HC Deb 26 March 1959 vol 602 cc1549-67

1.28 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot (Ipswich)

I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter which is widely different from that which has just been discussed, namely, the constitutional situation in Kenya. In past weeks and months our attention has been concentrated, almost to the exclusion of other parts of Africa, on events in Central Africa. It seems to me and to some of my hon. Friends that before the House rises for the Easter Recess we should devote some attention to what is now happening in Kenya. It is fortunate that recent happenings in Kenya have not been quite so dramatic as those in Nyasaland, but we should not ignore what has taken place on that account.

I visited Kenya last November and again at the end of January. I gained the impression then that there was in Kenya a thoroughly explosive situation, and events which have occurred since January have certainly not contributed to any relaxation of the tension. As so often happens, this is not due to one single cause. It is due to the coincidence of a number of causes.

In addition to the constitutional disputes, to which I am going to refer in a moment, there have been the allegations—whether well or ill founded I am not now concerned—of ill-treatment and brutality in prisons and detention camps. There has been the Macharia trial on which it would not be proper to comment at this moment. There has been the recent action taken by the Kenya Government under their emergency powers against officials and members of the Nairobi People's Convention Party and the proscription of the party's weekly newspaper. Above all, there has been the impact of events elsewhere in Africa.

I think most of us will agree that one of the principal developments in Africa during the last ten years has been the steadily growing awareness in every African territory of what is going on in other parts of the continent. No one would deny that the achievement of independence by Ghana has had its repercussions throughout the whole of Africa south of the Sahara.

To take another and rather less happy example, when the Government decided in 1952 that they were going to impose Central African Federation against the wishes of the African populations of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland the effects were by no means confined to Central Africa. They greatly increased the fears of many African people in East Africa, and more especially in Uganda. The events which have taken place quite recently, first in the Belgian Congo and now in Nyasaland and Central Africa generally, can only add to the general disquiet, to use a very moderate term, that is prevailing in Kenya. Therefore, I suggest that the present state of affairs in that Colony calls for the very serious attention of the Government and of this House.

I come now to the actual subject on which I want to address the House, the constitutional deadlock. We all know that the African elected members—and the Indian elected members have followed their example—have refused to take any part in the present session of the Legislative Council. It may well be that if there is no new departure, that boycott will continue even after the present session. That means, in effect, that the government of the country is left solely, or almost solely, in the hands of Europeans and that the other races cease to participate.

In this connection, it is worth while glancing at the events of the last nine months. Rightly or wrongly—I am not arguing the merits of it now—African opinion in Kenya has never accepted the "Lennox-Boyd constitution." The Africans dislike the Council of State and they dislike, in particular, the provision for specially elected Members. Last June they transmitted to the Secretary of State their own constitutional proposals. In effect, what they asked for was a declaration that the ultimate aim of British rule in Kenya is full self-government on the basis of universal suffrage. At the same time, they laid very great emphasis on the need for the strongest possible safeguards to protect the position of the racial minorities.

I appreciate that replies to documents of this sort cannot be sent overnight, but there was a considerable delay, and the reply to that document transmitted to the Secretary of State was not received until the publication of the Secretary of State's dispatch on 28th November. I am not trying to be polemical about this; I am merely reminding the House of the course of events. It seems to me that both the timing and the contents of that dispatch were unfortunate. When it was published, Mr. Mboya was actually on his way to London to discuss these constitutional issues with the Secretary of State. I find it rather difficult to understand why, after a delay of nearly five months, it was thought necessary to choose this particular moment, when it must have been known that Mr. Mboya with the authority of the other African elected members was on his way, to publish the dispatch because it was a document which, in effect, denied everything for which the African elected members had asked.

There was no assurance as to the ultimate intention of British rule in Kenya. There was a reference to ten years as being the period during which there could be no alteration in the proportions of the specially elected members, and it was clear that, in the view of the Secretary of State, the only matters open to negotiation between the various groups in Kenya were matters within the framework of the existing Constitution, and, so far as I understand up to now, that is still the attitude of Her Majesty's Government.

There was, however, another reason why the publication of the dispatch at that moment was unfortunate. Throughout October and November negotiations had been going on behind the scenes in Nairobi between the different racial groups. Some of the leading members of the Indian community acted as intermediaries between some of the European leaders and the African elected members. It appeared at one stage as if quite a wide measure of common ground might be discovered, but the prospects of such an agreement receded very rapidly after the publication of the dispatch, and they became even more remote in January. The reason for that was the Answer that was given in this House, when we reassembled on 20th January, to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). It was certainly regarded by the African elected members as a complete rebuff.

I remember that this was the opinion of The Times correspondent and it was entirely borne out by my own impressions when I was in Kenya at the end of January. The Times correspondent said: The rejection by Mr. Lennox-Boyd, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in the House of Commons on Tuesday of a call for a round table conference on the Kenya constitution has been received with a mixture of surprise, dismay and anger by leaders of the non-European communities in the Colony. I know that a further statement was issued in slightly more mollifying terms the following week, and that seems to have been regarded, certainly by some newspapers here, as representing a new departure. It was not so regarded in Nairobi. The further statement—and this was issued by the Kenya Government with, of course, the authority of the Secretary of State—said: The position is that a round table conference is not ruled out by the Secretary of State, and the Kenya Government consider that such a conference could usefully be convened only if preliminary consultations between all concerned showed that such a course seemed the best way to carry things further towards an agreement"— and here come the important words— within the general ambit of the present constitution on those elements in it which are susceptible to alteration. I ask hon. Members to note those words— within the general ambit of the present constitution. It was quite clear, certainly to everybody in Nairobi, that all that could be discussed were comparatively minor matters—I do not say they were unimportant—which arose from the working of the present Constitution.

This month there are two fresh developments. There is the news that another delegation is coming to London to discuss the constitutional situation. It is headed by the Chairman of the African elected members, Mr. Oginga Odinga, and will include at least one European elected member, Mr. S. V. Cooke.

Secondly, there is the statement made on 7th March by Mr. Michael Blundell, and repeated by him in his letter to The Times on 16th March. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State refer to this statement in one of the Answers he gave at Question Time today. Mr. Blundell, who was speaking for the specially elected members' association, said that in his view it would be wise to hold a constitutional conference. It is true that he qualified that proposition. He said that he thought there ought to be certain understandings and preliminary discussions before the conference was held. Apparently the specially elected members envisage a constitutional conference without the limitation of being within the ambit of the present Constitution.

Coming from Mr. Blundell and the specially elected members, that statement might have considerable significance. I am not asking today for a fresh statement of policy on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, but I hope that the Government are not going to adopt a rigid and unyielding attitude. Above all, I hope that the Government, in their conversations with the delegations and in any statements that may be made in the near future, will not rule out changes which cannot be brought within the framework of the present Constitution. To believe that we can preserve the present position of racial groups in Kenya for a number of years to come is, I suggest, a complete illusion. I hope that there is going to be a constitutional conference. That conference would be of little or no value—indeed it might be disastrous in its results—if we were limited to minor amendments and if all questions of fundamental principles, including the ultimate intention of British rule in Kenya, were to be ruled out.

The suggestion has frequently been canvassed in Kenya that before any constitutional conference is held an expert should proceed to Kenya to ascertain the views of the various groups and parties and to make his recommendations to the conference when it meets. I suppose that such an expert would play the same rôle as Lord Radcliffe in Cyprus, Lord Reid in Malaya, or Sir Keith Hancock in Buganda.

I respectfully suggest to the Minister that that is a valuable proposal. The expert who is sent out would not merely act as an adviser on constitutional forms and precedents, but also, to some extent, as an intermediary between the various groups. He could play an extremely useful rôle in Kenya at the present time. I hope that this suggestion is not going to be ruled out.

Finally, I want to express the hope that in the next few weeks and months when we are dealing with a very tense and difficult situation in Kenya, as in many other parts of Africa, Her Majesty's Government are not going to take up an inflexible attitude from which they may later find it difficult to retreat.

1.46 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

I only want to add a very few words in support of the persuasive speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot). One of my richest memories of Kenya is of a visit I made way back in 1950 when I attended a party at which there were 100 Europeans, 100 Asians, and 100 Africans.

The purpose of that party was to seek to establish an inter-racial society in Kenya. Leaders of all three communities were present, and it gave me great hope. Unfortunately, the hopes of that occasion were destroyed by the resistance of the Government in this country to the constitutional demands which were made by the African organisations.

I met their leaders and we planned demands by ordinary political constitutional means. I have always taken the view that the rejection of those constitutional demands had some responsibility for the appalling events which followed in the Mau Mau rising. The events of violence, the terror and the killing of Europeans, and even of a greater number of fellow Africans and non-Europeans, shocked and destroyed the hopes of many.

When the period of terror was over there seemed to be a hope of reverting to the aim of a real inter-racial society in Kenya. For the first time we had the elected African representatives for a time and it appeared as though their reasonable demands would be met. I want to support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend because I believe that we are at a critical point in the history of Kenya—whether it is to advance to a harmonious inter-racial society or return to racial antagonism.

This is important not only for Kenya but East Africa, where Tanganyika, Uganda, Somalia and British Somaliland are advancing towards democratic self-government. If at this moment we could bring about a harmonious development between the races of Kenya, it would not only be of tremendous significance for the whole of East Africa, but would be an example which would have a profound influence on the grave events which are occurring in Central Africa today.

Applying that background to the points which were made by my hon. and learned Friend, I would say this. The Secretary of State for the Colonies has frequently referred to the present Constitution in Kenya as a settlement. Again and again he has used that term. It has never been a settlement. It has always been a decision imposed by the Secretary of State. When the groups in the Legislative Council failed to agree this Constitution was imposed by the Colonial Office in London, and it is an error to regard it as a constitution decided by the elected groups in the Legislative Council.

We now have the situation that members of every elected group in the Kenya Legislative Council are asking for a round-table conference and for amendments of the Constitution; not only the African group but both sections of the Asian group, the Arab group and even individual members of the European group. A delegation is coming to London which is non-racial in all those respects, and quite recently a remarkable statement was made by Mr. Michael Blundell, a member of the Government, urging that there should be a round-table conference.

I hope, in view of all these representative pressures from Kenya itself, that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be able to modify his previous statements in this House. My hon. and learned Friend has quoted the reply which the Secretary of State made to me when earlier I put down a Question on this matter. The reply was to the effect that there could be changes in details of the Constitution, but that there must be no fundamental changes.

I want to urge very strongly indeed that in this critical moment in East Africa and Central Africa the Colonial Office must be prepared to make changes which are appropriate to the increased tempo of events. Even a constitution of a year ago now becomes obsolete in the tempo of events in Africa, and I hope very much that the Secretary of State for the Colonies will heed the eloquent, reasoned and lucid statement and appeal of my hon. and learned Friend and will respond to it on this occasion.

1.52 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse (Wednesbury)

I am very happy to have this opportunity to support what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) has said and the remarks which have just been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). I returned from Kenya a fortnight ago. While I was there for a few days I spent many hours of discussion with the African political leaders, the leaders of the Asian community, and also with a number of European politicians, and I am very hopeful that we shall be able to bring Kenya now towards the sort of non-racial democracy which is being established in Tanganyika.

What my hon. Friend has just said is right. This is a crucial time in Kenya at this stage, and I hope that the Colonial Secretary—perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will convey this to him—will not adopt an inflexible attitude. This is the time when the Colonial Office must use all its persuasive powers with the European minority in Kenya to get together with the other races and to work out a solution with them.

I spent a whole morning listening to the leaders of European opinion at the convention of associations in Nairobi just over a fortnight ago. I must admit that I was surprised to find that many of the speeches made by people from the White Highlands and European townships were reasonable and farseeing. They were asking for no more than that there should be no solution imposed on Kenya without their voice being heard. They were asking that Colonial Office rule should continue until there could be an agreed solution. This is a change, and a rather dramatic change, from the demands those representatives of European opinion were making a few years ago, and I think it is a very hopeful sign of possible cooperation between the races in Kenya.

I was also most impressed that the African elected members are now saying not only that they consider themselves to speak on behalf of African people in Kenya but also on behalf of all Kenyans, not only the black ones but the white ones as well. They said in a statement issued about ten days ago that they were looking towards an inter-racial Kenya and were asking the European minority to recognise that political leadership in Kenya was not the monopoly of the whites; that the black Africans could also give the leadership which Kenya demands.

I hope that the Colonial Secretary will receive the delegation which is coming next month in a very friendly spirit, because, as my hon. Friends have said, this delegation represents the masses of the Kenya population. Only the European elected members have stayed out, but Mr. Shirley Cooke, the European member from Mombasa, is a member of the delegation, and I congratulate him on the very courageous stand that he has taken in Kenya's politics. I was sorry to hear from him that he is considering retiring from political activity. I hope that he will reconsider that and stay in Kenya's politics, because he has a very fine part to play in Kenya in the future.

The two points which I should like to put to the Colonial Secretary are these. Let him consider making a statement about the future of Kenya, emphasising that eventually Kenya will be a democratic country, and let him try to establish a timetable for the stages towards that end. If he could give that clear undertaking I am sure that it would help to reduce the tensions which, unfortunately, still exist between the various races in Kenya.

Let him also try to begin to develop a multi-racial common roll and break away from the communal representation in the Legislative Council. I hope that he will consider abolishing the special elected seats and substituting for them common roll elected members, who will be representative not of one race but representative on the basis of a democratic franchise. I hope that very low qualifications will be laid down for these members who will be representing all the communities in Kenya.

I am sure that this is the right direction for Kenya. I am also very confident that if the Colonial Secretary will adopt a realistic and sympathetic attitude towards Kenya he will help the races to come together to establish a really successful non-racial democracy.

1.57 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson (Rugby)

I trust that hon. Members will not mind my intervening in the debate, having come late to it. As soon as I saw the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) on the annunciator I came in at once to listen to the debate, and I shall speak for only a few moments so as to leave sufficient time for the Under-Secretary of State to wind up.

Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) talking about the delegation which is coming over here in a fortnight's time I asked myself the question, as I had already asked this question earlier this morning, about what manner of reception the Colonial Secretary will give to the delegation.

I have in my pocket a letter from Mr. Oginga Odinga, and I think that it would, perhaps, be helpful if I were to quote from it. He is leading the delegation which, I hope, will pave the way in the near future for a co-operative, tolerant, and almost philosophical assessment by all parties and all colours in Kenya for the well-being of 6½ million people. In days gone by people talked in terms of colour in Kenya, but now, as I observed on my last visit, all there are attempting, not always with success, but none the less attempting, to establish a mixed society of the various colours and creeds. The situation is not so happy in Central Africa.

Mr. Oginga Odinga says: You will no doubt by now have learnt that I am leading a delegation of four Africans, two Europeans and four Asians coming to plead with the Government and people of Great Britain on the urgent need for a Round Table Conference preceded by a Report prepared by a Commission of Constitutional Experts. At the same time, we need a definite statement that Kenya should now be set on the shortest road to full undiluted democracy. The House should note the words: … will be set on the road… No one in his senses, whatever his colour, demands that we should have one man, one vote tonight or next week. This is one of the canards and tales going about in Central Africa regarding the views of my own party and, indeed, of Nationalist African parties. We all recognise that for some time to come Europeans will be needed not only as technicians, engineers and doctors, etc., but, in the political sense, as partners in working towards a full and decent society.

One thing which bedevils the situation and has led to its becoming so unclear in Kenya is that the present Government in the United Kingdom will not make a declaration about the future of Kenya. I am quite certain that if the Colonial Secretary were to say, in conjunction with the Governor, Sir Evelyn Baring, that Kenya's future would be what Mr. Oginga Odinga and others would like it to be, and what the leading Europeans know will be its future and confess, in "off the record" talks, it will be, it would greatly clarify the situation. It is all a matter of creating confidence between the races. Much of the present mischief would be dispelled if the African masses knew where, ultimately, they were heading.

All round Kenya are territories where the people do know where they are going. Somaliland, with its 3 million Africans, will be independent in 1960. Uganda has been declared to be an African State. Tanganyika, following the wise words of Sir Richard Turnbull, also knows where it is going, and so does the Belgian Congo, following the wise and statesmanlike speech of the King of the Belgians about its future. All these Africans know where their future lies, but among them Kenya forms an island where Europeans, because of lack of confidence or because of the unclear views of the political party in power, will not make a declaration about the future. If we were all set on the same path towards the same goal, there would be less suspicion and we should all work for a genuine decent society for the masses of the people who live in that territory.

2.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery)

Whatever else we may not be agreed upon in this matter—and I think that there is a wide measure of agreement on the problem which we are discussing—we are agreed that we are facing one of the most difficult pieces of social and political engineering that has ever confronted a Government, and a task not made easier by the rapidity with which the general background on the African Continent is changing.

The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) took as his starting point the delays in timing between the African Members' statement of June, 1958, and my right hon. Friend's despatch of November, 1958. I should like to take the history back a little further, partly to get the balance right and partly to deal with one or two points made by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway). My right hon. Friend's proposals were first presented in public in Kenya in the course of his visit there in November, 1957, and they were then expounded in detail in the White Paper, "Despatch on the New Constitutional Arrangements", in February, 1958. It is important to go a little into the background of these proposals.

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough spoke of the present Constitution as an imposed Constitution. In a sense that is true. Why was it imposed? It is important to remember the reasons, because they have a certain bearing upon our present insistence that some informal talks should precede any further conference. At the time of my right hon. Friend's visit to Kenya in November, 1957. the African members insisted, quite reasonably, on the discussion of their claim for more seats in the Legislature, but they went beyond insisting upon discussion of that claim which, of course, we should have readily granted. They demanded its acceptance and enforcement before discussion of other outstanding matters took place. They wanted that claim accepted not only in principle, but in practice, and additional seats created before they would go on to discuss other matters.

This made a formal conference difficult and, as I am sure would be agreed, probably impossible. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State had to make his own decision and he brought forward the proposals which underlie the present Constitution. The proposals have been attacked by the African members, but it is fair to recollect that they were generally welcomed by official spokesmen of the party opposite when they were discussed in the House on 19th February, 1958.

Mr. Brockway

The hon. Gentleman says that they were officially welcomed by representatives of my party, but that was with very grave and extensive qualifications indeed.

Mr. Amery

Not very extensive qualifications from the Front Bench opposite. I was looking at the report of the debate only this morning. It was a very warm, general welcome. We were glad of it at the time and it fortified us in our view.

The African members' proposals, made in June, 1958, received the reply to which the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich has referred from my right hon. Friend in his despatch of 24th November. Frankly, I do not think that that despatch has been looked at carefully enough. The African members took it as a rejection of their demand but, in fact, it demonstrated—and if the House will look at it with care I am sure that it will agree—that there was plenty of scope for discussion of proposals on several of the matters listed by the African members in the initiative which they took in June. Discussion of these matters with the Governor could have taken place at once. There has been a great deal of misunderstanding of this and it might help if I tried to explain the contents of that despatch.

My right hon. Friend laid down at the beginning of the despatch four principles. The first one was "the maintenance of a Government in which all races in the country take part." The institution of such a Government, of course, had been the main object of the 1954 changes, and this led in due course to the appointment of an African Minister equal with his colleagues and fully responsible for a Department. This was the first initiative of its kind taken in East and Central Africa, and I think that it was a very important initiative.

I should like, at this point, to take the opportunity of paying my tribute to the present incumbent Mr. Amalemba, who as Housing Minister has done a magnificent practical job, as the House will agree, which has really improved the social conditions of his fellow Africans. There is increasing recognition among Africans of the work he has done. Hon. Members will have read of the great demonstration in his favour at Idakho the other day, when thousands turned out to watch a presentation made to him in token of the very great work that he has done. I cannot help contrasting Mr. Amalemba's constructive and positive work in improving conditions for his people with the attitude of others whose boycott tactics debar them from doing a job and even from representing their people in the Legislature.

The existing arrangements about Ministers in Kenya, in the view of my right hon. Friend, need to be further tested by experience. This does not mean that we are not ready to review them in due course; when we have the lessons of experience to guide us, we shall, of course, be prepared to look at them again. As of now we are not prepared to reconsider the question of Assistant Ministers, but nothing is ruled out in the future, and in the course of time it may well be that this question could be looked at again. In the same way, we shall be glad to discuss at any time the question of the portfolio reserved for a native-born African.

Now I come to the second and third principles laid down by my right hon. Friend. These were "a limited but final increase in communal representation in the Legislature" and "the creation of opportunities for representation in the Legislative Council based on the non-communal principle." This really is the idea which the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) brought out in the course of his remarks. He said that he wanted to get away from the communal idea, that members should represent a particular race or community. Of course, an important initiative in this matter, though I will not say it was decisive, was taken by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation of Members for both sides of the House which visited Kenya in 1957.

At the risk of wearying the House I will quote a few words from their report: We suggest to the leaders of each community that the intention to create additional seats in the Legislative Council offers the opportunity for a fresh examination of these problems; this should, in our view, be regarded as a matter of urgency. It may be that upon reflection and discussion they could agree upon such an examination, with the object of suggesting a franchise which, avoiding the Scylla of a general common roll and the Charybdis of the existing communal rolls, would assist in bringing together the moderate elements of all races in Kenya. This examination, if it bore in mind the fear of the minorities of exclusion from political influence and the fear of the African that it might be used as a device to hold him back, could prove useful in suggesting a basis for a selective and protected franchise, creating a superstructure of a few common roll seats in the Legislative Council. If successful, such an experiment would provide a political outlet, and common ground, for some of the best elements in Kenya on a non-racial basis. That in itself would be an invaluable contribution to the security, stability and future contentment of the country and we sincerely hope that our suggestion will merit and receive the serious consideration of our friends in Kenya. The members of the delegation who put their names to the report, which included this suggestion, command a great deal of respect in the views they put forward. This was held by us in the Colonial Office to be a wise proposal and influenced the decision to institute the specially elected members.

Mr. Stonehouse

Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to make one point? Is he aware that the specially elected seats were not a step forward in that direction, in that they enabled the European majority of members in the Legislative Council to dominate the election of the specially elected members, and that it would have been much better if, by one step, we could have moved towards common roll elections on a democratic franchise? Will the hon. Gentleman now ask his right hon. Friend to consider having these common roll seats elected on a democratic franchise and not elected within the Legislative Council itself?

Mr. Amery

I will make a comment on the specially elected members if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue. They are elected on a common roll and, therefore, they represent a fulfilment—it may not be the ideal or ultimate fulfilment—of the ideas outlined in the report which I have read to the House. There may be room for argument about the way they are elected, but the principle is a step in the right direction. That is one of the points we have strongly in mind and which I want to put strongly to the House.

The Constitution provides that the method of election can be altered. Some feel that the electoral college is unbalanced at present. Why? One of the reasons is that the African members have boycotted the electoral college. On that point of boycott, may I correct one thing said by the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich? He was not quite right in saying that the Asians collectively were boycotting the Legislative Council. The Hindus have spoken of doing so, but a final decision has not yet been taken; the others have not done so.

To come back to the specially elected members, at present those entitled to vote for them, apart from officials, are 28 Europeans and 34 non-Europeans. Is this a workable system? Well, there is room for discussion about how far it is workable. We have not adopted a rigid attitude. We have not tried to say that this must be frozen. We have said that the balance of specially elected members' seats must remain unchanged for a period of ten years. As regards the specially elected members, this is a point which the Africans themselves have not challenged so far.

My own view, for what it is worth—and I have been only a short time in this post—is that the experiment of specially elected members has worked well. It has been successful in a number of practical matters, for example, the difficult problem of common education for all races, and has contributed to improving interracial relations in Kenya. That is really remarkable when one looks back at the troubles which occurred there so recently.

The fourth principle that my right hon. Friend laid down in his despatch was "the institution of a body of local people who, from their background of wisdom and impartiality, can prevent unfair discrimination which is detrimental to any community." I am referring to the Council of State. So far, the Council of State, which has a non-European majority, has had little need to intervene in legislation, although it has done so once in the interests of non-Europeans. It has had a great deal of work to do in scrutinising all legislation, and as we know, in this function the other place here plays an important and valuable part. By its existence it represents a pledge that Her Majesty's Government do not intend to allow discrimination in law against any community.

There are other matters outside the scope of these principles which allow of discussion. Of course there are, but there is no reason why those should not be discussed between the parties concerned in the context of any discussion which takes place on electoral reform. In short, it is a fallacy to suggest that we have adopted a rigid attitude on this matter. We have done nothing of the kind. The Constitution laid down by my right hon. Friend was designed to evolve and to grow, but the House must remember that it is less than one year old.

I come now to the question of a conference and to the insistence which we have placed on holding informal discussions beforehand. Looking back at the circumstances which attended my right hon. Friend's visit to Nairobi in November. 1957, I think that it is justifiable to try to hold informal discussions before we proceed to anything more formal. I announced the attitude of the Government on this in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough on 5th February. I will not weary the House by quoting it again, but it is on the record.

We wanted these informal discussions, and they have been taking place. African members had a long meeting with the Governor late in February, further meetings are expected and, as has been mentioned by several speakers, Mr. Odinga is coming here. The hon. Member for Wednesbury hoped my right hon. Friend would receive him in a friendly spirit. I can think of few Colonial Secretaries—perhaps none—in recent times who have shown a friendlier spirit to visitors of whatever party and race to this country. It is also encouraging that the views expressed by Mr. Michael Blundell are in harmony with the process of informal discussions with which we are associated.

I have been asked whether we were nearer the time when we could make a statement about our objective. There has been criticism of my right hon. Friend's earlier statement that he could not foresee a time when Her Majesty's Government could surrender their responsibilities for Kenya. It is interesting that until recently the great burden of anxiety particularly among Africans, was that we should insist on retaining our responsibilities and protecting them from domination by any other element.

The Government's views on the future were set out in the despatch to which I have referred. I will make one quotation from it: It should be made clear at this point that the Council of State"— it was brought in because of its guaranteeing functions— does not introduce a bicameral system of legislation in Kenya. The powers of the Council will not be such as to impair the legislative authority of the Legislative Council itself and it is only in the case of a limited class of legislation, namely, that which it finds to be discriminatory, that it will be empowered to intervene to ensure further consideration of such legislation. Nor will its creation in any way diminish or detract from the constitutional powers and authority of the Secretary of State to advise Her Majesty to regulate, by instrument or by any other powers in Her Majesty vested, the constitutional arrangements of the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya. As I told the House on 5th February: The present constitution has been in operation for only ten months and my right hon. Friend cannot entertain proposals which would alter in any significant ways its fundamental features. It is, however, sufficiently flexible to enable it to be reviewed constructively from time to time, but my right hon. Friend considers that preliminary consultations must be held between all concerned before there is any question of a round-table conference. The Governor has already taken the initiative by inviting the African members to have discussions with him. If this leads to discussions between all concerned and these give grounds for thinking that a conference would be useful, then it would not be ruled out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 109.] I cannot now go beyond that, but I have noted what hon. Members have said, and I can assure them that I shall bring their remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend, and there need he no doubt that he will study them very carefully.

Mr. Foot

Can the hon. Gentleman say something about the proposal to which I have referred, and which has been canvassed very widely in Kenya, the proposal to send out a constitutional expert in advance of a conference?

Mr. Amery

I have stated that I am unable to go beyond what I have so far said, but I will bring this, along with other points, to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)

If the hon. Gentleman is unable to say whether the Secretary of State could authorise any major departure from his constitutional proposals, is not that just a situation in which the services of such an expert as has been mentioned could be of the utmost usefulness?

Mr. Amery

I will note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I have already stated that I am not in a position to comment on it.

Mr. J. Johnson

Would it be impossible to make a statement about what the future society of Kenya is to be in two, five or ten years' time? Perhaps we might sonic time be told whether the future destination of the people of Kenya is to be as a democracy, without this committing anyone inside or outside the Government to a statement about the next constitutional step and the composition of the Legislative Council in a few years' time.

Mr. Amery

I will note what the hon. Member has said.