HC Deb 13 February 1964 vol 689 cc565-84

Order for Second Reading read.

3.59 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. John Tilney)

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

On 9th October last year Uganda ceased to be part of the Queen's Dominions though remaining in the Commonwealth. Her Majesty then ceased to be Queen of Uganda. By Uganda law the office of Governor-General was abolished and provision was made for a President to be elected by members of the Uganda National Assembly from among the rulers of the kingdoms and districts in Uganda. The Kabaka of Buganda was sworn in as the first President of Uganda. Sir Wilberforce Nadiope, Kyabazinga of Busoga, became the first Vice-President.

The Bill before the House is consequential upon the Uganda legislation which made these changes in the Constitution which Uganda had for a year enjoyed since her independence.

The House will wish to note that the Government of Uganda have been at pains to avoid using the word "republic" to describe their new constitutional status. Because of Uganda's belief in its well-established monarchies and the traditional respect for hereditary chieftainship, it was considered inappropriate to declare the country formally a republic.

Before adopting the new Constitution, Dr. Obote, the Prime Minister, informed the British Government and other Commonwealth Governments of the proposed changes and expressed the wish of the Government and people of Uganda to remain within the Commonwealth. All the Commonwealth Governments agreed to continue to recognise Uganda as a member of the Commonwealth.

The changes therefore amount to this: Uganda is no more, or less, independent than she was before 9th October last. She is still a member of the Commonwealth. But she no longer has Dominion status. As a consequence, certain of our laws which applied to Uganda as a Dominion have ceased to apply. The Bill before the House is a technical Measure which is necessary to preserve the operation of our law in respect of Uganda as a Commonwealth country and to make sure that any reference to Her Majesty's Dominions in our law shall be read as if, in effect, the Dominions did still include Uganda.

The House will ask: why so much delay in bringing forward this Bill and why should it be retrospective? We were informed last September of the intention of the Uganda Government to change the constitution. The House was at that time in recess, and there was no opportunity to introduce consequential legislation here We had, moreover, to clarify certain legal points in consultation with the Uganda Government, and the heavy pressure of parliamentary business, as a result of the granting of independence to Kenya and Zanzibar, made delay inevitable. Since then the preoccupations of the Uganda Government and of ourselves with the recent disturbing events in East Africa have imposed a further delay.

Perhaps I might say, before passing from this Point, how much we in Britain have admired the staunch conduct of Dr. Obote and his Government in recent and most trying circumstances. We were glad that we were able to respond effectively to requests for British troops to be made available to help the Uganda Government in the preservation of law and order They will, of course, be withdrawn as soon as their services are no longer necessary. One company of Scots Guards has, in fact, already left. We sincerely hope that the tense situation in East Africa will rapidly subside and allow the Governments concerned to press on with their tremendous task of raising living standards and generally improving the lot of their peoples.

The Bill is drafted to have retrospective effect to the date when Uganda modified her Constitution because there would otherwise be an awkward hiatus in the operation of certain enactments in our own law as they might affect Uganda—for example, the law governing Maintenance Orders. There is nothing sinister about the retrospection. Indeed, this procedure was followed in the very recent Nigeria Republic Act and before that in the Ireland Act, 1949.

I should perhaps once more refer to the nature of the main changes brought about in the Constitution of Uganda by the legislation passed last October by the Parliament in that country. At that time, Uganda ceased to be a part of the Queen's Dominions. The office of Governor-General was abolished and a President elected. The first President is the Kabaka of Buganda, the largest of the monarchical territories within the complex constitutional structure of Uganda. This peculiarity is invoked by the Government of Uganda as the justification for not categorising the new Constitution as a republic. Indeed, Dr. Obote, the Prime Minister, has emphatically repudiated the title of republic, insisting that his country should be known as "the Sovereign State of Uganda".

May I turn to the Bill itself, which follows broadly the provisions of similar enactments passed when India, Pakistan, Cyprus, Ghana, Tanganyika and, more recently Nigeria, became Republics.

Clause 1(1) provides that, as regards the places named in Clause 1(2), all existing laws and, as regards other places to which any Act of Parliament or Order in Council extends, the operation of any such Act or Order shall not be affected as a result of Uganda's change of status. Clause 1(3) gives the whole of Clause 1 retrospective effect to 9th October last year. This is the date on which Uganda's constitutional changes took effect.

Clause 2 gives power to make adaptations to any Act of Parliament, by Order in Council, as appear necessary as a consequence of Uganda's change of status and provides that such Orders or any other Orders varying or revoking previous Orders may be made retrospective to 9th October, 1963.

Clause 3 generally relates to appeals to the Privy Council that are pending. This Clause does not follow the recent Nigeria Republic Act, but returns to the form of similar Sections in the Ghana and Tanganyika Republic Acts. This is because Uganda chose to deal with appeals to the Privy Council in a way similar to Ghana and Tanganyika. The Clause provides for pending appeals to continue to be heard by the Judicial Committee as the result of arrangements made with Uganda.

Clause 3(5) is, however, a departure from the two precedents mentioned. In those cases, the relevant section provides expressly for the termination of all appeals to the Judicial Committee save those dealt with in the section, namely, pending appeals. But Clause 3(5) prevents this Bill from affecting any right of appeal which may continue to subsist under Uganda law.

This provision is necessary as we understand that the legislation in Uganda providing for the recent constitutional changes did not have the effect of expressly abolishing the right of appeal in all cases. We understand that it has been abolished in civil and criminal cases, but it is possible that appeals in constitutional cases under Section 96 of the Uganda Constitution may continue to lie to the Privy Council. This can be clarified only if and when such an appeal comes before the Privy Council or further legislation is enacted in Uganda. Our object is simply to leave the matter open.

Clause 4 is self-explanatory. This is a slight departure from the Tanganyika and Nigeria precedents in order to avoid the use of the term "Republic" which, for the reasons which I have mentioned, would not in this case be appropriate.

Finally, the provisions in the Bill are in themselves proof, if proof were needed, that the constitutional changes adopted in Uganda have in no way diminished the closeness of our relations with Uganda as fellow members of the Commonwealth. Nor have they diminished the affection and respect which the people of Uganda have for Her Majesty the Queen.

I cannot express this more eloquently than by quoting from the speech made by Prime Minister Obote in Kampala on 9th October, 1963. He then said: I wish to say that our new constitutional form shall not diminish our affection and respect for Her Majesty the Queen and that it is our free decision to acknowledge, accept and cherish Her Majesty as the head and symbol of unity of the free and independent Commonwealth nations.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley (Middlesbrough, East)

We are becoming accustomed in the House to receiving this kind of Measure. The Bill provides for the normal privileges of Commonwealth membership; as the Under-Secretary has said, that is to continue the special treatment accorded in British legislation to members of the Commonwealth. The Bill ensures that our law will continue to operate precisely as it did before Uganda became a republic.

The Under-Secretary has explained that Uganda prefers to be called a sovereign State and not a republic, and we shall, of course, meet its wishes. But the last time we had a similar Bill before us was on 20th November last, when we did the same for Nigeria as we are now doing for Uganda. In spite of what the Under-Secretary has said, it seems rather odd that the Nigeria Act should have been put through the House three months before the Bill we are now putting through for Uganda. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could give a further explanation for this, because there seems to us to be no reason why the two Measures could not have been put before the House together.

Mr. Tilney

I thought that I had explained to the right hon. Gentleman that we did not hear from Uganda that it wished to change its constitution until September last year.

Mr. Bottomley

It was in November that we put the Nigeria Bill through, and this is very much a similar operation, and I should have thought that it would have been for the convenience of the House and certainly would have saved Government time. Perhaps the Government do not worry about that, so why should I? I am concerned about the convenience of the House. I think it would have been sensible to have tried to do the two things together.

There are, as the Under-Secretary has said, some changes in the Bill compared with the Measure dealing with Nigeria. The one exception in the case of the Uganda Bill shows that there is more concern about the provisions terminating appeals to the Privy Council. On a number of occasions some of us from this side of the House and some speaking from the other side have asked the Government to consider what should be done to make the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council a more attractive Supreme Court than it is at the moment for those Commonwealth countries which care to use it. It is, of course, no good approaching the question starry eyed. We have to accept that most Commonwealth countries, and particularly the new ones, do not want to seem to have the apex of their judicial system either in London or composed mainly of British judges.

I think that it is time the Government gave some further thought to reforms. After all, it is not as if the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had any function other than as a Commonwealth Court. It does not form a part of the normal judicial processes in this country. The other day the Prime Minister mentioned that steps had been taken to appoint one or two judges to the Court from Australia and New Zealand. The Prime Minister said that the question of a Commonwealth Court was one which should be taken up at the next meeting of the Commonwealth Law Society.

I suggest that this is not the way to get things done. What is needed is some initiative from the Government. We all know that a few years ago it was the Ceylon Government who were pressing the hardest for a Commonwealth Court. So it does not make sense for the Government to try to shunt the matter off to a private body like a Commonwealth law conference. I hope that the Government will do something to push this matter along and take a more active interest in it than they are taking at the moment.

A substantial part of the Bill is due to the provisions in Clause 3 about the mechanics of decisions on the appeals taken to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council before last October. I think that it would be appropriate for the Minister to tell us the background to the complaint by a Ceylon judge a few months ago about the manner in which the Judicial Committee handed down one of its decisions in respect of Ceylon. Was there anything in that complaint and if so, will the Bill avoid those offensive features in the future? Also, we need to be told why Clause 3 goes into so much more detail when that was not done in the Nigeria Act.

I want to take up again a point which I mentioned in the debate on the Nigeria Bill, the fact that monarchic countries in the Commonwealth do not like to have to get the approval of the Queen for the appointment and receipt of diplomatic representatives. I am, of course, aware that the nature of the relations between the Palace and the independent countries of the Commonwealth is properly a matter for the Governments of those countries. Nevertheless, those Governments, naturally and inevitably, turn to Her Majesty's Government for advice on this kind of protocol. There can be no doubt that in the past our advice has been accepted.

What I want to know is whether Her Majesty's Government have made it clear to these other independent Governments that they can, if they wish, make the appointment and receipt of diplomatic representatives even without the personal approval of Her Majesty. This can simply be done by Her Majesty's local representative—that is, the GovernorGeneral—taking the decision.

I hope that the Minister will not tell us that this is a matter in which we have no locus standi I think that this can be done, and I repeat that it ought to be considered. I hope that we shall receive an assurance that it will be so, because, as I said, I raised the matter earlier in the debate on the Nigeria Bill and I now present it again to the Minister. The Minister knows as well as I do that advice on this kind of protocol is often asked for and certainly given after independence, and what I am suggesting now is that advice should be given before independence so that the countries know exactly where they stand on these matters.

The occasion of this Bill is an appropriate time, I think, to raise a point which has become a practical one since the coup-d'état in Zanzibar. The Bill is necessary because Uganda has ceased to be part of Her Majesty's Dominions, which she was, although independent, until October last year. When a country makes that change, it is common form for it to be accepted again as a member of the Commonwealth by all the other members. I am hoping that the Minister can tell us that that has been done. But if a country becomes independent outside Her Majesty's Dominions, as in the case of Malaya, Cyprus and Zanzibar, then does a change in the Constitution of that country require fresh recognition as a member of the Commonwealth by the other members?

I do not want to embarrass the Minister. I realise as well as he does that this is a case where the old-established practice of the Commonwealth has to be adapted as we go along. But I think that it is time we had a look at the Commonwealth protocol and considered whether the Bills that keep cropping up and the question of recognition can to some extent be avoided.

This is not the occasion, as the Under-Secretary has said, to discuss the recent sad events in East Africa. We sympathise with the Governments of Uganda, Tanganyika, and Kenya in the difficulties in which they have found themselves. At their request, although it was not easy for our own Government to do so, we sent British troops to assist them in keeping law and order. The Governments concerned have expressed their gratitude for this action. I am sure that you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to conclude this part of what I have to say by adding that it was most pleasing to us all to know that our troops lived up to their traditionally high standards in helping to establish peace and good will in Uganda and those other countries.

I refer now to another rather unpleasant incident which occurred in Uganda a little while ago. The Uganda Government deported several people, including some loyal civil servants, for being involved in a social party of questionable taste. What happened at that party certainly stands condemned, but there was no question of disloyalty to the Government. I myself would not wish to condone disloyalty, or misconduct, or seek to defend any person who, it could be shown, had proved disloyal or misbehaved. Nevertheless, I feel that the Uganda Government should be aware of the effect which their action has had upon expatriates and on possible further recruitment. I recognise that it is a matter entirely for the Government of Uganda, but I do not think that it does any of us any good to act as though we expect less high standards of other Governments of the Commonwealth than we do of our own.

The people of Uganda and the people of Britain feel a tremendous amount of gratitude and good will towards each other for our past close and continuing association. In expressing the hope of us all that it will remain so, I conclude by wishing the people of Uganda, the new President and the Government a peaceful and prosperous future for their country.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

The whole House joins in welcoming the Bill, which shows Uganda consolidated as a full and independent member of the Commonwealth. It shows something else, that Uganda seems to have solved one of the most difficult problems existing in Africa today, since it is combining a traditional monarchy with the modern concept of political parties. The kings of the various ancient kingdoms of Uganda are taking their place within the traditions of the new independent Uganda at the same time as the more modern political parties also play their full part in the affairs of the State.

If this system can, over the next few years, be proved to work, Uganda will, I believe, have done a service to the rest of Africa and will set an example which other countries of the continent may well follow. Often, in discussing Africa in the House, we tend, I think, to underrate the importance of tribal loyalties. These loyalties manifest themselves not only in the high regard paid to the leader, but in political groupings. Unfortunately, so many political parties in Africa are based on tribal groupings. If Uganda can marry the concept of tribal loyalty to the machinery of the modern State, if Uganda can solve this problem, it will have done a great service to the whole Continent. I hope that its example will be fruitfully followed elsewhere in Africa.

In moving the Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said how much he and, I am sure, all of us admire Dr. Obote's firmness in handling the recent sad events in his country. What he did was particularly noteworthy when one remembers that he is the leader or Prime Minister of a coalition Government. It is never quite so easy to handle a coalition Government as it is to handle one composed of one party.

Speeches have been made in Uganda advocating the creation of a one-party State. I think that, when the full facts became clear and the original speech was followed by other Ministerial speeches, one was able to see that it was merely the advocacy of a one-party State and there was no intention of introducing legislation to that end, but I put this question to my hon. Friend. Am I right in thinking that no legislation to alter the Constitution could be effective unless it secured a two-thirds majority in the Chamber, and there are safeguards within the Constitution of independent Uganda which would not allow a political party which had a narrow majority to introduce major changes in the Constitution?

While I am on this constitutional aspect, may I put one other question to my hon. Friend? The official Leader of the Opposition in Uganda is Mr. Benedicto Kiwanuko who, as the House knows, was the first Chief Minister of Uganda. He was arrested a short time ago. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether he has been released, and, if not, whether charges have been preferred against him?

The Bill is a technical Measure and a very complicated one for those of us who have not a legal training. Obviously, it affects law and justice in Uganda, and to some extent it affects Anglo-Ugandan relations, as we are both partners in the Commonwealth. I wish now to spend a few minutes discussing a matter which has already been raised by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), the incident which has become known as the "Tank Hill party" and the 14 deportations resulting therefrom. I shall briefly outline the events, and then make certain comments and ask one or two questions, bearing in mind that this is a matter of seeing that justice is done as well as trying to do what one can to improve rather than hinder good Anglo-Ugandan relations. I feel that the more the matter is brought into the open and the more rumours both in Uganda and in this country can be squashed, the better will it be for our relations within the Commonwealth.

As I understand it, the events began on 11th December last year, when a party of 200 guests was held in Kampala at the house of Mr. Kelly. It was a fancy dress party, as had been traditional. The theme was "The White Man's Burden". The previous year, it had been "Hannibal Crossing the Alps". In answering the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East, the Secretary of State said that he thought that the party was in deplorable taste. I think that that is strong condemnation. It is, perhaps, easy to condemn these things after they have happened. However, I take it that we should all regard it as lack of forethought and want of taste to hold such a party in the circumstances of the recently independent Uganda, and the independence of Kenya last December. However, it was clear that nothing was intended to be derogatory of Uganda or its people or the people of Africa, and, indeed, nothing derogatory was, in fact, done, though there were misunderstandings.

On 16th December, the police searched the houses of the organisers of the party, looking for tape recordings of seditious songs. They took away certain tape recordings, but I understand that they found no seditious songs. The following day, it was realised that opinion against people at the party and, possibly, against the European community was beginning to run high, and suggestions were made to our High Commissioner that statements should be taken on oath from the organisers of the party so as to get their side of the story. On the 18th the organisers were interviewed by the Prime Minister of Uganda.

The following day, the organisers wrote to Dr. Obote apologising for what they now saw were the unfortunate results of the party, and I understand that the High Commissioner called on the Prime Minister and, presumably, conveyed his own regrets. One really thought that that would be the end of the matter.

Unfortunately, on the same day, 19th December, members of the U.P.C. Youth Wing called for the deportation of the people involved in the party and, on the following day, in a debate in the Uganda Parliament, some very strong and very unfair speeches were made, and it became clear that some of the people attending the party were going to become political scapegoats.

On 21st December, the editor of the Uganda Argus was kidnapped, in spite of the fact that he had not even been to the party. We recognise and applaud the strong action of the Uganda Government in arresting the youngsters responsible for this outrage, who have now been punished according to the ordinary processes of the law. On the following day, Mr. Kelly's house, where the party had been held, was burned down. I understand that Mr. Kelly had been warned that something might happen and that he and his family had left the house. However, the servants in the house only just escaped, and Mr. Kelly's two pet dogs were burned with the house.

On the same day, the 22nd, deportation orders were issued against six people, the organisers and Miss Christine Dove, who was organiser of the Save the Children Fund in Uganda and whose work in Uganda has been praised at many public meetings and in many organs of the Press over past months. I understand that the High Commissioner refused to see the parents of one of the people involved who had gone to ask him what he could do to help. On the same day, the six people were deported and the High Commissioner made a public apology to the Prime Minister of Uganda. On 26th December, eight expatriate civil servants who were in this party were also deported. It is interesting to note that over 30 expatriate civil servants were present at the party, but that only eight were deported. One wonders where the distinction was drawn.

There are some very fundamental questions which should be asked. We all agree, I think, that the party was unwise, even in bad taste. It was meant to lampoon imperialism and was in no way directed against the Africans. No insult was offered and, I suggest, none was proved.

This is the important thing which must concern hon. Members on both sides. I understand that the 14 people who were deported were, in essence, found guilty without any inquiry. I understand that they were never interviewed by the High Commissioner or by a member of his staff while in Kampala between 10th December, when the party took place, and 26th December, when the last of the deportees left the country. They were not seen off at the airport by the High Commissioner or by any of his staff.

I understand that, since they have been in this country, they have never been asked by the Commonwealth Relations Office to explain their side of the story. They went to the Commonwealth Relations Office, at their own request, to lodge complaints, but they have had no official call or inquiry and no official interest has been taken in their side of the story.

I suggest that it is a serious matter when an apology is rendered in the name of the Government of this country which seems to confirm the wildest allegations made against these young people. It seems to me that the effect on these deportees is almost to confirm their guilt without a full inquiry having been made into the matter.

Mr. G. M. Thomson (Dundee, East)

We on this side are puzzled to know how the hon. Member relates all this to the Bill. Is it not a abuse of the proceedings on the Bill to make a speech which was supposed to have been made on the Adjournment tomorrow?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not criticising the Chair in failing to do its duty to keep the debate in order.

Mr. Wall

I will not detain the House long. However, I think that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) will agree that these matters concern Members of Parliament if it appears that an injustice has been done and that if, as a result, relations between ourselves and one of our partners in the Commonwealth have been damaged. I agree that this party should not have taken place, but I suggest that the handling of the matter by Her Majesty's Government has made the worse rather than better.

These are the questions that I want to ask my hon. Friend. First, what of the future of the eight civil servants involved? They have been sent back to this country. They are on half-pay. Not only are they receiving half-nay from the Uganda Government, but they are on half-pay in respect of the salary paid by Her Majesty's Government, namely, the inducement pay. One of the gentlemen, who has a wife and three children, had a pay cheque in January for 47s. 6d. How long is this situation to continue?

What about the future of the six people who are not civil servants—that is, Miss Dove and the five organisers? They are being treated rather like my noble Friend Lord Mancroft in reverse. Are they to have any restitution or compensation? Will Her Majesty's Government use their influence to obtain revocation of the deportation orders? Surely the fact that a severe punishment has been inflicted is bad enough. Will the Government use their good offices to suggest to the Uganda Government that these orders might be rescinded, and that the Uganda Government having shown how strongly they feel about this incident, might now be so merciful as to allow these people to return to Uganda to pursue a useful life in serving the people of Uganda.

Will any compensation be offered by Her Majesty's Government to the 14 or to Mr. Kelly, whose house was burnt down? The Government are rightly concerned about the future of the Sultan of Zanzibar. What about the future of these people?

Mr. G. M. Thomson

On a point of order. I apologise for my previous intervention, which I realise should have been directed to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and not to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). However, may I ask you whether what the hon. Member is saying comes within the terms of the Bill? Should not all this be raised in the Adjournment debate which is set down on the Order Paper for tomorrow, and which would seem to be a more appropriate occasion for it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am happy to accept the hon. Member's apology. The question whether what the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) is saying is in order may well be addressed to me.

As I understand, if the Bill is passed by the House the people whom the hon. Member is discussing could be open to arrest in this country. It would, therefore, seem to me that discussion of their position is very relevant.

Mr. Wall

As I say, I do not want to detain the House long. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Dundee, East does not believe that these matters are important. They are important to 14 of our fellow citizens who have acted foolishly, but who, I suggest, have been treated very severely. I want to know what is to happen to them.

My fourth question is this: who authorised the public apology given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government? Does by hon. Friend realise the effect of this not only on the deportees, but on the British community in Uganda and the widespread effect which it will have in Africa?

In this case, justice does not appear to have been done. I place no direct blame for this on the Uganda Government. They are in a difficult position. They are a new Government and they form a coalition. All kinds of rumours were started which proved to be false. They took action, rightly or wrongly, as they had every right to do. However, I believe that Her Majesty's Government have acted in a way which can only be described as that of appeasement. I hope that the views which have been expressed so forcibly to me by Europeans, not only in Uganda but in other parts of Africa, will be shown by the Minister to be wrong.

I was not in Uganda at the time of this incident and I cannot speak from first-hand knowledge of it, but I hope that my hon. Friend will say that the allegations which I have described are wrong and that he will show that the job of the Commonwealth Relations Office is not only to maintain good relations between Britain and other members of the Commonwealth, but to protect British citizens when it is asked for protection. If my hon. Friend can show this, he will have done a good service to his Department and calmed the fears of many of our kith and kin who are living in the Continent of Africa.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Tilney

By leave of the House, may I endeavour to answer some of the questions which have been raised.

The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) said, quite rightly, that it is becoming almost a custom every few months to discuss Bills dealing with different Common- wealth countries when they cease to be members of Her Majesty's Dominions. He asked me to give the reason for the delay and why we had not put this Bill before the House in November last year. I endeavoured to explain that in my opening speech. There was this somewhat complicated legal point which is left open in Clause 3(5) on which there was quite an amount of discussion between the Government of Uganda and ourselves.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly returned to the question of the future of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He referred to the Commonwealth Court of Appeal, about which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day: There is to be a third Commonwealth and Empire Law Convention in 1965 and the Lord Chancellor is to lead and field…a very strong team. That might be the occasion on which the conference could well reconsider the proposal for a Commonwealth Court, which has been considered before and which would be immensely valuable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1964; Vol. 688, c. 1366.] However, I think that the right hon. Member will agree that there are a number of difficult problems here. This is not a matter which can be decided quickly. There is a division of opinion on whether, if we get a Commonwealth Court established, it should deal with appeals from the appeal court of the individual Commonwealth country or should merely deal with disputes between Commonwealth countries. We have heard arguments in favour of both.

This is a matter which cannot possibly be decided in the near future, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend was right in thinking that the Commonwealth and Empire Law Convention was a good body to discuss this matter.

Mr. Bottomley

With respect, I remain unconvinced. I think that this is essentially a task for the Government.

Mr. Tilney

We do not always agree on what is the right thing to do.

The right hon. Member also raised the question of the Privy Council case brought from Ceylon. I assure the House that the implications of the recent case from Ceylon and the subsequent difficulties have been noted by Her Majesty's Government and will not, as far as I can see, occur in any case coming from Uganda to the Judicial Committee. Only one pending appeal is outstanding.

The right hon. Member also referred to Nigeria. The reason for the detailed provisions in Clause 3, which were not found in the Nigeria Republic Act, is that in the Uganda legislation the question of pending appeals will be dealt with differently from the case of Nigeria. As I said in opening the debate, they follow broadly the pattern set by Ghana and Tanganyika. Hence, we returned to the form our consequential legislation provisions had taken before.

My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked about the safeguards in the Uganda Constitution and the question of a two-thirds majority. This is a complicated matter and I promise to look into it. I am no lawyer and I would rather not go into details now, but I promise to communicate with my hon. Friend.

I know that my hon. Friend has felt strongly for some time concerning the problems that have arisen over the Tank Hill party, which he has discussed with me. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a long statement which was circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The party took place on 11th December and on 18th December news of police investigations broke in the Press. The High Commissioner had reason to think that strong action was in contemplation. He at once saw Dr. Obote and, while expressing his personal regret at the offence which the party had caused to the feelings of Ugandans, asked the Prime Minister to take a lenient view, having regard to the youth of the persons concerned.

On 20th December, there was a debate in the Uganda Parliament, which showed how deep was the offence which had been taken by opinion in Uganda. There was a severe risk of violence against those concerned in the party and, indeed, against the British community in general. We have seen only in recent weeks how dangerous the situation is East Africa can become.

It is as well also to remember that the organisers of the party apologised both by letter and by statement. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on 16th January: in view of the high state of feeling, the British High Commissioner was authorised to express to the Prime Minister of Uganda our regret at the damage caused by his thoughtless episode to the happy relations between the British community and the people of Uganda."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1964; Vol. 657. c. 398.] There are, naturally, conflicting reports of what took place at the party, but whatever may have happened in detail, the party itself was a serious error of judgment. This particularly applies to the invitation card, about which there can be little dispute. Although, undoubtedly, it was meant to be funny, it can be very difficult, even in this country, always to be sure that one's joke gets over property.

I am a Sasenach and had the honour for five years to be Honorary Colonel of the Liverpool Irish. Quite often, what I thought was a joke, or what the others thought we re jokes, were not synonymous. We all know how difficult it is to have the same sense of humour in different countries cross the seas. Therefore, references to the League of ex-Empire Loyalists, ending the white man's burden, a naked bearer with a cleft stick and a tom-tom with a shrunken head gave great offence.

We are, however, bound to regard deportation as a step of great severity. The High Commissioner conveyed this to Dr. Obote personally as soon as he was able to see him again. At the same time, it must be remembered that feelings were running high in Kampala and there was real danger that those deported might have suffered personal harm had they remained. There was also a risk to the European community generally. The High Commissioner was in constant touch with the Uganda authorities as to the safety of British lives and property.

The announcement of the deportations had the effect of reducing the temperature at once. It must be remembered that deportation is a sovereign act to which any independent Government can resort and which cannot be challenged. I remind try hon. Friend that a number of points which he has raised lie within the sovereignty of Uganda and that it is not in the power of the High Commissioner in Uganda to take action. The safety of British subjects is the job of the Uganda Government, who are responsible for those subjects who live in Uganda.

I also assure my hon. Friend that the officers of the Commonwealth Relations Office took action as soon as possible to do what they could to help the deportees when they arived, but I have no doubt that the words of my hon. Friend have been noted not only in this country, but also in Uganda.

Mr. Wall

My hon. Friend has explained why, in his view, appeasement was necessary. He has not dealt with the future. Are these people to have any compensation? We are assisting, and rightly, the Sultan of Zanzibar. What about assisting our own people?

Mr. Tilney

I thought I had explained that most of these deportees were servants of the Uganda Government. It is up to that Government. I refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend said on 16th January in answer to a supplementary question from the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East. At the risk of being accused of facing the wrong way, or being lost in a fog, I repeat what my right hon. Friend said in answer to that supplementary question: The sooner this is forgotten the better."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th January, 1964; Vol. 687, c. 397.] What we want to do is to go ahead with the friendship which has always existed between the people of Uganda and this country.

The Prime Minister of Uganda himself summed up the position in a statement on 13th December as follows: There is, however, one important point which all the people in Uganda must know and accept. This is that the people deported were not deported because they happened to be British subjects. Our action has not been against the British people either in Uganda or Britain or anywhere else. We have no quarrel with either the British Government or the British High Commission in Uganda over this matter. Our relations with the British Government, the British community in Uganda and the British High Commission remain cordial. We deported individuals for the undesirable part each of them had in the Tank Hill party. I hope very much that in the coming months that party can get into the obscurity that history may accord it, because what is important is that the future of Uganda and of this country should run smoothly, to the benefit of both countries, which have been friends for so long.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Peel.]

Committee Tomorrow.