HC Deb 17 May 1960 vol 623 cc1104-36

Order for Second Reading read.

3.38 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The purpose of the Bill is set out clearly in the Long Title, which says that it is to Make provision as to the operation of the law in relation to Ghana and persons and things in any way belonging to or connected with Ghana, in view of Ghana's becoming a Republic while remaining a member of the Commonwealth. The Bill is, therefore, an enabling Measure consequent upon the introduction of the new Constitution in Ghana, under the terms of which she will become a Republic. By an Act of the Ghana Parliament, a constituent Assembly was set up in February this year with full power to enact statutory provisions preparatory to and for finally establishing a Republic in Ghana. Exercising these powers, the Assembly ordered a plebiscite on the issue of whether the republican Constitution described in a White Paper published in March was to be accepted.

This plebiscite was completed at the end of last month when there was a substantial majority in favour of the republican Constitution. The Prime Minister of Ghana informed the Prime Ministers of the other member countries of the Commonwealth of the proposed change at their meeting in London last week. He also told them of Ghana's decision to maintain her association with the Commonwealth. The Prime Ministers unanimously agreed that Ghana should remain within the Commonwealth after the establishment of the Republic which is to take place on 1st July.

Let me emphasise that a decision regarding whether a Commonwealth country should become a republic or remain a monarchy is something which it must take for itself. Whether it may subsequently remain a member of the Commonwealth is a matter for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in consultation. The question of republic or monarchy is one on which the Government of the United Kingdom can take no view, nor do they aspire to do so.

The decision having been made, it becomes necessary for us to enact legislation on the lines of the Bill, because, without it, doubts may arise about whether, among other things, citizens of Ghana would continue to qualify under United Kingdom law as British subjects or Commonwealth citizens. Again, Ghana would cease to be within the statutory references to Her Majesty's Dominions or British possessions. This would have widespread effect. For instance, doubt would be thrown upon the legality of tariff preferences accorded to Ghana under the Ottawa Agreement Act, 1932.

I should like briefly to go through the main provisions of this short Bill. Clause 1 (1) effects the main purpose of the Bill It provides that when Ghana becomes a republic all existing law shall continue to apply to Ghana and to persons belonging to or connected with Ghana and to their goods and property as at present, which means that they will continue to have the same rights and privileges in this country as they have today and their goods will enjoy the same preferential treatment under our law. In fact, this subsection maintains the status quo regarding citizens of Ghana after that country becomes a republic and with regard to their interests in their property and goods.

Subsection (2) extends the provisions of the Bill beyond the law of the United Kingdom to the Colonies, Protectorates and Trust Territories. In the case of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, it is provided that the Bill does not extend to law which can be amended by the Legislatures either of the Federation or of Southern Rhodesia. The provisions of the Bill in this respect may seem at first sight a trifle complicated, but their effect is relatively simple and there are precedents in the Pakistan Consequential Provisions Act and, indeed, in the Malaya Independence Act, and in such cases the inclusion of this subsection is now common form.

Subsection (3) gives power to make Orders in Council, subject to the negative Resolution procedure, so as to modify existing United Kingdom Acts in so far as this may be necessary as a result of the change of constitution in Ghana. Such amendments would be of a consequential nature. We cannot foresee that in any case they would be of great consequence or importance. For instance, there are certain Acts in which reference is made to warrants or other legal documents issued or signed by a governor or governor-general of an overseas territory, and it may be necessary in those Acts that we should replace at some time in the future the words "Governor" or "Governor-General" by "President" ox other appropriate authority in relation to Ghana.

At this point I should explain that the Ghana Government have asked that arrangements be made for the United Kingdom Colonial Stock Acts to continue to apply to Ghana stocks. It is intended that action should be taken under subsection (3) to continue the application of the Colonial Stock Acts to Ghana stocks, and to cover the modifications made necessary by the change in the constitutional status of Ghana. In fact, as I have already said, this will be undertaken by an appropriate Order in Council.

The Government of Ghana have also given us an assurance that they will accept the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts in the case of litigation relating to Ghana funds under the Colonial Stock Acts. Therefore, the position of stockholders will be doubly safeguarded, by the terms of the Order in Council to be issued and also by the assurance given to us by the Government of Ghana.

In Clause 2, reference is made to appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Government of Ghana have informed us that after Ghana becomes a Republic they do not wish appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to continue. On the other hand, there are at present a certain number of appeals outstanding and were these to lapse when Ghana becomes a Republic on 1st July, Ghana litigants who have spent money on pursuing their cases right up to, or very nearly to, the Judicial Committee might consequently suffer injustice and hardship.

Clause 2 meets the request of the Ghana Government that appropriate arrangements may be made for these outstanding appeals to be heard. Under these arrangements, in accordance with the wish of the Ghana Government, it is proposed that pending appeals not heard and disposed of by 30th June, 1961, should abate, but that those heard prior to that date and completed will be heard under arrangements to be made consequent to the publication of the Order in Council. These arrangements cannot be formalised until the Bill has reached the Statute Book and it may be of interest to the House to know that the number of appeals which we estimate to be outstanding will be between 10 and 20 on 1st July.

Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that there are two precedents for Bills of this kind—without this reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—the Consequential Provisions Bill, which became an Act in 1949, when India became a Republic, and the Measure of 1956, when Pakistan adopted the same status. With regard to the United Kingdom Parliament—and this applies to the previous Measures— the Bill recognises, for the purpose of United Kingdom law and the dependent territories of the United Kingdom, a further stage in the constitutional evolution of Ghana.

I think it right, and the wish of the House, that we should tell the people of Ghana that we recognise the decision is one which they have reached freely and in accordance with the independent status they occupy in the Commonwealth and that we should offer them on this occasion our best wishes for the future of their country. We believe that their decision, whatever it may be, will benefit the people of Ghana and assist the progress of peoples in Africa and in the Commonwealth generally.

I am sure that there could have been no more appropriate touch to this event and stage in the development of Ghana than that yesterday it should be announced that Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip intend to visit that country in 1961. It shows that whatever may be the changes which take place, the friendly spirit and co-operation existing between our countries will continue in the future.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand (Middlesbrough, Bast)

We support the Bill. In doing so, we note with special interest and satisfaction that not only, as the Minister of State has reminded us, has this decision of the Ghana people been approved after a plebiscite and a vote in the Assembly, but it carries with it, also, the approval of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, which said, very definitely: The heads of delegations of the other member countries of the Commonwealth assured the Prime Minister of Ghana that the present relations between their countries and Ghana would remain unaffected by this constitutional change and they declared that their Governments would accept and recognise Ghana's continued membership of the Commonwealth. Previous experience of occasions when Bills of this kind have been introduced to the House confirm that that is undoubtedly true.

As we know, this Bill follows closely the provisions of a similar Measure introduced in 1956 in regard to Pakistan, and before that, India led the way, if I may use that expression, in deciding to become a Republic. Doubts may have been expressed once or twice about the wisdom or desirability of that course, but they roust surely have been wiped away by all that has followed since.

It is quite clear that these decisions by India and Pakistan have done nothing whatsoever to diminish the friendship between this country and the people of this country and the people of India and Pakistan. Our relations remain close. Our interests in their welfare, and our anxiety to help them in their social and economic development, remain as strong as they ever were. So it will be, I feel confident, with Ghana. So it will be when, in a few months' time, a similar Measure is introduced to make the necessary legal provisions for a similar decision by Ceylon, which has already been taken in principle.

As the Minister of State said, and as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said during the short debate upon the Pakistan Bill four years ago, this decision whether or not to adopt republican institutions is entirely one for the countries concerned. My right hon. Friend at that time said almost the same words as the Minister of State has used this afternoon. He said: It is not a matter in which we should intervene or, if I may say so, express any opinion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March. 1956; Vol. 550, c. 234.] If anyone had any suspicions that possibly this decision to become a Republic might engender any ill-feeling between ourselves and Ghana, that must have been entirely dissipated by the announcement to which the Minister has just referred, the very gratifying announcement, that Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip intend very soon to make the visit to Ghana which had to be postponed for the happiest of all possible reasons last year.

Ghana's full membership of the Commonwealth is already a symbol of the truth contained in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' statement, to which reference was made earlier this afternoon at Question Time. It emphasises that the Commonwealth itself as a multiracial association expresses the need to ensure good relations between all member States and peoples of the Commonwealth. Ghana is the first fully African State to become a full self-governing member of the Commonwealth and since becoming fully self-governing she has played a noteworthy and valuable part in the work of the Commonwealth. I think that it is no secret that it was Dr. Nkrumah whose initiative led to the decision about the desirability of Commonwealth co-operation in the development of Africa, to which reference was also made earlier this afternoon, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).

It is no secret that both in the Commonwealth, the Conference itself, and in the various contacts which are, happily, always made outside on these occasions, Dr. Nkrumah has shown an earnest desire to encourage the development of not only his own country, but other countries throughout the African Continent. Shortly, he will become Head of his State. No one can doubt his qualifications to be so. He will have the opportunity and the right to judge the welfare of his fellow-citizens, somewhat aloof from party strife. It will be in keeping with the spirit of the Commonwealth if he exercises that responsibility and that right in a manner not only free from any racial bias, but with a full recognition of the principles of the human freedoms and of the prevalence of democracy which are now, as a result of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' statement, the declared objectives of our Commonwealth.

Reference was made by the Minister of State to Ghana's decision not to resort, after cases are disposed of, to the Privy Council. I understand that there are certain technical difficulties about doing this when a country becomes a Republic. I am not a lawyer, but I think that I am not wrong in saying that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council does not hand down judgments; it merely makes recommendations to Her Majesty.

When one of the Commonwealth countries becomes a Republic this is no longer possible, because Her Majesty is no longer the Head of that State. There are, then, technical difficulties in continuing to resort to the Privy Council on such occasions as would normally be appropriate for Canada or Australia. I understand that the Prime Minister of Malaya has found a way round this difficulty, but I am not necessarily suggesting that others should do the same.

I hope that when this matter of resort to the Privy Council is being thought about in Ghana, in Ceylon and elsewhere further consideration will be given to a proposal which was brought before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference recently, and which was certainly not turned down—the proposal brought forward by Senator Cooray, of Ceylon, who is Minister of Justice and a very distinguished lawyer, that a new formulation of a court for the Commonwealth might be studied.

No more than that was said in the Motion that I put on the Order Paper with the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite.

[That this House, recalling the solemn obligation undertaken by the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries to co-operate with the United Nations by joint and separate action in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of race; welcoming the accession by Her Majesty's Government to the European Convention of Human Rights and its application to Crown Colonies and Pro-tectorates; and recognising that the Commonwealth cannot endure unless all its members recognise and guarantee human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of race, colour, or creed, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to initiate the study by all member-countries of the Commonwealth of the practicability of formulating a Commonwealth Convention of Human Rights and the establishment of the necessary investigatory and judicial organs necessary for that high purpose, so that all citizens of the Commonwealth, wherever residing, may be assured of the enjoyment of those fundamental rights and of protection against any infringement of the same.]

That Motion attracted support without committing any of the signatories to a definite plan. It merely asked that Her Majesty's Government should initiate within the Commonwealth the study of the practicability of a Commonwealth Convention of Human Rights, with appropriate investigatory organs and some sort of judicial tribunal which might give findings, if not judgments, on matters brought before it.

If those two ideas of Senator Cooray and that which is put on the Order Paper of the House with such widespread support could be studied a little more, there might then emerge from the Commonwealth, if not a restoration of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, its substitution, perhaps with a different authority, a different field of adjudication, but, nevertheless, something that would take its place and might embody the feeling so rapidly growing in the Commonwealth that it is now essential, in this association of people of every conceivable colour and a vast variety of religious creeds, that provision for the protection of the human rights of freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, and the like, be embodied in a Common-weath constitution. I throw out that suggestion for consideration.

I conclude by echoing what the Minister of State has already said. In passing the Bill, as we shall undoubtedly do on Second Reading this afternoon, and no doubt through all its stages very rapidly thereafter, we extend to Ghana, now entering this new form of democratic constitution, all good wishes for the future, and we pledge ourselves to do all that we can to help her to accelerate her economic development and advance the standard of living and culture of her peoples.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)

I do not wish to take up the time of the House for very long, but, like my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), I want to say that hon. Members on both sides have many friends in Ghana—not only in the C.P.P., but in the Opposition parties; not only in Accra and that neighbourhood, but in the lovely country of the Ashanti and also in the far north. We all look forward to a prosperous and happy Republic of Ghana.

I believe that the difference in this Bill from what appeared in the case of India and Pakistan is for us in the United Kingdom a lesson. I hope that it will not be a weakening of the Commonwealth tie, but I think that it might be. With my hon. Friend the Minister of State, I welcome the news that Her Majesty and his Royal Highness the Prince Philip are to visit Ghana, Her Majesty going there as Head of the Commonwealth, as well as as Queen of the United Kingdom.

I believe that there is in the background of the thoughts of Ghanaians slight annoyance with the Press of this country and also at the make-up of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Some organs of the Press have been very unfair. The Prime Minister and the governing party in Ghana want to see law and order above all things, and this is not easy in a newly emerged territory. It may be easy for people in this country, which has had centuries of democracy but which has had one man or one woman, one vote, only for a comparatively small number of years, to forget that we had very firm government in past centuries and still called ourselves a democracy.

The governing party in Ghana, naturally, takes cognisance of some of the remarks which have been made in some organs of the British Press about so-called rigged elections. They regard those remarks as unfair, particularly as I am told that all ballot papers are printed on special security paper in the presence of representatives of the contesting political parties and that the representative of each party is allowed to put a secret mark known only to himself on the plate from which the ballot papers are printed, and a secret mark known only to the Government printer is also included. It is as well to bear in mind that in the Prime Minister of Ghana's own constituency, in Accra, his votes went down. If there ever was a point where a rigged election would be expected, it would be in that constituency. There is also the knowledge in Ghana of the comments here about flogging, which proved to be completely unfounded.

Therefore, it is not surprising that Ghana, for the first time among the Commonwealth countries, has decided to have nothing more to do with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. No new appeal will be registered with the Privy Council after 1st July, 1960, and no appeal from Ghana will be heard by the Privy Council after 1st July. 1961. I believe that there are only a comparatively few number of cases in the pipeline.

I am, however, worried over this action and its possible effect on the supply of capital for Ghana. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister of State said about the Colonial Stocks Act, but many investors have in the past taken cognisance of the right of appeal to the Privy Council and have thought of that as a potential safeguard.

Yet I cannot blame the Ghana Government for wishing to change. I have to remember that no African judge, not only from Ghana but from any other territory, has been made a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, though I believe that the late Sir Henley Coussey, whom some of us knew so well and who was a most able man, might well have been made such had he lived.

I also have to remember that when Ghanaian cases were heard only three members of the Judicial Committee sat, as in other colonial cases, whereas in cases from Australia and Canada five members of the Judicial Committee sat. I am told, further, that the Chief Justice was not included. The Ghanaians remember also that their law deals with rather complicated land questions which are very different from what we are used to in this country.

Therefore, I sympathise, but still regret what has been done and, like the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, I believe that we must take action in the next year or two to cement, if we possibly can, various Commonwealth ties by creating what, in effect, will be Commonwealth supra-national agencies. As I would like to see a Commonwealth technical overseas service and an Order of Recognition of Service stemming from the Head of the Commonwealth, on the advice of her individual Prime Ministers, given to different individuals in the Commonwealth for their services, so I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and with the statesmen of Ceylon that we ought to look very carefully into creating a court of appeal for the Commonwealth.

I commend that idea once again to my hon. Friend so that out of possibly one or two mistakes of the past we can create ties not only of friendship but of mutual welfare for the Commonwealth in the future.

4.8 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason (Barnsley)

I, for one in the House, feel very sorry indeed that we are faced with this Bill. I am sorry because Ghana was our first African State to receive freedom and independence, and that occurred only three years ago. Yet within this very short time we are faced with providing a Bill in this Parliament, which will eventually become an Act, to allow Ghana to be a Republic within our Commonwealth.

This is not exactly a surprise to some of us. I was a member of the Parliamentary delegation which went out to Ghana in 1956 to witness the conduct of the electorate and the atmosphere prevailing at that time in the general election which determined freedom and independence for the Ghanaians. When we returned, and were faced with the Second Reading of the Ghana Independence Bill, some of us expressed misgivings about the situation over there and how quickly we were granting independence and freedom. I am pleased to see that some members of the delegation are present today, particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who expressed some concern, though perhaps not in as strong terms as I did.

My two reasons at that time were: first, that it was a hasty decision; and, secondly, that the economy of the country was not viable enough and was not in such a state that it could look forward to a good economic future. The swiftness of the coming of independence meant that Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah had to pace that political advancement—

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

Could my hon. Friend inform us who appoints these deputations and to whom they report when they return?

Mr. Mason

If my hon. Friend had followed the discussions on Ghana, particularly in this Chamber, he need not have asked that question. This deputation was sent by the Foreign Office and the C.P.A. Commission was formed to select its members. I was one of the delegation. It was my first trip to West Africa. Many people might say that it was a case of the immature mind getting a shock. That was what the West African Press said. Nevertheless, I am entitled to my opinion and I hope that in future my hon. Friend will follow more closely affairs in West Africa.

With the hasty decision on independence Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the Prime Minister of Ghana, had to make sure that the pace of political advancement was kept up, and he has done exactly that. What is more, it had to be seen, and his supporters and countrymen made fully aware of the fact, that he would maintain that progress. Because there was not a strong enough economy, he was given an excuse to be firm.

Since independence, in order to make sure that there was a change, he immediately had his head put on the coinage and on stamps, erected a statue to himself in Accra, and lived in Christiansborg Castle. That was noticed and gave the impression to his countrymen and supporters that a change had taken place. I may be wrong, but I think that Dr. Kwame Nkrumah has always been seized with the idea that he was born to lead all Africans. Ghana was the first African State to be released from colonial bondage and his aim was to create a United States of Africa. [An HON. MEMBER: "There is nothing wrong with that."] There is nothing wrong with that, provided that it is not done in a dictatorial manner. That is why I am worried and have recently felt concerned. It meant that he must always remain in power. Hence we have witnessed a set of Acts being placed on the Statute Book to ensure his permanent leadership.

During the General Election in 1956 there were two platforms. The Conventional People's Party was fighting for centralised government, with which I agree. The National People's Party and the National Liberation Movement were fighting for regional government. When he got independence he recognised that these organisations, which had grown and still existed on a regional basis, were a menace to his political future. He also recognised that he had not captured the Ashanti country, the wealthiest section of Ghana. It was led by Assantehene, Chief of the Ashanti Tribe, who is a wealthy and influential person. He had also to break down the tribal strength in that area.

These, therefore, were the obstacles and the question was posed: how could he best break the strength and organisation of these groups? First, he brought in a Bill, which eventually became the Deportation Act. In effect, deportations could be carried out not subject to appeal or review in any form. He deported two wealthy Muslims and Ian Colvin of the Daily Telegraph—wealth and a European in Ghana—to prove to the Ashanti Tribe and all his followers that he did not need any more to have the consent of the chief, Assantehene; that he was now the supreme power in Ghana, and that the tribal organisation was now of no use. By that Act alone he started to break down the tribal organisations.

I did not agree with the feudal methods which existed and I was hoping all the time that he was doing this purely in the best interests of Parliamentary democracy and not for ulterior motives, which I suspect. Having shown that he was the power and proved to Assantehene and his followers that there was now no need to consult the chief of that great tribe—this wealthy and influential person—he started to cripple Assantehene's power and break down the tribal organisation.

His second Act was to ban political parties with a tribal, religious or a regional basis. Therefore, the Muslim Party became illegal. The Northern People's Party, based on the Northern Territories, also became illegal and the National Liberation Movement, which was not in itself regionally based, but all of whose strength came from the Ashanti country, had to go. All we then got was the United Opposition Party. I thought again that this might be in the best interests of Parliamentary democracy. There would be a two-party system, the United Opposition Party having cut out the Muslims, the Northern People's Party and the National Liberation Movement; but then another Act brought in preventive detention and 40 of the United Opposition Party members were put into prison.

Having worked in this fashion, he ensured that the Opposition was deprived of many of its leaders. This might have been part of a preconceived plan, partly to make clear that he was ready to become the republican leader. I do not know whether Professor Busia is still in Ghana or has left the country—[An HON. MEMBER: "He is not there now."]— but he was one of the influential leaders and was doing a great job in trying to maintain Parliamentary opposition in Ghana. I am very sorry that he has been forced to leave. I understand that it is doubtful whether he will return.

For these reasons, I am sorry that this Bill has been necessary. To me, it is most disturbing. A Republic means that it is but a short pace from dictatorship. That is not a good advertisement for all we have supposedly done when the country was known as the Gold Coast. I recognise that our type of Parliamentary democracy cannot be planted anywhere. It depends on the atmosphere prevailing at the time of independence, the state of the nation's economy, what economic progress is required, how fast it must be achieved, and so on. Those are the factors which creep in when we consider whether we can ensure Parliamentary democracy of our type in some of these African States. Special consideration should have been given to the fact that this was the first African Colony to achieve independence and it would obviously be a signal for the rest.

I feel concerned because it would appear that the Prime Minister of Ghana was determined from the outset that he was not going to lose office, even if it meant a drift towards dictatorship rather than a Parliamentary democracy. This is my sober and saddening conclusion about what has happened so far. Other Colonies are watching this trend, some with dismay. One, which is not very far distant from Ghana, is Nigeria. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand)— perhaps vaguely but, nevertheless, it was there—showed some concern when he talked about a Commonwealth court, or Commonwealth institution, which might have to develop for the protection of human rights. Therefore, some consideration should be given to these trends. We should try to learn from this example. We should try, first, to give our freedom-seeking Colonies a better economic start to begin with. Secondly, they should have a chance to fight dictatorships emerging with a recognised Parliamentary Opposition.

Because this Bill is going through, and a Republic is inevitable, I hope that Dr. Kwame Nkrumah will not press his political advancement too far. I earnestly hope that he will stay in the Commonwealth, but we ought to be doing more than we are doing to help Ghana. Our record regarding the Volta River project has been tragic. I put Questions in the House many times to the Prime Minister, asking that Ghana should be assisted with economic aid, particularly in the Volta River project, but very little progress has been made so far. Ghanaians, looking back upon what must still seem to many of them to be imperialist Britain, cannot be satisfied that we have tried to help them since independence. There has been no real progress. The Russians keep sending trade delegations there to assess the potentialities of various schemes, and we cannot blame them if they think that there is a chance of weaning Ghana from the Commonwealth at some time in the future. I hope that it is still not too late to accelerate the Volta River project, which will help Ghana enormously.

I hope that the Government will watch developments in this part of West Africa and try harder to give more tangible assistance than has been given in the past three years. I hope, also, that what was the Gold Coast of West Africa and is now Ghana of the Commonwealth will for ever remain with us.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse (Wednesbury)

I wish to dissociate myself from the patronising parts of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason). It was a very interesting speech and I am glad that he made it in this Chamber, but I think that be was on entirely the wrong line when he took the attitude that it was for us in this country to decide just when people should have independence and what sort of institutions should be imposed upon them. I submit that that is the wrong attitude altogether.

If there is the will on the part of a dependent people to run their own affairs, and that will is expressed through their own well-developed political organisations, then it is incumbent upon us to respond to that will and enable them to build the independent institutions for their own country according to their own methods, hoping, however, that they will follow our example and the example of more developed democracies and have democratic institutions and freedom before the law.

Mr. Mason

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have no desire to start a political wrangle on this side of the House, but I want to have the record straight. If we have had under our wing for fifty years a Colony the economy of which we have exploited and built up for our purposes, when that Colony comes towards independence it is our duty to make sure that it has a good start economically. That is why I say that what was done was hasty in this respect.

Mr. Stonehouse

If we were to wait until the sort of standards my hon. Friend envisages were reached, we might have to wait for so long that the people would rise against us in sheer desperation. We do not want that. If my hon. Friend will look at developments in education, peasant agriculture and economic affairs generally, he will find that on those three fronts there has been more progress in Ghana during the last three years than in any three-year period under colonialism.

When a country obtains its political independence, that political independence acts as a sort of catalyst on the people of the country. They are all the more anxious to work harder to make a success of the resources they have within their own country. I add one more point to make the comparison clear. If an attempt had been made to impose colonialism on the Gold Coast, as it was, for a longer period—the sort of period which, apparently, my hon. Friend would have welcomed—there certainly would have been very much bloodshed in the Gold Coast and there would have been very many more arbitrary arrests and detentions without trial than there have been in the past three years.

We should welcome the Bill as a stage, perhaps the final stage, in the emergence of Ghana as a nation. My hon. Friend referred to the problems of tribalism. I am glad that the Prime Minister, Dr. Nkrumah, and his party have been energetic in dealing with the feudal elements in Ghana which, at one stage, were endangering the emergence of Ghana as a nation. In the early stages of independence, when the twin props of colonialism and tribalism are breaking down, it is necessary that there should be a strong central force which can establish national institutions and keep the nation together.

In the Congo, there is a great danger that, when Belgian colonial rule is removed, chat great nation may break into different tribal units. I hope that when the Congo achieves its independence in a few weeks it will be possible for a strong political leader there to emerge and establish the national institutions and central control which will prevent the fragmentation of that great nation into separate tribal units. Shortly after independence, there was that danger in Ghana, and I am glad that it has been avoided.

The attitude which some people in this country, notably certain newspapers, have had towards Ghana in the last few years has been very regrettable. In these days when the number of genuine democracies in the whole world can be counted on the fingers of four hands, it is wonderful that in Ghana, a very new nation, there is democracy and government by consent. This is a tribute to the leaders who emerged in Ghana both before and after independence. It is a tribute to their energetic leadership and the strong party organisation which is active there as a force for coherence in the nation as a whole, and it is a tribute, also, to the enthusiasm of the people of Ghana to make their independence work.

Those who have engaged in this campaign of vilification during the past few years should look at the results of the referendum which has just taken place. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley will examine those results. He will see that as a result of a free vote in an election which was supervised very properly there was, in 103 out of 104 constituencies, a majority for the new Constitution, and 102 constituencies returned majorities for Dr. Nkrumah as against Dr. Danquah, the Opposition presidential candidate. There is universal suffrage in Ghana with about 2 million electors, 1,140,000 of whom voted, an overall percentage of 54 per cent.

My hon. Friend pointed out that the C.P.P. did not have a great deal of support at one stage in Ashanti. It is interesting to note from the election results that the C.P.P. and Dr. Nkrumah had very big majorities in the Ashanti area. In a place like Brong-Ahafo there was an 80 per cent. poll, and in the Ashanti area itself there was a 70 per cent. poll, indicating that the people of Ashanti were anxious to record their votes and anxious to vote for the C.P.P. and the new Constitution.

In Accra itself there was a 34 per cent. poll, which indicates that many people were prepared to abstain. In our own country, at the last municipal elections many people abstained from voting. Some may say that this is a sign of maturity. Indeed, I should be very unhappy about the recent referendum in Ghana if the percentage poll had been very high. If it had been 98 per cent., I should have been very concerned indeed. The fact that many people chose to abstain rather than vote indicates that they have freedom of choice.

If hon. Members opposite are thinking that the new Constitution is coming in without the consent of the people, they should reflect on the fact that about 50 per cent. of the electorate voted for the new Constitution and for Dr. Nkrumah, whereas at the last General Election in this country only 38.9 per cent. of the electorate voted for the Conservative Party. I think that the supporters of Dr. Nkrumah could boast—[Laughter.]— it is a tenable argument—that there is a greater measure of support for the new Constitution and Dr. Nkrumah in Ghana than there is for the Conservative Party in Britain.

There is criticism of the way in which the Opposition are treated in Ghana, and I should like those people who are critical, and in particular my hon. Friend, to look at the Ghanaian Press. He will see that the Opposition has every opportunity to express itself very forcibly. Indeed, the Ashanti Pioneer, in a recent editorial, referred to what it called the monstrous atrocities in Ghana and the disrespect in which Ghana was held in the eyes of the world. These words which the Ashanti Pioneer used are every bit as strong as the words used in the opposition Press in Britain. Perhaps my hon. Friend does not know that the Ashanti Pioneer is actually subsidised by the State itself through a loan from the Industrial Development Corporation.

I welcome the fact that Ghana is remaining within the Commonwealth. I think that Ghana can make a very good and indeed a very valuable contribution, and I am also very glad that the Queen and Prince Philip are visiting Ghana next year. This perhaps brings in a new relationship between the monarchy and the new republican members of the Commonwealth, a relationship which I think we shall all be glad to see.

As to the future, I believe that it is urgently necessary that economic aid to Ghana should be increased, but I should not like anybody to assume that Ghana has always been dependent on charitable gifts from this country or any other country. In fact, if the records of the sterling area are referred to over the last few years, one notices that Ghana has been a net lender to the United Kingdom, even including private capital which has been transferred from this country.

It has been said that Ghana's economic programme needs help from outside, as indeed it does. It urgently needs this help. The minimum five-year plan envisages expenditure of £125 million, and with the Volta Dam project, this will be increased by £225 million. We need to give the maximum amount of aid to Ghana in the development of these enterprises. I wonder whether the Commonwealth has the institutions which can enable this aid to be given. Do we not need institutions which can give technical aid to a country like Ghana? Do we not need a Commonwealth Bank to help to channel all this economic aid? Do we not need a shaking up and a great improvement in the rather rickety arrangements in the Commonwealth Relations Department here? Does not that Department need to be extended and enlarged to be able to meet these vastly increased responsibilities?

I want to raise another question which is of immediate importance, and that is the issue by the Ghana Government of passports to citizens of other countries within the Commonwealth to enable them to travel to Ghana. This is an urgent question, because in the High Commission Territories at present there are 20 political refugees who are asking for permission to travel to Ghana. This is a question which vitally affects the relationships between the various members of the Commonwealth, and, indeed, Ghana's membership of it. We are discussing the membership of the Commonwealth by Ghana, and I submit that if that membership is to be of any significance at all, Ghana, like any other individual member of the Commonwealth, must be entitled to take advantage of the new recognition of Commonwealth citizenship as recognised in the British Nationality Act, 1948.

If Ghana is prepared to do that in regard to citizens of the Union of South Africa who wish to escape from the High Commission Territories and travel to Ghana, I hope that the Government will do everything in their power to assist Ghana to implement this objective. It is a right which Ghana is perfectly entitled legally to exercise, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not allow the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasa-land to interfere with the legal right of Ghana.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

I find it difficult to relate this to the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Stonehouse

I respect your decision, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I submit that the membership of the Commonwealth by Ghana is one of the aspects of this Bill, and the use which Ghana makes of that membership should be considered in the wider interpretation of the Bill.

Like my right hon. and hon. Friends, I welcome this Bill, and I hope that a message will go out from this House that we wish Ghana well in her political and economic development and hope that she will continue to prosper.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade (Huddersfield, West)

It would be unfortunate if the House gave its approval to the Bill grudgingly, because of expressions of suspicion, and I am sure that it would be a mistake if we became involved in arguments for or against Dr. Nkrumah's party. At the same time, we must be realistic. I would say that, on the whole, Ghana had had a fairly good start, so far as its economy is concerned. It is in a more favourable position than some of our Colonies and former Colonial Territories, thanks very largely to the fact that world prices of cocoa have remained comparatively stable. That has been a great help to Ghana, and, therefore, I say that the economy is comparatively viable, though there has been, nevertheless, considerable economic aid from this country.

The Volta Dam project is partly a matter of prestige. When I was there, I was not altogether convinced of the economic value of that scheme, although I hope that it will prosper. I am merely saying, in reply to the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), that I think he was a little unfair in implying that the economy of Ghana was very far from being viable, and that this country had not done anything like what it should have done.

Secondly, we should realise that countries like Ghana are in this difficulty in creating political unity. When Africa was divided up by the European Powers, in the last century, they gave very little thought to natural boundaries. One has only to look at the map to see that the boundaries cut right through the middle of tribes, which makes it extremely difficult, when a territory gains independence, for those in power to create a natural political unity. We must realise that. Democracy flourishes only when there are certain underlying common loyalties which are stronger than the differences between one party and another.

No one could be more enthusiastic in his support for the democratic system than I, but I can see the difficulties that inevitably face a country such as Ghana where, frankly, the boundaries are not natural boundaries and where there is difficulty in creating natural political unity. I am somewhat disturbed at some of the events there and some of the things done by the Ghana Government. I was not entirely happy about all that I learnt when I was out there a year ago, but I appreciate the difficulty which emerging territories must face where the boundaries are not what I would call natural political boundaries.

In conclusion, I support the remarks of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) on the subject of a Convention of Human Rights. I know the difficulties, but I should like to see a Convention of Human Rights which applies to the whole of the Commonwealth. I should very much like to see some kind of judicial body to replace the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which would assist in upholding the essential principles of a Convention of Human Rights. I am sure that we should strive in the Commonwealth to create some such body. If the Commonwealth is to survive, there must be not only a friendliness between the various territories in the Commonwealth, but a community of ideas and some common principles. I hope that Ghana will uphold these principles in the years which lie ahead.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough)

I did not intend to take part in the debate because I expected that the whole House would give such a welcome to the Bill that it would be unnecessary, but I feel impelled to do so by the speech of the hon. Member for Barns-ley (Mr. Mason). The hon. Member will accept my statement that no one in this House is more concerned about personal liberties than I am. I have expressed to Dr. Nkrumah, both privately and publicly, my concern about deportations and detentions which have taken place without trial in Ghana. This hurt me very deeply, and Dr. Nkrumah is well aware of that. I would say to the hon. Member, however, that if one is to be critical of what is done in a new African country in extraordinarily difficult circumstances, one must show great fairness in denunciation of the repudiation of personal liberties wherever it occurs.

I make it a principle that I never go to a country where detention or deportation takes place without trial without expressing to the head of that country my personal feelings on the matter. I have done it in Egypt, in the case of Colonel Nasser, in Yugoslavia, in the case of Marshal Tito, and repeatedly in the case of Catholics and others who have been imprisoned in Communist countries. Only when one stands for that principle impartially and universally has one the right to criticise its denial in a new country like Ghana.

I say to my hon. Friends on the benches opposite that if Dr. Nkrumah felt bitterly about the criticism expressed in the Press of this country, and particularly from the benches opposite at the time of deportations and detentions in Ghana, it was because at that moment detentions and deportations were taking place in British Colonial Territories without a voice of protest being raised on the other side of the House. In the same month that Dr. Nkrumah was criticised for his actions in Ghana more than 50 trade union officials in Northern Rhodesia were exiled without charge and without trial. The story of Kenya is well-known. The story is well known of Dr. Banda, of Nyasaland, who was imprisoned for 13 months without trial. I am not emphasising these points to be provocative, but I say that we are insincere and dangerously near hypocrisy if we denounce these things in Ghana in the difficult circumstances of the birth of that territory, and do not equally denounce them when they take place in British territories in the Commonwealth.

I want to deal with two things arising from what the hon. Member for Barnsley said. The first concerns Dr. Nkrumah. I was his friend when he was a student in London. He had been to universities in America and had proved his ability in scholarship there. He was at the London University when an invitation came to him to go to Ghana to become secretary of the nationalist movement in that territory. I remember his doubts— whether he should stay here and continue his studies, or whether he should go to Ghana. He chose the latter, but when he reached Ghana he discovered—and this is very relevant to the points which the hon. Member for Barnsley raised—that the nationalist movement was under the control of the privileged sections of that community. It was under he control of the chiefs and their circles and of the wealthy and professional classes.

When Dr. Nkrumah became secretary of that movement he set out to make it a movement of the common people, of the villagers, of the market women in the towns and, in particular, of the younger generation which was developing. That was the point when Dr. Nkrumah first came into conflict with the powers of chieftainship, of the professional and privileged classes in Ghana which persist in the Opposition to this day.

I went to Ghana a year before it obtained its independence, because there was great danger of civil war between the Opposition, which was centred mostly in the Ashanti, and Dr. Nkrumah's party and the population of Accra. I have to say this, and I say it quietly, that when I met leaders of the Opposition I have never been in such an atmosphere of violence as I experienced then. I want to dissociate Dr. Danguah from this; he was at Accra, and not at Kumasi. where I met the leaders of the Opposition. For one hour they would not hear of a peaceful constitutional and electoral solution of the position in Ghana. Only after an hour, during which one tried to quieten the temper of violence which was among them, was I able to get them to agree that if Dr. Nkrumah would accept an election before independence was declared they would not resort to violence prior to that event.

I acknowledge that I had a good deal of difficulty in getting Dr. Nkrumah to accept that proposal. He said, "We have just had an election in Ghana. Why should we have an election again before independence?" Eventually, a solution was reached by which Dr. Nkrumah agreed that he would have an election before independence on condition that the Government in this country agreed that within a limited period, if he attained a majority, independence would be established. The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations knows quite well that that was the basis of agreement by which independence was introduced to Ghana.

Mr. Brian Harrison (Maldon)

I want to get one matter quite clear. At that time, who was Colonial Secretary—the hon. Member or somebody else?

Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

The hon. Member should not be so cheeky. Would he have preferred strife?

Mr. Brockway

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) is being sarcastic—

Mr. Manuel

That is all he is—and ignorant.

Mr. Brockway

The hon. Member for Maldon must have been aware that the right hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) was Secretary of State for the Colonies during that period. He may not know that before I went to Ghana I saw the right hon. Gentleman and discussed this matter with him. I discussed it with him when I came back.

If I have given any impression of claiming any more credit for myself than I ought to claim, I can say only that I did not mean to do so. On that occasion there was co-operation in this solution, when very often in other matters I was in great antagonism to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am sorry if I gave the hon. Member that impression.

I am saying that it is only if that background is understood that the position of Dr. Nkrumah can be understood today. He became Prime Minister in a society where the old aristocratic circles of chieftainship, the old privileged classes and the old professional classes were in intense antagonism to his great desire to reflect the view of the common people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley should appreciate the quite extraordinary educational, health, social and economic changes which have taken place since Dr. Nkrumah has been Prime Minister., and not merely since the years of independence but during the years before of internal self-government. I remember the head of the Department of National Development, an Englishman, saying to me, after three years of internal self-government, that he had been asked to do more constructive work in those three years than in the twelve previous years during which we had held that office. To appreciate that, it is enough to go there and see not merely the roads, and the schools and the hospitals being built, the dispensaries in distant villages, and the water supplies being taken to those villages, but also to see the mass adult education movement.

This was not just a matter of teaching adults to read and write, but of gathering them together in their enthusiasm for hygienic reforms, for the building of roads from villages in the forests to the arterial roads, and for social and economic change. These were things which would have inspired all of us. If Dr. Nkrumah became in the minds of the people of Ghana an embodiment of that spirit, and of the spirit of independence, it was because of the leadership he gave them in all these respects.

I hope very much that the proposal will be carried out of adopting for the Commonwealth as a whole, and not just for Ghana, a Magna Carta, a code of conduct reflecting racial equality and personal liberties. If the Commonwealth is to go on, it must not just depend upon the sentiment of the past, it must not be just a matter of the convenience of today, it must accept basic principles. If we could adopt this proposal by which there would be a code of principles for all the territories in the Commonwealth and if we had a method by which it could be given expression by right of appeal to a central authority, the Commonwealth might become a long-living thing in which we could take great pride.

I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley to forgive me if I have been critical in my reply to his speech, but no one who has known Dr. Nkrumah as I have known him, or has known the developments which have been taking place in Ghana, could have been silent and have failed to express these views.

4.57 p.m.

Mr. F. M. Bennett (Torquay)

The remarks of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) have prompted me to make a few comments. Every sensible person would, and should, as he said, be extremely sympathetic to the difficulties an emergent nation anywhere might have and might well be prepared to forgive and appreciate, without any taint of hypocrisy, that in the early stages of development many things may have to take place which we would hope would not be a lasting feature of those countries.

What is concerning some of us, who are just as deeply attached to the cause of the emerging nations in Africa as the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, is not that these things took place there in the early stages, but that there seems to be a growing propensity for them to continue. I do not want to say much more because, as has been said, it would be a pity if we spoiled today by too much criticism.

Yet what is worrying is that although things are calming down, and Dr. Nkrumah's position is growing stronger, there is this tendency for some of these undemocratic forms to be written into the constitution. There has not been a slackening of the occurrence of these things as we might have expected when birth-pains decreased. In fact, some of these objectionable aspects appear to be on the increase. I hope that when the hon. Member for Eton and Slough visits Ghana again he will give expression to this anxiety about writing into the Constitution such matters as detention without trial, not as a matter of emergency but as a permanent part of the country's legal structure. These are the sort of things which have given some of us cause for concern.

I say, however, that at this stage, as I have said about other independent Commonwealth countries, the less we criticise the way they run their own affairs the better. I am sure that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough will give me the credit of saying that I am logical in that approach, although we have recently clashed in the matter and extent of the terms in which we have interpreted its application. Today may well be the last reasonable opportunity to voice even the mild criticisms I have made, and which have been made by the hon. Members for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and Eton and Slough. For we must regard Ghana as wholly an independent country and judge our words even more carefully than we have up to now.

There has been a deserved tribute to the material work done in Ghana, on roads and schools and other things. I agree with that tribute, as we all should, but we should also remember that there have been many examples in recent history in which totalitarian States have had great successes in building such material things as roads and schools, and that that is not the sort of test for the kind of moral issues which we have been discussing this afternoon. Mussolini gave Italy and her colonies the best system of roads they had ever had, but that does not enable him to pass the democracy test which we have been discussing today.

So I hope that we shall see Ghana and the other Commonwealth countries and even ourselves pursuing more and more liberal, democratic, constitutional forms of Government and that there will not continue tendencies which have been a feature not only in Ghana but in a number of Commonwealth countries which have gained their liberty since the last war.

5.2 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg)

I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but I shall do so very shortly, following the most well chosen words of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). I want to say absolutely nothing which could possibly be interpreted as being unfriendly towards Ghana, because I regard this debate as being an opportunity for me and for many others —indeed, all who have spoken today— to express the warmth of our friendship for the people of Ghana and our sympathy with them in their difficulties, which are bound to confront any emergent State.

I was particularly impressed, as we always are, by the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) in his remarks. Because of that, I want to tell him of the experience I had, very near the time of which he was speaking, of the feelings of the Ashanti leaders. I spent hours with these people, and I am amazed that somebody who is as sympathetic and as sincere as my hon. Friend could have come to conclusions so utterly different from those to which I came at that lime. I speak with great humility in his presence, having this opposite view from his, for I have very great respect for him, but I say that these men were not men of violence.

We talked to them for hours on end, and ever since then, on my not infrequent visits to Ghana, I have met with the same men or others from the same camp, particularly Dr. Danquah, whom my hon. Friend excluded from his category of violent men. These men are for the most part woolly-haired liberals. They are not violent men. I have always claimed to be a liberal, because that is a man of generosity and the word is generally spelt with a small "1". These men are woolly-haired liberals to this day, but they have been left no real opportunity to express their opinions, except opportunities of violence. That is something which makes me extremely sad. Ever since independence, remarkable strides have been made towards putting the country on its feet, with schools, roads, and the university college of Lagon, which is a monument to faith in the future of Ghana and something for which I give the present Government full marks.

But that is not the point. These things can happen even under Hitlers and Mussolinis, as has already been said. The point is that whenever an effective opposition shows itself as likely to raise itself up, the Government immediately pounces. A visit is made to the house at four o'clock in the morning and the man concerned disappears—for ever, unless he is on the verge of death. Only one has so far been let out of detention; and he was left on his own doorstep pretty well dead in the early hours. There can be detention without trial-only for a time, it is true; but it can be renewed indefinitely.

There are only two potentially effective members of the Opposition free at the present time, and they would be put away if they made their opposition effective. If I am wrong, let it be denied. Let an independent person visit the prisons where these men are detained. As we know, men are detained elsewhere: but even Dr. Banda—whose detention I consider to have been entirely wrong—was allowed his books and detained in a comparatively civilised manner. But these men are chopping stones, for the rest of their lives, on less than a prison diet. That is my belief. I cannot prove it, but I have very strong evidence to show that it is true.

It is that that makes me sad. Now Ghana wants to become a Republic, and I am glad that that is so, for things are being done there in the name of the Queen which I do not like to see being done anywhere. Whether it wants to be a Republic or not, we all wish Ghana well. The elections conducted there are models. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) spoke of the elections in Accra district as being models because they showed a decrease in the poll, which suggested that they had not been rigged. The election just before independence was not rigged; it was a model. We were sent out there to see that it was properly conducted.

Everything was marvellous, in spite of the difficulties of running an election in a place where one had never been held before on such a scale. The corruption— the phenomenal corruption—had happened months beforehand and had regulated the result. The election itself was perfect. This view as to corruption is not my view but the view of a judicial committee commission. The Cocoa Purchasing Company, a governmental body into which the Government poured money, was in fact staffed by people who were the agents of the political party in power and who were working all over the country exclusively for that party. That is the way it happened. It would be naive if we were to say that "the election was perfect, therefore all was well."

A great deal is well in Ghana, and it is because I am friendly towards Ghana that I venture to express the hope that, contrary to the apparent tendency of enshrining the bad features of the present régime in the constitution, there may be emerging very shortly another tendency towards individual freedom, towards the allowing of the expression of views, generally and not only in the Ashanti Pioneer. It is one of the quirks of the dictatorship in Ghana that it allows an Opposition to exist—perhaps for the shop window; that I do not know—and allows it to say some strong words. But if the criticism in Parliament or in the Ashanti Pioneer were effective, it would, I suspect, soon be put out of the way.

Nevertheless, I concede that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). We can help in these matters of the restoration of democratic and human rights in Ghana and elsewhere. Heaven knows that in our own Commonwealth there is a sufficient lack of those rights to make us feel that there is a need for something to be done there.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) stressed the idea that we should have a peripatetic Commonwealth court. After all, in these days it is as easy for the comparatively elderly judges who adorn the Board of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to go round the Commonwealth as it was for the judges who first went on circuit in this country.

One of our greatest exports has been Parliamentary government and common law. If we—and by "we" I mean the Commonwealth countries—allow ourselves to go back, instead of concentrating on consolidating the common law and making its interpretation uniform in the Commonwealth, we shall owe a grave debt to history. We should take the initiative now. This would interest even countries like Canada which have left the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They would be interested in this because they have a stake in this and want to see this common law maintained, and the interpretation of it made authoritative throughout the Commonwealth.

I warmly welcome the Bill. Though my right hon. Friend enjoined us not to express opinions about whether Commonwealth countries should accept republican status, if it is the wish of a Commonwealth country for such a status I welcome it. If it is the wish of Ghana to have a republican constitution and not the republican constitution— and it was a republican constitution, and not the "Bing" Constitution which they are now to have, which they voted for in the referendum—that is what I want, because I want the happiness of the Ghanian people under a government which will be of their choice and as free as any in the Commonwealth.

5.13 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Richard Thompson)

We have had a short but interesting and useful debate, and I do not think that it would accord with the mood of the House if I made a long speech about the various things which have been said, many of which were in the nature of interesting personal reflections on the internal situation in Ghana.

The purpose of the Bill is limited, though important. As was said by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, it is an enabling Bill to provide for the continuation of the existing arrangements between Ghana and the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the accession of Ghana to a republican form of government. In passing, may I make the point that the transition to republican status does not confer additional independence on Ghana. She is indeed fully independent now. It is a change of form, and we should realise that and not get the idea that this is independence with something added to it.

I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) that this is not an occasion for recriminations or for the venting of criticisms of internal policies, on which I have no doubt hon. Members have their own views. Surely this is an occasion on which to speed the Bill on its way and to demonstrate that, so far as it lies in our power, we in this House want to give a fair wind to the new Ghana and see her successful in her proud status as a member of the Commonwealth, a republican status notwithstanding.

The only point to which I think I need refer in detail was the interesting suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) who, along with other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavetree (Mr. Tilney), was anxious that the Commonwealth concept should perhaps find renewed expression in some kind of "Commonwealth court"; some kind of judicial body which might in time act in substitution for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. Marquand

More than that.

Mr. A. Thompson

The right hon. Gentleman interpolates "More than that", but that is the point with which I want to deal because it was referred to by a number of hon. Members and has been in the news recently. This has the merit of being a constructive proposition deserving most careful study, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that careful study is already being devoted to it. I am sure that he realises it is a complicated proposition. It is a question which cannot be examined only by us. It is a question for each member of the Commonwealth to join us in examining if it sees merit in the proposal.

We may find that the idea will not find appeal in some quarters, while others may welcome it and wish to develop the suggestion with a view to converting it into some practicable proposition. We shall miss no opportunity to pursue it further in an appropriate form. We shall do so with Commonwealth Governments who feel so minded on the subject.

The other point to which recurring reference was made was summed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree. He wanted to see the cementing of Commonwealth ties with new Commonwealth agencies for aid, technical and economic assistance, and matters of that kind. I agree with him, and it is perhaps appropriate that when we have completed our discussions on the Bill we shall turn to another one, the Commonwealth Teachers Bill, which is a practical expression, at any rate in one sphere, of our determination that this community of nations shall have even stronger ties linking it together than those simply of sentiment and tradition.

It only remains for me to say that I think that the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) is too pessimistic. Look at the Indian example. I see no reason why we should necessarily equate a republican form of government with a tendency towards dictatorship. In India we have a splendid example of democracy and a republican form of government going along together and doing exceedingly well.

It only remains for me to echo the good wishes expressed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the start of the debate, in relation to our feelings and hopes for Ghana, and to commend the Bill to the House and ask for it to be given a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Gibson-Watt.]

Committee Tomorrow.