ZAMBIA INDEPENDENCE BILL

HC Deb 07 July 1964 vol 698 cc229-91

Order for Second Reading read.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd)

I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

4.8 p.m.

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

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

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have liked to have spoken, but the House will understand how heavy his engagements are on the eve of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Mr. Hornby), who was in the chair for most of the meetings of the Independence Conference last May, rightly, was much praised for his work at it. He is now celebrating in Malawi her independence. Otherwise, he would have been moving this Second Reading. My own regret is that I have never visited Northern Rhodesia, though I have long wished to do so.

The Bill provides for the ending of Her Majesty's jurisdiction in Northern Rhodesia on the 24th October of this year. Northern Rhodesia will that day become the independent Republic of Zambia. It is surprising to many how short the connection between our two countries has been. Less than 75 years ago, in 1890, the High Commissioner in Cape Town received a letter from Lewanika, the Paramount Chief of Barotseland. It came by the hand of M. Francois Coillard, that great missionary priest. It asked for British protection. The High Commissioner acceded to the request.

From that time for many years the country was administered by the British South Africa Company. It was not an easy or lucrative task. For 50 years or more the Zambia-to-be had suffered from invasions. Zulus from the south, Arabs from the north, even the Kalolo from far off Basutoland, though the Lozi had been able to revolt successfully and under the Lewanika rule once more in Barotseland. But slavery was rampant. Only in 1898 was the last Arab caravan intercepted and the slaves freed. The Bemba have a saying: If you are killing a snake, destroy its mouth, also I believe that history will say that the snake of slavery was not just scotched, but the job was well done and so the company's administration went on till 1924. Only then was it assumed by the Crown.

Soon after, the economic development of the territory quickened due to the growth of the copper mines. The economic improvement in the country has gone on since. The House knows well the hopes and frustrations of the Federal decade, and all the background to the decision by Her Majesty's Government in March last year that no territory would be kept in the Federation against its will. I do not think that the House would wish me to thumb through the diaries of the past, though later I want to say something about some of those who wrote them.

It is to the future of Northern Rhodesia, internally self-governing since January, in October to become Zambia, that we should look. At the end of the Independence Conference of last May, the Report of which, Cmnd. 2365, will probably be referred to many times today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said how much we welcomed the decision of that conference that Zambia should seek to become a member of the Commonwealth. It is fitting that this Second Reading debate should take place on the eve of a Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference where so much could happen for the benefit of man if only the right decisions are taken.

But it was not only my right hon. Friend who spoke at the end of the Independence Conference. Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, that remarkable leader of the Zambian peoples, modest, yet visionary, of great moral fibre—a captain of minds as well as of sport; I fear that I would never qualify for his ministerial football team—the controller of an able hardworking and responsible Ministry, said this of Britain: I must thank you and the British Government, and, indeed, the British people as a whole for creating history in this way. This is the first time that Her Majesty's Government has taken a decision of this nature. Before this colonial history has ended by you, Sir, and your colleagues declaring independence only, but here and now you have declared it is going to be an independent Republic of Zambia. I am sure that this is a beginning of a new chapter that is going to be written for a long time to come. The association between Britain and the Republic of Zambia when the present Northern Rhodesia so becomes, I have no doubt has begun well". Dr. Kaunda went on to pay a fitting tribute to the wonderful faithful and very sincere services of the Governor, Sir Evelyn Home. But, later, he felt constrained to say that Northern Rhodesia would have to lean very heavily on Britain for technical and other forms of aid.

I believe that there is a proverb in Chinyanja that Indian corn often comes in full measure to the toothless man". It is up to us to help to supply the basic economic teeth that can put the potential bounty of nature in Central Africa to good effect. We have, indeed, already started to do so. We are giving Northern Rhodesia a total of £5¾ million in financial aid, composed of a £2¾ million grant in respect of the ex-Federal short-term debt and a £3 million loan towards the cost of compensation to members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service.

We have also said that in the autumn we will be ready to discuss further with the Northern Rhodesia Government the question of what aid might be provided for development and other purposes. Zambia, so dependent on that most beautiful of metals, copper, will probably wish to try to diversify her products, especially her agricultural ones. But all this needs not only intelligence, but knowledge. The first may be given by God, but the second costs a lot of money to acquire.

The current five-year development plan which ends next year envisages the expenditure of £5m. on capital projects connected with African education and staff training. It also provides for the expansion of 21 existing secondary schools and the building of 23 new ones. A new university is to be built soon.

But minds burgeon only in the right atmosphere. The new Northern Rhode- sian Constitution, drafted on the basis of Cmnd. 2365, is part Westminster part Washington. It is none the worse for that. I have often thought—with respect, Mr. Speaker—that our particular model of democracy does not travel all that well along the roads of Asia or of Africa. Zambia will be the first of our dependencies to negotiate with us a Republican status for independence.

There are, indeed, solid advantages to be gained by going straight to a republic rather than retaining the monarchical form for a short time. But it has been done with propriety and courtesy to Her Majesty, and above all, with the desire for continuing links with Great Britain and the Commonwealth. I believe that everyone in this country and in Northern Rhodesia will be glad to know that Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal will be representing Her Majesty at the October celebrations in Zambia.

Zambia wishes to have an executive President with wide powers, giving firm and effective leadership. But that does not mean dictatorship. There are many checks and balances. Though the present Constitutional Council will disappear, its functions will be carried on by a judicial tribunal. The existing Bill of Rights is carried forward and entrenched with special arrangements for its enforcement. The judiciary will be independent. Public prosecutions should be effectively separated from politics. There will be a Public Service Commission for the Civil Service.

My right hon. Friend, at the close of the Independence Conference, said: The constitution upon which you have decided combines important features of the British and of the American systems of government. It provides for a President with strong executive powers; at the same time, the Ministers in the new Government will be Members of Parliament. Thus, the Government, in practice, will be responsible to Parliament in much the same way as here in Britain. Moreover, the Constitution provides that if the President, because he has perhaps lost his majority in Parliament, decides to dissolve it he also dissolves himself and is obliged to seek re-election". Some countries may wish that they also had such a Constitution.

I would like to pay tribute to those overseas and other civil servants who, in past years, have made this transfer of power possible. As I know there has been anxiety in certain quarters both here and overseas I would like to turn now to the question of the terminal benefits available to expatriate members of the Northern Rhodesian Civil Service, a matter which was discussed last month in another place.

I think that it is generally agreed that adequate provision has been made for the 1,200 officers of H.M. Overseas Civil Service. They benefit under a scheme which allows them to retire with earned pension, and also qualify for a lumpsum compensation of which we pay half for loss of career prospects. There is a ceiling of £12,000 on the lump sum. The anxiety which has been expressed both in this House and in another place has related to two other categories of officers. First, the so-called "non-designated" officers, of whom about 400 are pensionable. Secondly, the European ex-Federal officers, of whom about 2,000 are now serving in Northern Rhodesia.

The Northern Rhodesia Government showed that they were aware of the difficulties of the non-designated officers by introducing last January a scheme under which such officers, who formerly would have forfeited all pension rights by premature retirement, could retire at six months' notice with earned pension. If such officers continued to serve for two years after the achievement of self-government, that is, until January, 1966, they were entitled to retire under abolition of office terms, which gives them a pension enhanced by up to one-third. Finally, the arrangements for commutation of pensions were improved.

As the House well knows, the representatives of the non-designated officers did not accept that this was a fully satisfactory solution of their difficulties. The Northern Rhodesia Government have re-considered the question, and I am very glad to be able to inform the House that they have now agreed that if any of these officers are either superseded for promotion or required to retire because of Africanisation they are now eligible for lump-sum compensation, at half the level paid to H.M.O.C.S. officers, in addition to earned pension. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in expressing satisfaction at this very generous gesture by the Northern Rhodesia Government.

I am glad, too, to inform the House that the Northern Rhodesia Government have also improved the position of the former Federal officers who accepted transfer to the Northern Rhodesia service. These officers have now the following alternatives. They may retire with earned pension to date plus the Federal abolition pension of one-third and then re-engage on contract terms. They may, alternatively, opt to convert to the same conditions of service as the non-designated officers, and thus become eligible for the new concession of half the Overseas Service Aid Scheme lumpsum compensation, if superseded for promotion or retired to facilitate Africanisation. Thirdly, they may opt to continue to serve on local conditions. I am sure that the House will agree this is a considerably more favourable settlement for these officers than they expected hitherto.

I must apologise for speaking at length, but I know that the House will wish me to comment briefly on some of the Clauses of the Bill, though, following the suggestion made during the Second Reading of the Malawi Independence Bill, the House will note that for the first time in a Bill of this kind there is an Explanatory Memorandum. Some Clauses, such as the first and second, therefore need no further explanation from me.

Clauses 3 and 4 deal with nationality matters consequent on the attaining of independence by Zambia, and make provision following the usual pattern when a British protectorate becomes an independent country in the Commonwealth. The arrangements for citizenship are generally in standard form, as in other independence constitutions. The National Progress Party, on behalf of the Europeans, was anxious that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies should be able to become Zambia citizens and continue to retain concurrent United Kingdom citizenship. The Northern Rhodesia Government, for understandable reasons, were unable to agree.

I very much hope that the Europeans will be reassured by the provision in the British Nationality Act, 1964, under which those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have a specified connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining Colony, who are required to give up this citizenship to obtain another Commonwealth citizenship, may at any time reassume their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by a very simple procedure which can be gone through at the British High Commission without any need to return to Britain for the purpose.

Clause 3(1) adds Zambia to the Commonwealth countries listed in Section 1(3) of the British Nationality Act, 1948; in consequence, Zambia citizens will be British subjects or Commonwealth citizens in United Kingdom law. Under this Clause, also, Northern Rhodesia will cease to be a protectorate for the purposes of the British Nationality Acts.

The effect of Clause 3(2) is that persons who are British-protected persons because of a connection with Northern Rhodesia will not lose that status until they acquire citizenship of Zambia.

Clause 3(3) withdraws citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from persons who acquire Zambia citizenship on 24th October, 1964, but this is subject to the exceptions contained in Clause 4.

Clause 4 preserves the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies of persons who become citizens of Zambia on independence, but who have a substantial connection with the United Kingdom.

Clause 5 enables Her Majesty in Council to provide for the jurisdiction, powers and procedure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in respect of appeals from the courts of Zambia. Under this Clause, provision may be made, both in the law of the United Kingdom and in the law of Zambia, to give effect to the arrangements agreed at the Independence Conference by which the Judicial Committee can be used as an appeal court for Zambia. This depends on the initiative being taken by the local government to put the judicial machinery in motion.

Clause 6 deals with appeals to the Queen in Council from the Court of Appeal for Northern Rhodesia which are pending immediately before independence. Under this Clause, if arrangements are made between the Government of the territory and the British Government for continuing and disposing of these pending appeals an Order in Council may be made by Her Majesty for giving effect to these arrangements.

The Memorandum explains Clause 7.

Clause 8 terminates the rights and obligations of the Crown and of the Northern Rhodesia Government arising under all existing agreements, undertakings or understandings with the Litunga of Barotseland. The Clause does not affect the Barotseland Agreement, 1964, which was an Agreement entered into between the Northern Rhodesia Government and the Litunga at the time of the Independence Conference regarding the position of Barotseland within independent Zambia; nor does it affect the rights and obligations between the Litunga and other parties under the agreements to which it refers.

The British Government have been conscious throughout the approach to independence of their special relationship with the Litunga, who visited London in 1963, for discussions with the then First Secretary. As a result of these talks, he agreed to open discussions with the Northern Rhodesia Government about the future relationship between Barotseland and Northern Rhodesia. After a long process of negotiations, Dr. Kaunda and the Litunga, in the presence of the Secretary of State, signed a new agreement on 18th May which defines the position of Barotseland, which is to become an integral part of independent Zambia.

This Agreement has been published—Cmnd. 2366. I pay tribute to the statesmanship of the Litunga and Dr. Kaunda in reaching agreement, which enables Barotseland to go forward with the rest of Northern Rhodesia as a unity, and has enabled Her Majesty's Government honourably to discharge the obligations arising from our mutual links that have lasted so long.

Clauses 9, 10 and 11 contain supplementary provisions.

I believe that all hon. Members will rejoice with the people of Zambia that this ancient House this day has set in motion a parliamentary and legal process that will bring not only independence to old friends, but will prepare the way for the entry of the newest member of our great Commonwealth of Nations. To the people of Zambia, called after the great river, we send our greetings and good wishes for their future happiness in the decades to come, and as 24th October is United Nations day, our hope, too, that all, whatever their race or creed or particular affinity, will build up Zambia to lasting success and prosperity.

4.30 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I should make it clear that in the normal way the Member speaking from this Dispatch Box would be my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) or my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson), but that at the moment both are in Malawi attending the independence celebrations there. Therefore, I have been asked, on behalf of the Opposition, to extend our very warm welcome to the Bill and our felicitations to the people of Northern Rhodesia, so soon to become Zambia.

It is most auspicious that this debate should be taking place today on the eve of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, when all the Commonwealth leaders are gathering here in London. It is also auspicious, as the Under-Secretary said, that the formal assumption of independence by Zambia is to take place on 24th October. Some of us have been trying to use this as a possible pointer to the date of the General Election here—it happens to be a Thursday. However, we are aware that this date was chosen for other reasons. It is United Nations Day, and the new State of Zambia wished at the earliest possible moment to indicate that it hoped to take its place on the world scene as well as remain in membership of the British Commonwealth.

All of us in the House who have followed the affairs of Northern Rhodesia feel great sympathy with her over the difficult time she has had in the years of federation. I have had the good fortune to visit Northern Rhodesia. I have seen the magnificence of the Victoria Falls; I have been down one of the copper mines, and I have visited the administrative capital of Lusaka. This was a long time ago. I was there in 1954, when the Federation was just starting on its stormy course. I am afraid that even then it was quite clear that it was not made to last.

We are sorry that in some ways Northern Rhodesia has had, because of the difficulties over federation, a very short time in which to practise its own internal self-government. After all, from January until October in the same year is a very short time to have to take upon themselves the responsibilities of administration and political leadership. One wishes that some of the experience which is so necessary in these matters might have come a little earlier.

However, at the moment our task is not to dwell too much on the past, but to look to the future. We are at any rate encouraged by the quality of leadership in Northern Rhodesia. Those of us who know Dr. Kaunda, and have known him for some years, have the very warmest regard for him as a person and admire his strength of character and purpose. I was very glad that the Under-Secretary paid a tribute to Dr. Kaunda and spoke of his very strong sense of principle. I am sure that we all have the greatest confidence in him in his assumption of the task of Prime Minister, which he now exercises, and the probability that he will succeed in due course under this Constitution to the position of President.

I am also very much interested in the form of the Constitution. I will leave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) the details of legal significance, with which I do not feel competent to deal, but with which he is so closely familiar. On the constitutional side, I am very glad that we have at last some reality in constitution-making. It is many years since I myself modestly suggested in the House that the American Constitution had a good deal to offer to countries starting on their independent course, where a firm executive was absolutely essential and where the to-ings and fro-ings which happen in the Westminster pattern were not always very apposite.

It is all very well to criticise certain newly-emerged States—these criticisms have been made—and to suggest that there is an element of dictatorship in them, and so forth. To anyone with firsthand knowledge of the conditions in some of these countries it was quite clear that suddenly to plunge them into the Westminster pattern would not be easy and would not give the kind of leadership and stability which was required. We have sometimes been far too complacent in this matter and have thought that, if we sent out a friendly delegation with, perhaps, a slightly smaller Mace than ours and a copy of Erskine May, bound in crushed Morocco, we were doing all that was needed in the way of constitutional help, I must add that in recent years there has always been one of the Clerks-Assistant at the Table to offer his advice on procedure and Standing Orders. All this was very helpful in its way, but it did not get to the root of the matter.

I am, therefore, very much interested in this Constitution, which is not completely on the pattern of the United States but which does at least bring in some of its features. In particular, the position of the President is very interesting. He is to have certain functions. He will normally preside over the Cabinet, and the Ministers will be responsible to him. On the other hand, he will not sit in the Legislature, although he may address it. This, again, is on the analogy of Washington. He can make his "State of the Nation" speech, but does not take part in the general hurly-burly of legislative debates. The President has certain delaying powers over legislation. He can send it all back if he does not like the look of it very much, but these powers are very properly circumscribed.

I very much hope that this pattern, which is a novelty in the Commonwealth, will result in a combination of firm government and firm executive and the democratic safeguards which we would all wish to find in the Constitution of any Commonwealth country.

The Under-Secretary mentioned the various safeguards which are already in. We have not got the Constitution before us, but we have the declaration of intention in the White Paper. We fully appreciate the Parliamentary reasons why we have to debate this Bill before we have the text of the Constitution. We are gratified to find that the Bill of Rights is to be continued, that there will be provisions for the judicial tribunal, and so on. I am sure that it is also very comforting for the Director of Public Prosecutions to know that his office is included among those which are protected from reduction of emoluments, a position not enjoyed by Ministers in this House. With these safeguards for the judiciary and the public service we should feel, on the whole, gratified.

I do not think that it is for us to say anything further on the constitutional aspects. The matter has been fully discussed and agreed and is enshrined in the White Papers. However, I think that some reference should be made to the second of the two White Papers, the Agreement with Barotseland. This was not an easy Agreement to reach. All of us appreciate that. We on this side would like to express, as the Under-Secretary has expressed from the Government side, our appreciation of the connection between the United Kingdom—Her Majesty—and the Litunga of Barotseland. We fully recognise that it was painful to have to come to arrangements which perhaps had not been expected quite so soon.

On the other hand, we hope that with good will on both sides this new form of Agreement between the new Government of Zambia, as it is to be, and Barotseland will work and that with good will and some give and take on both sides there will be a happy and constructive partnership between them.

I turn to some of the other problems involved, because important though constitutions are, the stability of a country will depend very much on its economic and social development. We have been informed this afternoon that Her Majesty's Government propose to grant certain funds, some to go to the service of the debt which the Northern Rhodesian Government took over as their share of the Federal debt, a sum of just over £100 million. I gather that about £2¾ million of the amount to be made available will go towards the servicing of this debt. I am sure that hon. Members will want to know more about whether this amount will be anything like adequate.

Then there is the amount of £3 million which is to be made available towards the cost of compensation for former civil servants, on the lines of agreements made with various other Commonwealth territories. I was glad to hear that this is not to be the end of the story. We are aware that Northern Rhodesia has some resources, particularly copper mines—which are not available to other countries, for example, Malawi, which is a much poorer country in terms of natural resources—but it would be a mistake if we supposed that because she derives an income from that source she needs no further assistance. The number of people employed in copper mining in Northern Rhodesia is, I understand, not more than about 8 to 10 per cent. of the population. This means that a large number of people are dependent for their livelihood on agriculture.

Anyone who has been to Northern Rhodesia knows the vast agricultual problems which are to be found there. There is now a considerable amount of unemployment and under-employment and no stable political or social system can be envisaged in circumstances where one has the probability of a large number of young men without any real prospects in life. It is extremely important, therefore, that there should be the fullest co-operation in economic development of all kinds.

I was glad to hear the Under-Secretary mention Northern Rhodesia's development plan and its emphasis on education and training. That is the basis of any future advancement. However, it is no use training people for jobs which are not there. So we are anxious that, when the time comes for further talks in the autumn, a generous attitude will be taken towards Northern Rhodesia, and we will not suppose that just because that country has certain advantages by way of mineral resources that is enough.

There are some projects which are dear to the heart of Dr. Kaunda. I had the pleasure of meeting some of his neighbours from Tanganyika today and they, too, are anxious that the project for the railway to link Northern Rhodesia with Tanganyika should go forward. There have been discussions with the World Bank about this project, which was received a little coldly, I understand. We have been told that this is something which both territories believe to be to their advantage and that it would open up land in both Northern Rhodesia and Tanganyika for agricultural development. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to see that this project is facilitated.

There is also the whole question of the British South Africa Charter Company. We will be interested to observe what happens in this case. The Royalties Agreement, which was made in 1949, expires in 1986. It is expected that it will be terminated and that the company will be bought out. Probably the greatest matter of interest in this connection is the amount that will be paid for it. There is an interlocking, so to speak, between the company and one of the two great copper interests in Southern Rhodesia and it is partly a question, I suppose, of paying out money from one pocket into another. All hon. Members will, I am sure, hope that when negotiations come about something fully advantageous to Northern Rhodesia will emerge.

There are two other matters of considerable importance. First, Northern Rhodesia has been generous already in dealing with refugees from other territories in Africa and I have no doubt that that country will continue to be so. However, I hope that Northern Rhodesia will not be expected to bear burdens which should be more equally shared. I know that Dr. Kaunda, while being anxious to offer asylum to anyone who is a genuine refugee, will be extremely cautious about allowing entry to those who are not refugees in the proper sense of the word, but who might be wishing to exploit the hospitality of Zambia.

The second important group of persons to whom the Under-Secretary referred is comprised of those who have given service in the public service of Northern Rhodesia, but who, because of the changed circumstances, may now have to leave that country and give up their careers. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have been putting pressure on Her Majesty's Government to assist the civil servants concerned. We felt strongly that there are a number of people who have given good service and who undertook that service in Northern Rhodesia in circumstances in which it was impossible for them to foresee what the future would be; people who have felt that they have been hard done by.

Members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service are protected and have full resettlement rights. European members of the ex-Federal Service have had arrangements made for them. It was primarily the non-designated civil servants about whom we were concerned. A number of them are in the middle ranks of the service rather than in the higher-up jobs; in positions which will be fully safeguarded.

We are glad to note from the Under-Secretary's announcement that somewhat better terms have been offered, and have now been confirmed. We are also glad to note that there will now be the possibility of a lump-sum payment, in addition to pension. I am still not clear how far this new concession will extend. I understand that it will be available to those who are superseded for promotion or who are required to retire because of Africanisation. It has been put to us that this concession should be available for those whose posts may be abolished altogether, and those who may wish to retire now because they foresee that if they do not do so their chances, owing to their age and other reasons, of obtaining comparable employment later may not be great.

I am sure that many hon. Members would like to make it clear that while we do not want in any way to be churlish over what has been offered—and it is certainly an advance on anything offered before—it seems that only a very little more might make all the difference to a number of people who entered the Service from Northern Rhodesia when they had the choice of entering it from this country. These people have not had the fullest compensation terms available to them because they wanted, before committing themselves to undertaking public service there, to see for themselves what the country offered. It seems a shame that people who were taking prudent action should be penalised for acting in that way. I hope that this concession is wider than it seems to be and that we shall have further assurances, but we are grateful to the Northern Rhodesian Government for the concessions which have been made.

As Dr. Kaunda's words have made clear, they are very anxious that there should be a friendly atmosphere and that they should proceed from one status to another in the friendliest way. We hope that no one will feel embittered by the change. I very much hope that the Europeans, not only those in the public service, but others, too, who are living in Northern Rhodesia and serving in industry, commerce and the legislature, will feel able to contribute, each in their own way, towards the future of the country. The copper mines, for example, are bound to depend for a long time on the expertise of people from other parts of the world.

We very much hope that the good relationships which have been established in recent years will continue and that people of all races will work together for the happiness and prosperity of Zambia.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall (Haltemprice)

Like the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), I welcome the Bill, and I underline a point which she made—that for the first time we are debating a new type of Constitution, a diluted Westminster. The fact that the Zambian Ministers have borrowed certain aspects of their Constitution from the United States means that they have a good chance of continuing success with the Constitution.

The fact that Dr. Kaunda has decided to go straight into republican status is an excellent start for Zambia. The House will recall that in the past we have debated constitutions and independence Bills when the countries concerned have adopted a monarchical constitution. The constitution of such a country has contained many safeguards for minority tribes and minority races. About a year later the country in question has decided to be a republic. This has meant a short Bill in the House, and it has meant that all the constitutional safeguards which the House worked hard at have been torn up, with strict constitutional propriety.

That, I fear, is to happen to Kenya in the next few months. It is much better for everybody concerned that countries should follow the example of Zambia and go straight into a republican form of constitution, if that is what the people of the country ultimately intend.

I must admit that my welcome to the Bill is slightly overshadowed by the fact that it springs directly from the Northern Rhodesian Constitutional Conference of January, 1961. It was that conference and the White Paper issued in February, the following month, which destroyed the Federation. As the House knows, I regret the destruction of the Federation. I believe that it is a disaster for which we and the people of Central Africa have not yet paid the full price.

The House will remember that in June, 1961, the Government went back on the February White Paper and the following month came the Southern Rhodesian referendum which approved the new Southern Rhodesia Constitution. After that, we had an unfortunate outbreak of violence in Northern Rhodesia, in September of that year the British Government announced that they were ready to consider further representations, and in the following year the Northern Rhodesian Constitution was finally agreed. This was a compromise solution.

This, in turn, led to the General Election of November, 1962, which was won by the United Federal Party, but which resulted in a Government by a coalition between the United National Independence Party and the African National Congress. That meant that Dr. Kaunda and many of his present Ministers were to have two years' apprenticeship before they took over the full government of their country. I think that we must all agree that during those two years Dr. Kaunda and his Ministers have worked unsparingly at their jobs and have set an excellent example to all the people in their country.

I mention the difficult years of 1961–62 because during that time there was a love-hate relationship between leading African politicians and this country. This relationship is probably typified better than anything else by a letter written by the students of a technical college in Lusaka to the principal. This is contained in a Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Disturbances in Certain African Schools in 1960. It is a short letter, and I should like to read it. It is addressed to the principal, and it reads: We, your faithful students, are now your enemy, because for 12 months you have proved yourself an enemy of U.N.I.P. and of all true African people. On Thursday you brought the police into the College with guns to kill us you must now die. Hodgson must always be U.N.I.P. and any principal must allow us FREEDOM. No gaiting, no stupid rules, no punishments. These are the terms upon which we return. You are our enemy and never again will you be our principal. In a short time your head will not be on your body, and no one will ever find it. We burn down buildings, four at Hodgson. We will kill people. Remember our motto, 'Deeds, not Words'. It is signed: From your true and loyal U.N.I.P. students. That typifies, amusingly and quite genuinely, the love-hate relationship of those years to which I have referred. I am glad to say that it has now given place to a genuine friendship between the political leaders of Zambia and this country. We all feel that Dr. Kaunda is largely responsible for the change in the relationship, and we all appreciate the great leadership which he has already given to his country—a leadership which, I believe, will contribute in the future to the betterment of the African Continent.

I want to pay a short tribute to another political leader who died in a motor accident in 1961—Lawrence Katilungu. He was the leader of the other African Party, the African National Congress, and I believe that had he lived many of the difficulties which we experienced in the 1961–62 period might have been overcome more quickly and that we should have reached the present relationship earlier.

My hon. Friend referred at some length to the problem of the European civil servants in Northern Rhodesia, who, we all hope, will remain to serve Zambia in the future. We owe them a special debt of gratitude for their service during the difficult periods to which I have referred. My hon. Friend said that the designated officers—there are only 2,000 of them—will receive good terms should they decide to leave Zambia or should they be superseded or their posts abolished. It is, therefore, to the non-designated civil servant to whom our minds mainly turn today.

My hon. Friend knows that a delegation of all parties represented their problems to the Government only yesterday, and I am sure that I am speaking for hon. Members on both sides of the House when I say how pleased we are to hear that we already have confirmation that better terms are being offered to those officers. My hon. Friend said that they will be offered half the compensation benefits which are offered to members of the Overseas Civil Service or designated civil servants if they are superseded or Africanised. I emphasise that we should like to see yet a further concession. It is possible that one of these posts might suddenly be abolished. It seems to me that if that happens the civil servant should receive the benefits which he would receive if the post were Africanised. After all, it is easy to abolish a post and then start it up again under a slightly different name two days later, and so avoid the commitment. I am not suggesting that the Zambian Government would do that, but I feel that the compensation offered to the non-designated civil servant should be extended to cover him if he wishes to leave the country on independence, or if his post is abolished as well as if his post is Africanised. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us that he agrees to make representations to Dr. Kaunda's Government on that point.

I also understand that agreements have been reached that non-designated servants will be able to commute one-sixteenth of their pension for each year of their service and that the 10 per cent. increase in pay recommended by the Hadow Report has been agreed. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would confirm this when he winds up the debate. Will he also confirm that designated and non-designated civil servants who leave Zambia will, if they wish, be able to avail themselves of the services of the Government resettlement bureaux?

The other problem of the civil servants concerns the marginal cases, those who believe that they should be designated but who have not been able to persuade the British Government to agree to their designation. In many cases, this is due to what appears to the uninitiated to be a minor technicality. For example, there are three administrative officers, who were labour officers, in Northern Rhodesia, who are definitely expatriates, but were promoted to their present posts without a reference to the Secretary of State as is laid down in the Regulations.

This failure to obtain the acquiescence of the Secretary of State was, I presume, an administrative oversight on the part of the Northern Rhodesian Government, but it has been cited as the reason why these three officers could not be designated. This seems to me to be grossly unfair. If the Government make an administrative mistake which makes a great deal of difference to the compensation and pensions of these people they should not be allowed to suffer.

Then, again, there are six clerks who were recruited by the Northern Rhodesian Government from this country. They are not designated because the Northern Rhodesian Government omitted to make full use of the facilities provided by the Crown Agents. There are many similar marginal cases which appear to be purely technical. There is the obvious case of the widow, a stenographer, who was not designated because she was two and a half months late in her application. We agree that there must be rules, but I hope that they will be interpreted as generously as possible. I hope that my hon. Friend can persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation to look into these cases once again, because they cause a great deal of hardship and ill-will. I am sure that the House would not wish to see Zambia proceed to independence with a feeling in some cases that civil servants who have served this country and Zambia well have been treated unfairly.

Now a word about the future. As the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East said, Zambia is a wealthy country and as such she differs from many other African countries. It has been pointed out that agriculture is of great importance to Zambia and we all agree with this. But in addition to her agricultural worth Zambia has the Copper Belt, and this will act as a magnet to many other African States. It is clear that for this reason Zambia will need investment and technical assistance from this country, from Europe and America for many years to come. Therefore, I hope that she will consider for a moment some of the pitfalls that lie ahead.

There is the question of the British South Africa Company. Should that company be expropriated after independence, it would create a bad climate for future investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) and I walked down Independence Avenue in Dar-es-Salaam a few weeks ago and saw a large number of offices of the revolutionary movement for the liberation of various States in Southern Africa. It is said that they are all to be transferred to Lusaka. I hope that Dr. Kaunda will not allow the genuine emotion of African nationalism to take charge. Northern Rhodesia is the frontier between black governing Africa and white governing Africa and is, therefore, a very sensitive spot. This sensitivity could be increased by the incursion of Chinese Communism which has started at Zanzibar and is now moving across to the West Coast of Africa and may well be interested in the Copper Belt.

However, these are gloomy forebodings about the future of Africa and I am sure that the House will be at one in agreeing that Zambia has a great leader and has manifested the desire for co-operation between all races. I was privileged to go to the reception at Lancaster House when the last Constitution was being constructed and I was impressed by the excellent relations existing between the European Zambian M.P.s and the African Zambian M.P.s. Zambia could be an example of races living in peace and harmony, if only she will stand up against outside disrupting influences. She will need our help and I hope that we shall be generous in contributing manpower and, above all, investment and grants to Zambia in the future.

I wish her leader Dr. Kaunda and all the people of Zambia well. Before I sit down, may I add that I hope that the House will soon be debating the Independence Bill for the last of the three members of the ex-Federation, namely, Southern Rhodesia.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Foley (West Bromwich)

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, in introducing the Bill, was kind, lavish and generous in his remarks about Dr. Kaunda and the future State of Zambia. Listening to him, one would have thought that the progress to independence had been a bed of roses. Unfortunately, the truth is exactly the opposite. On at least two occasions I travelled back to Zambia with Dr. Kaunda and he was subjected to indignities and humiliations at the Customs in Salisbury and N'dola. The Under-Secretary forgot to mention that it was this Government which was responsible for putting Dr. Kaunda into prison. His apprenticeship, like that of many other leaders of the Commonwealth assembled in London, was spent in gaol under British auspices.

In spite of the reference to the kindness and generosity of Her Majesty's Government, the real truth is much more reflected in the words of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). He quoted a letter from a student at a school in Northern Rhodesia, and he referred to the love-hate relationship. This has gone on even in this House vis-à-vis this area. There are many in this House who refer to the protagonists of federation and supporters of Sir Roy Welensky as people who are all voice and no vision.

The Bill raises one particular question which I am glad to see, namely, that it offers a united Zambia on the occasion of its independence by the inclusion of Barotseland. Barotseland has always had a special place as a protectorate within a protectorate. Nevertheless, in the relationship between Her Majesty's Government and the Litunga during the last 14 years one has seen this strange mixture of love and hate. It was Her Majesty's Government who persuaded the Lewinika, in 1953, against his better judgment, to support the notion of federation. It was Her Majesty's Government who then knighted him as a reward and who referred to him as the Litunga. Since that day when we saw the inevitability of the end of federation, we tried to preserve this old feudal rule in Barotseland while, at the same time, dealing with the Nationalist Party of Dr. Kaunda.

The ignominity of it all was seen recently. This poor old man must be the most unhappy man in the whole of Central Africa. He is brought to London not to participate in the talks for independence, but at the end of these talks. He is brought in at ten o'clock at night to sign a document, which he does, which is reflected in this Constitution, whereby there is no Barotseland, whereby he has no power, whereby the Government of Zambia and the Nationalist Party have full control over Barotseland, as, indeed, they have over every part of Zambia. This is a reflection of the love-hate relationship so ably referred to by the hon. Member for Haltemprice.

I want to refer to the notion that Zambia is wealthy, that she is all right and does not need help. Zambia has a great potential, but there are a number of things to be overcome. There have been at least 10 years of wasted effort in the Federation. I shall refer to them in a moment, but I want to refer particularly to the B.S.A. royalties which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and by the hon. Member for Haltemprice.

It is estimated that in 1963 the gross royalties of the British South Africa Company from Northern Rhodesia amounted to £12½ million. This produced a net return after taxation, and so on, of slightly more than £6 million to the company, and it is estimated that the results for 1964 will be even greater. These royalties arise from an arrangement made between Her Majesty's Government and the British South Africa Company way back in the past. I want to quote a speech made in the Northern Rhodesia Legislative Council in 1948, because I think that it should be of interest to the House.

In discussing the royalties, the speaker said: The point I want to make, which is most important and to my mind thoroughly immoral, is that the people of this country, black and white, were completely ignored. I find it difficult to express in decent English my views of the actions of a Government of that nature that they should sell, give, barter—or whatever you care to call it—the mineral wealth of a country, for which they were the trustees, to a private company—without even consulting the people. It just shocks me to think of it. But what makes things worse is the fact that not only did they grant them the rights, but they granted the rights in perpetuity to the company. Lest hon. Members may think that these words were the ravings of a rabid nationalist I add that they were spoken by Mr. Roy Welensky, as he then was, in debate in the Legislative Council.

The whole case of the B.S.A. royalties can be summed up in comments made by Dr. Kaunda in April this year, when he said: It must never be forgotten that the circumstances under which the B.S.A. Company acquired these royalties—and the historical background to this question—places the whole question of royalties in Northern Rhodesia out of the normal commercial or industrial activities existing anywhere in the world today. This is just one example of the constant drain on the resources of Zambia at a time when it needs this money and when it needs the help of this country to uphold its peoples.

A further example of this drain was the 10 years of Federation, when it was amply demonstrated that the Federal Ministers utilised the resources of Northern Rhodesia to build and develop the economy of Southern Rhodesia. There is ample evidence of this duplicity. In 1951, the Northern Rhodesia Government of the day had already done a great deal of research into the building of the Kafue hydro-electric development. They spent £½ million, and this was in a Protectorate of Her Majesty's Government and, presumably, financed from this country.

The money was spent on research and planning and on basic roads. Then the Federation comes along and Northern Rhodesia is promised that the development will continue—and the House will be aware the Kafue is well within the borders of Zambia. In 1955, suddenly out of the blue, Kafue is out and we have the Kariba Dam. Even Lord Lascelles, a member of the Commission which was at that time reporting on the subject, resigned in protest and Ministers concerned publicly stated that the decision to build the Kariba and not the Kafue Dam was a political decision. This was a political decision made to entrench the white minority in Southern Rhodesia and to preserve the privilege of white peoples in the so-called Federation.

This is some of the history with which we have to live in terms of looking at the problems of Zambia today. One could go on reciting this history but, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice has said, we must think of the future. I have travelled in different parts of Africa and I believe that I have seen in Zambia probably the greatest potential of any of the countries of Africa. I believe that in the leadership of Dr. Kaunda, in his Ministers and in the unity of his party there is great potential.

When we look at Africa as a whole and at the difficulties in the Congo at the moment, and recall the difficulties in East Africa earlier this year, I believe it right to say that we are all longing to be able to talk about a successful country in Africa. I believe sincerely that Zambia has the ingredients of success. We and Her Majesty's Government in approving this Bill are not abandoning Zambia. We are establishing a new relationship. This will be reflected in the terms of a partnership of equals and in that partnership I hope that we shall be anxious to respond to the needs of Zambia. Those needs are enormous in the matter of technical assistance and training.

After 30 years of colonial rule and 10 years of Federal rule there are fewer than 800 men and women of all ages in the country who have an education equivalent to that of a holder of an O level certificate. It is an indictment of the educational system before Federation and it is, an indictment of this country that we have neglected Northern Rhodesia. Now that Zambia has achieved independence we must respond in the most generous way, not with words but with deeds. In doing so we shall be helping to make the country a success. The ingredients are there. Success now depends on the extent to which we have the will and the generosity to respond to the needs.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

These occasions are so often ones for the recital of platitudinous good wishes that I am very pleased that the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) quite boldly faced some of the problems. All of us, of course, give our good wishes to Zambia, but let us not ignore the difficulties.

Where I parted company with the hon. Member was in his recital of the difficulties with the Kafue Dam and his blaming of the Federation. He was unfair and inaccurate. I believe that the Kariba Dam scheme did a great deal for Northern Rhodesia. It was far more practical than the Kafue Dam scheme. I do not believe that the World Bank would have supported that smaller scheme, and it is because of the advantage of the Kariba Dam that we have now the possibilities of development in Zambia.

I agree that African education there proceeded at far too slow a pace in the years from 1953, but that, as the hon. Member rightly said, is not a charge that one can lay at the door of the Federation. The trouble was that the Federation proceeded quickly with its educational programme and that the education provided by the Northern Rhodesia Government which was our responsibility went too slow.

A feature which I should like to emphasise is that I found far greater absence of racial prejudice in Northern Rhodesia than in other parts of Central Africa. It is to me a tragedy that the country which would have gained most by federation because of the absence of racial prejudice has probably lost most by the destruction of the Federation. It is a land-locked country where every ton of coal, every pound of explosive for the mines and every ton of copper which is exported has to go out either from Southern Rhodesia or to Southern Rhodesia, and it is vital that these two countries should be closely associated. I hope that after 24th October some form of economic association will be retained with Southern Rhodesia.

The tragedy in Africa today is, in my view, its balkanisation. Each country wants to try to go it alone. Sometimes every tribe wants to go it alone. Just as in the Balkans, in Europe, Russia first tried to introduce her influence and then gained control over the whole of the Balkans except Greece and Turkey, so today, in Africa, the Russian and Chinese Communists are vying for control. That is a danger which faces these young countries like Zambia when they become independent.

We make the mistake of thinking that once we give everybody the vote all the problems disappear. What is far more important is that the rule of law should remain and that there should not be corruption. The lesson, I am afraid, is that once the rule of law disappears there is tyranny. I have a very great appreciation of Dr. Kaunda and his high principles and, I believe, his very good intentions, but I hope that he will be strong enough to withstand the pressures. After all, Dr. Busia and Mr. Gbdemah were men of high principles and great wisdom, yet they cannot speak their mind in their own country. This is the lesson that we should not forget.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich was again inaccurate when he talked about the Litunga of Barotseland. He was not brought to Britain. He was most anxious to come to Britain because he felt that Britain owed him an explanation of why it proposed to part company with him. I hope that we shall not find in days to come that the Litunga is in the same position as the Asantehene, in Northern Ghana, who finds that a tyranny has deprived him of all his power and that his tribe is deeply unhappy.

Mr. Foley

The difference is that in Ghana on independence a situation was inherited in which that gentleman still had some power. In the case of Zambia, we have deprived the Litunga of his power, and he discovered it only at the last minute.

Mr. Turton

I think that that is perfectly fair. What I am saying is that I hope that after 24th October Barotseland will not be as unhappy as the Ashanti is today. That is the message that I want to go out from this House to Zambia. We are full of good will, but certainly worried about its future.

I believe that this Constitution is better than the constitution we proposed before, because it is much more realistic. It is childish to believe than all Africa wants the Westminster model. I am as proud of this House as any hon. Member, but our constitution is not suitable for Lusaka any more than it is suitable for Accra. I believe that this Constitution is an improvement on it.

But let us remember that Zambia will not be able to survive unless she can be on friendly terms with neighbouring countries. The fact that Mr. Tshombe has now become Prime Minister of a united Congo will be of great help to her. I believe that Mr. Tshombe can and should co-operate with the rulers of Zambia in view of the Copper Belt which is between the two countries. I believe that there is some hope for the future on those lines.

I wish to say a few words about the Federal civil servants. In January, 1961, Dr. Kaunda gave a promise that when independence came he would ensure that fair treatment was given to federal civil servants. I think that the undertaking which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State announced today is a measure of implementation of that promise. But I am still not happy about the position of the non-designated officers. I cannot see that it matters whether an officer is designated or not after independence.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the designated officers will get an inducement allowance of 15 per cent., half of which will be paid by the Government of Zambia, in addition to their salaries, whereas non-designated officers will get no inducement allowance. On the face of it, that seems to me unfair. But when we remember that added to that the designated officers will get children's allowances and air travel concessions for children to which non-designated officers will not be entitled it seems to me that this is quite wrong.

I thought that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that the Zambia Government would pay half the lump sum and that, therefore, the British Government would make no contribution towards the non-designated officers' lump sum payment. If I heard him correctly, I think that that is very cheeseparing of the British Government. If Dr. Kaunda offers to pay half the lump sum, why cannot the British Government pay the other half, so that non-designated officers are in exactly the same position as designated officers? To make a difference between the two categories based on whether the officer was recruited in Britain or in the Federation is quite ridiculous. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will look into these points, because I believe that as these countries become independent Britain has a continuing obligation to the men who served them and got them ready for independence. I do not think that we are carrying out our obligations in that respect as generously as we should.

With those words, I wish good will to the Bill and to the future country of Zambia.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse (Wednesbury)

I agree with the final remarks of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) about the need for this House and this country to be generous to the civil servants who have loyally served Northern Rhodesian Administrations over the past years. I believe that many civil servants in Northern Rhodesia have done an excellent job during a very difficult period when they felt that federation was being imposed on Northern Rhodesia against the wishes of the population. Yet they carried on with their jobs and did their best for the country in which they served.

I have every reason personally to be grateful to many individual civil servants in Northern Rhodesia who gave me great assistance during the visit which I paid to their country in 1959 and during the two days that I was in a rather bizarre situation when the Northern Rhodesian police force was protecting me against the Federal immigration officials who were doing their best to deport me. I should like to pay tribute to the provincial commissioner and district commissioner, who were particularly concerned on that occasion, for giving me every possible assistance during three or four very awkward days for both them and myself.

This is a very great and historic day for Zambia and also for this House, because we are granting independence to a territory about which there have been many exciting debates in this Chamber over the past 10 years. I feel that it is rather surprising that the Secretary of State himself has not been able to be here to introduce this historic Bill. I appreciate the way in which the Under-Secretary introduced it, and that the Secretary of State has apologised for his absence—I know that there is a Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference in progress, and that he has duties in respect of it—but, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State is in this country, I feel that he could have spared an hour or so to have at least launched the Bill here, although we appreciate that he could not have stayed for the whole of the debate. After all, he was free to come here and make a rather strange, in some respects, statement on Arabia, and I should have thought that he could have stayed on for a little longer to introduce this important Bill.

I join with other hon. Members on both sides of the House in wishing Zambia well in the future. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) that that country has been handicapped considerably by the imposition of federation on it in 1953, against the clearly expressed wishes of the broad masses of the population. I believe that the way in which the Government, over the years, have continued to force this experiment of federation down the throats of the people of the territories is one of the most ignoble episodes in the whole history of this country. I am glad that reference has been made to this, because I think that it would be wrong for our friends in Zambia to believe that this House of Commons, on this great day, did not recognise the guilt of this country in holding back development towards democracy, which we have now acknowledged.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans)

The hon. Gentleman must not presume to speak for every Member of the House.

Mr. Stonehouse

It is interesting that, although some hon. Members opposite have had the courage to admit that they were wrong in the past, when they opposed one-man one-vote democracy for Northern Rhodesia, at least one hon. Member still acknowledges that some members of the Conservative Party have their eyes looking backwards rather than forwards.

Generally speaking, I think that the people of this country welcome the fact that Northern Rhodesia, now Zambia, is to have its independence and that the freely expressed will of the people of that country, behind Dr. Kaunda and his colleagues, will be able to express itself in constructive economic development rather than wasting the energies of the leaders in political agitation which, although it has been necessary in the last few years, has taken them away from the job that really matters, namely, attacking poverty and backwardness in Northern Rhodesia.

I believe that we have a duty to continue to help this territory. We need to provide a considerable amount of economic and technical assistance to help it to overcome tremendous problems. It is wrong to assume that because of the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia Zambia will have an affluent society. That will not be the case, because many millions of people in Zambia live away from the Copper Belt and depend on African subsistence agriculture, and in many cases they have been denied any real assistance to improve their technique. They have because of the lack of development on roads and irrigation schemes been unable to grow cash crops and so develop a little independence as has been the case in some other territories.

The amount spent on African agriculture, which amounted to £2½ million a year during the last few years, has been abysmally small, and needs to be increased. Zambia will need to get the money to invest in the development of agriculture on which the country will depend in the future, for the general raising of living standards will depend on channelling more of the copper companies' profits into these constructive directions. As the Monckton Commission pointed out, there is in Northern Rhodesia, and there has been over many years, an adverse balance of invisible payments because of the profits and royalties of the copper mines flowing out the the territory. Zambia is an under-developed country and many millions of pounds need to be spent on it. Rather than Zambia providing economic assistance for the developed countries, mainly Britain and the United States, we should be providing aid for Zambia.

Reference has already been made to the British South Africa Company, and I should like to refer to it in this respect. It is quite impossible for Zambia to afford to pay the extortionate royalties when it needs this money in its own boundaries to invest in agricultural development, on roads, irrigation, the Kafue Dam scheme, and so on. I hope that rather than have a long wrangle between the new Government of Zambia and the B.S.A. Company that company will decide voluntarily to renounce all its rights in respect of royalties from Zambia on independence day. For many years this company has been able to extract many tens of millions of pounds in royalties without giving very much in return. I believe that it should do this as a recognition of its good will towards the newest member of the Commonwealth and the newest independent State in Africa.

I would hope that the present Minister of Aviation, who is an ex-director of the company, will use his influence on the company to persuade it to adopt this idea. T believe that eventually the Government of Zambia will have to act hard unless the B.S.A. Company co-operates. Rather than have that ill-feeling, it would be better for it to see the writing on the wall and reread what Sir Roy Welensky said many years ago, as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich.

The fact is that, although Zambia is to have political independence, there are many economic problems which it has to tackle and which it can only tackle as a result of having this Constitution, in which it can express its own desires. One of the principal tasks that it now has to achieve is the bridging of the gap between the European and African sections of the population. As the Monckton Commission Report indicated, the amount of income which goes to the European section of the population is greatly in excess of the income to the African population, although the Africans number 3 million against the Europeans' approximate 175,000.

According to the charts in the Monckton Commission's Report, the wages and salaries for the European, Asian and other people in the territory is £39 million and the wages and salaries for the Africans only £26 million, although they are many more in number. This was in 1958, the year that these figures were last available, although I believe that they largely apply today. The income from companies owned by Europeans is £5 million and from those owned by Africans only £2 million. The operating profits of companies which are almost entirely owned by Europeans are £29 million, a really staggering sum. As I have said, much of that money went through royalties to the B.S.A. Company or, through profits in the other copper companies, is leaving the territory. This gap between European and African incomes must be bridged.

It can be bridged partly by spreading more investment in African agriculture so that the hundreds of thousands of African families who live away from the Copper Belt can have an opportunity of improving their standards. It can also be bridged by opening opportunities for more Africans to participate in other activities than copper mining and farming. All the other activities that go along with the commercial development of a territory should be open to them and I believe that through the development of co-operative societies many people would be able to obtain such opportunities and be able to help their country and themselves at the same time.

Much of the wealth that Western Europe is investing in the newly developing territories is invested with an idea of producing some sort of return for the investing country. Not only in relation to Zambia, but in relation also to many of the other newly independent countries with which we have special relations, we should now concentrate upon providing assistance which will enable them to do the job which I have been describing and increase the standards of the indigenous population and bridge the gap between rich and poor.

I should like to refer to the important question of Southern Rhodesia and to follow the closing words of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). The hon. Member hoped that we would soon have a Bill to grant independence to Southern Rhodesia. I echo what he said. I do not know whether he would agree with what I am about to say—that such independence should be on the same lines as that which has been granted to Malawi and as we are now granting to Zambia, namely, on a democratic constitution so that the majority can rule. I should be happy if the hon. Member agreed with me on that, because his influence with the Southern Rhodesian whites is considerable.

We are reaching an important stage concerning the situation in Southern Rhodesia when we are passing a Bill which grants independence to a country right on its borders. If it is right to grant independence on the basis of a one-man one-vote constitution for a country on the Northern shore of the Zambesi, would it not be right to grant a similar constitution to a country on the southern shore of the Zambesi? What is the difference between the two?

We are going through the process of granting independence to Zambia and I hope that the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia will realise that their brothers and sisters in Northern Rhodesia will not be too adversely affected by it. In fact, their security and stability and the future of their families will be better served by having an African elected Government in Zambia. They will have a much better life in that country than with a Government which does not have the support of the majority.

It must have been a tiring business for the European families in Northern Rhodesia in the last few years during these tense periods when the Federation has been under attack. Now that it has been proved that in Kenya, in Zambia and in Malawi the Europeans are more secure as a result of a democratic constitution being granted, I hope that the Southern Rhodesian Europeans will not be so worried.

It will be important for Zambia to have good relations with its Southern Rhodesian neighbour. There are many services which they share. The Kariba Dam has already been referred to. The railways are of great importance in taking the copper from Zambia. It will be many years before the new railway which, I hope, will be built through Tanganyika can be completed. There are other common services which, I hope, both territories will continue to use—for example, the airways.

I hope that it will be possible for these countries to grow together rather than apart. I believe that their growing together can come only as a result of the granting of a democratic constitution in Southern Rhodesia. I hope that the Government will soon follow that course rather than listen to the petulant demands of a Government who represent a minority of a minority, as is the case of Mr. Ian Smith.

It would be wrong of the House to pass this Bill on Second Reading without paying tribute to the Monckton Commission, which produced a monumental Report giving us not only a wealth of detail about the economic and social circumstances of the three territories concerned, including a great deal of detail about Zambia itself, but which also made quite clear to the Government of the day that federation could not survive unless it was backed up by the use of force. That Report was a crucial stage in the turning of the fortunes of Northern Rhodesia away from the terrible conflicts about constitutions, some of which we have had in scores of debates in the House of Commons, into, I hope, the constructive direction which can now follow as the result of the granting of independence.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Charles Longbottom (York)

In following the hon. Member for Wednes-bury (Mr. Stonehouse), I should like to express my hope that the next time he visits Northern Rhodesia, or Zambia, as it will be then, he will be less crowded than on his former visit.

It is always a pleasure to be in the House of Commons for debates on independence Bills. Informally, it is the final function of this Parliament in the granting of a new independence constitution, but it means much more than that in human terms. It means exchanging an outdated and outmoded relationship for something new and for something which we and the people pf Zambia can build together, a relationship much more applicable to the day and age in which we live than the one of which we are shortly to see the end.

On this occasion, it is more pleasant, too, because much of the path towards independence has been easier and smoother than in some of our other territories, despite some unfortunate incidents. I remember well the complaints that were made about the Constitution introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), when Colonial Secretary. Many people said that it was too difficult and complicated, but it proved itself to be correct inasmuch as it had the result of producing orderly transition and an African elected majority.

As other hon. Members have suggested, the main barrier to Zambian independence has been the Federation. Northern Rhodesia was the jewel of the Federation, because within its boundaries lay the rich mineral deposits from which the Federation sought a great deal of help for its budget. Had it not been for the intransigence of a number of Rhodesian politicians, we might well have been discussing this Bill for the independence of Zambia some time ago.

The Federation, however, has ended and Zambia can go ahead towards its independence unfettered by any ties not of its own making.

Nevertheless, what happens in Southern Rhodesia south of the Zambesi is bound to affect the future of Zambia. The hon. Member for Wednesbury rightly pointed out that in the Kariba Dam, in the railways and also in the airlines there are common services which have to be shared at present between Zambia and Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, what happens in the next few months in Southern Rhodesia will be of tremendous significance in giving the people of Zambia, we hope, a happy and peaceful start in their new country.

This is not the time, on this Bill, to argue closely the affairs of Southern Rhodesia, except to say that the only relationship in practical terms that can be satisfactorily built up between Zambia and Southern Rhodesia is one of equal status between independent Governments, and the more speedily African advancement can come in Southern Rhodesia and the greater degree of educational opportunity which can be given to the Africans in Southern Rhodesia, so much greater will be the possibility of a worth-while and lasting relationship between the peoples of Zambia and Southern Rhodesia. Zambian independence on 24th October could well be clouded by the foolish actions of short-sighted politicians south of the Zambesi. I hope that they will realise that African advancement cannot be halted south of the Zambesi with all the pressures of the continent of Africa behind political maturity and advancement.

But Zambia has a great start. It has the chance—this is the importance of copper in this context—a greater chance than perhaps any other country becoming independent in Africa, of becoming a viable economy. With our help it can achieve this. People refer to the Copper Belt, and all their eyes are upon the future of copper. But the rest of Northern Rhodesia has in the past few years been neglected by the Federation and there is an enormous development task to be fulfilled in all the areas of Northern Rhodesia outside the Copper Belt. Provided that we help to develop these other territories, then Northern Rhodesia can become viable, it can help the other parts of Africa and it can be an example of orderly economic progress.

Thus, I think that the argument on copper as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned is that there should be more aid, rather than less, to help this economy become viable as speedily as possible. I hope that in the negotiations which my hon. Friend said are to take place this autumn Her Majesty's Government will, for this reason, look generously upon any plans for development which the Zambian Government may ask for help in bringing about.

There are three principal problems of development in Northern Rhodesia at the moment. One of the greatest difficulties is over the problem of unemployment among young people. In many areas, both rural and urban, but particularly urban, young people have very little chance of getting work straight after they leave school. I think that, on average, most of them have to wait three or four years after leaving school before getting worthwhile employment. The Zambian Government have already drawn up a team which has set up the idea of a national youth service. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be generous if asked for assistance to bring youth camps into being and so help to solve the problem of unemployment in that territory.

The second problem is one of great lack of urban industrial development, and I hope that in this context we can help in the setting up of development estates, particularly around Lusaka.

The third problem, which has been referred to by every hon. Member is agricultural under-development in some of the rural areas. All these are projects which, I submit, are worthy of aid attention by the British Government. We must also encourage—I hope that the Zambian Government will encourage—private capital to be employed in overcoming the problems of industrialisation in the urban areas.

The Department of Technical Cooperation has already been called upon for a great number of people to go out to Northern Rhodesia, particularly doctors, nurses and teachers. The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) and I have been somewhat concerned that, whereas these teachers and doctors have not readily been recruited from this country, the same difficulty has not been found in recruiting them from the Continent. This is not the fault of the Secretary for Technicial Co-operation, nor of the Department iself. It is something wrong within the system of advertising and putting across the opportunities which exist in Northern Rhodesia, the effect of which has been that too few of our people go out and take employment there. Northern Rhodesia is a fault which we have seen in this system, and I hope that we shall learn the lesson of it.

I believe that in the field of aid and technical assistance we can help Zambia have a viable economy and a worthwhile future and help it to make independence a happy reality. I should like to pay my own tribute, joining in what other hon. Members have said, to Dr. Kenneth Kaunda, to his party and to his Government. All the way along the line they have shown a great sense of purpose and of leadership and statesmanship, and I think that it is with confidence that on 24th October we can hand over independence to them. Wishing them well, and their people happiness, gives us an opportunity of starting a new relationship.

I do not share the nightmares of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). I do not believe, as he said, that the background of Africa is suitable for the Parliament and the system that we in this country love, but, for the very same reason, I do not believe, either, that the background of Africa is suitable for a Kremlin type of institution. I think that Africa is developing, and will continue to develop, its own society. What we can do is not merely to grant those concerned independence, but, by aid and technical assistance, help them make their independence a reality.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Humphry Berkeley (Lancaster)

I am glad that every speaker in the debate has paid tribute to the qualities of Dr. Kenneth Kaunda. He is a man of deep religious conviction, great strength of character and considerable firmness of purpose. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House, like myself, have known him over a number of years, and I believe that all who have been closely associated with him have been impressed at the way he has grown in stature throughout the constitutional evolution which has taken place in Northern Rhodesia. I rather regret that some of my hon. Friends and, indeed, the majority of the Europeans in Northern Rhodesia did not recognise the remarkable qualities of the man a little earlier. Had this happened I believe that we should have seen a more even progress towards independence.

I also echo the sentiments expressed by various hon. Members in relation to the Constitution which Northern Rhodesia has been granted. I and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), at the time of the debate on Kenya independence, suggested to the Secretary of State that a republican form of Government was preferable for an African State achieving independence within the Commonwealth. I am sure that it is right and proper that we should attempt to negotiate with a country approaching independence a constitution that is likely to be permanent and which that country accepts. If a constitution is changed within a year or two, it gives an impression of instability which, I am sure, all new nations would wish to avoid. I therefore welcome the straight transfer to republican status for Zambia on independence day.

However, I have reservations about one aspect of the Constitution. This is the provision for a number of European reserved seats exclusively for European electors. I believe that this has certain dangers which I hope in the case of Zambia may nevertheless be avoided. The dangers are obvious. In the first place, the most direct consequence of the existence of European reserved seats is to create, at a time when inter-racial co-operation becomes more important than ever, a distinct and definite racial division between the voters. That is a Pity.

Secondly, a possible consequence of the existence of such seats—and this will be the case in Zambia—is that the European reserved members will form an official opposition to Dr. Kaunda's Government in the independent Parliament. I believe that the behaviour of many of the European reserved members has been moderate and sensible in the last few months, in particular the attitude taken by their leader, Mr. John Roberts. But the fact remains that they will be known officially in Parliament as the opposition and they will represent, by the very nature of the means by which they are elected, the European community exclusively.

There thus seems to be a danger that the European community in Zambia will be permanently identified with the behaviour and performance of their Parliamentary representatives who will, in time, possibly constitute the only Parliamentary opposition to Dr. Kaunda's Government—and an opposition which, by the very nature of things, will always be in opposition because the number of reserved seats is very small. That seems to be the danger of this type of constitution. I do not believe that the existence of these seats provides any guarantees which could not otherwise be obtained and there is distinct danger that the European community will be identified with opposition to the Government rather than with support.

Mrs. White

Am I not right in thinking that Mr. Roberts has publicly stated that he does not intend to lead his party as an opposition? In other words, within the limits of the Constitution, he will do his best not to give rise to the feelings the hon. Gentleman is describing.

Mr. Berkeley

That is perfectly true and that is why I paid tribute to his attitude. But the fact remains that the European reserved members will not be part of the Government and, therefore, in Parliament will be assumed to be, however statesmanlike their behaviour, the opposition. It is a great pity that the European community should be identified in this way as not supporting the Government of Dr. Kaunda. I suggest that, whatever advantages there may be in this concept of European reserved seats, there are disadvantages which on the whole outweigh them.

I want to direct certain remarks to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, particularly in relation to civil servants formerly employed by the Federal Government. No one in this House has done more than my hon. Friend to support the cause of expatriate civil servants overseas and, therefore, it is with considerable reluctance that I must address to him remarks of a somewhat critical nature on this occasion. I do so in the full belief that, were he fully responsible for the actions of the Government in this respect, those actions would be substantially more generous.

I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in believing that the difference between a designated officer and a non-designated officer is highly technical and something which no one in common sense can really justify. It is the kind of distinction which, I suppose, is beloved among functionaries who sit in rooms in Treasuries all over the world, but I do not believe that it has any reality in terms of service or of worth. I would, therefore, wish to see the Government being more generous to non-designated officers.

But there is one type of officer to whom we have behaved quite disgracefully. I know at least one in Northern Rhodesia. He was recruited from this country to serve in Northern Rhodesia as a Colonial Service officer. On the creation of the Federation, he was seconded to the Federal Civil Service. In common with other civil servants to whom this happened, he received a circular letter from the then Secretary of State, the present Lord Boyd of Merton. That letter expressly said that it was the wish of the Secretary of State that those officers who had been seconded to the Federal Civil Service should opt to join it on a permanent basis. Therefore, the people who opted to do so were not only indulging in a personal preference but were responding in the affirmative to a direct request by the Secretary of State himself.

What is their position now? On the dissolution of the Federation, some of them have reverted to territorial service. The officer whose case I have quoted as an example is employed in the Secretariat in Lusaka. Because he followed a request of the Secretary of State, he is now in a vastly inferior position compared with someone who was not chosen in the first place to go into the Federal Civil Service but remained in territorial service. I can see no justification whatever for this arbitrary discrimination and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will add the public pleas of hon. Members to the private pleas we all believe he is making to the Government to see that decency and honour are satisfied.

Finally, as three other hon. Members have done, I should like to refer to the consequences which the independence of Zambia will have upon the future of Central Africa and, in particular, upon the political future of Southern Rhodesia. I regret that we were not able to secure the agreement—if we tried—of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers to the presence at the Prime Ministers' Conference of Dr. Kaunda from Northern Rhodesia and Mr. Smith from Southern Rhodesia. The subject of Southern Rhodesia could have been better discussed if Dr. Kaunda as well as the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia had been present.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice says that he hopes that the House will shortly be passing legislation to give Southern Rhodesia independence, what he must comprehend is that we would not today be discussing, with this general sense of unanimity, a Bill to give Northern Rhodesia independence if independence were to be given on the the basis of minority rule. One of the reasons why the Bill has commended itself to both sides of the House is that it gives effect to what we in this country believe in—that the wishes of the majority must be taken into account in deciding the type of government which a territory is to enjoy. After all, it was precisely because we recognised that majority rule was the sine qua non or independence that we refused to grant independence to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and it was because we believed that popular consent was necessary to maintain regimes that we took both Northern Rhodesia and Malawi outside that Federation.

The independence of Zambia will have a twofold effect on Southern Rhodesia. First, it will underline the absurdly high qualifications at present existing in Southern Rhodesia, on both the A roll and the B roll, for Africans to enjoy the franchise. As was implied by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Longbottom), we cannot in logic argue for representative government based on the concept of "One man, one vote" north of the Zambesi and a highly-qualified franchise designed to perpetuate white minority rule for a very long period the other side of the Zambesi without there being a considerable conflict in policy. The first consequence of the granting of independence to Zambia is bound to be to make more obvious the constitutional anomalies which exist in the south.

The second consequence will, I hope, be more productive. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton said that he had never been to a territory in Central Africa so free from racial prejudice and racial strife as Northern Rhodesia. I have been there many times, and that is a view which I share. If we in London can see and appreciate in Northern Rhodesia, shortly to become Zambia, the creation of a society in which majority rule is conceded, in which an African majority governs and in which the races live together in harmony, might this not also be seen and appreciated in Salisbury? This I believe to be the greatest hope for the future in Southern Rhodesia.

At the moment my own view is that the mental attitudes of Mr. Ian Smith and his colleagues can lead only to disaster and death. What we have to hope for in Southern Rhodesia is a change of heart, and we must trust that this change of heart will come from a process of hope and not from a process of fear. If it can be shown, as I am convinced that it can, that the European can live in Zambia, without fear, under a black majority Government, that lesson may be learned, and learned only just in time, south of the Zambesi in Southern Rhodesia.

6.16 p.m.

Sir Ronald Russell (Wembley, South)

My hon. Friend the Member for Haltem-price (Mr. Wall) said so much of what I wanted to say that I had decided not to weary the House with any intervention, but I have been somewhat provoked by one or two things to intervene shortly in the interests of fairness.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) said that he regretted that the Europeans in Northern Rhodesia had not earlier appreciated the work of Dr. Kaunda. It is a little unfair to blame the Europeans for that, because there was a time when Dr. Kaunda was hardly trying to get people to appreciate his work. Until he became Chief Minister, about two years ago, he was what one might call more a revolutionary than an evolutionary leader. He has since changed very much. He has now become a statesman, and therefore much more worthy of recognition than at the time of which my hon. Friend was thinking.

Mr. Longbottom

Is my hon. Friend aware that the whole basis of the policy of the United National Independence Party of Northern Rhodesia, led by Dr. Kaunda, was non-violence?

Sir R. Russell

That may be, but in those days he was not very good at preventing his party from causing violence. There is plenty of evidence on the record of violence caused by the United Independent Party, whether or not it was sponsored, or even approved by Dr. Kaunda. The fact remains that he has shown himself obviously worthy of the support of the Europeans, and he therefore commands our confidence in the future of his country much more than was the case only a few years ago.

The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) castigated the British South Africa Company for having taken a lot out of the country and, as he said, having done nothing for it. I have not looked up the history of the origin of copper mining, which, I believe, goes back to only 1926, but it is only fair to point out that if not the British South Africa Company, some other private enterprise, put a lot of money into starting copper production, whatever it may have taken out.

Mr. Stonehouse

The hon. Member has been misinformed. Copper mining in the copper belts of Katanga and Northern Rhodesia took place long before the Europeans arrived. If the hon. Member will read his early history, he will discover that the Africans were mining copper long before the first explorers arrived on the scene.

Sir R. Russell

But not on the scale which occurred when the Europeans came. That is the difference.

I support everything that has been said about the former civil servants and I hope that the Government will consider their position with the sympathy which my hon. Friend, with his own experience in years gone by, has shown for them.

Mention has been made of the economic position. One of the regrettable facts of the ending of the Federation is the breaking of the economic links between the three territories. I hope that they will be resumed in some way or another as soon as possible. In the first of two articles, which appear in the Daily Telegraph yesterday and today under the name of Lord Casey, he regrets that most of the links of the Commonwealth are between this country and the various independent members of the Commonwealth rather than between those countries themselves. One thing that the Federation did was to create that link, even if only temporary, between Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland—now called Malawi. I hope that before long those links will be resumed and that no loss of trade or economic co-operation between those countries will result from the ending of the Federation.

Like every other Member who has spoken, I wish all possible success to all people of Zambia.

6.21 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)

I want to add my congratulations and good wishes to the newly independent Zambia. I feel very strongly about this, because I spent many happy days in Northern Rhodesia and I find it a great pleasure even to be able to say a few words in our Parliament in support of this new country. Everything that ought to be said has been said about the economic requirements of Northern Rhodesia, and I hope that the House will be able to do what is necessary for it to become a thoroughly viable economy.

I am a little sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell) made the remarks that he did about Dr. Kaunda. After all, even in this very ancient democratic Parliament we have a lot of people with past histories. I could take a long time going into those histories if I wanted to. The point is that people who start off with rather revolutionary ideas learn by experience. There is no substitute for experience, and it must be a great pleasure to everyone who has watched the development of Northern Rhodesia that it has a man of Dr. Kaunda's qualifications to lead it.

As I have said, we may all start off with revolutionary ideas. When I was Member of Parliament for Wallsend I was sometimes called a Communist. That did not worry me in the slightest. But it was a little unfortunate that this point should have been mentioned. However, I do not suppose that it will worry either Dr. Kaunda or Northern Rhodesia.

Sir R. Russell

I would not have mentioned it if it had not been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley).

Dame Irene Ward

I know, but one thing leads to another. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Longbottom) is a new Member, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South is a Member of much longer standing. Sometimes, however tempting it is—and perhaps I should not be the person to say this—it is probably just as well to let sleeping dogs lie.

Mr. Cyril Bence (Dunbartonshire, East)

Cats.

Dame Irene Ward

The hon. Member says "cats". I rather enjoy being called a cat. It does not worry me a bit.

Mr. Bence

I was not referring to the hon. Lady.

Dame Irene Ward

The hon. Member referred to cats, and I naturally thought he was referring to me.

Mr. Bence

No. not ac all.

Dame Irene Ward

I want to say a few words about non-designated civil servants. I am not at all certain that it was not his past history that persuaded the Government to give my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary his very important job. Sometimes it is most helpful to do that. But has it never occurred to Her Majesty's Government that it is not a very good example to a newly emerging territory to find the Mother of Parliaments treating a section of the community in what most hon. Members who have spoken today consider to be a most ungenerous way. I am a great believer in example. Her Majesty's Government are not setting a very good example to those in Northern Rhodesia who will have to be responsible for their own civil servants in the future if the Mother of Parliaments treats those for whom she has some responsibility in an ungenerous way.

I regret that this should have been the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. I know very well how it arises. Her Majesty's Government are never interested in these details. I doubt very much whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—for whom I have a great admiration—really even put the case of the non-designated civil servants to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because if he had the Chancellor of the Exchequer, being a very fair man—if one can get at him—would have responded.

I am sure that senior Cabinet Ministers never take enough trouble really to find out how strongly back benchers feci about these matters. It is very regrettable that back benchers on both sides of the House—and also the Front Bench opposite—should have said, on a day which must be a great day for Northern Rhodesia, that Her Majesty's Government are treating unfairly the non-designated civil servants. I do not know quite how we shall be able to get out of this dilemma.

On the few occasions that I have been in Africa one of the things that has given me the greatest pleasure was to see, even during the period when the territories were working towards independence, the wonderful service that the colonial civil servants were giving to the Africans who were to take over positions of great responsibility. One learns from such an example what mutual co-operation really means. To leave this group of non-designated civil servants in the way in which they have been left brings no credit to Her Majesty's Government.

It is awfully difficult to have to knock a friend, but it sometimes has to be done, and I am going to do it. We heard from the former Prime Minister about the wind of change. I was one of those people who supported him in his reference to it. It is a funny thing, but the wind of change never has to be applied to Her Majesty's Government in relation to Treasury matters, although it has to be applied to everybody else. It must be accepted by Europeans in Africa, and a great many of them have been absolutely magnificent in consenting to being borne along by it. I wish that when the wind of change is invoked there could be a wind of change in the Treasury. I do not know how one can get out of one wind into another and I want it to be all one wind. It certainly is not, I think, a case of a wind of change for Africa and the Africans. These people have given great service in Africa and they are now our responsibility and I feel that this treatment is very ungenerous.

I know that what I say will not make any difference, but I wish to comment that I have heard my hon. Friend, the Duke of Devonshire and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State argue that this has been the decision of five Governments. I do not care whether it was the decision of 20 Governments, Her Majesty's Government ought not to have agreed to it. If back-bench Members of Parliament could know a bit more about what was going on, I do not think that the Executive would make so many ungenerous gestures towards people for whom we have a responsibility.

I know that what I say will make no difference, but when I discover that these non-designated civil servants have not the right of application to work in the home Civil Service I feel that I should like to bring a wind of change into the home Civil Service. Those in this country have no idea how lucky they are. We ask people to go abroad to seek adventure and to serve overseas. That is a spirit which I support. I like the idea of people going to serve in various capacities all over the world. But their future should be protected by the home-based people. How are we to recruit young people and persuade them to accept responsibilities all over the world, by serving in the Army, in the Air Force and in the Navy, if we applaud the effect of the wind of change in relation to other people but do not care for the future of those for whom we have a responsibility?

Mr. Bence

There will be a wind of change in October.

Dame Irene Ward

The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) says that there will be a wind of change in October. My goodness! It will be a wind from the North Pole. I had a great deal of experience in 1945 in listening to what was said about the wind of change that was coming for this country and that wind of change nearly blew this country off the map—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I heard the hon. Lady say earlier that one thing leads to another. I am afraid that the ultimate progress is to get out of order.

Dame Irene Ward

Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with you, but I did hear the hon. Gentleman say that there would be a wind of change in October. You would not expect me, with my revolutionary ideas, not to take up that matter. If an interjection comes from an hon. Member opposite, I establish my right to a democratic reply, which is what we are trying to ensure will happen in Northern Rhodesia. That is a very good example, but I will not pursue that subject because I have said all I want to say.

Now that so many hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken so strongly I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure as soon as possible that the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows a little more about his responsibility to these non-designated civil servants than, quite obviously, he knows at present. I want that assurance from my hon. Friend. I am getting very tired of having to argue for group after group of people who never seem to have any priorities;. It is true, of course, that some concessions have been announced today. When in Tanganyika, last year, I talked to a number of our own colonial civil servants. They felt, however much they could help the Africans—which they were delighted to do—that human nature being what it is, if they did not get back to this country before they were 40, they would not be able to secure anything like a comparable job.

We should not expect these non-designated civil servants to gamble with the futures of their families. They will not have any money to put down as a deposit to buy a home even if they manage to get a job here. Probably they have no money to buy furniture. They are responsible for the education of their children. We are asking too much of these non-designated civil servants. Whatever the concessions, it is all a bit in the air. We do not know what jobs may suddenly be declared redundant in Zambia or whether the jobs will be "Africanised", or whatever it is that is to happen to them, or whether promotions are to be superseded. We are asking too much of these people. They come to this great Mother of Parliaments and say that we have to do something to help them. I agree that we should. I do not quite know what we can do.

I wish to know whether my hon. Friend will convey this to the Chancellor. After all, my right hon. Friend has never had to serve in some of the services abroad where we have encouraged people to work. Having encouraged them, we have to see to it that we do not let them down, because they have done a great service for this country as well as for Africa.

6.37 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)

Practically everything that can be said in this debate on this topic has been said. As we do so often in this House of Commons, we have brought to bear, from both sides of the House, a great deal of knowledge and expertise on the subject under discussion. I think that I am the first to take part in this debate who has not actually been in Northern Rhodesia. I am glad to say that I have been in a great many African countries on a number of occasions and for considerable periods of time. It is my great regret that I have not been to the new country of Zambia.

I wish to follow the gay, colourful and incisive speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in putting to the Minister the question whether there really is a logical and, shall I say, a moral justification for the distinction which he and his colleagues draw—and, I understand, persist in drawing—between the status of the designated and the non-designated civil servants.

After all, they have done the same work and rendered the same service, in a number of cases I suppose for the same length of time. At the end of it all one finds himself in a position of very great disadvantage in pecuniary and other terms compared with the other. What is the moral justification for that? Each has to provide for his family. Each has to take thought for the future.

The Minister has been asked, both by the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth and by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and by other hon. Members, to consider whether he ought not to make further representations on behalf of these non-designated civil servants, at least in the case of those who, because their employment comes to an end instead of being Africanised, will not qualify under the new offer which has been made for even the half compensation available to those who are replaced as the process of Africanisation goes on.

I come to the main subject of our debate, after discussing what, as it were, is a side topic. The main subject is the very important and historic fact which we are commemorating, the arrival of yet one new country to complete independence, the new country of Zambia. At the risk of trespassing against the injunction uttered by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I wish perhaps to be platitudinous in saying without reserve and without qualification that I wish that country and its splendid ruler well. There have been unhappy chapters in its development. There have been frictions and discord and worse, which have led up nevertheless in the aggregate to making possible this great event, the transfer of complete sovereignty from this country to that country.

Again without qualification and without looking too far back into the past, as the hon. Member for Tynemouth rightly advised us that we should not do, I say that I greatly value and admire the record of service of Dr. Kenneth Kaunda and his colleagues. During the last two years through much of which he was Chief Minister and, since January, 1964, Prime Minister, he and those around him have done an enormous amount to make it possible to do what we are doing today. He has built up that country and created conditions in which, with complete confidence on the part both of the inhabitants of that country and those of us here who look on what is happening, complete sovereignty can be handed over. All of us, on both sides of the House, are glad to welcome this new country among the comity of nations as one of the independent Commonwealth countries.

We have just seen Malawi celebrate its independence and I understand that Dr. Banda is now on his way to this country to take his seat among the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. The time-table for the declaration of Zambia's independence has not made that possible for Zambia's Prime Minister. I gather that 24th October, 1964, was chosen chiefly because it is United Nations Day. Had it been possible for Dr. Kaunda to take his place in the council chamber when Commonwealth Prime Ministers discuss the manifold problems which lie before them, I feel certain that his wise, prudent and moderate counsel would have been greatly appreciated by his colleagues in the difficult days which lie ahead of them, particularly in those difficult days when no doubt they will be discussing the question of the independence of Southern Rhodesia—when it is to come, what form it is to take—which, I suppose, is one of the most baffling problems which lie before them today. His counsel would have been of inestimable value to them. It is unfortunate that inevitably that counsel will not be available to them.

I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East in her opening speech made reference to one or two of the economic aspects attendant upon the birth of this new country to complete independence. It is true that it has the great advantage of the Copper Belt, but it is also true, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that the Copper Belt supplies employment for only 8 per cent. of the employable population. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Berkeley) was right to remind us, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), that there is nevertheless a serious employment problem in Northern Rhodesia. The hon. Member for Lancaster pointed to the urgent need for economic and technical assistance in the first place in providing employment and in creating conditions of stable and full employment in that country, and in the second place the development of urban expansion which will be necessary as the country advances on its way to prosperity.

The output of the Copper Belt supplies, I believe, 90 per cent. of the exports of the country. The country sets sail under fair auspices. I think I am right in saying that it has been able to balance its Budget during the present year and it has obvious economic advantages which differentiate it from the neighbouring country of Malawi, whose situation economically is far more difficult. I wanted to devote my remarks, however, not so much to the economic situation in which this new country emerges to independence as to asking one or two questions—certainly not in a critical spirit, but purely in an inquiring spirit—about the constitution which will emerge when the new constitution is put in hand. What we are discussing is the terms of the Bill which paves the way to the constitution which has been agreed after full discussion between Dr. Kaunda, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Nkumbula and the British Government.

I wish to put one or two questions in a spirit of good will and purely of inquiry. No doubt every aspect of the situation has been carefully considered and rehearsed in the course of the discussions. I should like, however, to ask what is the object of putting an end to the Constitutional Council which finds its place in the January, 1964, Constitution? I was a little surprised, although no doubt there is a very good reason which commended itself to those taking part in the discussions at the provision for a tribunal which supplants the Constitutional Council. The new agreement provides that if seven members bring to the notice of the Speaker a particular Measure passed by the Assembly the Speaker will inform the Chief Justice, who will appoint the tribunal of two judges to consider the question whether or not the particular Measure in question is inconsistent with that very important section of the existing constitution which deals with human rights.

The agreement set out in the White Paper goes on to provide in paragraph 3(c): if the tribunal reported that the bill appeared to be inconsistent with the code of human rights, the President would be able … —to do one of three things. The first of those three things is to assent to the Bill. I am sure there is a very good reason for that. No doubt the reasons were fully explored in the conversations which took place. Prima facie, however, and I emphasise that I put the question purely in order to obtain information, this possibly gives rise to the apprehension that the solidly entrenched position of the provisions for human rights in the existing constitution is however slightly nevertheless to some extent impaired.

I was glad that some hon. Members referred in the debate to the position of the President, who I suppose will be Dr. Kaunda, as not following the model of the Prime Minister which we know in this country. If one looks at the various provisions of the agreement which set out the position clearly one sees that he is much nearer to the American type of President than to the British Prime Minister. He changes with the dissolution of a Parliament, he has a responsibility for policy, he is Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and he clearly is not merely the titular President which characterises some constitutions. That, I think, a very useful provision in the formulation of the Constitution and I was very glad to see it. I was glad that hon. Members on both sides of the House called attention to its insertion in the proposed Constitution.

I should like to know why paragraph 58 of the Agreement provides that the Consolidated Fund provisions of the existing Constitution are to be superseded. The present provisions in sections 92 to 99 of the Constitution are not dissimilar to those to which we are accustomed in this country. As in this country, section 97 of the existing Constitution provides that the salaries of judges are to be charged on the Consolidated Fund. We are used to that as a constitutional device, and we regard it as one way in which the complete and absolute independence of the judiciary is buttressed. The salaries of our judges are not carried on the Vote of any Department, but are a charge on the Consolidated Fund. I wonder why—and I put this simply in a spirit of inquiry—it was thought desirable in the new financial arrangements that are to be embodied in the Constitution that is to come into force, that an end should be put to the existing Consolidated Fund.

I do not know, and I have not been able to discover from the existing Agreement, whether there is not a comparable provision to be introduced to guarantee the salaries of the judges, although there are some indications that there may be an intention that that should be done. I hope that it will be done, and I feel certain that the wisdom of Dr. Kaunda and his colleagues has already considered it. As one of Dr. Kaunda's many well wishers in this country, I am sure that he would share the very great concern we all have that the judiciary in his country as in ours will be, and will remain, completely and absolutely independent of any possible outside pressures. I raise the question of the Consolidated Fund simply to emphasise, and draw attention to that rather important point.

I should like now to make one or two slightly technical points on the Bill itself. I do not know whether the Minister—if he has the permission of the House to speak a second time, as I hope he will, if only to reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth who challenged him—will be able to tell me what provision in the Bill continues in being the existing Constitution until it can, after independence, be amended so as to accord with the provisions of the Agreement. If it is Clause 2, what words in Clause 2 do it? Is it the word "instrument"? Is the Constitution regarded as an "instrument" within the meaning of that Clause? Purely as an act of drafting, I think that it would have been much easier to make clear to the reader that the Constitution is preserved in being by more direct language, rather than by an indirect allusion, if it is one, in the word "instrument" in Clause 2.

There is also the question of the retention of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which I was extremely glad to see. I think that many people feel that perhaps the future rôle of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council might be to be really an ultimate court of appeal for the Commonwealth, charged with the duty of evolving law common to all Commonwealth countries, or common to most of them—it differs in some, as we know—and keeping it one coherent whole applicable everywhere; and that the Judicial Committee as a Board would rise in status and stature as the Commonwealth continued to expand and add new members to its numbers.

Technically, I suppose that the Board would have to tender its advice, not to Her Majesty but to the President of Zambia, just as it is tendered at the moment, to the President of Nigeria, for example. The Committee would need to have special powers given to it to do that, as the Board at the moment has the jurisdiction of hearing complaints by subjects of Her Majesty. This would be a new jurisdiction as, indeed, the jurisdiction to hear appeals from Nigeria is new. I suppose that it is intended by Order in Council under Clause 5 to give the Board that new jurisdiction, but I should like to know whether that is the case.

The only other point I want to mention is the Agreement with Barotseland. I do not know whether, in the course of the discussions on the Agreement with Borotseland, which finds its place in Clause 8, the device was considered that was used in the case of Uganda. There, equally, one had the situation in which constituent countries had to be dealt with, and the device was adopted to give the right of appeal direct from the High Court of Uganda, in that case, to the Privy Council.

Again, that is a provision that enhances the status of the Privy Council, and I should like to know whether consideration was given to that as a possible constitutional device when the status of Barotseland was considered. I do not say that it should have been adopted, and if it was not adopted there were no doubt ample reasons for that decision. I can see reasons why it was not adopted, but I should like to hear the Minister's reply, and know what the thinking was.

I have thought it right to raise these matters, but I would conclude by reechoing what has been said several times, but not too often, about our feeling of the solemnity of an occasion which witnesses the coming into the circle of Commonwealth countries of yet one more member. We greatly hope that this new member will move forward to prosperity, that it will be an example to be followed by others, and will be attended by success in the many centuries—and, I hope, thousands of years—of its future existence.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Tilney

By leave of the House, I should like to try to answer at least some of the questions that have been put to me. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) will forgive me if I write to him on some of the technical points he raised, especially as there are a number of other questions that I want to answer in full.

I know that the House was much interested in what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). Her first question was whether the sum to be given to Northern Rhodesia was adequate. That point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Longbottom), among others, and it is something that we shall have to discuss in the coming autumn.

I found myself in considerable agreement with the hon. Lady when she talked of the vast agricultural problem that besets Northern Rhodesia. I do not believe that it exists only there, but that it is a problem over which the whole Western world has to help Asia and Africa. Wherever one goes in Africa—and, to some extent in Asia, too—one finds the problem of a growing urban proletariat ripe, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) said, for Russian and Chinese vying for control. I only wish that it had been the Tynemouth ex-Wallsend brand of Communism fighting for control. That is what is happening all over the world, and there are those of us who think that there might, in the coming years, be a fifth freedom, which is the right to work.

All this costs a great deal of money, and I only wish that this country had the capital that we would like to be able to provide for these many necessary schemes. One of the schemes must be to try to keep the people on the land and away from the drift to the towns; to keep them in touch with the soil, and see that the soil produces greater wealth-much greater wealth. Whether we talk in terms of the co-operative system, the plantation system, or some other way, all these countries in Africa need that sort of help and guidance but, as I say, it costs a great deal of money.

The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East and some of my hon. Friends spoke about designated and non-designated civil servants. This is a very difficult problem. A line must be drawn somewhere. In my opinion, the Northern Rhodesian Government have gone a long way; in fact, they have gone further in the way of help than many other countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked about the one-sixteenth commutation. I confirm that what my hon. Friend said was correct. There is an improved commutation of pension for non-designated officers and ex-federal officers who opt to non-designated terms. The entitlement is to commute an additional one-sixteenth of pension for each completed year of service after the operative date, namely, 10th January of this year, and up to a maximum of two-sixteenths.

The hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Foley) referred to the massive royalties which have been received by the British South Africa Company, which we all know as "the Chartered Company" What hon. Gentlemen forget is that the Company was formed in 1889 and the first dividend which was ever paid was in 1924. This has some slight bearing, too, on what the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) said. Incidentally, I regret that the hon. Gentleman attacked my own chief, the Secretary of State, for not being present. I understand that the Ngoni have a proverb which says: A chief is like a rubbish heap. Everything gets thrown on to it. That seems to some extent to be the position of my right hon. Friend at the present time.

The hon. Member for Wednesbury complained about the profits. He urged a levelling down. He made a general, socialising speech. He said, or implied, that the people of Northern Rhodesia had been mining the copper for years before the Europeans came.

Mr. Stonehouse

That is true.

Mr. Tilney

It may be true that they were mining copper oxide off the surface. It was not rich. The mines now in operation go down 4,000 ft. It costs a great deal of money to sink shafts to anything like that depth. If the hon. Gentleman had his way, he would frighten off all private enterprise from investing in any of the developing countries. I should like to see it done in partnership as much as possible with the developing countries, but at present scores of millions of pounds of private enterprise money goes overseas every year, to the mutual benefit of this country and the developing countries.

Mrs. White

Would not the Under-Secretary agree that there is a great difference between possible returns on the exploitation of mineral rights and the payment of royalties? After all, the people who are getting the copper from 4,000 ft. down are not the Chartered Company. They are Selection Trust and Anglo-American. It is a very different matter when it comes to the payment of royalties.

Mr. Tilney

I do not want to pursue the historical argument about how the royalties came into being. The present position of the Chartered Company rests on the 1950 Agreement, to which the British Government and the Northern Rhodesian Government are parties. We remain a party to the Agreement until independence and will be ready to lend our good offices in any way that may contribute helpfully to the future relations between the Northern Rhodesian Government and the Chartered Company.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, also referring to designated and non-designated civil servants, complained that the British Government were being a little mean about not paying towards the compensation terms. Her Majesty's Government never do pay lump sum compensation for non-designated officers, who are always regarded as the responsibility of the local government. For Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service officers, for whom the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been directly responsible, Her Majesty's Government pay half the compensation, and the local government pay the other half. I think that the Northern Rhodesian Government are being extremely generous in their treatment of the non-designated civil servants.

Mr. Turton

The point is that in the case of Northern Rhodesia the difference between "non-designated" and "designated" is a vastly different matter from the problem which faced Her Majesty's Government elsewhere in the Commonwealth. That is why, as the Northern Rhodesian Government are making a generous offer, the British Government should be equally generous.

Mr. Tilney

If my right hon. Friend has any particular case in mind, I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Cooperation, who deals with these matters.

I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) whether these officers would be entitled to apply for the home Civil Service. I will make inquiries about this and write to my hon. Friend after I have gone into the matter with the Civil Service Commission. The Overseas Services Resettlement Bureau will be available to help the non-designated civil servants, just as much as it helps the designated ones.

Mr. Henry Clark (Antrim, North)

Is not the very fact that the Overseas Services Resettlement Bureau is to be allowed to assist these men full recognition of the fact that they are being driven out of their jobs and coming back to this country? Is it not completely unrealistic to continue to divide these officers into two classes, even in spite of past history?

Mr. Tilney

I am sure that note has been taken of what has been said on both sides of the House. I state what the position is at present. The hon. Member for Wednesbury said that European salaries were too high.

Mr. Sronehouse

The Under-Secretary misunderstood me. African salaries are too low. It is the gap.

Mr. Tilney

The hon. Gentleman referred to the great gap between European and African salaries and virtually implied that the salaries of Europeans were too high, as I understood him. Naturally, one would like everyone to have greater incomes, but where does it come from? It can come only from production and trade. If the hon. Gentleman tries to make conditions for Europeans more difficult in many countries, we shall not get the people that expand trade and production, to the benefit both of this country and of the developing countries.

Mr. Stonehouse

I accept that, but is the Under-Secretary not aware that in the past Africans have been working alongside Europeans, doing almost exactly the same jobs, but receiving about 10 per cent. of their incomes?

Mr. Tilney

That is hardly a matter which comes under the Bill. Zambia will be independent at the end of this year and it is up to the Zambian Government to produce what legislation they wish. I was delighted to be knocked about, as it were, by my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. I do not believe that the Treasury has been as unfriendly as she makes out. Certainly, in the last few years much more money has been forthcoming to Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service; but I promise that I will see that the points she made are brought to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Cooperation.

Dame Irene Ward

And the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Tilney

The hon. Member for West Bromwich was a little unfair about the agreement with the Litunga. There were long and patient negotiations with the Litunga before he came to London. For these we provided, at our expense, legal advisers, one of them being one of my hon. Friends, and an administrative adviser. It must also be borne in mind that the Independence Conference was confined to political parties.

The settlement—namely, the Barotse Agreement of 1964—is, I believe, a very fair one in the circumstances. As to the basic premise that Barotseland is to become an integral part of Zambia, the Litunga has not lost much power. He still has very considerable power inside his domain, and it is right to say that we have not deprived the Litunga of this power. It was a freely negotiated agreement.

I turn to some of the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport. He is not the only Member of this House not to have been to Northern Rhodesia. My aeroplane had just landed at Livingstone and I was hoping to see the Victoria Falls. Unfortunately, the plane was late and night had fallen. That was the nearest I have ever been to that splendid country.

The right hon. and learned Member for Newport made a number of points about the Constitution and since I doubt whether I will be able to answer all his points at such short notice, I hope that he will allow me to write to him. He asked about the Constitutional Council and I can assure him that there is only one such Council, namely, in Southern Rhodesia. The present one had failed to commend itself to the Northern Rhodesian Government and it was not considered at the Conference that its retention was of any great importance.

It would be as well for the right hon. and learned Member to look at paragraph 3 of the Conference Report. He will see there the compromise formula whereby seven or more M.P.s can represent that a Bill conflicts with the Bill of Rights and that the Chief Justice would then appoint a tribunal of two High Court or retired judges. That is quite a reasonable solution to this problem. If the tribunal thinks the submission frivolous or vexatious, it need go no further. If, however, it reports an apparent inconsistency with the Bill of Rights, the President can consent to the Bill, refuse to consent to it or can return the Bill to the Assembly.

Sir F. Soskice

What slightly surprised me about it was that if the tribunal reported that the Bill appeared to be inconsistent with the Code of Human Rights, the President is given the power, nevertheless, to accept it. That was the question I put to the Under-Secretary. I wondered why, even though the tribunal might report that the Bill was inconsistent with the human rights provisions, it would be possible for the President to accept it.

Mr. Tilney

I understand that this was a compromise agreement; that there was considerable argument about it, but that this is the position as it stands at present.

I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Newport in the tribute that he paid to both Zambia and Dr. Kaunda. Yesterday morning, at Westminster Abbey, I was privileged to take part in the thanksgiving service for the independence of Zambia's Neighbour, Malawi. Coming out, the congregation were halted for a short time some way short of the great West Door. I looked down at my feet and saw, on the massive black marble slab, the golden lettering: Brought by faithful hands over land and sea, here rests David Livingstone, missionary, traveller, philanthropist; Born March 19th, 1813 at Blantyre, Lanarkshire, died May 1st, 1873 at Chitambo's Village, Ulala. Fourteen years before Dr. Livingstone had sailed from my own City of Liverpool, at a time when the Zambesi was virtually unknown to European man. He had died in a corner of what was to become, for a time, Northern Rhodesia, and this year Zambia. Two faithful and tough Africans had carried his embalmed body, wrapped like a bale of cloth, 1,500 miles to the coast. There is an Ila saying, "An axe shaft is made out of an ordinary piece of wood". But what a path has been hewn since then. These two Africans were ordinary men. But what an act of friendship—what an inspiration for joint endeavour in the years to come.

I read on. The proud phrases have, perhaps, a somewhat Victorian ring to them now: For 30 years his life was spent in an unwearied effort, Ho evangelize the native races. To explore the undiscovered secrets, To abolish the desolating slave trade". Modern civilisation has come. The maps have been made. Slavery has gone. I think David Livingstone would have rejoiced were he here today.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

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

Committee Tomorrow.