HC Deb 03 December 1959 vol 614 cc1374-8
46. Mr. Thorpe

asked the Prime Minister whether the Monckton Commission's terms of reference will enable it to hear evidence from persons living outside the Federation; whether the Commission will be empowered to hear evidence as to the economic possibilities of association between Nyasaland and the East African High Commission Territories; and whether the Commission will be entitled to evaluate such evidence and make a report thereon.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I have been asked to reply.

On all such matters it will be for the Commission to decide, in the light of its terms of reference, what evidence it wishes to receive. As regards the last part of the Question, I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already said in the House.

Mr. Thorpe

Is the Leader of the House aware that the reply of the Prime Minister has caused grave disquiet and is looked on as being highly ambiguous? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the speech which the Governor of Nyasaland made the day before yesterday in which he said that he took the view that federation must be continued as the only form of economic association practicable? Are we to take it that the Commission will have to accept the same preconceived ideas at which, apparently, the Governor has already arrived?

Mr. Butler

I think that we must rely on the terms of reference which my right hon. Friend has announced. From my right hon. Friend's statement in the House, I would say that it was clear to me that the Commission will be free in practice to hear all points of view, from whatever quarter on whatever subject, although we thought it right to make terms of reference which accord with what we regard as the object of the 1960 review. Subject to that, it would be for the Commission to decide whether within its terms of reference it could take the type of evidence which the hon. Member desires.

Mr. Gaitskell

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it is all very well to hear evidence from any quarter on any subject, but there is not much point in that if the Commission cannot deliberate on the evidence which is submitted. Has the right hon. Gentleman absolutely nothing to add by way of explaining the Prime Minister's statement the other day?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. The Prime Minister answered a variety of questions on the matter. This has been the subject of conversations, and I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's interpretation of the terms of reference.

Mr. Stonehouse

Will the Home Secretary confirm that the ambiguity and intransigence of the Prime Minister is because of the pressure brought upon him by Sir Roy Welensky?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. I do not think things run quite like that. The Prime Minister is working within the terms of the original Constitution and the forthcoming 1960 review.

47. Mr. W. Hamilton

asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the views expressed in Scotland that the Church of Scotland representative on the Monckton Commission does not represent the majority views of the Church or the people; and what steps he intends to take to make the Commission more truly representative of the Scottish interests concerned.

Mr. R. A. Butler

I have been asked to reply.

Dr. Shepherd has not been appointed as the representative of any particular interest or community but for his personal qualities and experience and the contribution that he can make to the work of the Commission. We are much indebted to him for offering his services.

Mr. Hamilton

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's remarks last week on this appointment to the Commission were highly misleading? He said, in effect—I am paraphrasing his remarks—that Dr. Shepherd was a fair representative of the Church of Scotland. This is simply not so. If the right hon. Gentleman read the comments in the Observer last Sunday, he will have seen that the Commission as a whole is weighted quite clearly one way. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in fact, the Prime Minister consulted the Church of Scotland about a representative to represent the majority view in the Church, in view of the fact that the Church of Scotland has a very special interest in Nyasaland?

Mr. Butler

First, I think that it would be a pity to prejudice the impartiality of members of the Commission before it starts its work. In the second place, if any sections of opinion in the Church of Scotland wish to put a point of view to the Commission, they will be able to apply to give evidence to the Commission, and it would then be for the Commission to decide whether or not to receive it. That, I think, is the fairest way to see that all points of view are considered.

Miss Herbison

Although all of us respect the high Christian principles and integrity of Dr. Shepherd, does not the Leader of the House feel that the knowledge of the background of Dr. Shepherd must strengthen the fears of all Africans in Nyasaland about the objectivity of the members of the Commission?

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. W. Hamilton) referred to the Observer. There was an article in the Scotsman of 25th November which stated: Most of the members are well qualified by experience of Africa or of constitutional matters for making an impartial survey of the working of Federation. The article went on to point out that Dr. Shepherd was particularly suitable on this ground, and to acknowledge that he does not represent the dominant opinion of the Church of Scotland on Nyasaland, which I have not denied. However, that does not detract from the impartiality of Dr. Shepherd, nor from my observation that it would be up to the Church of Scotland, and those sections of opinion in it who wish to do so, to give evidence before the Commission.

Mr. Woodburn

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between appointing a gentleman like Dr. Shepherd, with his background experience, and appointing to the Commission someone whose judgment would give confidence to the people of Scotland that the point of view of the majority of the Church of Scotland had been taken into account? Dr. Shepherd, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, has been so far away from Scottish opinion, his experience being mainly in South Africa, that he cannot possibly convey a feeling of confidence that an objective view of the evidence is nesessarily possible.

Mr. Butler

I do not think that is the case. I am sure that the Moderator of the Church of Scotland is an entirely suitable person to serve on the Commission. As for his impartiality, I have no doubt at all. As for the evidence which can be given, it is up to those sections of opinion in the Church of Scotland who disagree with anything which may have been said to put their viewpoint to the Commission.

Mr. Hamilton

Does the Home Secretay deny that the Prime Minister's statement last week was a misleading of the House? Further, does he confirm or deny the facts as stated in the Observer, that Dr. Shepherd has lived for forty years in South Africa and that during that time he practised where he lived the policy of segregation of whites and blacks? In that case, how can the right hon. Gentleman say that the man is impartial?

Mr. Butler

Speaking for myself, I was not impressed by the impartiality of the Observer article.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Sir J. Duncan

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his supporters on this side of the House entirely disagree with the views expressed in the Question and in the article in the Observer? On the other hand, we congratulate the Government on the appointment of the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, who has done extremely good work in his year of office.

Mr. Paget

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on a previous occasion when the rights of colonial self-determination were under discussion, Edmund Burke observed to a predecessor in office of the right hon. Gentleman that he was prepared to die only in the last ditch of prevarication?

Mr. Butler

I am very glad to add that to my armoury of sayings from Edmund Burke.