HL Deb 21 July 1967 vol 285 cc527-50

12.18 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Lord ST. HELENS in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Relinquishment of sovereignty over Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands

1.—(1) On such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint (in this Act referred to as "the appointed day") the territories to which this section applies shall cease to form part of Her Majesty's dominions; and on and after that day Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of those territories.

(2) This section applies to the territories which, immediately before the appointed day, are comprised in Aden, Perim and Kuria Muria Islands.

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON)

had given Notice of several Amendments to Clause 1, the first being, in subsection (1), to omit all words from the first "On" down to, and including "applies", and to substitute: the day which, in relation to any territory to which this section applies, is the appointed day that territory".

The noble Lord said: I have put down a number of Amendments—in fact, all the Amendments on the Order paper, except the one in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe—and they are all to the same end and stand or fall together. During the Second Reading debate I told your Lordships that I was proposing to move Amendments to the Bill so as to enable different days for the relinquishment of sovereignty to be appointed under Clause 1 in relation to each of the three Territories. It has been strongly urged that if arrangements for the internationalisation of Perim are on the point of being concluded we should not frustrate action of this kind by being obliged to relinquish sovereignty over Perim on the same day as sovereignty is relinquished over Aden. The Government accept this. Nevertheless, I must make it perfectly clear that the Government do not intend to retain Perim after the date on which South Arabia becomes independent. It is the Government's firm intention to bring independence to South Arabia on January 9 of next year and to appoint that date for the relinquishment of sovereignty over all three territories covered by the Bill, but we agree that a certain flexibility should be retained and that the Government should not bind themselves so that they have no alternative but to relinquish sovereignty on the same date for all territories.

This arises from the Amendments which were moved in another place and which we discussed in relation to the possibility of the internationalising of Perim, and this introduces the necessary flexibility into the Bill. In handling these long and, if I may say so, not very easy Amendments, it is astonishing what a lot of words are necessary to achieve what seems to a layman to be a simple business. None the less, we are experienced enough in your Lordships' House to know that the Parliamentary draftsmen often find it difficult to do even simple things. This is no reflection on their draftsmanship, and I am sure that they have made a good job of these Amendments.

The purpose of the Amendments to Clause 1 is to enable different days to be appointed, and this is spelt out in the last proposed new subsection. The other changes are consequential upon this. It has been urged that it should be possible to have separate Orders under Clause 1, and although this is not spelt out this is one of the consequences of the Amendments. In conclusion, it may be convenient for the Committee to take Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 together and then, after we have dealt with the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to take Amendment No. 6 by itself and then Nos. 7 to 16 together. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 5, leave out from ("On") to ("shall") in line 7 and insert ("the day which, in relation to any territory to which this section applies, is the appointed day that territory")—[Lord Shackleton.]

EARL JELLICOE

I greatly welcome the Government's decision on this matter. As the noble Lord has generously said, the Amendments are to meet the arguments which were strongly advanced by the Opposition in another place when the Bill was before them. I am sure that the Government are right about this—they are always right in meeting the Opposition's point of view—and I am grateful to the noble Lord for these Amendments. I would echo his tribute to the ingenuity of the Parliamentary draftsmen. They have managed to make complicated what I had thought was a very simple matter.

I do not know whether this is the right moment to ask the noble Lord this question, and he may prefer to answer it on Third Reading rather than now, but can he tell the House anything more about the progress of the consultations which his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has told us he is having both within the United Nations and the Federal Government about the proposal to internationalise the island of Perim? If the noble Lord can give us any information on that, I shall be much obliged.

LORD SEGAL

If the island of Perim will be passing over to the territory of the South Arabian Federation, could the noble Lord also state what defence forces are likely to be placed on the island?

LORD SHACKLETON

I am afraid I have little to say to the Committee on these questions. Clearly it will not be a rapid process in the United Nations. I can well understand the noble Earl and all those interested in the proposals for Perim wanting to know how they are going. The fact that I cannot report anything does not denote any lack of interest on the part of the Government. This is going to be a bit of a long haul. We are not going to get United Nations to move quickly and there has to be a lot of preparation. I cannot really say anything in reply to my noble friend Lord Segal. I think it would be premature to talk about the forces that would be on the island. I can only say that, whatever else there may be, there will be no British occupation force after South Arabia becomes independent unless it should be part of some United Nations occupation.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move the second Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 10, leave out ("those territories") and insert ("that territory").—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move Amendment No. 3.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("to") to ("Aden") in line 12, and insert ("the following territories, that is to say").—(Lora Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move the fourth Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("as each of those territories is constituted immediately before the appointed day. ( ) Subject to the next following subsection, in this Act 'the appointed day', in relation to all the territories specified in subsection (2) of this section, means such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint. ( ) Different days may be appointed by Order in Council under this section in relation to different territories specified in subsection (2) of this section; and, if different days are so appointed, any reference in this Act to the appointed day, in relation to any such territory, shall be construed as a reference to the day so appointed in relation to that territory.")—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

12.27 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE moved to add to the clause: ( ) Any Order in Council under subsection (1) of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

The noble Earl said: I made the purpose behind this Amendment clear on Second Reading. Many Bills relinquishing sovereignty over what was until quite recently a very large Empire have been before your Lordships' House in the last two decades, and there will be more, but none so important in future as this particular Bill. There will be many Orders in Council foreseen of the type envisaged in this Bill and so far as I know none has been made subject to either the Negative or the Affirmative Resolution procedure. On the ground of precedent, therefore, the noble Lord may feel justified in resisting this Amendment. Precedent is not necessarily an infallible guide, however, and certainly not when the circumstances are totally unprecedented.

I would suggest that in this case the circumstances are unprecedented. Independence is being gained by Aden and these off-shore islands in unusual circumstances, unusual so far as Aden is concerned and unusual in so far as the islands are concerned. In the Colony of Aden there is, as yet, no agreed Constitution. No free elections have been held and no majority rule is applied. So far as the islands are concerned, a real uncertainty hangs over their future. We have no idea of what their final destination will be. When the Bill was before another place the Government gave a firm undertaking—and I am very glad they did so—that before the precise and future destiny Of the peoples was decided they would be consulted; and that undertaking was repeated by the noble Lord on the Second Reading earlier this week. But as yet we have no idea when those consultations will be held; we have no idea (at least I have no idea) how they will be carried out, and we have no idea of what the results will be. And, of course, it will be very different so far as the Kuria Muria Islands are concerned. They may go to neighbouring Muscat; they may wish to become part of the South Arabian Federation, or they may conceivably opt for independence or for a continued association with the United Kingdom. There is an equal uncertainty about the future of Perim, potentially a very important decision.

In each case I would suggest that the precise date for independence could very well be affected by the decision about the island's future destiny. It seems right, in these quite unusual circumstances, that Parliament should not be denied the chance of a sight of these Orders in Council before they come into force.

On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, suggested that this Negative or Affirmative Resolution procedure—and I only suggest the Negative Resolution procedure—would import an undue flexibility into the Order-making machinery. I find this a little difficult to accept. The requirement is not very onerous. It is only that the Order should lay for some 40 days. Surely the Government will know more than 40 days in advance what date they are proposing for these territories. The noble Lord also argued that, provided Parliament was sitting, and so desired, we should have a further chance of scrutinising what may be important decisions, perhaps—I do not think I exaggerate here—vitally affecting the future security of Southern Arabia. But the proviso which the noble Lord made, "provided that Parliament is sitting", is important. Parliament may not be sitting when the Order is made, and my Amendment, if accepted, would ensure that it is.

I was encouraged by the noble Lord's acceptance of the points made by the Opposition in the other place, and which have been met by the Amendments which the noble Lord is moving, and I am therefore confident that he will, after reflection, be able to accept the Amendment which I now beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 13, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

LORD ROWLEY

I am bound to say that I do not see how the Government, with all the good will in the world, can accept this Amendment. It seems to me to strike at the very roots of the Bill. The effect of the Bill is concentrated in the provisions of Clause 1. The Amendment which the Committee has just accepted provides that for each of the three territories the appointed day may be, so to speak, staggered. If after the first appointed day, say, in respect of Aden, any criticism were to be levelled against the policy of the Government, it is true that that would not affect the appointed day in respect of the first of the three territories. But, none the less, to some extent it meets the apprehensions—and I can understand them; there is a difference between each side of the Committee on major policy—expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.

I fail to see how the Government can accept the noble Earl's Amendment, because, as I say, the whole object of the Bill is to make provision for and in connection with the relinquishment of Her Majesty's sovereignty over Aden and the Perim and Kuria Muria Islands. Parliament, therefore, is doing this with its eyes open. This Bill will go through both Houses, and in a sense Parliament approves the intention of the Government to relinquish sovereignty over these three territories.

The noble Earl admitted that there was no precedent for this. I have had a good deal to do with the granting of independence to many of the former territories which came under United Kingdom Government, and I think it would be a bad precedent to start. I think we must leave it to the wisdom and judgment of Her Majesty's Government to operate this Act, bearing in mind the apprehensions of those who sit on the opposite side. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I hope that the Government will resist this Amendment.

EARL JELLICOE

Before the noble Lord replies, perhaps I may make one point clear to the noble Lord, Lord Rowley. My Amendment is not in any sense intended to strike at the principle of independence incorporated in the Bill. I made it clear on Second Reading—and I will repeat it, if I have the chance of speaking on Third Reading—that the Opposition welcome the Bill as such. All that the Amendment is designed to do is to give Parliament another chance of reviewing the dates, if it so desires, for these three separate territories. It is a much narrower purpose than I think the noble Lord was suggesting in his intervention.

LORD ROWLEY

Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I intended to express the view that the noble Earl's Amendment would strike, not at the basis of the Bill, but at the operation of the Bill. In other words, I do not suggest for one moment that he is opposed to the relinquishment of sovereignty, but the operation of the Bill would, in my view, be prejudiced by the acceptance of this Amendment.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Earl is perfectly right to put this Amendment down and, so to speak, have a try. I agree that the fact that there is no precedent for independence dates to be fixed by Order is not an overwhelming argument; but it is quite a considerable argument. The reason why this has not been subject to Parliamentary control at the Order stage is simply that it is inappropriate. I am bound to say that I rather agree with my noble friend Lord Rowley, because if Parliament were to annul an Order, or failed to pass the necessary Resolution, this would nullify the effect of the Bill.

There is no scope for amending a date in an Order that is put forward. It would then be necessary for the Government, if they were defeated, to bring forward another Order with a different date. If the difference of date is a short period of a few weeks, surely this is a matter that should be left to the Government. If there were a change from the date that we have in mind, this would be a matter of very delicate judgment. The support of my noble friend Lord Rowley, with his wide experience as a former Secretary of State who carried heavy responsibilities just after the war in regard to Burma and India, strengthens the feeling that I have, indeed the conviction that I have, that it would be wrong to accept this Amendment.

I agree that in a matter of supreme importance one ought not to overstress the convenience of the Government. But in this case Parliament has been fully consulted. It has been told the dates; it has been told what the Government's firm intention is. The noble Earl has indicated his support for the Bill and the granting of independence, and it seems to me that we have had a good bite at this cherry. We have announced the date. It is, in my view, unlikely that there will be a change from this date. But if some situation arose which led to some acute crisis (which we do not anticipate), and to the Government's taking a different view, I feel that the Government should be trusted to go ahead and do what they think right. If Parliament is sitting—and the actual making of the Order is much more likely to happen when Parliament is sitting, though I cannot give an absolute promise of this—there are means for Parliament to raise the issue; and the Opposition, or anyone else, is not lacking in the Parliamentary skills to make it possible to challenge the Government's decision.

The annulment procedure does not really help. Whereas annulment procedures can be more flexible in other cases, it would clearly be, I think, a nonsense. You could not proceed for 40 days if there was a danger that the Order would be annulled. We could have some practical difficulties in the Parliamentary timetable in the short period between the resumption of Parliament in October and the Christmas Recess. And the arguments of the noble Earl, which have been so strongly advanced in relation to Perim, also strengthen the case, in my view, for the Government's having the necessary flexibility to fix this themselves. We have adopted what is the normal procedure. I suppose that when every country comes to independence—and other noble Lords, particularly Lord Rowley, will have wrestled with them—it has peculiar problems. Parliament, obviously, because it is interested and feels responsibility, would like to cling on and control to the last moment. I assure your Lordships, with the utmost firmness, that I do not believe that the passing of this Amendment would add anything useful to the situation; and I hope very much, therefore, that the noble Earl will feel, after what I hope is a fairly full explanation, that he can withdraw his Amendment.

EARL JELLICOE

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the careful consideration which he has given to this Amendment. I was finding myself in some agreement with him until he came to the point in his remarks where he said that the Government should be trusted in this particular matter, when I am afraid I found myself in somewhat less agreement. I also found myself in far from total agreement with the noble Lord's point that we know what the Government's intentions here are as they have made their intentions absolutely firm. This is not the position. It is certainly not the position so far as the off-shore islands are concerned. The Government's intention, as I understand it, is to consult the people of the islands, and thereafter to decide their destiny; and we do not at this precise moment know what is going to happen to these islands. I think this very much reinforces the argument for some such exceptional procedure as is envisaged in my Amendment being adopted in this particular case.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Consequential modification of other statutory provisions]:

12.43 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

This Amendment is consequential upon the Amendments to Clause 1. The point here is that it may be desirable to relate any modification of statutory provisions (noble Lords will recall that Clause 3 relates to the modifications of statutory provisions by Order under Parliamentary control) back to the date of relinquishment of sovereignty. As there is now provision for more than one appointed day, it may be found necessary to make use of the powers under Clause 3 if the day appointed for Aden has passed but the day for Perim has not arrived. The purpose of this Amendment is to allow for just that, so that the consequential Amendments can, if necessary, be made retrospective to the appointed day or some later date. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 11, leave out from ("Any") to end of line and insert ("provision which, in consequence of the operation of subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act in relation to a territory to which that section applies, is made by Order in Council under this section")—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

Would the noble Lord the Deputy Chairman put the Amendments to the Schedule? I am not sure that we are not in slight difficulties, having passed the Schedule, but, if so, I should like to move that the Schedule be reconsidered.

Moved, That the Schedule be reconsidered.—(Lord Shackleton.)

THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I beg your Lordships' pardon. The Question is, That the Schedule be reconsidered.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Schedule [Modifications of British Nationality Acts]:

LORD SHACKLETON moved, in paragraph 1(1), to leave out the words after the first "on" down to and including "applies,—", and to insert instead: such date as may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".

The noble Lord said: I am not sure that we did not get into a little bit of irregular procedural difficulty, though I am sure that we can rely on the House authorities to sort us out on this difficulty. I must apologise to the Deputy Chairman, because I ought to have been quicker when he put the Schedule: so it is really my fault rather than his.

The proposed Amendments to the Schedule (perhaps we can just forget that small episode) are again consequential upon the Amendments to Clause 1. Under paragraph 1 of the Schedule as it stands, it would not have been possible to specify the same nationality or citizenship more than once. This was all right so long as there was to be only one appointed day. However, once more than one appointed day is possible, then in theory various possibilities start creeping in and it is necessary to make provision in the Bill for all the possibilities which may arise as a result of the Amendments to Clause 1.

One example is if Perim were to be retained. Citizenship of South Arabia is specified, and a person who possesses that citizenship, in consequence of his connection with Aden, or with the South Arabian State of which Aden is part, loses his United Kingdom citizenship, subject to the other provisions of the Schedule. It might be that at that moment the negotiations for internationalising Perim came to nothing, and Her Majesty's Government would not be prepared to retain Perim any longer; so a day is appointed for Perim, and Perim joins up with South Arabia, and its citizens acquire South Arabian citizenship. In those circumstances it is right that the citizenship of South Arabia should again be specified, so that a person who acquires South Arabian citizenship will also lose his United Kingdom citizenship, subject to the provisions of the Schedule.

The purpose of the Amendments is to permit a citizenship or nationality to be specified more than once to take account of the possibility that the relinquishment of sovereignty over the three territories may take place on different dates, and that it may in that event be necessary to apply the provisions of the Schedule on more than one date. The Amendments in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Schedule follow from the changes in paragraph 1. I have again pointed out that the Amendments appear rather complicated, but I assure your Lordships that the purpose is the very simple one on which we are all agreed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 5, leave out from ("on") to end of line 6 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Shackleton.)

EARL JELLICOE

I should like again to express my gratitude to the noble Lord for these Amendments, and for having cast light on what was, for me, a rather obscure part of the Schedule. I am grateful to him for his explanation, and should like to say that I strongly support these Amendments.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 7, leave out ("that territory") and insert ("a territory designated by the order")—(Lord Shackleton).

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 8, leave out from ("by") to ("whether") in line 9 and insert ("the order").—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move Amendment No. 10.

Amendment moved—

Page 6, line 16, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert— ("( ) Subject to the next following subparagraph, the territory designated by an order under this paragraph shall be a territory to which section 1 of this Act applies, and the date specified in the order shall not be earlier than the appointed day. ( ) The territory designated by an order under this paragraph may be so designated as being a territory in which a territory to which section 1 of this Act applies which is specified in the order (in this sub-paragraph referred to as the specified component territory') is comprised on or immediately after the day which, in relation to the specified component territory, is the appointed day; and in that case the date specified in the order shall not be earlier than that day. ( ) An order may be made under this paragraph specifying a nationality or citizenship and a date, as mentioned in the preceding provi- sions of this paragraph, notwithstanding that one or more orders, specifying the same nationality or citizenship but an earlier date or earlier dates, have previously been made thereunder.")—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 28, leave out ("to which that paragraph applies") and insert ("designated by an order under that paragraph")—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 30, leave out from ("date") to end of line 31 and insert ("specified in the order")—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 4, leave out ("if on the relevant date") and insert ("in consequence of his connection with a territory designated by an order under that paragraph if on the date specified in the order")—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 18, leave out from ("to") to end of line 19 and insert ("a territory designated by an order under paragraph 1 of this Schedule")—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 21, leave out from ("territory") to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("to which section 1 of this Act applies or any territory (not being one to which that section applies) which has ceased to be a colony before the date specified in the order")—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD SHACKLETON

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 31, leave out ("relevant date") and insert ("date specified in the order").—(Lord Shackleton.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Report received.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Perhaps I may take a few moments to speed the Bill on its way, and to deal with certain of the points to which I should like to give answers which were not fully dealt with at an earlier stage.

At the Second Reading of the Bill on Monday I set out the objectives of Government policy in South Arabia. I will not go over the ground again now, but I will take this opportunity to answer a number of points which have arisen. The first of these related to the defence of the Eastern Aden Protectorate. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, raised a particular point on this matter, and I should like to give him a little more of the Government's thinking on this. He asked whether the aircraft from the carrier force and the V-bombers at Masirah would be used in defence of the States of the Eastern Aden Protectorate against open aggression. I explained at the time that the main threat to the Eastern Aden Protectorate arose from the possibility of internal subversion, and it was for this reason that we were continuing to finance the Hadhrami Bedouin Legion for two years. Of course stability on their Eastern frontier is of great importance to the Federation of South Arabia, and to my mind this also was a particularly strong case for continuing to finance this Legion, which is a very fine force. For historical and geographical reasons, the threat of open external aggression is very slight. The Yemen has never advanced territorial claims in respect of the Eastern States, and the only part of the frontier of the Eastern States which borders the Yemen is short and in a fairly remote desert area. But the Eastern Aden Protectorate States, of course, border upon the Federation, and it is difficult to see how any aggression from the Yemen against them could fail to involve the Republic of South Arabia as well. In this case our guarantee to defend the Republic in the way we have stated, by the threat of air deterrent, against external aggression, would apply.

The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, also asked what would happen if the threat of external aggression against South Arabia arose, not in the sixth month after independence, but in the seventh or ninth month, and whether therefore planning for the use of the carrier force could not be more flexible than the present limit of six months implied. I certainly would not wish to exclude the possibility that the carrier force could be brought back after six months if the need arose and if it were possible in practical terms. The noble Earl knows as well as I do—indeed very much better than I do—the problems of maintaining these highly sophisticated and complicated pieces of machinery at sea without having some maintenance. It is not like an aircraft, which can fly back to its airfield and be maintained, and I think it is a great tribute to the Royal Navy that they are able to undertake this onerous responsibility. I would not rule out the possibility, but I certainly give no undertaking. As I explained on Monday, the period was limited to six months for these technical reasons, and because there was not a great deal of flexibility I was anxious that there should be some continuing deterrent against the aggression that we all hope will never take place. It was for this reason that the Government decided to station the V-bomber force at Masirah, not only for the six months that the carrier task force will be in South Arabian waters, but for as long thereafter as the Government think necessary. This force will continue to be a powerful deterrent to aggression.

May I turn again to the islands, and the consultations with the inhabitants of the islands, which we have touched on briefly. The question of Perim is being taken up with the United Nations. The Government have undertaken to consult the inhabitants of the other islands as well as Perim, but it is true to say that the time and form of these consultations have not yet been decided. It may in practice prove to be advantageous to the islanders to leave these consultations until nearer independence, so that they may have a clearer idea of what the alternatives are and of the way things are shaping. I see a positive advantage at this stage in not pressing this particular matter too quickly. All timing in these matters of independence involves great delicacy. It involves people waking up to the fact when they have not, perhaps, believed that certain things were going to happen, and therefore I think we want to approach this carefully.

In conclusion, may I say a word about the latest situation in Aden? As has been reported in the Press, Mr. Hussein Bayoomi has presented his list of Ministers to the Supreme Council. Discussions are still continuing there, and I can only say that I hope the outcome will be satisfactory. I do not minimise the difficulties, but none the less it is encouraging that an actual list of Ministers has been presented.

On the United Nations front, now that the situation in Aden has eased a little, the High Commissioner will fly to New York to meet the United Nations Mission early next week. On the way, Sir Humphrey Trevelyan will take the opportunity to spend a day or so in London for consultations and to give a first-hand report. As noble Lords know, the United Nations Mission has had meetings with Mr. Makawee, the FLOSY leader. Sir Humphrey Trevelyan wishes to explain to the United Nations Mission what is happening in South Arabia (and I personally attach the very greatest importance to the fact that they should be given first-hand information so that they may be aided to a realistic appreciation of the situation) and to explore with them the possibility of other nationalist leaders joining in a central caretaker Government as called for by the United Nations resolutions. If there are any further questions the noble Earl or any other noble Lord wants to ask, I will try to answer them. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shackleton.)

1.0 p.m.

LORD ST. OSWALD

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is, I think, aware of the high and admiring value I place on his intervention in the South Arabian problem. He did a very great deal and played a critical and most beneficial part in transforming the deep, dismal prospect of which I was made aware when I went to Aden at the end of April. Thereafter I think he recognised by implication—and this was really statesmanlike—that Nasser's defeat at the hands of the Israelis did not reduce the Egyptian threat to the Aden Protectorate, to the South Arabian Federation, but indeed might well increase it. And whereas he mentioned a few minutes ago the fact that the Yemen has never advanced territorial claims on the Eastern Protectorate, the fact is that Nasser's claims and ambitions are absolutely limitless throughout the Middle East.

I should like to put it briefly to the noble Lord, in a very few words, that the situation has now been changed by a new and horrible factor, and that is the use of gas in the Yemen. I believe the noble Lord was the first British Minister to recognise publicly in Parliament the fact that gas is being used. Now it is indeed so widely known and recognised that even the Egyptians have admitted their intention to continue this bestial form of warfare. So far as the Egyptians are concerned, the Yemen operation and the Aden operation are a part of each other. Aden, in their intentions, is to be a continuation of the conquest of the Yemen. I therefore put to the noble Lord that if we can frustrate South Arabia's enemy in the Yemen we shall frustrate him also on behalf of those we have promised to protect in the Federation. Also, we shall be taking action on behalf of the Government of the Yemen which we recognise, against the usurpers of power in their country, against a foreign invader of that country and a prospective invader of South Arabia.

Bravely as they have fought, the loyal Yemenis cannot resist this new weapon; nor, of course, could those whom the noble Lord wishes so much to set on the path of freedom and safety. I spoke at some length last night and again this morning to the Yemeni Foreign Minister, Said Achmet el Charmy. He described how last Saturday in the Haggah area 150 were killed in a gas attack, and how in the Mide area three days ago there was another attack with many deaths which have not yet been counted; and there is no territorial limit to which this form of warfare can be carried. I am not intentionally stretching the ambit of the debate on this Bill, because I have described my belief that the Egyptians regard South Arabia as merely a stage of conquest after the Yemen. One small thing I think we could do—and I will not ask the noble Lord to answer this to-day—is to provide the people of this territory with gasmasks in very large numbers, so that they are not so utterly defenceless as they are to-day.

What I believe we should do, as a nation led by the present Government, is to think again about the date and manner of our departure from Aden, instead of leaving it, as now appears even more clearly than before, at the mercy of an enemy who will use the vilest weapons of warfare against which those people will have no protection at all. The Bill, after all, does allow latitude as to the form and degree of help we continue to give after our departure, and I would plead with the noble Lord to regard this new and hideous factor with due importance after the Bill is passed.

1.7 p.m.

LORD ROWLEY

My Lords, I should first of all like to congratulate my noble friend on his handling of this Bill, apart altogether from the service he has rendered to the country in the carrying out of his mission in Aden. What I rise to bring to the attention of the House is related to the visit of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to the United Nations. I found myself in agreement with the strictures of the noble Lord who has just spoken with regard to the use of gas in the Yemen, and I do not think he would be exaggerating if he were to suggest that after we have, as we must do, relinquished our sovereignty of the South Arabian Peninsula the Egyptian Government might be tempted into an adventure which involved the use of gas.

As my noble friend knows, the use of gas is a breach of the Geneva Gas Convention. Some people say, and maybe they are right, that the United Nations are impotent to deal with any country which breaches that Convention, in view of the fact that it has not been given the power and authority to deal with such problems. May I ask my noble friend—I do not expect an answer now, but I hope the point will be considered—whether the Governor is to discuss, not only with our representative Lord Caradon but no doubt U Thant, the Secretary-General, this use of gas in the Yemen. It is a crime against humanity and it is a breach of the Geneva Convention, which has been signed by practically every country in the world that was a sovereign independent country at the time the Convention was signed. I would be very much surprised if the Government of Egypt is not a signatory of it. But whether or not that is so, this is in direct conflict with everything the United Nations stands for.

Therefore, I hope that Sir Humphrey Trevelyan and our permanent Representative at the United Nations will seek to discuss this problem with the Secretary-General, U Thant. I do not disagree with the view expressed by the Foreign Secretary in another place yesterday, that it is difficult to see what our own Government can do beyond expressing their condemnation of these atrocities. But it would not rule out at least discussing the matter with the authorities of the United Nations and, if necessary, raising it at the Security Council.

The other point I would ask my noble friend relates to the possible intervention of the United Nations or the assistance of the United Nations in bringing a successful end to what I might call the Aden problem. The unfortunate visit of the sub-committee of the Committee of 24 is fresh in all our minds. Is it intended that the visit of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan should be restricted merely to the possible internationalisation of the Island of Perim, or is there a possibility of his discussing the return of the sub-committee—in other words, a United Nations presence in the Peninsula, in Aden, during the forthcoming weeks? I think it is extremely important that the United Nations should be represented while the denouement of this Aden problem is taking place—at least, we hope it is the denouement. Therefore I would ask my noble friend—perhaps he cannot give a reply now—to consider whether or not it is possible to invite the United Nations to send representatives to Aden during the forthcoming weeks.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed a word or two to reinforce the remarks of my noble friend. We have read in the last few days that a threat has been made of a wider use of poison gas against the inhabitants of the Yemen. If at any time this threat should be made beyond the borders of Aden, and if this threat should ever be made to the present inhabitants of the South Arabian Federation, I cannot help feeling that we in this country should bear a terrible responsibility for having abandoned this territory to the risk of even the threat of the use of poison gas against its inhabitants.

1.11 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the careful consideration which he has evidently given, between our Second Reading on Monday and these remaining stages of the Bill, to a number of questions which I put to him on Second Reading. I welcome what he has said about the external protection of the States of the East and the Aden Protectorate. I welcome what he said, although I had hoped that he might have been able to go further. I welcome what he said, so far as it went, about flexibility in naval planning.

I was interested in what he had to say about the Government's plans for consultation with the local inhabitants and I was most interested in his statement about the forthcoming visit of Sir Humphrey Trevelyan to this country and to New York. I should like to take this opportunity of reinforcing with all the power at my command—and I do not use that phrase lightly—what has been said by my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, by the noble Lords, Lord Rowley and Lord Segal, about the threatened use of gas, or the possible threat of the use of gas against the inhabitants of South Arabia. I am sure that the noble Lord will have taken due note of this point, and I am certain that this whole matter should be fully explored with Sir Humphrey Trevelyan during his forthcoming visits both here and to New York.

This is, I suppose, the last major act of decolonisation in our Imperial history. It is sad that it should be taking place in such fluid and uncertain circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, expressed some hope on Second Reading that a way forward in peace and independence might still be found for Aden. We all sincerely hope that the measured optimism which he expressed earlier this week will prove to have been well founded. We also hope that it will prove possible for Mr. Bayoomi to broaden the basis of the Federal Government.

I certainly believe that the measures announced by the Government on June 19 improve the chances that our relinquishment of sovereignty over Aden, over Perim and over the Kuria Muria Islands will not be enacted out in circumstances of bloodshed and chaos, and, indeed, of shame for ourselves. They certainly give us some assurance that the life of the new-born independent State will not be snuffed out, or that there will not be a threat of snuffing it out, at birth. But for this major announcement on June 19, it would hardly have been possible for us to extend to the Bill the welcome which we from these Benches have given it. I sincerely hope that the Government—who have been known to deviate from their decisions—will not be blown off their new course in South Arabia. I have noted and fully endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said on this subject on Second Reading. I quote his words from column 37 of Hansard of July 17 last: We have to pursue the policy we have adopted and make it a success. My Lords, I echo that sentiment.

That said, I should like, in conclusion, to emphasise that we sincerely support this Bill. I think we have been extremely lucky in having the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, to pilot it through your Lordships' House, given the fresh and intimate knowledge which he can bring to this matter. I am glad that the Government have seen their way to make Amendments, for which we have pressed and to which we have just agreed. Finally, I am glad from these Benches to extend on the eve of the passage of this Bill into law, our good wishes to the future independent State of South Arabia, and to the peoples of Aden, of Perim and the Kuria Muria Islands, with whom we have been for so long so closely associated.

1.15 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. I am grateful especially to those who have been kind enough to make some complimentary remarks. Lord St. Oswald's eloquence is always of the highest, whether he is praising or attacking me. But, as he knows, I appreciate very much what he said and also what has been said by my noble friend Lord Rowley and other noble Lords, and by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe.

I do not think much more is called for from me at the moment. But I should like to deal briefly with this subject of gassing. Certainly it arouses great horror, and as one who has seen the details (not all of which have been published, because it has not been possible to confirm them) of the awful suffering and the effect this has, I share greatly the sympathies of your Lordships' House. It was for this particular reason that I attached so much importance to giving this continuing air guarantee of the V-bombers; it was precisely to meet that danger. There have been many criticisms of this decision, on the ground that there will not be this sort of threat. But it is a fact that gas is a major weapon of warfare in the Yemen at the moment. Indeed, it is not only a major weapon, but in certain areas it is decisive in the policing of areas into which troops could not otherwise penetrate easily. We have given this V-bomber guarantee because of the fear that such methods might be used in the mountainous and wilder areas of South Arabia, where gas can penetrate into caves and create much more harm and suffering, and be more effective, than ordinary relatively clean high explosive.

I do not think I ought to follow the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, into discussing the progress of events in Aden. Nor do I think it would necessarily be right for the High Commissioner, when he meets the United Nations Committee on South Arabia, to discuss it with them, although it is a matter which I am sure he will have continually in his mind; and certainly I have had it in my mind when I have talked to people. None the less, I think that this strong expression of feeling from your Lordships' House should be taken note of by Her Majesty's Government; and I will certainly see that the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, our Permanent Representative at the United Nations, is made aware of this.

To me, it seems extraordinary that one country can get away with doing this sort of thing. As noble Lords have said, it is sometimes galling and upsetting to the British and those who have, we think, achieved a certain level of civilised behaviour, that a small deviation brings down upon us the condemnation of large numbers of nations, while other much grosser assaults on humanity are ignored. I have made clear my own attitude, and I will certainly see that the attention of Lord Caradon, who also may shortly be in London, is drawn to this matter.

When it comes to the question of Egyptian strategy with regard to South Arabia, again this is a matter that I would rather not discuss. I know well the noble Lord's views on this matter, and that many people share these views; and there is strong evidence to support what he says. It is true that the situation in South Arabia since the Arab/Israel war has been more difficult, but I am also hopeful that it may become easier and that the Arab/Israel war and its results may not be in the long run as damaging to South Arabia as they appeared in the short run. None the less, even if a Nationalist Government were installed, and even if some of the more extreme parties were in the Government of South Arabia, it does not necessarily follow that a Nationalist Government which starts off under the protection of one country goes on being sympathetic to that country. This is rather the story in the Yemen where many of the original Republican leaders have had to be displaced—

A NOBLE LORD: Despatched.

LORD SHACKLETON

The noble Lord said "despatched". Some terrible things have happened in the Yemen. All the same, I think that we must look to the greatest measure of conciliation. If the Egyptians and the Egyptian Government see the dangers of the situation to them, it may well be that they will appreciate the advantages of a stable situation in South Arabia; and I believe that this will be much easier to achieve. There is no course without danger in front of us, but I believe that, in this sense, the removal of the British base will make this easier of achievement. However, I do not propose to rehearse the many arguments we have had, and I appreciate the restraint of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the fact that this Third Reading debate has been conducted with a measure of agreement and certainly with an absence of any partisan expression.

The noble Lord, Lord Segal, also referred to gassing. I hope he will feel that I have dealt with this subject as fully as is possible at the moment. I would only say that when the High Commissioner goes to the United Nations he will be talking to the United Nations authorities. I expect—though I do not know—that he will see U Thant; but he will certainly (this is the primary object) be meeting the special United Nations Committee. Whether or not that United Nations Committee will return to Aden, I do not know. My own feeling is that probably for the moment it will be better if they did not, and that they can better conduct their activities by trying to bring people together outside Aden—possibly in Geneva or in New York. I am told that they are looking forward to their meeting with Sir Humphrey Trevelyan. I would stress that it is important that people in this situation must "talk". There are too many people who have taken up frozen positions. It is this flexibility, based on a stronger attitude, which may lead us to a peaceful solution.

I end by giving the strongest assurance to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that we will make the greatest efforts to bring about the internationalisation of Perim. Obviously I cannot guarantee this, since I can see all the difficulties against it, but I know that it will not fail by any lack of personal determination on the part of the Foreign Secretary with regard to Perim.

There are a number of other points I could have dealt with, but I will not delay the House further. It always tends to be a nostalgic moment when we pass an Independence Bill. I remember the debates on Malaysia in your Lordships' House, the final stages of which were almost conducted in Malay by old Malay hands. I do not know that there is anyone, except the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, who could have conducted the debate in Arabic. But I am sure that those who know South Arabia, despite the agonies and difficulties which confront that country, will wish it well, and hope that it will achieve the happiness, stability and peace to which the British hitherto have made an important contribution. Whatever mistakes anybody, whoever they may be, may have made in the past, let us not underrate the contribution made by the British in South Arabia.

On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.