§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any information of the outcome of the discussions between Mr. Ian Smith and Bishop Muzorewa, Chairman of the African National Council, for a settlement of the constitutional issue in Rhodesia.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR or BELHELVIEMy Lords, we understand that Bishop Muzorewa is continuing his discussions with the Rhodesian authorities but have no further details. We hope that progress will be made towards an agreement between the two races on the basis for a settlement.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while echoing the hope that agreement may be reached, may I ask the noble Baroness whether or not the Government have facilities for knowing what these discussions are about; and is the noble Baroness aware that others know that the representative of the African National Congress has agreed to postpone the idea of "One man, one vote in order to get a target date for reaching an African majority? May I further ask whether Her Majesty's Government would consider applying to Rhodesia in the meanwhile the successful formulation put forward in the case of Northern Ireland on an inter-Community Government?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIEMy Lords, the two sides are, quite rightly in our view, keeping the details to themselves for the time being, and while of course we do have contacts with all kinds of opinion within Rhodesia we feel that such contacts must remain confidential until we see whether there is a basis for settlement in Rhodesia.
§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, since it is fairly obvious that the talks are going rather better than one might have expected some time ago, and since they are aiming at a more advanced level of communication and integration between the races, would this not be a good moment for Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the settlement proposals which they have left 1188 lying on the table? Indeed, if they do not withdraw them at this point, does it not give fuel to the extremists who are always behind Mr. Smith's back and offering something less that he appears to be discussing with the Bishop?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIEMy Lords, I think I have answered that question from the noble Baroness before. We have not withdrawn the 1971 proposals because a great deal of useful and delicate legal work was involved in those proposals, and they are there as a basis for discussion.
§ BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOEMy Lords, with respect, the noble Baroness has not answered this particular question before, because the situation appears now to be completely different; Mr. Smith has moved a long way forward and therefore the settlement proposals are reactionary. Would the noble Baroness not agree that that is so?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIEI do not think so, my Lords. There are a great many things in the proposals which are reasonable; but what I do think is important is the question of allowing time for those in Rhodesia to meet together and seek a compromise. That is why we do not wish to disturb this position in any way, although we are always ready to help if required.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her answer to the first part of my supplementary question, can she reply to the second part of it, which was a suggestion that the Northern Ireland precedent might be extended to Rhodesia? May I further ask whether Mr. Whitelaw, having succeeded in Northern Ireland and hoping to succeed on the miners' problem, might now be allowed to help with the discussions concerning Rhodesia?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR of BELHELVIEMy Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I must say how much we appreciate the unalloyed admiration for Mr. Whitelaw; but the fact remains, as I said earlier, that we should wait to see what comes out of these quite considerable contacts—because it is the basic agreement between 1189 those who live in Rhodesia which must be the basis for settlement.