HC Deb 02 February 1951 vol 483 cc1290-300

3.32 p.m.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn (Yarmouth)

I beg to move, That this House is of the opinion that a permanent body should he set up consisting of delegates from the parliaments and legislative bodies of the countries of the Commonwealth and the Colonial Empire together with a permanent secretariat to meet regularly and discuss problems of common interest to all countries of the Commonwealth and Empire. I am very glad that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has found time to come here this afternoon to deal with this short debate. I shall be very brief so that other hon. Members may take part. Although I am still suffering from influenza, I hope that my voice will come over, in the R.A.F. sense, loud and clear, and that there will be no difficulty in following my thoughts.

In the last few years a number of statements have been made in books and in debates, especially a debate initiated by Lord Bruce of Melbourne in another place, in 1948, about the need for a unifying body to bring the countries of the Commonwealth closer together for the purposes of consultation and action. We boast in speeches and books that in the Commonwealth we have a loose conglomeration of nations which are all free and independent. I sometimes think we make a virtue of necessity in boasting about the freedom of action of these various units. They are not run, as so many Americans still think they are, from London.

It is true that many parts of our far-flung Dominions are free and independent and have been for some centuries, but if those places which were discovered 300 or 400 years ago in the days of the Elizabethan mariners had been discovered in modern days, with the prospect of the Comet aircraft flying along the Empire routes, I doubt very much if we should have had the lack of cohesion between these places which we find today. If these Dominions had been closer together and not scattered over the Seven Seas it is possible that we should have unified them, even centuries ago, and had a more central organisation, probably operating from London, than there is at present.

It is now apparent that speed has crushed the world into a much smaller compass than it occupied even at the beginning of our lifetime. I believe that on one of her visits to Scotland, at the beginning of her reign, Queen Victoria got as far as St. Albans and had to spend a night there before continuing her long journey to Edinburgh. Before those days, mail between Edinburgh and London was very irregular, much more irregular than communications between here and Australia. We are close together. The Comet aircraft is coming into operation this year on the Empire airlines routes. Therefore, it is possible for a deliberative assembly of the Commonwealth nations to be summoned with the same ease and expedition as this central body of ours for the United Kingdom. We ought to be thinking about getting some kind of assembly together, obviously with the initiative from here, the central point, so that we can meet our fellow citizens. Then we can talk with them, discuss our common problems and, what is more important, get to know them, especially those who have not been brought up in our tradition and are new to many of the democratic ways which they are due to follow, probably in the near future.

It is sad to read sometimes about a coloured person in some part of our Dominions who is a great hero to his own folk and whom we get to know only after he has made his reputation there by being cast into gaol. I am certain from my own knowledge that when we meet and face problems together, we find that we are the same kind of human beings and have pretty well the same approach to most human problems.

I do not tie myself down to the constitution of such an assembly where we can meet as delegates from our own Parliaments or legislative assemblies to discuss our problems as fully as possible, meeting regularly in a central place, such as Ceylon, and reaching certain decisions. I do not mean to say that we should be the government for the Dominions concerned, but that some notice should be taken by the Dominion Governments and by our own Government of any decisions reached.

Now should be the time for ever closer consultation between the outlying parts of the Commonwealth and the centre in London. One way of keeping that consultation close would be to have a permanent body in the nature of a secretariat in London. The Australians are so keen to have quick and effective consultation here that they have a resident Cabinet Minister, and during the war, when it was essential that we should have close collaboration with Australia, Mr. Casey was given Cabinet rank in this country. Also, a member of the Front Opposition Bench, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who was a Cabinet Minister with very wide powers, was Resident Minister in the Middle East.

With the speed of modern aircraft we could bring such people quickly together into a secretariat. I do not suggest that civil servants should run it but the kind of people I have mentioned, who would be on tap in London or at some other place if necessary, who could get together at a moment's notice rather like our delegates at the United Nations and at Strasbourg. We have had some experience of the Assembly at Strasbourg and of the Committee of Ministers and could learn from their mistakes. The assembly need not be composed of people from governments. It need not be always stonewalling, like the Committee of Ministers, if eminent statesmen of the Commonwealth countries and our Colonial Empire were sitting together to consider matters and then taking back to their governments any decisions which were reached.

I would like to go on at greater length, but I know there are several other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. There are common problems in all parts of the Commonwealth, such as the housing shortage, the need for more railways, particularly in Australia and East Africa. and so on. Food is a problem which confronts us all in the manufacturing parts of the Empire and those who produce mineral raw materials or need more, such as in East Africa. In these days there is the overall need for quick action on defence.

It would pay us all if we had a permanent body such as a secretariat here, or in some other place which would be more handy, to consider these problems and act quickly. If we find ourselves in still greater difficulties we might be forced by circumstances to set up such an organisation in the next year or so. It would serve us much better if we did it now, while we have peace and are able to set up a permanent body.

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper (Middlesbrough. West)

I beg to second the Motion.

The Motion refers to the setting up of a consultative assembly for the colonial territories and the Dominion countries, as well. I would rather like to focus attention on the suggestion as it might apply to the Colonies in particular, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is here to reply to the debate has special responsibilities in that connection. The time available in the House this afternoon in which to debate the Motion is eloquent of the fact that the House finds insufficient time to debate at the length at which they should be debated the very serious problems now confronting the Colonial Empire.

The sort of assembly envisaged from time to time by a number of hon. Members—to which, incidentally, I referred on the last occasion on which I spoke on colonial affairs in this House—is a debating chamber which would enjoy the same sort of publicity as the Commons and the other place enjoy in the reporting of their debates in the Press. We should bear in mind that the Houses of Parliament mainly devote their attention to the domestic and foreign affairs of the people of this country, that is, 50 million people, but there are some 70 million who are under the control, directly or indirectly, of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. So the assembly which is proposed should be a body which would enjoy the high regard of, and have a status somewhat similar to, this Chamber.

It has been suggested that a certain number of colonial Members of Parliament might be elected to this Chamber, but that would not overcome the difficulty of finding sufficient time adequately to debate colonial affairs. I wish to make some suggestions as to the nature of the assembly. I suggest that it should sit, in the main, in London, and that its sessions could perhaps coincide, in the main, with those of this House. It would consist of about 60 to 100 members, which would mean that there would be up to six or more selected from each Colony. They would be chosen in a way which would give representation to the main interests of each Colony, the economic interests as well as political interests, so that the full aspect of each Colony's problems might be spoken of by those who have first-hand knowledge of the particular matter about which they are speaking.

Members should sit for a period of about three years and have their elections staggered so that continuity could be ensured and so that all members did not have to return to their countries at the same time. The assembly would also include a number of hon. Members from this House so that the debates could have the effect of fully informing Members of this House and when colonial debates took place here in addition to those in the assembly, Members here would be speaking from knowledge gained through being members of the assembly. These are just a few of the points I wanted to make in regard to the assembly itself.

In the next two minutes, because I wish at least one other Member, or two, to have the chance to speak, I would like to suggest reasons why the assembly should be set up. It would afford to the colonial people a far closer contact with England that exists at present. From discussions I have had recently when in West Africa and the West Indies, I have found among the people there, a feeling of remoteness and of resentment that decisions seem to be imposed over their heads. Some decisions have necessarily to be made from this country; it cannot always be left to the colonial Government to debate and decide on all the matters affecting the interest of that Colony. In some cases colonial Governors have not been as successful as they might have been. It would be a good thing if even matters of that sort could be the subject of some kind of discussions between the representatives of people in the Colonies and the British Government so that, if need be, changes could be effected if it was found that appointments had not been as happy as they might have been.

My last point is that in our system of democracy it has become recognised that we should have a two-way chain for information. From the Government there is the chain of information which flows out through its Departments and their officials to the people of the country. In addition, there are the elected representatives, and this applies both to local government, and to this House, who can bring forward matters which affect their constituents, where regulations have pressed hardly upon them, so as to have anomalies and injustices removed. That does not apply in full to the Colonies. There is a gap in the chain. There is not the same two-way discussion by a two-way chain of information between the colonial Governments and this House. That incomplete system of democracy which applies to the Colonies is dealt with almost entirely by reports which come from colonial Governors or officials to the Colonial Office. The setting up of the representative assembly I have suggested would mean that that gap would be filled and thereby the Colonies would be given a far closer feeling of co-operation with this country.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Gammans (Hornsey)

I cannot quite support the Motion in the words in which it is set out, but I certainly support, not only on my own behalf but on behalf of my party, its underlying principle. As the Motion is set out, incidentally, it calls upon the Government to do something which they have not the power to do. All that we can do in the very short time at our disposal is not to discuss any particular plan in detail but to affirm our faith in what I know is the underlying principle which the hon. Member is trying to establish.

My own view is that if we really understand the world situation today in its proper perspective, the highest priority for every Member of this House should be to maintain the British Commonwealth and Empire, because anything which strengthens its power and prestige strengthens the cause of peace throughout the world, and anything which lessens its power or diminishes its authority makes the chances of war all the more certain. We ought sometimes to remember that the resources of the Commonwealth and Empire, whether in manpower, productive capacity or inventive brains, and I think certainly in moral force, far exceed anything which Russia and all her satellites can bring against us.

But that power is a potential power, not an actual power at our disposal at this moment. Therefore, everything which can create unity of purpose and unity of action within the Empire is to be commended by us all. After all, we are all in it together—the peasant in West Africa, the rubber tapper in Malaya, the dockside worker in Glasgow, the farmer in Canada—all are in it together. If one of us goes, we all go. Surely that should be the compelling force which should bring us together and create for us some proper means of communication.

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper) put his finger on it when he said that today the means of getting together the members of the Dominions is, on the whole pretty good. We have the Dominions Prime Minister's Conference; telegrams pass daily between this country and the capitals of the Dominions. and we have the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which does wonderful work in bringing together legislators from here and all parts of the Commonwealth. The real point today is the Colonial Empire.

I was rather distressed that when the Prime Minister was asked in the House who was to represent the Colonial Empire at this Conference of Dominion Prime Ministers he said, "Myself and the right hon. Gentleman." From a constitutional point of view he was right. The Colonial Empire, however, is a different thing today from what it was 10 or 15 years ago. We have ballots and Ministers with quasi Cabinet powers. They will not be satisfied with representation by the right hon. Gentleman when matters like defence, foreign affairs, communications, trade, industry, and so on, are being discussed. We have to do better than that. I think it a challenge to all in the House that we realise that the Colonial Empire has changed. I hope we realise that the responsibility for devising effective machinery does, in fact, rest upon this House. We cannot hold the Empire together by force, but we can do it by inspiration in leadership if the will to do great things is still within us.

3.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. James Griffiths)

It is indeed a pity that we have such a short time in which to debate this very important matter. In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. G. Cooper) has said, and because his words will be reported throughout the Dominions, I would point out that that is just "the luck of the draw," and not because the House is unwilling to debate this matter that we have such a short time in which to talk about it. I think that should be said in case it is misunderstood outside the House.

The question of whether or not there should be some central machinery for the Commonwealth and Colonial Empire has been considered by various Governments on various occasions over many years. Each time, every proposal which has come up has been found unpractical and undesirable. I would content myself by quoting the last announcement made on this matter, which I consider conclusive in its argument and which. I think, will carry conviction to the House. At the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in 1946, consideration was given to this matter and this statement was issued: The existing methods of consultation have proved their worth. They include a continuous exchange of information and comment between the different members of the Commonwealth. They are flexible and can he used to meet a variety of situations and needs, both those where the responsibility is on one member alone and when the responsibility may have to be shared. They are peculiarly appropriate to the character of the British Commonwealth, with its independent members who have shown by their sacrifices in the common cause their devotion to kindred ideals and their community of outlook. While all are willing to consider and adopt practical proposals for developing the existing system, it is agreed that the methods now practised are preferable to any rigid centralised machinery. In their view such centralised machinery would not facilitate and might even hamper the combination of autonomy and unity which is characteristic of the British Commonwealth and is one of their great achievements. I believe that that is the right attitude to adopt towards a Motion of this kind. So far, we have proceeded on the method of providing where possible, methods of consultation and keeping close together by holding conferences—not only conferences of Commonwealth Prime Ministers because there are a large number of others, too. There was the conference of those responsible for foreign affairs in the independent countries at the meeting in Colombo some time ago, from which emerged that bold and imaginative plan—the Colombo Plan. There have been conferences of Finance Ministers, and other conferences of a similar character have been held.

Therefore, so far as the Commonwealth is in question, this Motion would have to be rejected because the considered view given to it by representatives of the Commonwealth is that it is not desirable to have this machinery. Indeed, it would hamper and might even impair the unity which is so characteristic of the Commonwealth today and which is so essential. Never was it more essential than it is today. I am sure that we all rejoice at the unity shown in the recent conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers on grave world affairs.

Mr. G. Cooper

It is a different problem when it applies to the Colonies—

Mr. Griffiths

I have not much time. I wish there was more time to develop this subject and to do it full justice.

The colonial territories are in a transition stage. They are at varying stages of constitutional advance. They are also at varying stages of economic and social advance. The result is that I have considerable doubts whether, at this moment, it would be wise to make any attempt to call together representatives of all the colonial territories—the large ones, the small ones, those which are well advanced towards self-government, including the Gold Coast, Nigeria, the territories in the West Indies and others, as well as those which in a sense are not so far advanced along that road.

It will be noted that, not only during the life of the Government to which I belong and during my tenure of office, but indeed for a very long time, the whole tendency has been to decentralise rather than to centralise. Colonial conferences were called by some of my predecessors back in the twenties and thirties. In recent years, however, the whole trend has been to set up regional organisations and regional conferences. For instance, there is the regional organisation in East Africa. Recently, there was a very important conference in the West Indies to consider the future constitutional development of those areas. From that conference emerged the proposals now being considered for federation.

That has been the whole tendency. We ought to be careful not to suggest in a debate—even in a short one like this—that we are seeking to centralise. It is particularly important that we should not give the impression that any suggestion of this kind is intended in any way to retard the movement towards the development of constitutional advance towards self-government. I know that that is not in the minds of my hon. Friends. It becomes increasingly important that there should be the closest contact between members of legislative councils and Members of this House of Commons. We are bringing members of the colonial legislative councils into contact with us and also into international movements. Last year and the year before a representative of one of the colonial legislative councils accepted an invitation to join our delegation to United Nations.

When the conference on the Colombo plan was held in London, Singapore and the Federation of Malaya were represented there by very distinguished and eminent members of their legislative councils. In that way we are bringing them into ever closer association. I pay tribute to the magnificent work done by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, who bring us into contact with members of the legislative councils. Last night, for instance, many of us met representatives of legislative councils who are on their way through London. I am most anxious that we should take every opportunity which will bring us into closer touch as Members of Parliament with members of the legislative councils of the colonial territories. There is much more I should like to say. I thank my hon. Friends for raising this matter. I hope that they feel disposed to withdraw this Motion, otherwise I should have to ask the House to reject it.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers (Winchester)

I should like to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), about giving an increased share to representatives of the Colonies in the affairs of the Commonwealth, and to say that I believe that the Secretary of State has gone some way towards opening the door.

Squadron Leader Kinghorn

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.