditure to be cut as a result of the economic situation brought about by sanctions, was in primary education. This is what I regard as a prime point of the nonsense of the policy of the previous Government. They said that there must be majority rule. They knew that without developed education, secondary and university education, the number of Africans capable of taking a share in the government of the country must be limited. They knew that it is no use expanding secondary education unless there are pupils from the primary schools to come up to the secondary schools. In other words, we are talking of the policy a generation ahead. Yet the policy of sanctions is cutting out, right at the base, the necessary and essential growth if the whole of the people of Rhodesia are to be represented fairly in a Legislature.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I wonder whether he could elaborate a little his explanation of how sanctions are preventing education which, so far as I know, requires no foreign exchange to implement but only a transfer of internal resources.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, I speak from memory and "off the cuff". Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, or the noble Marquess will be able to confirm or deny what I say; which is that one of the first actions of the Smith Government on the application of sanctions was to cut down expenditure on education; and it began with primary education. If I am wrong I shall be only too glad to be told so.

I would add only one other word, my Lords. I agree with the noble Marquess in his hope that there will be no Division on this matter. If there is I shall abstain. I would add to the hope expressed by another noble Lord that this will be the last occasion on which an Order regarding sanctions against Rhodesia comes before your Lordships.

5.23 p.m.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY

My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for rising, not having put down my name beforehand, and I shall not detain you for more than a few moments. Perhaps I may be forgiven, being one who has taken part, I think, in every debate on Rhodesia, and as one who has seen the story unfold exactly as he prognosticated that it would. I was struck by something said by the noble Lord, Lord Reay. He said that the present attitude is one based on pretence and not on reality. I do not think I shall be misquoting him if I say that he made some appeal that we should get away from pretence and back to reality. I should like to reinforce that appeal to the Government. I hope that when they go in for these negotiations there will be introduced a certain amount of flexibility which may help in getting back to reality.

I was very much struck by what was said by my noble friend Lord Salisbury about the position, the unhappy position, in which we in this country find ourselves over this matter. I believe (though I do not want to say anything at the moment to harm in any way the millionth prospect there may be of some success coming out of the talks) that my noble friend gave the House something to consider when he said that a way out of this difficulty might well be to grant de facto recognition rather than de jure recognition. I hope some notice will be taken of that suggestion. I could say a great deal more, my Lords, and I should have liked to vote against these sanctions which I have opposed throughout. But, for the reason that it would be a futile exercise, and because I do not want at this moment to do anything which might destroy the millionth last chance of something coming out of the negotiations, if there be a Division I shall abstain.

5.25 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury, reminded us of the many debates we have had in your Lordships' House on this subject. I think it is certainly five years since I sat on the Benches opposite and defended the then Government against the same noble Lords whose voices we have heard this afternoon. I therefore must extend my genuine sympathy to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, because it seems to me that to-day the Government are adopting the identical posture adopted by the previous Labour Government with regard to Rhodesia. I will return to that because I think it an honourable stance.

My Lords, before dealing with the debate as a whole I would join noble Lords who have complimented the noble Marquess, Lord Winchester, on his maiden speech. A maiden speech is always difficult, and I can well understand that for the noble Marquess, moving as he has done to this free, democratic Assembly at Westminster, it was a particularly heavy ordeal.

I should like now to turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay. I do not know to what extent the noble Lord has any connection with the Commonwealth. I, fortunately, have had wide connections over many years. If I may use the phrase, I have lived as a "white immigrant" in a British Commonwealth country and when I was in Singapore or Malaysia I was not particularly conscious that colour was a problem. There was from time to time a problem about religion, but not about colour. In fact, my first real involvement in the question of colour occurred when I was sailing home from Singapore and, as a consequence of the Suez crisis, the ship was diverted to Cape Town. I had with me my Chinese amah, the Chinese lady who had been looking after my eldest boy since he was four days old. As I went down the gangplank with my Chinese amah a very kindly official of Thomas Cook's said to me, "This is all right, but, you know, you must not take your amah into the hotel; she is coloured." That was the first shock I received over race and colour, and it is a shock I shall never forget. And I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Forester, that it is one I shall never forgive.

The world, my Lords, is a small place and with the passing of the years it grows smaller. We have to live together whether we are black, white, yellow, pink, blue, or whatever colour it may be. Therefore I say to the noble Lord, Lord Reay, that the importance of the Commonwealth is that it is a loose group of countries which represents 700 million people, of every race, religion and class. It represents all aspects of men and women who live in this world. The noble Lord suggested that it would be a good thing to allow this organisation to break up. To me it would be the most disastrous thing, not only for this country but also for the world. I believe that the Commonwealth, because of its very nature, can be a bridge within the United Nations and throughout the world. I do not believe that there are many who could have agreed with the comments of the noble Lord on the Commonwealth this afternoon.

I should like now, since the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is present, to say something about the debate and the interventions on Statements this afternoon. First of all, this debate should have taken place last night. It was only as a consequence of the sensible suggestion that this important measure should not be taken late last night that it was decided to move it this afternoon. The fact that this debate is taking place now has meant that the debate on metrication, to which we on this side attach great importance, has been moved to another day. So those who complain about having this debate this afternoon must recognise that the House has gone out of its way—and when I say "House" I mean both sides—to ensure that this debate takes place at the right time.

So far as the interventions are concerned, I think it is unfortunate that there were three Statements, but we on this side have no responsibility for the number of Statements. I can assure the noble Earl that when Statements are made in this House we intend to ask questions and to continue to ask them. What is the purpose of Parliament? I have been a Minister and I know the situation. If the House is going to protect the Minister by saying that a question should not be pursued too far, all the Minister needs to do is to "fluff" the first two or three questions and he is home and dry. But that is not treating the House as a Parliament. It is essential that we should be reasonable about this. Questions on Statements should not go too far, but from time to time, from the very nature of a Statement, questions continue longer than usual. I have sat on the Front Bench opposite and had to answer a series of questions on a Statement of much greater length than that we have had this afternoon, taking the three Statements as a whole.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, if the noble Lord is addressing his remarks to me, perhaps he is quite correct; but I should like to point out that I was not suggesting that questions should nor. be asked. I was simply supporting what the noble Marquess had said—and, after all, he was the Leader of the House for many years—that our rules were being stretched beyond all reason by the number of questions which were asked.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, perhaps I may say a word because I intervened on this question. Of course nobody has any objection to comments on Statements—it is a normal practice of this House and always goes on—but I felt this afternoon that the comments had reached a point when they were approaching a debate and I thought that was a pity. I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had been on the other side, he would have taken rather the same attitude himself.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, my experience does not go so far as that of the noble Marquess, but I think we can agree that the division between what are supplementary questions and making a debating speech is a very narrow one. I will not develop that matter any further but leave it as it is.

I do not wish to go into the arguments that noble Lords have deployed, but I would ask one question. We have heard a great deal about the balance of relationship between white and coloured in Rhodesia. Is it not a fact that the land is the most valuable asset in Africa? It is the one commodity by which the people can live. And perhaps the noble Marquess will confirm that under the Land Tenure Act, of the land in Rhodesia to be divided individually in a population with a ratio of one white to five coloured Africans, only 4 per cent. is to go to the Africans while 40 per cent. is to go to the whites. Perhaps the noble Marquess can say whether I am right or wrong and, if I am wrong, perhaps he may give us the figures.

LORD BARNBY

My Lords, does the noble Lord mean the total area of Rhodesia? Because most of the facts we read suggest that there is very nearly a balance between the two.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I am referring to the consequences of the Land Tenure Act. I realise that much of the African land is going over to nature reserves and the land which is left is being divided. This is being done on the basis of the percentages I have just given and I ask for confirmation.

Her Majesty's Government have decided that they should make one last effort to negotiate with the régime in Rhodesia. I do not oppose the Government in this. They made it clear in the Election that this would be their intention. It may be that new faces may produce different results. I do not think the House will say, when we consider the sincerity, the skill and the generosity in argument of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner and of my right honourable friends Mr. George Thomson and Mr. Michael Stewart, that their characteristics would in any way have prevented a settlement if personality in itself counted; but it may be that new faces negotiating may produce a change.

But have the Government a new policy? Sir Alec Douglas-Home has made it clear that he stands by the Five Principles. We have heard from noble Lords opposite disagreement about those Principles. These Principles were not inherited by the Government from the Labour Government. They were inherited by the Labour Government from the previous Conservative Government, which in 1964 made it perfectly clear that in no circumstances could independence be granted to Rhodesia under the existing Constitution unless it fell within the Five Principles. Therefore I cannot see how the Government intend to seek a settlement outside the Five Principles.

Whether success is possible I do not know, but. I should like to say to the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, on behalf of the Opposition, that we wish the Government well in their negotiations, and if they succeed in achieving an honourable settlement within the Five Principles, we on this side of the House will be the first to applaud them, because we are deeply conscious of what this settlement would mean to the 4½ million British citizens in Rhodesia. I often feel, when listening to noble Lords opposite speaking on Rhodesia, that they are thinking of one section and one section alone.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I must ask the noble Lord what makes him say that. All of us have said that sanctions damage black and white alike. There has been no differentiation at all. I regard that as a slur on us. I should like him to withdraw it.

LORD SHEPHERD

I intended no slur. The noble Marquess has made it quite clear on many occasions that sanctions hurt the African more than the white man. I was merely giving my personal view that noble Lords who speak in support of Rhodesia speak of the white Rhodesians—the kith and kin argument—and not of Rhodesians as a whole. This is a personal view that I am entitled to hold.

I am not certain to what extent sanctions have affected the economy of Rhodesia. Certainly the Minister of State in another place the day before yesterday, when moving this Order, alluded to the serious balance of payment difficulties of Rhodesia. I have seen in responsible newspapers that the economic circumstances in Rhodesia may well have created a new climate of opinion, and a new desire by the régime to negotiate. We shall not know. I am absolutely convinced that if the British Government intend to go into negotiations on the Five Principles they must make it quite clear that if there is not an honourable settlement then sanctions must continue.

I wonder whether the noble Marquess, who was a very experienced Minister in the Foreign Office, really thought that he was helping the Government in their difficult negotiations with the régime, and in obtaining an honourable settlement, when he said that he would ask his noble friend Lord Lothian to say that if agreement was not reached Her Majesty's Government would recognise Rhodesia de facto.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I did not quite say that. What I said was that I hoped he would not rule it out. That is not the same thing at all.

LORD SHEPHERD

Clearly the noble Marquess has been in the Foreign Office. If the Government are to negotiate, then they must have a bargaining counter. To be asked at this moment to give up sanctions if we fail clearly invites failure at this conference, with all the consequences to the Rhodesians as a whole. I must say that I have some concern about the position of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, but if I read Mr. Godber aright, then sanctions by this Order will continue for twelve months; and it may be that the Government do not wish to prejudice their position in having to come to Parliament for a renewal. But I hope that the Government will make it quite clear to the Rhodesian authorities that it is they, Her Majesty's Government, who negotiate from strength.

If a settlement is achieved, then we on this side of the House will applaud the Government. But let me warn the noble Marquess and noble Lords opposite of the consequences (to use a crude phrase) of a "sell out". If there is an agreement, it must be a water-tight agreement. It must be an agreement that will meet the requirements of both Houses of Parliament. I suggest that it will need to be an agreement that will be broadly acceptable to the Commonwealth and broadly acceptable to the United Nations. I say to the noble Marquess that this is important in the interests of Rhodesia, because if a settlement is reached and Rhodesia becomes independent it could not be in the interests of Rhodesia or of Africa as a whole for Rhodesia to be out of the comity of nations. Therefore, in my view it is essential that this agreement should be a water-tight agreement and one that is acceptable to these three groups in particular.

I think this is important in the relationship of this country with Africa as a whole. We have heard a great deal about British interests. I do not think that this is a political point. I believe that industrialists, commercial men and organisations who have anything to do with Africa—Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, and all the other African States that are emerging who feel passionately on this race problem—agree that if we do make a decision which runs counter to the general philosophy of Africa we shall do it to the disadvantage of this country.

5.47 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I should like first of all to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am particularly grateful, if I may say so without sounding condescending or patronising, for the moderate tone of the speeches that have been made, and in many cases for their brevity. I should like to start by underlining the compliments that have already been paid to my noble friend Lord Winchester on what I thought was an excellent maiden speech. As one noble Lord said, one knows how hard it always is to make a maiden speech, but when you have to come the distance that my noble friend has come in order to do so I think it is extremely creditable. I should like to think that we may have the pleasure of hearing my noble friend again frequently in this House.

I have listened with great care, and I hope attention, to the speeches that have been made this afternoon. I will try to pick up some of the points that have been made, and if any are missed I hope noble Lords will not feel that this is out of discourtesy, but merely because I have omitted something in my notes. In that event, I will of course undertake to communicate with noble Lords afterwards.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned in his speech the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, and I do not want to add very much to what he said. The noble Lord, Lord Reay, and myself would differ about the Commonwealth, and there it is. I was rather surprised to hear him take the view that Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Rhodesia (and here I suspect that I may speak also for the Members on the opposite Front Bench) had been in some way dictated by Commonwealth pressure. That simply is not true. Our Government's policy, and I suspect the late Government's policy, was dictated entirely by what we conceive to be our own national duty and interests. I feel that I should make that point now.

There have been, as is usual on these occasions, a great many speeches on this side of the House, critical of sanctions, and I do not for one moment object to that. I am grateful to the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, on the other hand, for saying that he will not divide the House to-night. I am grateful for two reasons. In the first place, I think it would be a waste of time; but, more important than that, as we hope that we are going into negotiations with the régime in Salisbury it is desirable that we do so as a united Parliament in this country.

The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will not expect me to have agreed with everything that he said; I doubt whether, on this particular subject, he and I will ever be able to convince each other about many points that were raised. With regard to this question, I feel that we have a strong moral responsibility towards the inhabitants of Rhodesia, from whatever race they may come. I cannot feel that, in the words of the noble Marquess, "Rhodesia is a foreign country". I hope that he is wrong about this. My own feelings about this—and I think that in saying this I speak for my Government—are that we still have not only a legal obligation but a very strong moral obligation to make an attempt to see whether we can get a final agreement on the basis of the Principles that have been laid down.

There are one or two points that have been raised during the debate. My noble friend Lord Forester asked a question about trust funds. I should like to write to him on this point because I am not absolutely clear to which funds he was referring. I can say that if they are funds that are going to be used for any educational purposes then they will be fully remittable from this country. If he would like to get in touch with me at some other time about the particular funds he has in mind, I shall be glad to have a word with him.

The noble Lord also made the point about Rhodesian passport holders. I know that what he said with regard to this sounds hard and sad. I do not think anybody will deny that there can be cases of hardship and difficulties. The Rhodesian passport has no validity, in that it was issued by officials of the illegal régime. If one of these passports is presented to an immigration officer, and the holder cannot present any legal travel document, he is not normally allowed to come into this country. But exceptions are being made on humanitarian grounds, and we are always prepared to give sympathetic consideration to requests from people in Rhodesia who, for one reason or another, are not entitled to British passports.

The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, asked me about the position concerning the Church schools, I think. I should like to let him know about this, as I am afraid that I have not the answer to hand at the moment. But I will be in touch with him on this matter. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, for his most interesting and helpful suggestions concerning the actual conduct of negotiations. I will certainly take note of what he said in this regard. While I am picking up one or two points which have been made, may I echo the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Napier and Ettrick as to the importance of secrecy and confidentiality in any negotiations that may be undertaken in the future. This is absolutely essential, and I hope that similar regard will be taken of the same point by the authorities in Rhodesia.

The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his most interesting speech, raised one or two important matters. He asked me a question about the division of land under the Land Tenure Act, and I understand that the position is that under that Act all land is divided into areas, and that about 6 per cent. of it is set aside for National Parks, et cetera. The rest is allocated to Europeans and Africans in such a way that the Africans, who out number the Europeans by about twenty To one, have very marginally less of the remainder than the Europeans. I am not certain whether the noble Lord can work that' out percentage-wise—perhaps his computer-like mind will be able to do so, but I am not sure whether mine can—

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I suggest that the noble Marquess sends a "carrier pigeon" to a certain quarter to find the answer. It would be interesting if we could know the details.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I will try to find out the details for the noble Lord. If I cannot get them to-night I will let him have them in due course. The noble Lord also made the point that the settlement that we hope to achieve must be watertight and that there should be no "sell out"—I think he used that word. Of course, Her Majesty's Government entirely accept that position. If there is no settlement—and it would be wrong to go into the negotiations thinking that there will not be a settlement—then personally I think a new situation will obviously have arisen, and a new look will have to be taken at the whole position. That is something that should be faced if and when—and we hope it will not have to be faced—it should arise. I should like to thank the noble Lord also for his good wishes to Her Majesty's Government in their present attempt at negotiation.

My Lords, I have really come to the end of what I wanted to say, for I did not want to keep your Lordships too long to-night. However, I should refer To the suggestion of the noble Marquess regarding the possibility of a de facto recognition of the régime should the present negotiations not come to any thing. I will take note of what he said, but my own feeling is that we should try To bring Rhodesia back to legality by negotiation in the way that we are hoping to do there—

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I was quite satisfied with what the noble Marquess said; but if these negotiations unhappily fail a new situation will be created, and I imagine that in that situation nothing would be altogether ruled out. I should be quite happy with that.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess. To conclude, we must all agree that we have reached a pretty crucial point in these negotiations. There is hope that they may succeed, and we must act on that basis. There are a great many difficulties in front of us, but what matters, to my mind, and I am sure to the minds of all noble Lords in the House, is that a settlement is achieved that is honourable, fair and just to all the peoples of Rhodesia.

On Question, Motion agreed to.