HC Deb 02 March 1959 vol 601 cc40-59
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the visit of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

As a result of information reaching my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to the effect that the hon. Member for Wednesbury had been or was to be declared a prohibited immigrant to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, I asked the United Kingdom High Commissioner in Salisbury to make immediate inquiries.

The legal position is as follows. Law and order is a territorial subject, but only in so far as it does not impinge upon any of the matters specifically allocated in the Constitution to the Federation. Under the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Constitution) Order in Council, 1953, the Federal Legislature is given by paragraph 29 of that Order power—and here I quote— To make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation with respect to any matter included in the second schedule to the Constitution. One of the matters included in the schedule is immigration into and emigration from the Federation.

The Federation is solely responsible for the law dealing with immigration. The Federation is under no duty to consult Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom with regard to such law and Her Majesty's Government have no powers with regard to the operation of a law made within the powers of the Federal Legislature.

The High Commissioner has informed us that the hon. Member for Wednesbury refused to accept service of an order declaring him a prohibited immigrant and that notice was accordingly given to him orally. He has or had a right of appealing against this within 24 hours. I have no information as to whether he exercised this right, but I understand that he is being permitted by the Federal authorities to conclude his tour of Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Bottomley

This matter concerns an hon. Member of this House who is on a tour of a British-protected territory. It is, indeed, a serious matter to restrict the freedom of any Member of the House, whether in the United Kingdom or in a Colony for which this House is responsible. May I ask the Under-Secretary whether his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies made representations to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and whether he made a protest on behalf of hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Alport

So far as the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question affects the question of privilege, that is not, of course, a matter for me. As to representations, the Federal Government have agreed that the hon. Member for Wednesbury should complete his tour of Northern Rhodesia as he has done in Southern Rhodesia. Since my noble Friend the Minister of State for the Colonies will not be visiting Nyasaland at present, it would not be practicable for the hon. Member to do so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] As I have said, we have no information on whether the hon. Member has exercised his right of appeal, but I should stress that the Federal Government have acted in this matter strictly within their constitutional powers.

Mr. Callaghan

Are we to take it from the reply, first, that we have heard that the Federal Government did not even consult Her Majesty's Government before they issued this order? Secondly, does the Under-Secretary agree that this is a matter of immigration? So far as I know, my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) has no intention of settling in the Federation. Is this not a matter of passport control, which is specifically reserved to the Nyasaland Government? Is not my hon. Friend, in fact, going to Nyasaland to stay with the Governor of that territory and, therefore, is he not responsible for my hon. Friend's safety and for passport control?

Finally, have we really got to the stage where an hon. Member of this House can be denied permission to visit a British Protectorate without as much as a squeak of protest from the Under-Secretary?

Mr. Alport

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in assuming that this is merely a question of passport control. It has been said quite specifically and clearly in the Constitution that the Federal Government have power with regard to immigration, which is going into, and emigration, which is going out of, a territory. There is no disagreement, so far as I know, between the Federal Government and the territorial Governments on that score.

As to the entry of the hon. Member for Wednesbury into Nyasaland, I have already said that, in view of the fact that my noble Friend the Minister of State is not going to Nyasaland, it would not be appropriate at present for the hon. Gentleman to go.

Mr. Wall

While expressing profound disagreement with the political views and distaste at the manners and lack of tact of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), may I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not the right of every Member of this House to visit territories of the dependent Commonwealth provided that he does not break the law? Has the hon. Member broken the law or not?

Mr. Alport

In this case the law concerned is not the law of the United Kingdom, but the law of the Federation. It is a matter for the Federal Government to decide. Once the the Parliament of the United Kingdom devolves powers upon a Government overseas it cannot lightly interfere with that, nor obtain the return of those powers to itself at its wish.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury is, in the view of this Government, rightly expelled from a British Protectorate because, under the Constitution of the Central African Federation, power to deal with emigration from the Federation is in the hands of the central Government.

I wish to ask two specific questions. First, does the hon. Gentleman realise that that interpretation of the words "emigration from the Federation" is a startling interpretation? Has he obtained the advice of the Attorney-General upon this? Is that his view of the words, "emigration from the Federation"? Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman realise the extremely far-reaching nature of the interpretation which he has put upon the words, "emigration from the Federation"? Does he realise that the result of the interpretation which he has adopted means that the Central African Federation has a right of veto on anybody whom this country sends into a British Protectorate for the purpose of carrying out the duties of this country in connection with that Protectorate and for the purpose of carrying out the responsibilities which this House has towards that Protectorate?

Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that if that interpretation had been put before this House when the Federation of Nyasaland Order in Council was before the House it would never have passed the House? If this is the interpretation on which the Government stand, the sooner they bring in an amendment to this Order in Council the better.

Mr. Alport

I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing two different situations. In this case, the hon. Member for Wednesbury was on a private visit to the Federation.

As to the scope of immigration and emigration, it is quite clear, as far as I am advised, that the powers that this provides under the Constitution for the Federal Government give them control over movement into the Federation and movement out of the Federation. So far as I know, that was clear at the time when the Order in Council was laid and debated in this House.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

Will the Under-Secretary now say whether, in fact, he has been advised by the Attorney-General that the words "emigration from the Federation" cover the deportation of the hon. Member for Wednesbury and whether that advice was given before the consultation which is taking place at this very moment between the Under-Secretary and the Attorney-General?

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be attaching undue weight to the word "emigration". The question here is one of immigration, and I have certainly advised that it is immigration into and emigration from. The question at issue here is "immigration into". I have certainly advised—and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he has considered the matter fully, will agree—that under the Constitution the Federal Legislature has power to deal with all questions of immigration into the Federation.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon

Is it not well known both inside this House and outside it that visitors to other countries, and particularly if they happen to be Members of this House, should refrain from making statements which are objectionable to the Governments of their host countries?

Mr. J. Johnson

Is the Under-Secretary quite sure of his own facts here, because, if so, they are at variance with what Sir Roy Welensky has said? Is he aware that I was in exactly the same position two years ago this month, when the Mayor of Salisbury, Alderman Olley, wished to have me barred from going into Southern Rhodesia, and Sir Roy Welensky went on record publicly in the Sunday Press of Salisbury as saying, first, that he had no power to bar me, and, secondly, that if he had he would not do so?

Mr. Alport

I cannot be responsible for the views, or, rather, the interpretation, put forward by a Commonwealth Prime Minister with regard to the powers and rights of his own Government. All I am clear about is that, in this particular circumstance, the Federal Government are acting within the powers devolved upon them by this Parliament.

Mr. J. Griffiths

May I ask the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the House why, since this is a matter concerning Members of Parliament in a Protectorate for which the ultimate responsibility rests with Her Majesty's Government and this Parliament, the statement has not been made by the Secretary of State for the Colonies? This is a constitutional question of great importance, but the Under-Secretary is not responsible, nor is his noble Friend the Minister of State for the Colonies, for the Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in this House of Commons. It is the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is responsible, and I therefore ask that question first.

May I now ask two other questions? First, my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury is at the moment in Northern Rhodesia. Have representations been made by the Governor of Northern Rhodesia that he should be asked to leave the territory? All that we have heard is that the Federal Government have intervened. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be inopportune for any Member of Parliament to go to the territory because the Minister of State is not going there? In our view, it is very unfortunate that the Minister of State is not going there, because we believe that the presence in Central Africa of hon. Members from this House at this time would go some way to reassuring the Africans on the dangers which they fear.

Finally, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will convey to all European leaders in Central Africa that the panic which they are showing over this minor difficulty shows how completely untrustworthy they are to have responsibility and leadership?

Mr. Alport

If I may say so with respect, I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can really have meant the last sentence he uttered.

May I say that whereas it may be the view of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that the decision to cancel or postpone the Minister of State's visit was wrong, that is not the view of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman may speak for his own party, but we believe that this decision was right and proper in the circumstances.

Secondly, the consultations that may have taken place between the Governor of Northern Rhodesia and the Federal Government is a matter for the two Governments, but there is no doubt that the Government of Northern Rhodesia were fully informed of the circumstances of the Federal Government's decision.

On the right hon. Gentleman's other point, I can only repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that when a power has been devolved by this House upon an overseas Government it is not right that this House should try to recover that power at a subsequent date, at its will.

Mr. F. M. Bennett

However much pique may be caused no individual feelings of prestige, and irrespective of any views which the hon. Member for Wednesbury has expressed, is it not a fact that the law is that Members of Parliament are in no different position, legally, from any other visitors going into that territory? So far as the law on this particular case is concerned, and the amount of the discretion which has been devolved, as the Minister has said, to the Federation, surely the position is no different from that of emigration to any other country, such as in the case of Mr. Christopher Shawcross being sent out of Ghana?

Mr. Callaghan

There are reserved, as the Under-Secretary knows, in the Appendix to the Federal Constitution, a number of subjects, one of which is emigration and immigration. Is it not a fact that the Governor of Nyasaland had already said, long before this happened, that the question of passport control was a matter that was reserved to the Government of Nyasaland, and that this is a matter for the Secretary of State for the Colonies?

May I ask the hon. Gentleman again what the words "passport control" mean in this context? Is it not a matter for the Governor of Nyasaland as to whether my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury is admitted to that territory or not? If that is not so, is it not a fact that the words "passport control" have no meaning whatever?

Mr. Alport

The hon. Member perhaps has not realised that there is this fundamental distinction—that the control of passport issues concerns movement out of a territory. In this case, the point at issue is movement into the territory and that the hon. Member for Wednesbury is being declared, or is being threatened with being declared, a prohibited immigrant. Therefore, there is no analogy between the power used by the Federal Government in this case and the powers remaining with the territorial Governments with regard to the issue of passports for British-protected persons moving from the Federation outside.

Mr. Bevan

May I raise a point of rather wider significance than this? There has been a great deal of argument about the rights of the Governments concerned to take the action which they have taken, and there may be some ambiguity about that. But is there any ambiguity about its undesirability? Her Majesty's Government have not expressed a single view about it.

I am sure that on both sides of the House we are very deeply concerned about the bonds that link the members of the Commonwealth together. Would it not be extremely undesirable, if the practice started, for one part of the Commonwealth to exclude hon. Members of this House on the grounds of political undesirability? Would not that do very serious damage indeed to the future of the Commonwealth? Ought not Her Majesty's Government to have expressed some concern about the step which has been taken, which—and I use the phrase advisedly—may do great spiritual damage to the relations between members of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Alport

I am sure that neither the Government here nor the Government of the Federation are under any illusions as to the seriousness of this action. There has been very good evidence given to the House this afternoon as to the reluctance of the Federal Government to take action of this sort, in view of what was said by Sir Roy Welensky about the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) two years ago.

Mr. Bevan

Will the hon. Member give the House the evidence of this reluctance? Was either the Colonial Office or the Commonwealth Relations Office informed about the intention to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury from visiting Nyasaland? If not, why not? Have they not made representations themselves to the effect that they do not consider this to be a code of conduct which was desirable to cement the bonds of the Commonwealth?

Mr. Alport

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman heard the end of my reply. I called in the evidence given us this afternoon by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), when he drew attention to the fact that, when there was a public outcry to take some action against him, the Prime Minister of the Federation gave special reasons for his reluctance to do so.

Major Legge-Bourke

On a point of order. I wonder whether I might put this to you, Mr. Speaker. It is reported this morning that the hon. Member for Wednesbury has said that he does not intend to recognise the authority of the Federation Prohibition Order against a British Member of Parliament in a territory for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies is directly responsible.

May I put it to you, Sir, that as I read it, page 79 of the sixteenth edition of Erskine May makes it abundantly clear that whether it is a case of a British Member of Parliament or not has no relevance whatever, and that when an hon. Member goes out from this House in a private capacity he is, in fact, in exactly the same position as any other citizen?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order. If I can help the House, I will tell the hon. and gallant Member my opinion.

In general, the position is that if an hon. Member goes of his own accord into another jurisdiction that is not the concern of the House. I have tried to look at the matter, from what I have read about it in the Press this morning, in relation to the possible outcome of a question of Privilege, but, of course, Privilege belongs to the House and not to the individual Member; he does not carry it about with him wherever he goes. Privileges generally are concerned with seeing that an hon. Member has free access to this place and free speech when he is here. I know of nothing that has been done against that.

The real position, as I see it, is that if the House had sent the hon. Member for Wednesbury on its own business to Salisbury, Northern Rhodesia, or wherever it may be, then any refusal to facilitate his progress by the authorities there might have been regarded by the House, in certain circumstances, as approaching a contempt of the House because he was a delegate of the House. The facts in this case are that the hon. Member has undertaken the journey upon his own volition and with no authority from the House. I really do not see any way in which the hon. Member, as a Member of Parliament, on his journey, can be considered as being different from any other British citizen.

I think that the House is naturally concerned, and I thought, when the question of a Private Notice Question came before me, that the House has a right to look into a case of a British citizen who, it may think, is wrongfully treated—but only as a British subject, not as a Member of Parliament.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say at once that we do not, for a single moment, claim that a British Member of Parliament has any more rights than any other British subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, we do not. But the point here is that this is a British Protectorate which is essentially in a fundamentally different position from that of a Colony. The position is that the Federal Constitution, in its first Article, says that these territories—Northern Rhodesia, where the hon. Member for Wednesbury is at this moment, as far as we know, and Nyasaland, where he proposes to go—are to remain under the special protection of Her Majesty. They are territories, therefore, for which the Government are responsible and in regard to which Members of Parliament have a responsibility. That is what I wish to say on the point of order, but I did wish, also, to make it quite clear that we do not raise the question of any special privilege for Members of Parliament; it applies to any British subject.

May I now ask the Under-Secretary again two questions to which he did not reply?

Mr. Speaker

Let us finish the point of order. I am glad that I have been able to assist the House in the matter on the question of status. I believe it to be absolutely accurate that an hon. Member in the position of the hon. Member for Wednesbury is entitled to protection as a British subject, but to nothing else.

Mr. Bowles

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While we all agree with your Ruling about hon. Members of this House, it is quite clear that the Minister of State, Lord Perth, has been prevented from going to this territory, also. He was to go on Government business. May I ask whether, although we cannot protect him, the Government will explain why Lord Perth has been prevented from going, and by whom?

Mr. Alport

That is a decision of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Speaker

With respect to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), I do not think that that is at all the same case. I gather that Lord Perth and his colleagues in the Government do not think that it is advisable for him to go there. That is quite different from the position of the hon. Member for Wednesbury.

Mr. Parker

Surely, Mr. Speaker, if the House and the Government have some responsibility for territories within the Central African Federation, a Member of the House is entitled to go there to find out what is happening and whether the authorities are carrying out their job.

Mr. Speaker

If he goes there and places himself under that jurisdiction, he enjoys no privilege apart from that of the ordinary British citizen.

Mr. Brockway

I ask leave, Mr. Speaker. to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the notice given to a British subject, the hon. Member for Wednesbury, that he is a prohibited immigrant in the British Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and the decision not to permit him to visit Nyasaland when he is carrying out a Parliamentary duty of investigating native affairs in territories for which this House is responsible.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I must deal with this submission first.

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) asks permission to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the notice given to a British subject, the hon. Member for Wednesbury, that he is a prohibited immigrant in the British Protectorate of Northern Rhodesia and the decision not to permit him to visit Nyasaland when he is carrying out a Parliamentary duty of investigating native affairs in territories for which this House is responsible.

According to what I have heard, all that has happened to the hon. Member for Wednesbury is that he has been served with a notice saying that he is a prohibited immigrant. I have heard no allegation which goes further than that. Apart from that, nothing appears to have happened to him. The statement just now made by the Under-Secretary of State indicates that the question of immigration, which, I must take it, includes saying whether a man is a prohibited immigrant or not, is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government who have served this notice upon the hon. Member. I cannot find that this Motion comes within the Standing Order.

Quite apart from the question of urgency, nothing having happened to the hon. Member, I think that really to remedy this, if it be a grievance, would involve some alteration in the law, as was suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) when he said that the control over immigration should be amended. But, of course, that is a subject which would require legislation and, quite clearly, is not the sort of thing we could take on the Adjournment, whether under Standing Order No. 9 or on the ordinary Adjournment of the House. For those reasons, I am forced to the conclusion that this is not a Motion which I can agree is proper under the Standing Order.

Mr. Brockway

May I put this point to you, Mr. Speaker? You have said that nothing more has happened to the hon. Member for Wednesbury except that he has received notice that he is a prohibited immigrant. We have heard from the Government Front Bench today that he is not to be permitted to go from one British Protectorate, Northern Rhodesia, to another British Protectorate, Nyasaland. I submit to you, Sir, that that is a matter for which the Government of this country and this House have some responsibility.

Mr. Paget

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely, although it is said that the question of immigration and emigration into and from the Federation is a matter of Federal law, nothing of that sort arises with regard to a movement within the Federation. This is a movement from Northern Rhodesia, a British Protectorate, to Nyasaland, a British Protectorate, by a man who is already there. That cannot be a question of immigration into the Protectorate, which is what the Attorney-General advised us about.

Mr. J. Johnson

This is a matter of movement within the Federation, say, between Lusaka and Blantyre. There are precedents in this matter, for Harry Nkumbula, President of the Northern Rhodesia Congress, was not allowed to leave Northern Rhodesia to go to Nyasaland, and, conversely, Joseph Sangala, the President of the Nyasaland Congress, to leave Nyasaland to go to Northern Rhodesia. It is entirely a matter for internal executive authority on the part of the Governors themselves and their two Protectorate Governors, not Federation jurisdiction.

Mr. Callaghan

I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to assure the freedom of an hon. Member of this House to visit a British Protectorate for which Her Majesty's Government and this Parliament are responsible, and Her Majesty's Government's failure to protest to the Federal Government about their action in issuing an order against the hon. Member for Wednesbury.

May I say, in continuation of this point, that it is clearly definite. It is obviously urgent because the hon. Member is due to leave for Nyasaland tomorrow. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is obviously of the greatest public importance—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is not a party matter. It ought to be a matter for the whole House.

I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that, whatever the law may be, it is surely high time that it was corrected and put right, if it is the case that someone not responsible to the House of Commons can order a British subject and, in addition to being a British subject, a Member of this House, to leave a British Colony. For those reasons, I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to ask that the British Government should protest about the action of the Federal Government in this matter.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to assure the freedom of an hon. Member of this House to visit a British Protectorate for which Her Majesty's Government and this Parliament are responsible, and Her Majesty's Government's failure to protest to the Federal Government about their action in issuing an order against the hon. Member for Wednesbury.

I think that this, also, comes up against the same difficulty, namely, that the question of emigration is one for the Federal Government. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and other hon. Members said that this was a question not of immigration into a Federal territory as such, but of movement between different parts of the territory. I see the point of that, but, on the other hand, assuming that the Government of the Federation have the power to declare a man a prohibited immigrant, that would mean that he has no business, in that Government's view, inside the whole Federation. That being so, it seems to me that responsibility for this action rests with the Federal Government. That is the first point.

I also do not think that I can assume that there has been any failure to protest in the events as they have come before us to this date. Further, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) himself, in asking leave to move the Motion, said that if the Government of the Federation could keep out a British citizen it was high time that the law was changed. It seems to me that that is the remedy. But if it is the remedy for the grievance, it is legislation and, therefore, the Motion would not be appropriate.

Mr. Callaghan

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, not to hang too much of your Ruling upon a statement which I made in passing. What is quite clear is that the law here is in dispute. Although the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Attorney-General accept one view, that does not mean to say that it is universally accepted. What I was saying was that if your view was right the law should be changed. Speaking for myself and from such advice as I have been able to get, it seems to me that as the matter of passport control is the responsibility of the Governor there is a responsibility here, and a change in the law is not needed to enable a Member of this House to visit the Protectorate of Nyasaland.

Mr. Speaker

I assure the hon. Member that I was not hanging too much on what he said. I mentioned it because it happens to agree with my own view of the matter, namely, that the grievance is against the state of the law which puts the discretion in the hands of the Federal Government. I agree with the hon. Member when he says that about the matter. That is why I do not think that it can be raised under the Standing Order.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

On a point of order. Would it not clarify the situation for the whole House in this important matter if the Under-Secretary of State could tell us whether he knows for what purpose the hon. Member for Wednesbury has gone to Northern Rhodesia in the middle of the Session and, also, whether he could say who are sponsoring his visit?

Mr. Speaker

That would not be proper at all. We should hear the hon. Member for Wednesbury himself on that point.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I should like to take the House into my confidence. I have considered the matter very carefully and ask for the support of the House. I do not think that this is a proper subject to raise under Standing Order No. 9 on the facts as they stand. I fear that were I to allow this it would be a bad precedent for the future, possibly leading to all sorts of mischievous consequences. I therefore cannot change my mind.

Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas

We on this side are concerned that it will lead to all kinds of mischievous consequences if you, Mr. Speaker, do not allow us to have a debate on the matter. On the primary point which you made, namely, that the Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland were taking the view, as does this Government apparently, that this matter comes within the words "immigration into and emigration from the Federation within what is allocated to the Central African Federation for decision", we on this side simply do not accept that interpretation.

We believe that this is a matter which, to put it at its lowest, is subject to differences of view. It is, therefore, a matter which should be discussed by this House with a view to seeing what action the Government and this House should take in the light of their decision. The matter is not concluded merely by saying that this Government or the Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland take the view that it is a Rhodesia and Nyasaland affair.

Mr. Speaker

I think that we are jumping before we come to the stile. I am not in any sense saying that the House should not debate the matter, but it is not subject to debate in the way proposed.

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) has said that there are two different views about the law. I have taken the view which the Government have taken, and I have no grounds that I know of for denying that view. If there is to be an argument about it, that is not something which can be discussed under Standing Order No. 9, which deals with a practical event or happening which one can get hold of and understand. Standing Order No. 9 is not a vehicle for discussing questions of law.

Mr. J. Hynd

May I ask your guidance on the Ruling which you have given, Mr. Speaker? I understand that your Ruling is based generally on the point that the Government are not responsible for the law applying to immigration and emigration within this territory and that because of that a Motion under Standing Order No. 9 is out of order. Are we to understand that a Motion under Standing Order No. 9 must be out of order if it concerns a matter in which the British Government have not direct responsibility?

We have only this afternoon been discussing an agreement about the rights and property of British subjects in Egypt, where the Government certainly had no authority, but where they have taken action on behalf of British individuals, and have come to an agreement with the Egyptian Government. Is it not the case that, similarly in this sort of issue, our Government can make representations to the Federal Government, even though our Government have no direct responsibility?

Mr. Speaker

I would point out one thing in connection with the statement, which I should have mentioned earlier, namely, that the hon. Member for Wednesbury has the right of appeal against this decision. We do not know whether or not he has exercised it. Apparently the law in that part of the world is that if a man is declared to be a prohibited immigrant he has the right of appeal within a certain time. We do not know whether the hon. Member has appealed yet. I do not think that the House can interfere until that period is exhausted.

Mr. Leather

This is not a point of order. May I ask—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member does not use the magic formula.

Mr. Leather

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I can deal only with points of order.

Mr. Grimond

I appreciate that the most serious aspect of the matter is that so much of Africa is under emergency regulations, but surely this is a specific instance of an hon. Member being denied access to Nyasaland, first, because he is a Member of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As I understand, the Under-Secretary bracketed the hon. Member with the Minister of State, for the same reasons. Secondly, I understood the Under-Secretary to say that it was unthinkable that the hon. Member for Wednesbury should be allowed to go to Nyasaland, as though the Under-Secretary was taking some responsibility for the decision.

Mr. Alport

The order made against the hon. Member for Wednesbury applies to the whole Federation. It applies equally to Southern Rhodesia as to Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia. In the case of Northern Rhodesia, the Federal Government have agreed that the hon. Member should continue and complete his tour, and he has already completed his tour of Southern Rhodesia. The order applies not to Nyasaland alone but to the whole Federation.

Mr. Bevan

Is it not a fact that you, Mr. Speaker, put the House in a very considerable difficulty if, in giving your Ruling Under Standing Order No. 9, you take the Government's view of the interpretation of the law? In my respectful submission, that seems practically to finish Standing Order No. 9. If the Government are supported in their view by the formidable armament of the Attorney-General, who says that in his view this is the law and you, Mr. Speaker, say that you agree that it is the law, we are finished.

Mr. Speaker

In self-defence, I would say that I am not quite so helpless as that. In ordinary matters of law I can form my own opinion fairly well, and I do not take my views from anybody. But if the right hon. Gentleman will do as I have tried to do in a short time this morning, go through the documents which comprise the Constitution of the Federal Government and all the constituent territorial Governments, he will see that they are not very easy to understand. But I came to the same conclusion as Her Majesty's Government quite independently, that under the Constitution as framed this is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

Mr. Bevan

Certain obligations rest upon this House. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) made the point, which I wish to underline, that in this matter a Member of Parliament is in a different position from that of an ordinary person. Before very long the Government of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be applying to this House for the endowment of further powers. In other words, certain residual powers are still possessed by Parliament in respect of this area. There is, therefore, an obligation on the part of Members of this House who are able to avail themselves of the opportunity to find out what is happening there now, so as to be able to decide later whether those powers should be enlarged or reduced. An hon. Member is, therefore, in an entirely different position from that of the ordinary subject.

The urgency of the matter resides in the fact that if the news goes out to the people of Nyasaland that although—[Interruption.] I hope that hon. Members opposite will regard this matter as slightly more serious than they appear to be doing. I suppose they want more bloodshed there before they can make up their minds. If the news were to go out that Members of Parliament who still have obligations to the people there, who have not relinquished all their rights to the Government of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—[Interruption.] In my respectful submission it is a matter of extreme urgency that they should know that we still protect them, and a very grave responsibility rests upon the troglodytes opposite to convey to the people of Nyasaland that they can look for no protection from this House, and for no opportunity of ventilating their grievances.

Sir P. Spens

Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Wednesbury happens to be inside the jurisdiction of the Federation; that the Federation has been given certain powers by this House; that the Federation claims the right of exercising those powers; and that it is never in order, after this House has delegated powers of a self-governing part of the Commonwealth, to discuss in this House the exercise by them of the powers which we have given them; that the hon. Member for Wednesbury has the right of appeal to the Federal Court of the Federation, and that it is that Court which should decide what his rights are?

Mr. Speaker

That is the view that I take of the matter. That being so, I have to consider the Orders of the Day. We have had a long discussion on this matter and I must give it as my final decision, on the particular circumstances related to me, that it is my duty to say that this is not a matter which falls under Standing Order No. 9.

There are other opportunities, if the House wishes to discuss it, to arrange for a debate in which the whole matter can be gone into free from the trammels which beset a question so hedged about with legislation and legal differences and difficulties as this is. It is no longer a definite matter, owing to the conflicting legal accounts that we have had. I must, therefore, say that this is not a matter falling under Standing Order No. 9.

Mr. Gaitskell

You have referred to other opportunities of raising this matter, Mr. Speaker, although, as you say, we have had a long discussion on whether the Adjournment could be moved under Standing Order No. 9. We must accept your decision on the matter, but I hope that you will agree—as, I hope, the whole House will—that this is a very serious matter, which involves points of legal complexity on which there is disagreement, as well as points of conduct by Governments.

With your permission, I would, therefore, ask the Leader of the House whether he will find a very early day upon which we can debate the whole matter which has arisen.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler)

It was quite clear to me before the House met today that this was obviously a matter of first-class importance to the House of Commons. I do not wish to use any language which in any way derogates from any of the answers given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, nor, Mr. Speaker, do I wish to say anything to alter any of your Rulings, which I entirely accept, but as to the possibility of debating this in what we can describe as a more orderly and rational atmosphere—although one cannot complain at this—I think that the only thing we can do is to discuss it through the usual channels, but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that there is no question why time should not be found by the Opposition. If we enter discussions we must do so on a completely open basis, with that in mind.