Lords Sitting of 13 July 1953

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION BILL
  2.35 p m.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Swinton.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly,
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
  Clause 1:
  Power by Order in Council to establish federation, etc.
  1.—(1) Her Majesty may by an Order in Council—

  (a) provide for the federation of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland (in this section referred to as "the Territories") and for that purpose—

  (i) provide for the establishment of a Federal Government, a Federal Legislature, an African Affairs Board, a Federal Supreme Court and such other Federal authorities as may appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient;

  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, in subsection (1) (a) (i), after "Legislature," to insert:
  "to be elected on a franchise which shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State and any change in which shall be subject to the like approval,"
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move the first Amendment, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Lucan. This is the first of four Amendments which we have put down, and which we believe, if accepted, will make for better relations between ourselves and the African people. I do not propose to repeat much of what was said during the two-days' debate last week. We have had very little encouragement to put down Amendments—or, perhaps I should say, the noble Viscount who wound up that debate said that he did not mind our putting down Amendments, but he gave us little encouragement that they
  526
  would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, however reasonable and sound the Amendments might be, however much they might improve the Bill, or however much they might improve the relations between the parties concerned—and good relations are essential if federation is to be successful. In those circumstances, one can only regard the Committee stage of this Bill as either a farce or as an opportunity of once more putting a point of view. One can have little or no hope that any arguments one puts forward will have any effect at all. That is very much like government by decree—indeed, the whole of the case for not accepting any Amendments is based upon that argument, and this Bill is more or less a decree.
  I want to address myself, first of all, to the reasons why Her Majesty's Government have announced in advance that they will not accept Amendments. The first is that the scheme—and although the scheme is not officially before us to-day, it is impossible to discuss this Bill and certainly the proposed Amendments, without reference to the scheme—is the result of an Agreement made between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Southern Rhodesia and the other two Territories. That is the first reason why, I understand, Amendments will not be accepted. I would suggest, however, that there would be no particular difficulty about going back to the Government of Southern Rhodesia, if it should be decided to make any Amendments to the Bill, and getting their agreement. If it subsequently transpired that that was not possible, or if the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill were prepared to come forward to-day and say that the Government of Southern Rhodesia would not agree to any Amendments—that they would not agree to one jot or tittle of this Bill being altered—then he might be on stronger ground. But for him to say merely that the Government are not prepared to go back is not a very strong case. Moreover, on that point we are dealing only with the Government of Southern Rhodesia. So far as Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia are concerned, all the negotiations are between ourselves; they are, more or less, in the family—the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, shakes his head. I shall be interested to hear him explain who has been

  527
  carrying on the negotiations on behalf of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland; and whether, in fact, they are also independent parties, as is the case with Southern Rhodesia, and not part of ourselves.
  The other reason for not accepting Amendments, as put forward by Mr. Oliver Lyttelton in another place, is that the kind of Amendments put forward there were Amendments to take certain things out of the scheme and put them in the Bill. He thought it was untidy to have one part of the scheme in the Bill and another part of it separate. If we were merely considering tidiness, and nothing else, there might be a good deal to be said for that point of view. But, after all, this scheme is not being put forward merely for the sake of administrative tidiness. We hope that this scheme will be acceptable to the people on whom, unfortunately, it is to be imposed; and anything that we can do to make it more acceptable, regardless of administrative tidiness, should be done. Those are the reasons which have been put forward—and so far as I know, the only reasons—why these Amendments are not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
  In spite of the cold water which has been thrown in advance on these Amendments, I should like to put the case for the first Amendment. It deals with the method by which the Assembly is to be elected. It deals with the election of the first Assembly, the Federal Legislature, and with subsequent elections. Under the scheme as it stands, on pages 16 and 17, the qualifications and disqualifications for registration, the making of the register and so on, are, in the first instance, to be the same as they are at the present time—in other words, the existing registers will be used for the first election. I should like to remind your Lordships of what that means in the case of Southern Rhodesia, which is to have the predominance in membership of the Assembly—fourteen seats out of twenty-six. The African vote is round about 4,000, out of an African population of about2 million. The European vote is 129,000, and it is on that franchise that the first Assembly is to be elected. It is a basis which is hardly likely to be acceptable to the Africans, but that is what is laid down in the scheme; and at
  528
  present there is no machinery by which the Secretary of State, or anybody else, can alter it as regards the first election.
  The purpose of this Amendment is to secure that the first election, as well as any changes, shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. In other words, what we want in the first instance, for the first Assembly, is a basis of franchise which will be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. I do not suggest for one moment that it is practical politics to-day to give every African adult suffrage. I did not suggest that on the Second Reading, and I do not suggest it to-day. But that is a very different thing from saying that a population of 2 million Africans are to be represented in the franchise by 4,000 electors, and no more. I recognise that under present conditions it is unfortunately the case that both the European population and the African population are likely to vote en bloc.) Africans will vote for Africans, and Europeans will vote for Europeans, and the mere counting of heads will not be a true reflection of what we want to achieve. I agree with what Mr. Lyttelton said in one of his more enlightened moments, that we want to reach a state of affairs in Africa where people will vote not on the basis of nationality but as Africans, on the basis of what is good for Africa as a whole. When that time comes then, of course, it would be proper to give the black Africans themselves adult suffrage. At the present time, the effect of the suffrage as it stands is that undoubtedly the first Assembly will be elected on the basis of European domination, and more particularly of Southern Rhodesian domination. There is no way out of it under the present scheme. If that is what is wanted, then, of course, the scheme provides for it; but that is not likely to secure the result which we all have in mind.
  When we get to the second election, then it is possible under the scheme to provide for a new franchise. But, mark you, my Lords, this new franchise has to be acceptable to two-thirds of the Assembly. Once more this new franchise has to be acceptable to the Southern Rhodesian elected members, because without their vote it is physically impossible to get a two-thirds majority. In

  529
  other words, Southern Rhodesian members have a complete veto on whether or not there is to be any change in the franchise, because the Bill which is required to be passed in the Assembly requires an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total membership of the Assembly. That can be secured only, as I say, with the help of the Southern Rhodesian vote. Therefore, unless the Southern Rhodesian vote is in favour of any change, not only the first election but every subsequent election will be carried out on the basis of the existing franchise.
  This Amendment is designed to give the Secretary of State a greater locus than he now has in the matter and, particularly—and this is most important—to ensure that the first election is properly carried out under a franchise approved by the Secretary of State and not necessarily under the existing franchise. In my view, unless we do something of this sort, unless we take some steps which we have not hitherto taken to secure African approval and agreement to this scheme, we are starting off in the most unfortunate manner. I said on Second Reading—some of my noble friends, I know, did not agree with me—that in the end, when you have done everything possible to carry the African with you, it may be necessary to impose some kind of scheme so lone as we have responsibility. But I said, equally, that that position had not yet arisen; that we had not done everything we possibly could to secure African approval. This Amendment, and some of the others which will be moved later are designed to assist in creating a better atmosphere and providing the Africans with greater safeguards and assurances in the hope that thereby we may start off this scheme in a better atmosphere. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 1, line 10, after ("Legislature,") insert the said words.—(Lord Silkin.)
  2.53 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: Nobody would contest the fact that the franchise is the foundation and the basis of any form of representative Government, and that is our reason for putting forward this Amendment to the Bill. My noble friend has explained that the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that no general election shall take place
  530
  in the Federation unless the electoral law for the election has been approved by the Secretary of State in London. Under the Bill as it stands, the whole initiative for changing the electoral law rests with the Federal Legislature, in which, as we know, the Europeans of Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia will have the predominant position. The first election, as we know, is to take place, according to the Bill, on the existing franchise in the three Territories. But subsequently there may be a very long period before the Europeans, with whom the initiative rests, are satisfied that the Africans are fit for any enlargement of the franchise. Years may pass, general elections may come and go, and still the majority in the Federal Legislature may do nothing to enlarge the franchise; and Her Majesty's Government in this country, of whatever complexion it may be in some years' time, will be powerless to do anything to enlarge this franchise.
  Noble Lords may say, "But you must have confidence in the Europeans of the Rhodesias." It is a very few years since in Southern Rhodesia the qualification for the vote in the case of Africans was raised. This was done, presumably, in order to avoid the enlargement of the franchise due to the higher wages paid to the Africans. The money limit was raised (the size of the increase is immaterial) in order to prevent more Africans from getting the vote. What guarantee have we that that course will not be pursued by the Federal Legislature in the future? Moreover, what guarantee have we that, if the economic trends are reversed and wages tend to fall, instead of to rise, the Federal Legislature will then lower the income limit for the vote? If not, somebody ought to ensure that the African franchise is not reduced but progressively enlarged.
  Education will increase. The number of educated Africans, certainly those who can pass the literacy test, and no doubt, also, those who achieve higher education, will increase. All that will mean that in justice, and if we are to see our pledges to the Africans fulfilled, the vote ought to be enlarged. I should like to draw the Committee's attention to the Preamble to the Federal Scheme. In paragraph (d) it says that the Territorial Governments of Northern Rhodesia and

  531
  Nyasaland will remain responsible, subject to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, for the local and territorial political advancement of the peoples of those countries. If we are to retain responsibility for seeing that the people of those countries get a gradual, progressive political advancement in their Territorial spheres, what will happen if in the Federal sphere there is no political advancement? It seems to me that there are great dangers ahead in the Federation if any attempt is made to prevent the natural progressive advancement of the African people. It is for that reason that I support this Amendment.
  3.0 p.m.
  LORD CALVERLEY: I should like to support my noble friend and to ask the Committee to give this Amendment their serious consideration. In the debate last Monday there was no Party spirit shown—at any rate that was my impression, though the Lord Chairman may differ from me—butthere was a feeling that federation must come, and that the best way to make it a success was to give confidence to the native population by showing that they were to have a fair deal. As the Bill now stands, to use the old scriptural saying, it will be "easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle" than for some of these natives in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia to be able to make themselves articulate, directly articulate, instead of having to delegate their voices to some nominated officer or perhaps some "stooge" put in as a white man to represent their interests. The last thing that this country would like to do is to have another battle royal and a division as we are having at the present time a little further South of Southern Rhodesia.
  What does this Amendment ask? It asks this Committee to agree that the franchise, before it is enacted, shall have the approval of one of Her Majesty's Ministers, the Colonial Secretary. That again shows that we are not trying to debate this issue in a very narrow way, because the Colonial Secretary, I would remind the Committee, is a Conservative. Those of us who have known Mr. Oliver Lyttelton for some considerable term of years know that he has virtues, as well as faults. We want to encourage those
  532
  virtues and we ask this Committee to accept this Amendment, so that we can give some degree of confidence to the native population in the three Territories and to allay their suspicions. Instead of rancour and hatred, we need to draw upon the biggest bank of good will that we can find. That is why I am appealing to the Committee to accept this Amendment.
  3.2 p.m.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): The noble Lord who moved this Amendment began—quite rightly, if I may say so—with some rather general observations, and I think I shall best serve the convenience of the Committee if I reply with some general observations which, as the noble Lord truly said, apply to all the Amendments, and then say a word or two about this specific Amendment. As the noble Lord said, the Amendments on the Paper, like those moved in another place, fall into two categories. First of all, there are Amendments which would alter the scheme—I think, as a matter of fact, that all the Amendments would alter the scheme—while others seek to reproduce bits of the scheme in a United Kingdom Act.
  As regards the Amendments which seek to alter the scheme itself, the noble and learned Earl the Leader of the Opposition anticipated, on Second Reading, the argument against acceptance. While he did not agree with it, he virtually accepted it. Here we have a scheme which has been agreed by the four Governments—the noble and learned Earl likened it to a treaty. Well, it is; and any variation would require the agreement of all the parties to it. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said: "It is very easy to do that. All you have to do is to telephone to the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and say, 'Would you like this or that amendment?' and no doubt you could settle it on the telephone." He said, "Of course, you need not bother about Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia because you have got them in your pocket." But I do not think they would at all accept that position. As a matter of fact, the noble Lord asked, "Who negotiated for them?—presumably, the Colonial Secretary." Not at all. The Colonial Secretary was, of course, there,

  533
  but in the Conferences—those held during the Labour Government's term and those held in ours—both Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland were represented by their own very strong and representative delegations. The Governors of both Territories were there, fortified by their Law Officers and by others—by official members of their Legislative Councils, by elected members and by unofficial members representing African interests. They had a very great deal to say during these discussions. So certainly it is not just the case of two people having to deal with it.
  But really it would be quite hopeless to start in like this. If one person wants to alter a thing, the other person says: "If you begin altering it. I should like also to alter it in some ways." Here is a scheme which it has taken over two years to evolve, in months and months of conferences, and discussions going on between the conferences. As we said in the Report signed by Her Majesty's Ministers who were there, by the Governors of the two Territories and by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, "We believe this to be the best scheme that we can evolve." Certainly, it would be quite impossible to reopen the whole matter now. In effect, as was accepted in the Second Reading debate, the issue before the House, as was fairly put by speakers opposite, is: Parliament must really either accept or reject. The whole purpose of the Bill is to authorise an Order in Council to give effect to the scheme.
  To put bits of the scheme into the United Kingdom Act would, in fact, also alter the whole purpose and way in which the scheme would work. It is not just a case of administrative tidiness. In effect, it would equally alter the scheme because your Lordships will observe that if a part of the scheme were put into a United Kingdom Act, then that part could be altered only by a United Kingdom Act. That is the purpose. But that, of course, would be a complete breach of the scheme, because of the way in which the scheme is drawn up. This was so under the earlier version of the scheme. These matters which come within the jurisdiction of the Federation were always to be susceptible of amendment by the Federal Legislature, and, within the Federation, subject to all the safeguards which are inserted. The scheme provides that the Federation shall be run by a Federal
  534
  Government and Legislature, subject to special provisions for reservation, for consent of the Territories to certain provisions or amendments, for a requisite majority, and the like.
  There has been considerable criticism by speakers opposite, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, of the iniquity of the two-thirds majority. What is the history of the two-thirds majority? The two-thirds majority was proposed by the United Kingdom Government after consultation with the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, as a protection for the Africans, and accepted by Southern Rhodesia. That is the history of it, and therefore to ask us to knock out the two-thirds majority is not—
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: I must assure the noble Viscount that I certainly never suggested that.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Well it certainly was suggested. I acquit the noble Earl, but certainly Lord Silkin said so. I thought the gravamen of both speeches was: "Here you require a two-thirds majority, but you can never get a two-thirds majority because the Southern Rhodesians can always block it." If that is not the argument, then I do not know what is the argument which I am asked to meet.
  LORD SILKIN: Perhaps I can help. It may be my fault in not having put the case clearly. The case I was making was that the scheme provides for possible changes in the Constitution, but they require a two-thirds majority. The first franchise is the existing one, which in my view is unsatisfactory. I presume a change would be a change for the better. But I was making the point, for what it was worth (I hope it is a good point), that a change requires a two-thirds majority, and a two-thirds majority can be obtained only with the votes of the Southern Rhodesians; therefore, any change is entirely in the hands of the Southern Rhodesians, and it is not in their interest to make that change.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I do not think I greatly misrepresented the noble Lord—either he is objecting to two-thirds or he is not objecting to two-thirds. The two-thirds majority was adopted in the interests of the Africans. Of course, what he would like would be a provision, "Heads I win, tails you lose"; but you

  535
  must take the swings with the roundabouts. If you are going to put in a provision that there shall be a two-thirds majority for a constitutional change, you cannot say, "I will have it for constitutional changes I do not want, but I will not have it for constitutional changes which I personally would favour." The House has to make up its mind whether or not it is a good thing to have a two-thirds majority. On the whole, noble Lords opposite think that we were right in proposing two-thirds as a safeguard for the Africans, and that must then work.
  What is the procedure? The procedure for amending the Constitution is laid down in paragraphs 144 and 145 of the scheme. To introduce a special class of provisions which would be in the exclusive control of United Kingdom Parliament would run counter to all that. Indeed, federation and the Federal Constitution would be impossible to work on any other basis than that which we have proposed. Either you believe in federation and in the honesty and the integrity of the men who will form the Government and the Parliament, or you do not. If you do not believe in federation, then you ought to vote against it. If you do believe in federation, you must have a Federal Scheme in which you trust those people who are to work it, subject, of course, to the safeguards that have been introduced. I think that certainly a great majority of this House took that view on Second Reading. If that is so, then surely our duty is to try to make it work and to help it to work. For those reasons alone I could not accept this specific Amendment.
  But actually the purpose of the Amendment is provided for in the Constitution. Paragraph 16 (1) and (2) provides that the Bill governing the election of the elected members shall be passed at any time after the first election. It is true that it requires a two-thirds majority, but it will require the approval of the Secretary of State, because any Bill dealing with electoral law has to be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure. That has always been in the scheme. The first election (and these clauses would apply to the first election as a whole) is governed by paragraphs 18 and 19 of the
  536
  scheme. Let me point out that we did not originate that; we inherited it. Similar provisions as regards the initial election, the subsequent electoral law and the passage of the electoral law, have been in the scheme from the start—from the moment the official Report was made by the Officials and published in June, 1951. Though a great many changes have been made in this scheme in the course of the two and a half years of discussion, those particular provisions were never challenged by the Labour Government when they were in office. We inherited them from the Labour Government, subject, I agree, to the alteration about the two-thirds majority, which we put in as a safeguard for the Africans. But, subject to that, the provisions that exist in this scheme—the provisions for the first election and for the subsequent elections—are exactly as we inherited them from the Labour Government, and in all the long discussions that have taken place I do not believe they have ever been challenged.
  During the interim period, the Governor General has the duty of bringing the scheme into operation. He has the power to do whatever is necessary. He has the power of initiating and making regulations to govern the first election—and those are laid down in paragraph 18 (2) and (3).I would observe that, in making those regulations, he is bound to take the general plan of the scheme—that is to say, he is bound to take and adapt the electoral law as he finds it in the three constituencies; but he is not bound to accept the advice of the interim Ministry. In framing those regulations he acts in his own discretion. He can differ from the interim Ministry; indeed, throughout that period he acts subject to the approval of the Secretary of State. To sum it up briefly, I would say that this Amendment is unacceptable, because it alters the scheme, it is inconsistent with the whole structure of the Federation, and in fact it is unnecessary, because the requirement for the approval of the Secretary of State in the first election is laid down; and the approval of the Secretary of State is necessary in subsequent electoral laws, because an electoral law has to be reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure.
  3.18 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: We all realise that the Secretary of State has rather less room for manœuvring in this matter than is normally the case. I do not know whether on that he is to be commiserated with or congratulated. However, owing to the fact that the scheme has been adopted, we know, as realists, that he has not very much room for manœuvring. But he is a sufficiently good Parliamentarian to agree that the fact that the Government, rightly or wrongly, have adopted this way of doing things in no way limits the authority of Parliament; Parliament is perfectly entitled to take what line it thinks proper. In particular, with regard to all these Amendments (I will follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in discussing them rather widely for the moment) I think the fact that he has not much room for manœuvring makes it all the more important that, so far as he possibly can, he should make a reassuring statement about the intention behind the whole scheme, because the vice, the trouble that we suffer from in this matter, is really a lack of confidence. It is the lack of confidence which the Africans feel towards the intentions of some of the white settlers which is the nigger in this woodpile. If only we could restore that confidence, or eliminate that lack of confidence, all would be well. The difficulty that arises reminds me of what the noble Viscount always used to say to me in the old days: "Put it in the Bill."
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I never said that about a Treaty.
  EARL JOWITT: But this is a Bill which we are discussing. "Put it in the Bill," is a very sound principle. If it is in the Bill it can be altered only by Act of Parliament. If it is not in the Bill, what is the position? I confess that I am not perfectly clear about that point arid I think that some of us on this side of the House would like some statement about it. It may be that noble Lords opposite have the whole thing crystal clear, but I confess I have not, so I am asking a question. I want to know whether this is the right answer. Be it remembered that up to the present we have not seen the Order in Council. I do not suggest for a moment that the Government are going to produce an Order in Council which differs from the scheme contained in the White Paper.
  538
  Obviously they would not be guilty of any such conduct as that. On the other hand, it is by no means certain that they will succeed in reproducing in the Order in Council what they have put in comparatively simple language: in the Federal Scheme. I shall be glad if the noble Viscount will be good enough to tell me whether I am right or wrong, but as I understand the position it is as follows. If the Order in Council provides that certain provisions which it contains may be altered, then those provisions may be altered without the necessity of any Act of Parliament.
  Viscount SWINTON: You mean an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament?
  EARL JOWITT: Yes, an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. I am not pontificating about it; I am asking for information. If, on the other hand, the Order in Council makes certain requirements and does not provide any machinery for alteration of those requirements, then that Order in Council can be altered only by Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but I think it is rather fundamental to get that point clear. I should like the noble Viscount to intervene in a moment, if he will be good enough to do so, in order to reply to me on that matter, because I think he will agree that it is important. In another place Mr. Oliver Lyttellon said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 516 (No. 126), col. 1944):
  "The intervention of the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely misplaced, because no alteration in the Constitution and, consequently, in this Clause, can take place unless the House agrees. That covers the whole question. What I am anxious to avoid is to legislate over the heads of other people. In these matters it is quite impossible that any alteration could take place in the Constitution without the agreement of the House"
  That phrase "agreement of the House" is somewhat ambiguous.
  If we look at the Bill which we are now being asked to pass we find this on the second page in Clause 1 (2):
  "An Order in Council under subsection (1) of this section may authorise the amendment or revocation of any of its provisions in any manner specified by the Order in relation to those provisions respectively and may apply all or any of the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, to any instrument made in pursuance of that authority, but save as

  539
  may be so authorised that Order in Council shall not be capable of being revoked or amended except by Act of Parliament."
  Now those are the words in the Bill. I have read those words in conjunction with Mr. Lyttelton's explanation, and my own feeling is this—it may be quite wrong, but this is what I believe to be the position. If the Order in Council contains a provision and does not provide for any alteration of that provision, then it is necessary to have an Act of Parliament to alter such provision. If, on the other hand, the Order in Council—as it may well do—makes some stipulation but says it may be altered by a succeeding Order in Council, then an Act of Parliament is not necessary, but a further Order in Council is necessary, which, of course, would have to have affirmative approval and, in that sense, the agreement of Parliament. I do not know whether I am right, and I should be grateful to the noble Viscount if he would tell me. It may be that he is in a position to answer me now, or perhaps he would like me to wait for a while. I think this is an important matter, not merely for this Amendment, but also with regard to some of the succeeding Amendments
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: That is certainly a very fair question. I will try to answer it as fairly and as simply as I can. The Order in Council will reproduce in the most exact legal language that can be devised—we have had the lawyers busy on it—the scheme. And it will carry out the scheme exactly. It will not go beyond the scheme, but, of course, it will fulfil the scheme. The extent to which, and the basis on which, the scheme operates is this. There are certain things which the Federal Government and the Federal Parliament are to be entitled to do—there is the exclusive list, which contains the subjects over which they have complete jurisdiction, and the concurrent list containing subjects over which there is concurrent jurisdiction.
  The Federation is given powers within the limits laid down in the Constitution. The Federation will have no power outside the Constitution. Your Lordships will recall those points about Protectorate status, and so on, and about land, on which I think I completely satisfied the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop
  540
  of Chichester and the House the other day. The Federation will have no power to deal with those. But the provisions of the Constitution are not immutable within the powers which are given. The noble and learned Earl will see, if he looks at Part 3 of Chapter IX of the White Paper No. 8754, that it is there laid down precisely how amendments in the Constitution can be made. Part 3 is headed: "Amendment of Constitution," and it begins with paragraph 144, which starts off in this way:
  "Subject to paragraph 145 of this Scheme the provisions of the Constitution…"
  Paragraph 145 lays down that there can be no amendment of the Legislative Lists for ten years unless all three Governments agree to it. So Paragraph 144 reads:
  "(1) Subject to paragraph 145 of this Scheme the provisions of the Constitution will be subject to amendment by Federal law:

  Provided that a Bill for the amendment of the Constitution (in this paragraph referred to as a 'constitutional Bill')—

  (a)will require to be passed by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the total membership of the Federal Assembly excluding the Speaker; and

  (b) will not be assented to by the Governor-General but will be reserved by him for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure."

  By that is meant, of course, that the matter comes back here; in effect, it reserves Parliamentary control, because Parliament can always challenge what the Secretary of State does.
  There is a further safeguard as the noble and learned Earl will see if he reads on:
  "(2) Her Majesty's assent to a constitutional Bill will be required to be signified by Order in Council—

  (a) if the Legislative House of any Territory by resolution objects to the Bill or to any provision thereof within sixty days after the Bill has been passed by the Federal Assembly; or

  (b) if a request has been made by the African Affairs Board in accordance with paragraph 63 of this Scheme"—

  that is about differentiating measures—
  "that the Bill shall be reserved for the signification of Her Majesty's pleasure on the ground that it is a differentiating measure."
  Then, if we read on, we find in subparagraph (3) the following:
  "No draft of an Order in Council signifying Her Majesty's assent to a constitutional Bill will be presented to Her Majesty unless—

  (a) a copy of the draft has been laid before each House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; and

  541

  (b) neither House has, within a period of forty days…"—

  passed a resolution against it.
  I think that gives the noble and learned Earl the complete answer, or as complete an answer as I can give him. It is within the competence of the Federal Parliament, with the necessary majorities, to amend this Constitution, but if the amendment of the Constitution has to be reserved, in cases where any Territorial Legislature or the African Affairs Board objects, not only is there the safeguard of the general supervision of Parliament over the Secretary of State, but there is also the requirement that approval can be given only after an Order in Council has been laid in draft and each House has had an opportunity of objecting. In those cases, which are naturally the cases in which most interest is taken and might be most disputable on their merits, the right of Parliament to intervene is absolutely reserved. I think I have answered the noble and learned Earl, have I not?
  EARL JOWITT: No, not quite, I am afraid. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I think that was a valuable intervention, which helped to clarify the matter, but I do not: think he understood entirely that what I am anxious about is not the position about Federal amendment. Paragraph 144 deals with qualifications in the case of an amendment by the Federation of the Constitution. I am on a different point, on the powers of Parliament here. I want to know this. By virtue of this Bill the Government will put forward an Order in Council, which, of course, must come within the scope of this Bill—and I have no doubt it will. The noble Viscount has told us that that Order in Council will contain a scheme for exclusive legislation, concurrent legislation, and so on. Suppose our Parliament here in Westminster were disposed to alter it by transferring one of the powers from the exclusive list to the concurrent list, could the Government promulgate a new Order in Council which, of course, would require Parliamentary approval, or would they have to get an Act of Parliament? To my mind, that turns upon the true construction to be placed upon subsection (2) of Clause 1, which I read out, and in particular upon the concluding words:
  "…save as may be so authorised that Order fin Council shall not be capable of being
  542
  revoked or amended except by Act of Parliament."
  I am not talking about Federal amendments but about the powers of Parliament here. If our Government wanted to make an alteration in the Order in Council arid were minded to try to do so by an Order in Council, I understand they could not do so unless the first Order in Council had expressly stated that there was the power of alteration by Order in Council. If that is not stated, then I think it has to be done by Act of Parliament. That was the point I was trying to make, because I thought it would be value to everybody if we had that precisely in our minds, especially with regard to later Amendments. None of us has yet seen the Order in Council We do not know the precise language in which it is going to be couched, but I think it will not consciously depart from the scheme. I think it may save time on the other Amendments if the noble Viscount will tell me whether my attempt at explaining this point is correct.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think the noble and learned Earl is entirely right. As for the Order in Council which we shall presently have to consider expressly providing far alteration by a further Order in Council, I would say that the only way in which that Order in Council can be amended is either by the Federal law, subject to the safeguards we have seen, or by Act of Parliament.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I come back to the subject matter of the votes that the Africans would have? I was hoping that the noble Viscount would tell us more about the franchise as it actually exists in Southern Rhodesia. We have been told a great deal about partnership and I an sure those who have promoted the scheme are anxious to construct a State (it is a State of a kind) in which all will secure fair play. But many people think that the only protection that a people ultimately can have is the right to vote. That happened in India, West Africa anti elsewhere. Therefore, we are very much interested to know what is the franchise on which this is based. Very little is said about it. The noble Viscount has been talking about power to amend the scheme, arid I under-stanch there is power to amend, but apparently the initiative must always

  543
  come from the other end. Some of us are anxious to know what can be done to extend the franchise to the Africans themselves, and whether in the two-thirds arrangement in the Federal Legislature there is sufficient likelihood of a wide extension of the franchise to Africans. Therefore, would the noble Viscount be so good as to tell the House how many Africans in Southern Rhodesia (because there is no vote in the other Territories) have the right to vote, and what qualifications are required before they can secure the franchise? If we compare that figure with the total number of European voters, we shall be able to judge the exact balance in the partnership of which we hear so much.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think I am right in saying that in Southern Rhodesia a voter has to be twenty-one years of age. There is a residential qualification. He must occupy property of a value of £500—all this applies to the common roll. Personally, I have a considerable inclination for the common roll, but I am speaking only for the Territory with which I am more directly concerned. A voter may be qualified by being the owner of a registered mining location with the Territory. Alternatively he must be in receipt of an income of at least £240 a year. There is an educational qualification: a voter must have a knowledge of the English language, and must be able to fill up and sign a prescribed form. There are about 4,000 Africans who could have gone on the roll if they had elected to do so. I imagine that now a good many of them will; after all, it costs nothing. I hope that the 4,000 will go on the roll. Whether the noble Viscount thinks this is a good or bad franchise is a matter of opinion. We cannot alter it here. When his Government were in office, they said the first election should take place upon that franchise.
  The noble Viscount has also to remember that the influence of Africans is not simply confined to the common roll, although even there it is fairly considerable. I am told that at present there are two constituencies which almost turn upon the African vote. But under the scheme the Africans will get three African members in any case, as well as their vote on the common roll, if they
  544
  are entitled to it. To the extent that they enjoy the franchise, they have it twice, so to speak.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I think the noble Viscount will agree that the additional representation is two Africans and one European.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, it is. For convenience, I said that they are three African members. They are, in fact, the specially elected representatives of Africans.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: One hopes that, as a result of this federation, the industries will grow considerably. Can the noble Viscount tell us what wages will be paid to the people working there?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: No; that has absolutely nothing to do with the franchise.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon: it is entirely relevant to the franchise. A man who has a wage of 22s. a month cannot qualify for a franchise that requires an income of£240 a year. I observe that the noble Viscount did not give the figures—I am sure it was by an oversight. My summing up of this matter is this: that here is a so-called partnership, in which 400 people are qualified on the common roll in Southern Rhodesia. According to my information, the wage rate is so low and the income qualification so high that few—certainly not a large number—have a chance of qualifying as voters.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: I think there is a certain disappointment felt on this side of the Committee. The noble Viscount did not really deal with the question of the changes. We are not discussing now the merits of the existing franchise in any of those countries, but the methods by which it can be changed in future.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect—I do not want to speak at interminable length—I did state, with absolute precision, that that Tested with the Federal Parliament. I made that abundantly plain. It must rest with the Federal Parliament to introduce the Federal law. What the Federal law will be, I have not the least idea; the Federal Parliament has not yet come into being.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: The point my noble friends had in mind in putting down this Amendment was precisely that: the initiative rests solely with the Federal Legislature. We had hoped for some reassurance that, if it was not possible to have some provision in the Bill, political advancement for Africans in the Federal field would be watched by Her Majesty's Government in this country, and would not be lost sight of.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: The noble Earl must vote against this scheme. Either you believe in federation, or you do not. There must be one of two things. Either you want to legislate in the British Parliament for these Territories—which you cannot do to-day for Southern Rhodesia, where you have parted with the authority to do it: and you have largely parted with it already in Northern Rhodesia—or you go for federation. If the noble Earl does not trust federation to deal with the essential things with which federation must deal, then I would rather he had the courage of his convictions arid voted against this plan.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: Her Majesty's Government have made a great deal of the safeguards in this Bill. If there are safeguards, surely they are there for some purpose. We want to be sure that the responsibilities which rest on this Government and on this Parliament are not dissipated.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It amounts to this. Supposing the scheme was passed, shall we, first of all, under the first clause in the Bill, have the right to bring in a Bill in this House? Clause 1 uses the words "except by Act of Parliament." Is that a safeguard? Failing that, supposing that there is trouble, if there are a large number of people who have no vote but who have grievances, where can they look for some protection and redress?
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  3.45 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL VISCOUNT HALL moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
  "( ) Any Order in Council under subsection (1) of this section shall provide that the Protectorate status of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland shall be preserved and in no circumstances shall Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland be amalgamated with the Colony of Southern Rhodesia, unless a majority of
  546
  all the inhabitants in each of the territories, namely in Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia desire such amalgamation."
  The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stansgate. The purpose of this Amendment is to embody in the Bill an assurance to the Africans in the Territories of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland as to the preservation of their Protectorate status; and also to ensure that in no circumstances shall Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland be amalgamated with Southern Rhodesia unless a majority of the inhabitants in each of the Territories desire such amalgamation.
  I think it will be admitted on all sides that, from the initial discussions upon the question of federation, there were four vital matters about which the Africans were most anxious to have complete and absolute assurance. The first of these was the question of the preservation of their Protectorate status. Some sixty or seventy years ago the Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland placed their country in the bands of her Majesty Queen Victoria, and, indeed, in the hands of Parliament, for it to be maintained as a separate entity, for the purpose of its protection, and if possible, of course, for the advancement of the African rights. In the scheme for federation—here I do not criticise it at all—certain rights have been taken from these Protectorate States and will be dealt with in future by the Federal Government. The Africans themselves are not at all happy about the assurances which have been given to them, and which are contained in the Preamble to the Federal Scheme. Indeed, they say the same thing in relation to the question of amalgamation and the question of the protection of their lands, although there is no doubt that in Part II of the Federal Scheme definite assurances are given in relation to the protection of their lands. But in the whole of the Bill there is nothing which preserves their Protectorate status to the same degree as it is protected by the words in the Preamble to the Federal Scheme. The purpose of this Amendment is to have inserted in the Bill what is contained in the Preamble to the Federal Scheme, which, after all, is a Preamble agreed by the four Governments referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton.
  I can quite understand the difficulty in the early stages of the discussion on the Bill, and in the discussion on federation, about selecting certain parts of the Federal Scheme and inserting them in the Bill. But I cannot see the objection to giving greater assurances to the Africans by putting in the Bill something like this Amendment. We are not tied to the exact words, but if we can have an assurance inserted in the Bill, in addition to its being contained in the Federal Scheme, we shall be satisfied. May I again repeat what I said previously: that this scheme will not work without the willing assent and the good will of the Africans. It must be remembered that in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland there are between 4,000,000 and 4,200,000 natives to something like 30,000 or 32,000 Europeans. Even at this late hour, cannot we amend the Bill so as to give them this greater assurance—and after all, it is something about which they were assured when they handed their country over to the custody of the Parliament in the United Kingdom? I think that is the least that can be done. It would be most unfair, in view of the pledges which have been given, if the Federal Government attempted to interfere with that status or, indeed, attempted under any scheme—it might be a scheme of Dominion status—to amalgamate those two Territories. The assurance contained in the Preamble cannot be embodied in the Order in Council in the form in which it stands, and we think that this Amendment would go a long way to give an assurance which is sadly and badly needed at the present time to enable us to gain from the Africans the support we ought to have. Whatever may be said with regard to other Amendments which were moved in anotherplace—and I quite agree that it is impossible to leave out whole parts of the Federal Scheme—there are certain parts of it which could be embodied in the Bill; and I think it is vital that that should be done if we are seeking the good will of the Africans.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 18, insert the said subsection.—(Viscount Hall.)
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I understand that the situation is this: that the representatives of these Territories have made many efforts to approach this
  548
  House. They came to England and they hoped to see Her Majesty. It was not considered right that they should do so, although there is certainly a precedent for that happening. They wrote to the Lord Chancellor and to the Speaker, but, in accordance with some formality, their letters were answered from an office. I myself think that it would have been a very fine thing if this House had reverted to precedents that are on record, where people who are aggrieved have been allowed to come to the Bar of the House and make a statement. However, that was not judged to be wise, and they went back deeply aggrieved. They are undoubtedly anxious lest their rights should be impaired.
  So far as I can make out, inasmuch as their protection lies in Orders in Council and statutory instruments of one kind or another, I understand that all these things are at the mercy of the powers conferred under paragraph (b) of subsection (1). That gives power to
  "amend the Letters Patent or Orders in Council relating to the government of the respective Territories."
  That means, of course, the Northern Territories. Furthermore, subsection (1) (ii) lays down that another Order in Council may subsequently be made with the same powers. Therefore, I think it is necessary to reassure these Chiefs that these Orders will not be used to impair the statutory instruments on which they conceive their rights to rest. That appears to me to be the case, and I really do not know what the answer is. By these Amendments we are trying to make it impossible for this clause to be used against the interests of these Chiefs. If they can be protected in some other way, well and good; but it would be a great pity if these people were to be handed over to a Federation in which their political influence was bound to be a minority influence.
  3.55 p.m.
  EARL WINTERTON: I think it is desirable that all the argument which comes from the other side of the Committee should be answered from the Back Benches of your Lordships' House. I want to say one or two words on this particular Amendment. I was interested to note that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, spoke of the Chiefs. I thought that his solicitude was not so much for

  549
  the Chiefs as for the great bulk of the Negroid inhabitants of the two Territories. To judge from what was said on the previous Amendment, the concern felt was on the subject of the mass vote and not of the position of the Chiefs. Perhaps the noble Viscount will say that it is possible to have solicitude for both. I think that it would be quite impracticable to insert this Amendment in the Bill, and I must express some surprise—perhaps my surprise will be answered by a subsequent speaker from the Labour Benches—at this extreme solicitude which is being shown to-day for ascertaining mass opinion, or a majority opinion, in these particular Territories. The Labour Party never showed any such solicitude during the last six years. They never showed it when India was partitioned. They never said that there should be a referendum in India to find out whether they wanted partition, or, indeed, independence. I think the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will agree that probably a majority of the people of Cyprus are anxious to join Greece. But there has been no referendum to find out their opinion. The Labour Party have not said, "Why do you not consult the opinion of the people of Cyprus?," and yet we are told to-day that nothing can be done without ascertaining the opinion of the great majority of the people of the two Rhodesias.
  In regard to this particular question, I do not wish to discuss the last Amendment which has been disposed of, but I would say, at the risk of seeming discourteous, that I was highly amused by the argument put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord. Hall. He told us that these people wished to be reassured. He said that they would be greatly reassured if they were told that in no circumstances could amalgamation take place without a majority vote of the Territory. The majority of the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia have not the slightest idea what federation does or does not mean. They certainly will not be reassured by being told that there is to be a power of veto against amalgamation, unless there is a majority vote of the Territory, because if they do not understand what "federation" means, they are not likely to understand what "amalgamation" means. If I may say so with all respect, the suggestion of noble Lords opposite that we are dealing here with a wide-awake, live
  550
  democracy, which understands the meaning of votes and not voting, of federation, of amalgamation and of all the things we have been discussing this afternoon, is slightly ridiculous. Nobody who has ever been to Africa, even for a short time, would that the average native inhabitant of either of the Rhodesias would understand one-tenth—perhaps not 1 per cent.—of the arguments which have been used this afternoon.
  I should like to range myself on the side of the noble Viscount who is in charge of this Bill and say, I hope without any discourtesy to noble Lords opposite, that they cannot have their cake and eat it. Either they are in favour of this Bill or they are not. They did not vote against the Second Reading, and they are proposing Amendments which would absolutely wreck the scheme.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
  EARL WINTERTON: Yes, wreck the scheme. It would cause such indignation among the Europeans—and they have to be considered—that they would refuse to accept it. Either you are for the scheme or you are against it. I find it disappointing after the closing speech of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, on the Second Reading, which I thought was a most harmonious one in every way, and when I thought we were going to have the good will of noble Lords opposite. I am afraid that hope is not fulfilled by the speeches we have had this afternoon.
  4.0 p.m.
  EARL JOWITT: The noble Earl who has just spoken will forgive my saying that the only thing about this Amendment that I find ridiculous is the speech which he has just made upon it. I really think he does not understand this matter at all. It is set out in the Preamble. If the noble Earl will look at the Federal Scheme he will see it here—he might have read as far as page one. Here it is on the first page of all, and I am sure the noble Earl will have seen it, whatever other preoccupations he may have had. He must have seen these words:
  "The Preamble to the Constitution will contain recitals to the effect that…
  "(d)Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue … to enjoy separate Governments for so long as their respective peoples so desire … in particular the control of land in these Territories and for the local and Territorial political advancement of the peoples thereof";

  551
  There is nothing ridiculous about that. The people are perfectly well able to understand that. That is why the Government, with perfect propriety, have put it in at the very outset of the whole scheme. The only contest between us is whether that assurance should be included in the Bill. If you have a thing in the Preamble only, it is not a part of the Bill. The Preamble will sometimes help you in construing a Bill, and you are entitled, if you are in difficulty in construing the Bill, to look at the Preamble. Subject to that qualification, the Preamble is not an operative part of the Bill.
  The only suggestion made by this Amendment is that this assurance shall be put in the Bill. And why not? My noble friend Lord Hall said, and said rightly, that if this were put in the Bill it would give some reassurance to some of the people who are disturbed to-day. I do not doubt for a moment that it is the honest intention of noble Lords opposite to do as the Preamble says—I am perfectly certain that it is. But if they could in some way reassure the Africans, if they could put this thing in the Bill, instead of having it in the Preamble only, I believe that it would go some way to disabuse the African mind of this mistrust which is the curse from which we are suffering at the present time. Therefore I hope that the noble Viscount—I have already said that his ground for manœuvring is limited—will, in his reply, make it quite plain that this is the intention and that the Government do attach importance to this matter, and will reassure African opinion that having these words in the Preamble is as good as if they were in the Bill. But he will understand that we want to register our point of view on this matter, which is that the intention should be shown in the Bill, as well as in the Preamble. I will employ towards the noble Lord that oft-quoted phrase, "Put it in the Bill."
  LORD WINSTER: I must say that I agree that the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, especially about Cyprus, were very wide of the mark. He drew a completely erroneous analogy. I am well aware of the suggestions in Cyprus. But the difference between the two cases is
  552
  this: that at no time have the Government in this country given an assurance to Cyprus about the future of Cyprus. The cases are completely different. Sixty years ago the Chiefs of these two Territories did what I think was a tremendous thing; they handed their country over to the care of the Parliament of this country. They got something in return: they got an assurance that we would protect them, that we would become their protectors; and they were called Protectorates. At the present moment this scheme of Federation is going through. Government speakers have repeatedly admitted the fact that it is causing great anxiety, unrest, and disturbance of mind amongst the Africans concerned. They are deeply concerned about their future. Here, surely, all the Government are asked to do is to repeat to these people the assurances given to their forbears sixty years ago when they handed their country over to us. Surely it is a very simple point: that at this time, when African opinion is disturbed, that the assurance should be repeated to them that, no matter what the future may hold for these Territories, our pledge to be their protector will be upheld.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: As the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, has said, the issue here lies within a very small compass. We are all pledged to maintain the Protectorate status of Nyasaland and of such parts of the Rhodesias as are under protection; and we are also committed to seeing that these Governments remain responsible for the political advancement in these Territories. That is common ground between us. The only question—and we need not get hot under the collar about it—is: what is the best way of doing it? I will give this assurance: that Africans need not be anxious about it. The assurance is certainly there. I am going to say, after careful consideration and consultation with my advisers, that we should be doing a great disservice by putting this matter into the Bill—and I will explain why.
  Apart from the argument against altering the form of the scheme, if we were to put this matter in the Bill and the Order in Council, in the way proposed, it would give not more but less security. The whole plan and structure of this scheme is to give the Federation clearly defined powers, exclusive powers for the exclusive

  553
  list and concurrent powers of the concurrent list—and even those powers are subject, as I have said, to certain reservations. There is no power given to the Federal Government or the Federal Assembly to deal with Protectorate status or amalgamation. The effective way to safeguard the Protectorate status of the Northern Territories is by constructing the Federal Constitution in such a way that these Territories will remain separate and distinct political entities which will be independent of the Federation within their respective spheres and which will continue to be responsible to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and will continue to be subject to the authority of Her Majesty's Government under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. This the Federal Constitution will secure, and it will not be possible for the Federation to interfere with the constitutional position either of the two Territories or, indeed, of Southern Rhodesia, If you were to insert the operative clauses in the Constitution there would be a negative reference that would not strengthen their exclusion. If you put it into the terms of the Constitution it would presumably be open to the Federal Legislature to pass an Act repealing the clause. That is the last thing you want to do. I know that such a Bill could be, and no doubt would be, disallowed. But you do not want to put in the Constitution anything with which the Federation is to have no power at all to deal. Now, it is clearly understood that Federation has no power over these matters. The right course is for the Constitution to state the agreed position in the Preamble. The Preamble records that continuing Protectorate status, and gives the background against which federation will work. That was agreed. We all want to do the thing in the right way.
  I will not speak about land, because that comes in the next Amendment. But on the question of amalgamation, during the Conference, or at the close of the Conference, Her Majesty's Government were specifically asked whether amalgamation would be a possible starter if Federation were rejected, and we gave the most emphatic answer against that. The noble Lord will find it in the penultimate paragraph of the Preface of our Report (Command Paper 8753) in these words:
  "During the Conference the United Kingdom representatives were asked what would
  554
  be the attitude of the United Kingdom Government and what further action the United Kingdom Government would take in the event of this Scheme of Federation being rejected. They stated definitely that the United Kingdom Government had not entertained and would not entertain any proposal for the amalgamation for the Territories in whole or in part. Moreover, more than two years had now been spent on intensive study of this matter and on evolving a Scheme of Federation which the representatives of all the Governments believed to be best and most practical solution they could find. If this Scheme should be rejected the United Kingdom Government would see no prospect of re-opening the subject within any foreseeable period of time."
  That emphatic declaration, that amalgamation was not only not going to figure in this Constitution but was not open to consideration at all, was not merely a declaration made by me on behalf of Her Majesty's Government; it was signed also by Sir Godfrey Huggins, the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, and by the Governors of the two Territories as well as by the United Kingdom Ministers who signed the Report. It was on that clear statement that the referendum in Southern Rhodesia was taken.
  There is no possible question about this. I cannot state that categorical assurance in more definite or in more positive terms than that. The noble Lord says he knows that that is our intention. It is indeed our intention. I trust that that categorical statement will go out all over Africa and, if I may say so, I trust that it is not going to be marred, discounted or denigrated by the noble Viscount who is, with assistance, listening to me now, because really he has not been very helpful either to Europeans or to Africans in Africa.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Could the noble Viscount address himself to the matter in debate, and avoid, if possible, these offensive personal references?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I was answering the extremely unhelpful misrepresentations made by the noble Viscount at the close of the debate on the last Amendment, but I certainly will not trouble him further. Here are these absolutely categorical assurances. Believe me, there is no doubt, here or in Africa, among those who have read and who understand this scheme what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are, what are the powers under federation,

  555
  what are the limitations under federation. There is not the faintest question of the Federal Government or the Federal Assembly impinging upon the Protectorate status or attempting to deal with any question of amalgamation. For the reasons I have given, we are of one mind on this matter. I really can assure the noble Lord that the Amendment he proposes, so far from giving a further safeguard in this matter, would, if anything, put it into jeopardy. For those reasons, I must ask the House to reject this Amendment.
  On Question, Amendment negatived.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: With the permission of the House, there is a statement to be made by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
  House resumed.

  EGYPT: ABDUCTION OF BRITISH SERVICEMAN
  4.15 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF READING): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to make a short statement regarding the abduction from Ismailia on July 9 of Leading Aircraftman Rigden. Leading Aircraft-man Rigdenis believed to have been abducted from a hotel in the centre of Ismailia by two Egyptians on the night of Thursday, July 9. The British military authorities had strong grounds for believing that one of the two Egyptians seen with Rigden at the time of his abduction was an Egyptian officer and that the Egyptian authorities therefore knew about the incident. A British officer accordingly visited the Sub-Governor of Ismailia on July 10 to try and secure the co-operation of the Egyptian authorities to recover Rigden.
  Since by the following day nothing effective had been done by the Egyptian
  556
  authorities, the officer commanding the Northern Area of the Zone, on instructions from the General Officer Commanding British Troops in Egypt, visited the Sub-Governor of Ismailia and informed him that unless Rigden was returned by 9 a.m. on July 13 General Festing reserved the right to take certain measures which were bound to cause inconvenience to a large number of inhabitants in the Area. Rigden has not been returned and measures have therefore been taken as from 9 a.m. this morning to stop and search all traffic entering or leaving Ismailia by road or rail. In addition, Her Majesty's Embassy have made urgent representations to the Egyptian Government.
  EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Marquess for making that statement. It is obvious that it involves a serious and very delicate situation. I should rather not say anything on the spur of the moment, but return, if I may, to this matter to-morrow. It may be that by that time the noble Marquess will have some further information which he can give us. At any rate, I should like to ask a Question then, if necessary, in order to comment on this statement.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: Could we leave it like this: that if I have any further information which I think I ought to give the House to-morrow, I will, so to speak, volunteer it in a statement? If I let the noble and learned Earl know that I have nothing to add to the statement I have just made, he will then be at liberty to put a Private Notice Question.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Marquess will realise that people are anxious about the fate of this man, and also about the general situation.
  THE MARQUESS OF READING: Certainly I realise both those things. It was because I realised them that I made this statement.

  RHODESIA AND NYASALAND FEDERATION BILL
  4.19 p.m.
  House again in Committee.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after subsection. (1) to insert:
  "( ) Any Order in Council under subsection (1) of this section shall provide that the Governments of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland shall remain responsible to the exclusion of the Federal Government for all matters concerning land and land settlement in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland and for the promotion of the political advancement of the African population in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in the local and territorial government of those territories."
  The noble Earl said: The noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when we were discussing the first Amendment to this Bill, said that the Amendments proposed by noble Lords on this side of the House were of two kinds: those which set out to alter the terms of the Federal Scheme agreed to by the four Governments, and those which set out to put, bits of the Federal Scheme into the Bill. This Amendment does not propose to make any alteration in the Federal Scheme. All it sets out to do is to put a piece of the scheme into the terms of the Bill. The object of the Amendment, which goes far beyond the actual alteration it would make in the Bill, is to allay the fears of the Africans in the Northern Territories about two matters which they have most deeply at heart: land, and political advancement in the Territories.
  In the Preamble to the Federal Scheme, which was agreed to by the Governments concerned just as much as the scheme itself, there is a statement of intention about these two matters. The intention is that they shall not be removed from the control of the Territorial Legislatures without African consent, without the consent of the local inhabitants of the two Territories. But as has already been pointed out, the Preamble has no legal force and presumably it will not be included in the Order in Council; therefore what is contained in the Preamble will not at any time have legal force in Africa. What we are suggesting in this Amendment is that the intention set out in the Preamble to the Federal Scheme should be given legal force by being written into the Bill.
  The noble Viscount, or the noble Earl, Lord Munster, if he is replying to this
  558
  Amendment, will no doubt say that this purpose will be secured by the Order in Council which will give legal force to the whole Constitution. Of course, the powers of the Federal Legislature will be set out and, no doubt, neither land nor local political advancement will be included either in the exclusive or in the concurrent list of lowers. These are powers which, by implication, will be left to the Territorial Legislatures. But I venture to think—and I hope the Government will give it serious consideration—that a provision in the terms of this Amendment would be far more reassuring to African opinion than any oblique provision of an Order in Council. It would have this distinct advantage as compared with the forthcoming Order in Council: that the power of the Federal Legislature to amend the Federal. Constitution would be limited, because, if this Amendment were accepted, the Federal Legislature would have no right to alter it in respect of land and political advancement in the two Northern Territories. By the terms of this Amendment: those two matters would be protected by Act of Parliament.
  Everyone shares the hope that the Federal Legislature will not legislate to the detriment of Africans, and that if they were to try to do so the constitutional safeguards as set out in the scheme would be effective. But we must recognise that African opinion is still exceedingly apprehensive and doubtful. The Africans do not trust the intentions of the Europeans or the constitutional safeguards, and I venture to think that nothing would do more to remove fear and suspicion from the African mind than a guarantee of their land and political rights embodied in an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. The Africans would regard this Act as a charter in regard to their most essential rights and liberties, having the same binding force as the Treaties they have already made with the Crown. That is why I think that, quite apart from the merits of the Amendment itself, its psyschological effect would be exceedingly valuable in Central Africa and would help to make federation go smoothly, which is what we all hope if this scheme becomes law. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 2, line 18, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
  4.22 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: It is very difficult to avoid repetition on this subject, but this is another case where we ask: "Why not put it in the Bill?" This is not one of those matters that alter the scheme; it is almost word for word what has been agreed to by all the parties to the scheme at the conference. If it is going to do anything to allay suspicions and to help to launch the Federation under good conditions, then surely it is worth putting it in, even if there is a certain administrative difficulty and untidiness about it. The fact that the Order in Council must contain a statement to the effect that land rights and the promotion of political advancement were reserved to the two Northern Territorial Governments should surely be incorporated. No matter how difficult, if it is going to help this Federation to a successful career, then I would urge Her Majesty's Government to accept the Amendment.
  4.23 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: I imagine that the noble Viscount is going either to repeat his argument in regard to the last Amendment, or, at any rate, to refer to it. I want to say quite frankly that I think that the argument he put forward carries some weight. I still think that, as between having this assurance in a Preamble and having it in an Order in Council, it would carry more weight to have it in the Order in Council. But I see his point, that even if it were in the Order in Council it would not provide quite the safeguard which might be imagined, because an Order in Council by its very terms can be amended, even though it requires the consent of the Secretary of State—which probably would not be given. There is some force in that argument, although, as I say, if we are to have it at all, it is better to have it in the Order in Council than in the Preamble.
  We want to have assurances in terms such as will satisfy the African people that they cannot be taken away, at any rate without the consent of the Secretary of State and of Parliament. Therefore the noble Viscount's objection to these Amendments, if he will not mind my saying so, is really purely a technical one. If the Amendments had been in the form of Amendments to the Bill, so that these clauses were enshrined in the Bill itself,
  560
  then of course these safeguards could not have been taken away without an Act of this Parliament. I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether, perhaps on the next stage of the Bill, he would be prepared to entertain an Amendment incorporating these provisions, not by way of an amendment to the Order in Council but by way of an Amendment to the Bill itself.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, I will not. I dealt with that on the last Amendment. That would, in fact, alter the whole structure of the Bill and would be a breach of the Agreement.
  LORD SILKIN: I thought the noble Viscount might say that. But would it really be a breach of the Agreement? It does nothing more than is already in the Agreement. It does not introduce a new term. I do not know to what extent the Government is committed to the exact form of implementation of the Agreement, but there is nothing new in either the second or the third Amendment. There are no new terms; it is merely the form in which the Agreement is being implemented. That is the point. Although, as I have said, the arguments put forward against the Amendments, at any rate against the second Amendment, carry some weight, I do not think they would carry the same weight if it was done by way of amendment of the Bill itself.
  LORD CALVERLEY: When we were discussing the last Amendment, the noble Viscount was very precise in stating that, so far as land was concerned, it would in a sense be a reserved subject, and that the natives in these Protectorates, especially Northern Rhodesia, would be amply protected. All we are trying to do, notwithstanding the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, is to try and be quite reasonable in order to allay suspicions—and I should think the Committee are about fed up with the word "suspicions"; it is like a recurring decimal. But even if we are not alarmed there are people in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia who are alarmed about their future. They are anxious as to what is going to happen to them. This Committee have a fundamental task to build up confidence amongst these people, of whom the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, has said that they do not know the meaning of the word "amalgamate." In all probability there is a certain amount of truth in that remark by the noble Earl,

  561
  and I rather wish he would go out there as a missionary and try to educate them. But that is by the way. What I want to stress is that in doing anything they can do to allay these suspicions—anything they can do to arrest the suspicion and not the subject—the Government will be doing a good job of work.
  4.30 p.m.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): Perhaps I may say a few words in reply to this Amendment, though I am bound to admit at once that some—not all, of course—of the arguments which my noble friend, Lord Swinton, used in speaking on the previous Amendment are also applicable to this one. Your Lordships will remember that on the Second Reading I took the trouble to explain at some length that any matters which in the two Northern Territories affected the day-today life of the Africans would, in fact, be Territorial responsibilities—that is to say, they would rest with the Territorial Governments, as they do at the present time. The provisions dealing with the question of African land in these two Northern Territories—as I think noble Lords know well—are completely untouched by this Bill or by the Order in Council. In fact, what is really happening is this. The protection which the Africans in the two Northern Territories have in past years had on matters concerning land is still maintained, and the Federal Government cannot acquire that land in any circumstances whatsoever, except, under certain conditions, for Federal purposes. In particular, if the noble Lord will look at Page 7 of the Federal Scheme, he will see that it is definitely laid down that the Federal Government cannot acquire any of this African land whatsoever for settling immigrants. I think that was brought out by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, on the previous occasion when we were considering this Bill. Your Lordships may recall that he interrupted at once some observations made by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester, and explained to him that the powers of the Federal Government as concerned land were only to acquire land for Federal purposes, and for no other.
  The second portion—if I may so describe it—of this Amendment deals with the political advancement of the African population in Northern Rhodesia
  562
  and Nyasaland. Under the scheme, that is a matter which still rests in the hands of the two Northern Governments responsible to the Secretary of State. I mentioned during the Second Reading debate that quite recently political advancement has, in fact, occurred, and that the result of federation, or the passing of this Bill into law, would not in any way damage or delay or mar the political advancement of the African people. I wonder what really is at the back of the minds of the two noble Earls who seek to include this Amendment in the Bill. Is it, perhaps, their aim to ensure that any alteration must go before Parliament? If it is, I can only say that the Amendment is unnecessary, because the major matters of land and political advancement still rest, and must rest after federation comes into being, in the hands of the Colonial Secretary, who is, of course, held responsible to Parliament and can be questioned daily on any circumstances in connection with these two matters in the Northern Territories. I understand the reasons which prompted the two noble Earls to put down this Amendment in order to safeguard African land and the political advancement of the people. But we are just as anxious to safeguard both these matters—indeed, it will be found that they are safeguarded in the Order in Council when it is published, by virtue of the fact that the responsibility, as I have said, will remain in the hands of the Colonial Secretary who will be in the future, as in the past, responsible to Parliament for the good government of these two Northern Territories.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: I agree that the terms "land" and "land settlement" do not appear in the exclusive or concurrent lists. But when we look down the exclusive list we see that the Federal Government is responsible for railways, aerodromes and national parks. I think there is ground for some uneasiness with regard to native-owned land. I think there is ground for some uneasiness that native-owned land, as against European-owned land, may be used for certain Federal purposes of that sort.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: May I point out that we dealt with this matter on Second Reading. The only power of the Federal Authority with regard to native land is for public purposes—putting up telegraph lines, roads and so on. It is

  563
  specifically provided in the clause to which my noble friend has just referred. For those limited purposes, which are the only purposes for which they can touch the native land, they will not take the best native land; and they will have to go to the local Government about it.
  THE ARL OF LUCAN: The Federal purposes for which land may be acquired are not so much to put a telegraph pole in a field here and there but rather for national parks, aerodromes, railways, roads and so on. Those requirements may add up to very large areas of ground. It is on that account that I believe there is uneasiness. It is felt that if there is a choice between European-owned land and native-owned land, native-owned land may be taken. That is why we ask for this double assurance.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I support the point which has been made by my noble friend Lord Lucan, with regard to the question of the right to acquire land compulsorily for Federal purposes? That is a right which has caused a certain amount of misgiving.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Misgiving with whom?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Misgiving among Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I am not for a moment suggesting that the right of compulsory acquisition will be abused. I am saying only that misgiving has been caused with regard to it, and I should like the Government, if they can, to give some further assurances beyond those which they have given up to the present. For example, could they say that African tribal land will not be acquired for these purposes if any other suitable land is available? Furthermore, could they say that this power will be used only if it is absolutely essential and if the purposes of the Federal Government cannot be secured in any other way? I am not asking Her Majesty's Government to give these assurances now. But we shall be dealing with the Order in Council in due course. We shall be taking the Third Reading of the Bill shortly. So I am not asking the Government to say whether they can give those assurances at once. As I say, we shall be dealing with these matters again when the Order in Council comes before your Lordships. I should like to ask the
  564
  Government whether when consulting the Central African Government they will consider the possibility of some further assurances being given, beyond those already given by the noble Viscount, on the subject of the compulsory acquisition of land for Federal purposes.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I can give assurances here and now. I can give the assurance which I have already given and which I think has completely satisfied everyone. The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester said that he was absolutely and completely assured, and that he was grateful for the assurance which I gave him. The real security—the best that can be given—is that to which the noble Lord has referred. The great security for land is that it should be dealt with by the Territorial Governments and not by the Federal Government—though I do not think the Federal Government are going to spend all their time ill-treating natives. I take a better view of them than that. What the noble Earl has asked is that the security shall be that the Territorial Governments shall deal with native land. The noble Earl also agrees that there must be power in the common interest and for common services in some cases to take some native land. What is the great assurance that can be given and, in fact, is given in the scheme? It is that if the Federal authorities do take native land, they have to go to the Territorial Government, who are the trustees for that land, and get their prior agreement. We cannot have better security than that.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his assurance and for his repetition of it, because I think the more often such assurances are given in Parliament, the more confidence they will inspire in Africa. That is what we all want to do. The noble Viscount was not in the Chamber when I asked for a reinforcement of this assurance. I will not repeat what I said, but perhaps he will be good enough to read my words in Hansard.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: There is an old saying to the effect that "what I say three times is true." I am delighted to say it a third time, if that helps.
  EARL JOWITT: The noble Viscount said he is perfectly certain that the

  565
  Federal Government are not going to spend all their time ill-treating Africans. If that was meant to be a representation of the point of view this side is putting forward, it is completely misunderstood. I have said, and say again, that I do not believe they are going to ill-treat the Africans most of the time—or, indeed, at all. We all want to see whether we can get rid of the African's suspicions. They may be unreasonable, if you like, but we are trying to see whether we can devise some form of Amendment which will give assurance to the Africans and make them feel perfectly happy about this scheme, because at the present time they are not happy. Do not let it be thought that I or anybody who sits on this side has any foolish idea that the leaders among the white settlers (and I use that word in no sort of offensive sense—indeed, very much the reverse) mean to mistreat or cheat, ill-treat or swindle Africans, or anything of the sort or kind. I believe nothing whatever of the kind. And I believe that nothing is further from the intentions of Sir Godfrey Huggins and the great men who, with him, are going to work this Federation. In view of the remarks of the noble Viscount, I think that should be said quite definitely. The reason for our moving this Amendment is not because we have any suspicions of this sort at all.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Earl, and I unreservedly withdraw. I know that he and I mean the same thing.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, for giving, on the subject of native and tribal land, and of Territorial political advancement, assurances which are similar to those given by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, on the previous Amendment. I am sure that both these assurances will do good, and that they will reach quarters where they will give some degree of comfort. At the same time, if any further assurance can given later on about the use of native land for Federal purposes, we shall be grateful to hear anything the Government can say. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  4.44 p.m.
  LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following new clause:
  No incapacity to hold office on grounds of colour, creed or race
  ".No British subject or British-protected person ordinarily residing in the Territories shall by any Order in. Council under subsection (1) of section one of this Act or by any law or other enactment of the Federal Legislature or by any instruction given or direction issued by any person in the service of or acting on behalf of the Federal Government be rendered incapable of or be debarred from holding any office, place or employment a any kind whatsoever, whether in or under the Federal Government or in or under any public or private body or person, on the ground solely of his colour or race."
  The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause represents an attempt to attack the colour bar along a limited front in a way which I hope will appeal to the whole House and, of course, to the noble Viscount who is acting as the Leader of the House. I should like to refer to a debate which took place on May 1 in another place, which I think was of great historic significance by reason of the wide degree of unanimity that was reached. On that occasion, Mr. Fenner Brockway moved a Motion declaring his opposition to what, for short, we call the colour bar, and asking the Government to adopt legislative measures get rid of it. Mr. Alport, a Conservative Back Bencher, moved an Amendment which did not go so far as Mr. Brockway's Motion, and argued that: legislation was not necessarily the right way to tackle the problem. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, Mr. Lyttelton, made it plain in that debate that he shared the sentiments of Mr.Brockway—indeed, he used that expression, and said he was concerned only about the most effective way of abolishing the colour bar in British territory. I think the noble Viscount is at least as humane as Mr. Lyttelton—that is saying a gooddeal—and I am sure he is just as eager and just as anxious to abolish the colour bar from British territory.
  In the course of his remarks, the Secretary of State gave this undertaking—I quote from a speech delivered on May 1 in another place (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 514. col. 2586):
  "So far as employment in the public service is concerned, I can say that wherever opportunities arise—and they keep on arising—we

  567
  shall try to promote legislation which will give equal opportunities to everybody, irrespective of race or creed."
  The Secretary of State was not able to accept the Motion and accepted the Amendment; but, so far as opportunities arose in relation to the public service, he pledged himself, and I presume the Government, to introduce legislation to get rid of any discrimination arising from colour. One such opportunity clearly confronts us this afternoon, and I hope that, if we press this upon the noble Viscount, he will not feel we are doing it in any partisan spirit or insisting that he must come into line with our ideas. I hope he will regard a concession on his part as a victory for common sense and general prudence.
  I may be told, not perhaps by the noble Viscount, because he studies these matters very closely, but it may occur to some noble Lord reading our Amendment rather quickly, that a proposal of this kind is actually contained in Paragraph 112 of the Federal Scheme. Perhaps I shall be reminded that in another place the House were informed that something to the same effect as Paragraph 112 will be contained in the Constitution. At the risk of wearying your Lordships—after all, this is the last Amendment to-day—I would remind you of what the first sentence of Paragraph 112 tells us. It runs as follows:
  "No person domiciled within the Federation who is a subject of Her Majesty or a person under Her Majesty's protection will on grounds of race only be ineligible for employment in the service of the Federal Government."
  As to the terms of that statement, I would make this comment: of course, it is excellent, so far as it goes. But it does not go so far as our Amendment. We ask the Government to make sure that no step taken by the Federal Legislature or anybody acting under its instructions shall debar anybody from holding office under the Federal Government or under any public or private body or person on grounds purely of colour or race. The scheme simply promises to make sure, so far as possible, that nobody shall be debarred from employment under the Federal Government by reason of colour or race.
  The first point I would put to the noble Viscount is this: can he undertake that the intention raised in our Amendment will be carried out in the Constitution?
  568
  There is another point, to which I do not attach so much importance, but it should, at least, be noticed. The sentence I have quoted from Paragraph 112 is followed by another, which runs as follows:
  "In appointing or recommending persons for such employment regard will be had only to their competence, experience and suitability and in determining suitability regard may be had to the circumstances of the locality in which a person would be employed."
  I feel entitled from this side to ask the noble Viscount to say a few words about that rather awkward-looking phrase, this suitability which must be conditioned by the circumstances of a locality. I think I am right in saying that in another place that phrase was defended by the Government spokesman on the ground that it might be necessary to protect black Africans from white competition. It could work out in that way. But I can imagine it working out in a different way—and that without imputing bad faith to anybody. I can imagine white men in a certain area deciding that, where everyone else was white, it would be injudicious to bring in a black professor, who might not "hit it off" with the students. I have not known quite that case at Oxford; but I have known of people being rejected on social grounds—not in the best colleges, but in others—simply because it was thought that they might not be so attractive to their colleagues as others less academically gifted. We must be careful in Africa to make sure that a promising black African will not be disqualified or handicapped because he is thought to be less suitable in a certain milieu. I feel that we can at least expect a few words of defence from the noble Viscount in respect of those words.
  Let me assume—what I hope is true, although we have not yet had an assurance on it—that the intention of our clause will be respected by the noble Viscount, and that he will tell us that he intends to put a clause to that effect in the Constitution. Even so, we come back to the question of why it should not go into the Bill. At the beginning of the proceedings to-day the noble Viscount was subjected to a rather severe but, as he said himself, very fair interrogatory by the noble and learned Earl who leads noble Lords on this side. After a reasonable amount of investigation, and after help of various kinds had

  569
  been called in, the noble Viscount provided an answer which I believe carried the matter a long way. But can the noble Viscount answer a specific question, arising from that interrogatory, in regard to this particular clause? Supposing this clause is going to be contained in the Constitution, can we take it that a clause of this kind would necessarily have to come back to the Imperial Parliament for legislative action before it could be altered? As we understand it, the Constitution might be altered by the procedure of the Federal law, that procedure which begins with Federal legislation and is referred to in paragraph 144 of the Federal Scheme. An amendment might take place in some circumstances in that way. Could a provision of this kind, in the Constitution, be amended by the Federal legislation described in paragraph 144?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think I can answer that at once. The first thing is: Will this go into the Order in Council? The answer to that is, emphatically yes.
  LORD PAKENHAM: Our clause?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: No, paragraph 112.
  LORD PAKENHAM: We go wider than that.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes. I know. Perhaps I had better sit down.
  LORD PAKENHAM: No; I will give way.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: What I thought the noble Lord asked was, not whether I would accept his Amendment—I will leave it to my noble friend to deal with that—but whether paragraph 112 of the Federal Scheme is going into the Order in Council and the Constitution. The answer to that is, Yes, Then he asked: could paragraph 112 be changed by the Federal Parliament? That, I think, is a rather hypothetical question, because when a provision of this kind has been agreed, it is not likely that the first thing the Federal Parliament will do will be to Change it. In theory, it would be competent for the Federal Parliament to pass, by the necessary majority, a Bill which amended the Constitution. But that would be a constitutional amendment,
  570
  which would certainly be reserved, and would undoubtedly be a differentiating measure against the Africans. Therefore, it would come within about three condemnations, if I may so put it, for reservation here, and would most certainly come back to the Secretary of State and to Parliament.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I am obliged to the noble Viscount. I gather that it would come back to the Secretary of State, and that then Parliament would no doubt argue about it. But it would not require, in that connection, Parliamentary legislation.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I think it would. It. is always difficult to answer hypothetical questions: if such-and-such a Bill were to be passed by a Parliament, what would be the position? One needs to see exactly what the Bill is. First of all, there is no doubt that to alter the Constitution would be a constitutional amendment. Such a Bill would have to be reserved, I agree, for the Secretary of State, who is subject to Parliament. But I think it would almost certainly go further than that, because, if the Bill were passed in the Federal Parliament to remove this, then I should say it would certainly be objected to by one of the Territories; and it would also be objected to by the African Affairs Board as something which, in effect, if not in terms, differentiated; and if it were so objected to, then it would not only have to be reserved as a constitutional amendment but, under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 144, the assent, if assent was to be given, would have to be given by Order in Council; and that both Houses of Parliament would have the chance of praying against, and rejecting.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I am obliged to the noble Viscount. I understand, as he says, that it would almost certainly give Parliament a chance of discussing it. That is perhaps summarising what he has told us. But it appears that it would not require Parliamentary legislation to bring about such a change. I will explain why I make that point.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Not an Act of Parliament.
  LORD PAKENHAM: No; it would not require an Act of Parliament.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: It would require action in Parliament, but not an Act of Parliament, in the sense of a Bill which becomes an Act.
  LORD PAKENHAM: It would give Parliament the opportunity. Is not that the more correct way to put it?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, quite right.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I should like to put the further point, whether, in fact, such a change could be effected by an Order in Council in this country—that is to say, without legislation: whether, if the Government here suddenly acquired a desire to make this change, it could do so by Order in Council, without Parliamentary legislation. To put it briefly—and to try to be fair to what the noble Viscount has told us—there would almost certainly be the opportunity for Parliamentary discussion. But it would not necessarily be the case that Parliament would be given an opportunity of pronouncing on this in a legislative way. I say, quite frankly, that we should be much happier, and feel more secure, if a fundamental human right of this kind were taken out of this machinery, which the noble Viscount has explained to us, and retained firmly within the control of the Imperial Parliament. It would then require an Act of Parliament, or an amendment to an Act of Parliament, before such a fundamental change could be made. If I may say so to the noble Viscount, I do not think any of us supposes that this could be the first thing—he used that expression just now—a Federal Parliament would do. It is possible that it might be one of the later things they would do, and clearly they would do it only if they had gone a good way off the rails. I am not assuming that they will go off the rails, but we should be happier and feel safer if something as fundamental as this were contained in the Bill itself, so that an Act would be required before it could be done away with. That is a somewhat refined point, and when we press this on the noble Viscount we have not perhaps got that point primarily in our minds, although it is undoubtedly within our minds.
  The real trouble is that these suspicions in Africa are something which, in our opinion, the noble Viscount tends to
  572
  underestimate, as do all his colleagues. I must put that to him quite plainly. I am not going to assess the merits of those suspicions this afternoon. They may be exaggerated, but I think that there are sound reasons in the minds of the Africans for supposing that the future will not be as rosy as most of us in this House are hoping that it will be. I am not attacking anybody. I am simply saying that our white kith and kin in Africa are subject to temptations to which we in this country are not, and we on this side are profoundly disturbed at the thought that in this Bill so much is being handed over to them and taken away from United Kingdom control.
  Whether the African suspicions are justified or not, whether they are exaggerated, or whether they should be taken at their true value, I beg the noble Viscount—and here his interest is the same as ours—to consider whether, even at this stage, something more cannot be done than has been done to remove those suspicions. I would put it to him, in the interests of his own Bill and in the interests of his own crusading idea, that where there is an aim—this aim to which we refer in this particular Amendment—which everyone in this country holds in common, surely we ought to put that in the Bill in the most impressive, authoritative, most inspiring and convincing manner. Whether we agree or not about federation—and perhaps most of us do agree about the principle of federation itself—there is this deep division of principle between us as to whether it is wise to proceed to impose this on the vast mass of population in Central Africa. Where there is a common aim—and I am sure that the aim of the noble Viscount in respect of this clause is the same as ours—I beg him to think this last time as to whether he cannot put this in the Bill and give his scheme the best chance it can have. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Pakenham.)
  5.3 p.m.
  LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My noble friend Lord Silkin referred to the present stage of this Bill as being either a farce or another chance of putting a point of view. I intend to speak closely to the Amendment which I share with my noble friend Lord Pakenham, and as this

  573
  Amendment concerns the colour bar I hope I may be allowed to expand for a short while on that ground. I think the best way to start is to refer to what the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, said. He asked the question: "Why do not Africans in Southern Rhodesia use their chance of being on the Common Roll? Why do only 400 of them use it when there are 4,000 who qualify?" I asked myself that question a good deal in Salisbury and in the Rhodesias generally a month or two ago, and it seems to me that one part of the answer to that is: because they could not in any case go to the same political meetings as the Europeans. Therefore, it is easy for them to lose heart and faith, and to take the line that. "this is not our politics at all." I believe that is the sort of ground we are considering in this Amendment.
  I think it is understandable that they do not use their rights on the common voters' roll when they cannot sit in the same hall to hear what any speaker has to say, either during an election campaign or at any time during any political meeting. We are agreed that no words can alter the central problem. Interpretations will always defy the printed word, and especially in a matter like the colour bar. To move an Amendment such as this is symbolic of our intention on this side of the House, and gives more authority to our opposition to aspects of the colour bar. Let us face facts. There is no proper racial harmony between the races in these Territories. Federation is supposed to involve a new situation and a true partnership, but in fact one witnesses a certain hardening of attitude on the spot at the present time. Hence, there is real need for such a clause as this, even if it is of limited value.
  I agree, too, that initiative in this Commonwealth of ours is continually passing to the fringes, and I can see that it is irritating for people on the spot to find that we are taking the sort of line that we do on this side of the House ever the need, for instance, for this Amendment. While realising that initiative is passing to people on the spot, we cannot feel happy about the Europeans' attitude to their own colour problem. If one imagines the streets of Salisbury or small centres like Sinoia or Rusape, one well knows the powerlessness of the Mother Country if attitudes go wrong or continue
  574
  wrong. The trader wakes up on the dusty main road; the tobacco farmer walks out on to his stoep—his verandah—at dawn. They are there. Let us not "kid" ourselves about safeguards. These matters will be decided—and I know the noble Viscount, Lord Swintonis in sympathy with this—much more on the spot.
  May I conclude by telling your Lordships about something which happened to me concerning the colour bar? I took the 'plane from Salisbury to Blantyre in Nyasaland, and I had intended, before getting on the 'plane, to send rather a long cable home to England. When I arrived on the 'plane somebody said, "You will now have to send it from Blantyre, and the post offices up there are all manned by Africans." I confess to your Lordships that my first reaction was one of fear that my cable would not get to London intact. But my experience of that post office—where there was an Australian head postmaster but nearly all the rest of the staff were Africans—was of incredible courtesy and efficiency. These people, who have the chance to drive engines and work in post offices in Nyasaland, are superior only in opportunity to the Southern Rhodesian Africans; and it is because the Southern Rhodesian Africans have not these privileges, and because Southern Rhodesia will be the head State in this Federation, that we cannot support the bringing into this of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia as well. We therefore seek the greatest possible assurances over this question. Finally, our undying objective on this side of the House must be to support the Africans in every possible legitimate advancement, in every possible way, whenever they are educated—and to support a genuine equality of all civilised men irrespective of colour or race.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Viscount a question on a rather limited point arising out of my noble friend's Amendment? The noble Viscount: said that paragraph 112 of the Federal Scheme will be incorporated in the Order in Council. This paragraph deals only with employees of the Federal Government, with officers in the Federal public service. They will be given the protection provided in this paragraph which would prevent any discrimination against any African on the ground of race. The Federal Parliament will no doubt set up public authorities of one kind or

  575
  another similar to our public boards—electricity authorities, authorities for managing railways, docks and harbours, civil air services, and so on. What I should like to ask the noble Viscount is whether he can give an assurance that the protection provided for employees in the Federal public services will also be provided for employees working for public authorities set up by the Federal Government. If he cannot give the assurance at this stage perhaps he will see, after he has had an opportunity of consulting with the Central African Governments, whether he can or cannot give an assurance at some later stage when we still have another opportunity to consider this extremely important matter raised by my noble friend, the question of the colour bar.
  5.10 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and supported by two other noble Lords opposite is one which, I am happy to think, has been moved without any prejudice. Whenever this question of the colour bar is discussed in either House of Parliament, almost invariably passions are aroused and considerable feeling is prevalent on all sides. To-day, fortunately, we have no such signs as that. Indeed, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment and those who followed him spoke with care and deliberation. We all know that a colour bar exists, not only in Africa but, to a lesser extent, in certain other parts of the world as well. But I am absolutely certain that it is futile to try to abolish the colour bar by certain words in an Act of Parliament. The noble Lord read out paragraph 112 which will be inserted in the Order in Council—and here let me tell Lord Listowel at once that that, of course, will apply to all civil servants who are employed, and all servants who are employed, by the Federation.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am much obliged to the noble Earl, but that does not quite answer my question. I accept the fact that this applies to all civil servants, but will it apply to employees of authorities set up by the Federal Government? I think this is something we are entitled to know.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: It will apply only to people in the employ of the
  576
  Federation, and not to anybody else. It will not apply to people who may be employed in the various businesses and undertakings which have been set up by the Federal Government.
  If we get back to this Federal Government, which we hope will be set up very shortly, there are already a number of signs which point to the impetus that it will give towards abolishing the colour bar. For example, we know from Sir Godfrey Huggins that the Federal Party he is setting up will be open to both Europeans and Africans; and that will produce one solid party, composed not only of Europeans but of Africans also. Then there is the new University, which we now know is to be multi-racial. That will be an immense step forward towards creating a multi-racial society. Then there is in the Bill this African Affairs Board which, through the powers we have given to it, can go a long way to reducing, and perhaps finally eliminating altogether, practices of discrimination where they exist. But I believe that the whole question of the colour bar can ultimately be abolished as years go by only by educating a healthy public opinion which will finally discountenance prejudices of this kind. But I do not, and shall not, believe that we can, by inserting a few words in an Act of Parliament, however important the words may be, finally bring to an end the whole of the colour bar question.
  Now let me turn to the final part of the Amendment, in which the noble Lord seeks to apply this to any public or private body or business. This would in my judgment be utterly useless. From the beginning such a provision would be quite unenforceable. There would be no method that I can see of enforcing legislation such as is suggested on a private person. It almost implies that this person must go to this shop or not go to that shop. I think that if the noble Lord will ponder carefully he will see that the insertion of anything of this kind in an Act of Parliament is really not possible.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I may not be very good at pondering, but I can read. I hope the noble Earl will accompany me for a moment. If he reads this clause he will see that there is no suggestion that the Government have got to go round putting this person into a shop or putting

  577
  that person out. Its reference is simply to any instruction or direction given by anyone under this clause or acting on behalf of the Federal Government. If the noble Lord reads my Amendment he will see that he is dealing with a clause that is not there.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord has not read his own Amendment. It is clear that the last part of the Amendment, with its reference to employment
  "in or under any public or private body or person"
  refers to any employees of any kind. Whether "in or under the Federal Government" or whether they are under a public or private body, they are not to be debarred on the grounds solely of race or colour.
  EARL JOWITT: It says that a man must not be rendered incapable
  "by any law or other enactment of the Federal Legislature or by any instruction given or direction issued by any person in tie service of or acting on behalf of the Federal Government.…"
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will not argue against the noble and learned Earl. Frankly, I would not say any more on the subject, except to remark that it seems to me that the noble Lord's Amendment definitely includes private individuals, as well as the Federal Government; and that, I think, is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the question of the colour bar.
  The noble Lord, and indeed all noble Lords in this House, are aware that the subject of the colour bar, whatever one may call it, could be debated at considerable length. I have no intention of saying a great deal more, except this: that I have definitely seen certain signs of discrimination being gradually overcome. It cannot be overcome at once, without further delay, and its complete overthrow may not be achieved within a few years. Nevertheless, there has been a considerable advance during the last ten years towards the final abolition of the colour bar. It is, however, still in existence—for example, in the white trade unions in Northern Rhodesia, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Hall has spoken on many occasions. But I believe that through such actions as the setting up of an inter-racial University, and a Federal
  578
  Party composed of Europeans and Africans, we shall be well on the way to getting rid of a practice which none appreciates, likes or sympathises with.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Earl was very kind about me in his opening remarks. We on this side always regard him as a courteous opponent, and I do not want to bully him. But he has completely failed to understand the Amendment; and as we propose to take this Amendment rather seriously, because we feel that it is very important, I should like to say a few words more. Before saying—as I am authorised to do—that we shall divide the House, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether, now that he realises this Amendment is completely different from the Amendment which he came down to defeat this afternoon, he will reconsider his reply.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: No.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The noble Earl says, "No." Presumably he has not been equipped with a reply to the Amendment as it actually stands. Perhaps he is wise in his generation. We take this Amendment very seriously. We have put a case to which the Government, with all their resources, have been unable to reply at all. In those circumstances, we feel bound to divide the House.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: I really must say a few words on the point that we could not reply at all. It is not that I: do not think the reply given was entirely adequate, although possibly the noble and learned Earl's legal construction of a rather odd-looking Amendment was better than that of my noble friend, who is a layman in these matters. If the noble Lord opposite likes to go to a Division on this—the noble Earl twitted me and reproved me a little for having attributed some motive somewhere to the Back Benches—I hope that he will not attribute any motive to us. I think I have a pretty good record myself in liberal administration in Africa and in the promotion of officers there, both civil and military, and in helping to build an army of forty thousand trained tradesmen. Obviously, for the reasons which we have given earlier, we cannot go altering this scheme and putting in additions, even if we thought they were good enough. Paragraph 112 goes a very long way. It

  579
  goes, I think, to the right people—namely, the people who will be in the direct employ of the Federal Government.
  I should like sincerely to say this. I am perfectly certain that the colour bar (used in the sense of opposition to giving the Africans an opportunity) is not going to be found in the Government service. It is going to be found in the ranks of industry, and anybody who knows Rhodesia, both Northern and Southern, will know that that is true. You certainly will not abolish that by legislation. You could not here make the miners take Italians into the pits by legislation. You cannot make the white unions of Northern Rhodesia give a growing opportunity to African labour, very likely skilled labour, by legislation. As a matter of fact, the opportunities for Africans in industry are a good deal greater in Southern Rhodesia than in Northern Rhodesia. I will tell the House why I think that is so. In Northern Rhodesia you have this one great industry of mining and you have a white union—we may as well be frank about this—in a deeply entrenched position. So far, they have resisted the advancement of Africans. I have been there. I was shocked, in comparison with what was my experience in West Africa, and with what was my experience over the border in the Congo, to see restrictions which not the Rhodesian Government but the white union placed upon Africans in Northern Rhodesia.
  That situation is being challenged now. By whom is it being challenged? It is being challenged by the managers, the directorate of those mines; and they are doing a very plucky thing in doing that. I am glad that they are taking it up. That shows that you cannot deal with this matter by legislation. In Southern Rhodesia, you find more opportunities for the Africans, because industry is much more diversified, and new industries have been growing up. You find Africans employed in skilled industries like electrical welding and all sorts of skilled processes, in plastics, in textiles and in metallurgy there. They are new industries which have been growing up there lately, and there is no vested interest of a white trade union. I think you do get difficulties when you come to the railways where the white trade union position is a good deal more entrenched.
  580
  We all want to see this situation get better. I should like to see the noble Lords opposite address the observations which they have addressed to me to the labour leaders in Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia (the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, has done it) because that is where the conversion in this matter must take place. I am sure that it is going on; and I am sure that it will be a gradual process. As I say, in Government service I am not anxious about it at all. It is outside where we all want to see the progress. It is easy for a white man to keep a black man out of a job, but that does not ensure white men getting more jobs. As a matter of fact, as a country expands, and as its industries expand, there will be more and better jobs for white men if the black men are allowed their chance of getting jobs as well. I am sure that is industrially right. I apologise for having addressed this sort of homily to the Committee at the close of the debate on this Amendment, but I do not want this clause to go without saying to the House that I feel very deeply and sincerely about this problem in which we all have a common interest and common intention. I cannot accept this Amendment. If noble Lords opposite wish to divide upon it—well, let them divide. But let us go into our respective Lobbies in the knowledge that, though we may find ourselves in different Lobbies on a clause that I am bound to say I do not think is particularly relevant, we all have at heart a common purpose.
  EARL JOWITT: I do not think the noble Viscount need apologise for his intervention. I thought it was most valuable. I thought it showed that all noble Lords, on both sides of the House, have the same broad ideal about this scheme. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount that we cannot get rid of the colour bar merely by passing an Act of Parliament. Secondly, I entirely agree with him that it is quite wrong in this clause to assume that it is the fault of the Government. It may have been the fault of all sorts of other people, far more than it is the fault of the Government. As I entirely agree, the point which divides us is actually quite a narrow one. Paragraph 112, which is foreshadowed in the White Paper, and no doubt will go into the Order in

  581
  Council, is simply confined to persons in the employment of the Federal Government.
  If I may take an analogy in this country, where there are all sorts of public corporations—for instance, the Coal Board, the Electricity Authority, the Gas Board, the local authorities and a hundred and one other bodies like that—all we want to secure is that, with any similar bodies set up by the Federal Government, no order or regulation or advice given by or on behalf of the Government shall prevent any individual from employing black labour if he is so minded, and that black labour and white labour shall be on an equal footing. That widens the provision of Paragraph 112 which extends merely to employees of
  Remaining clause agreed to.
  the Federal Government. We think we ought to register our desire to have this Amendment inserted, and though we appreciate the difficulty of the noble Viscount in not meeting us (if only he had more room in which to manœuvre perhaps he would have met us), I think we ought to show that we attach importance to this matter, and that we desire that the Government shall, so far as it can be done, be plainly at the side of equality as between the two races, not only in regard to its own employees, but in regard to all the regulations it may make. Consequently, we shall divide.
  On Question, Whether the proposed new clause shall be there inserted?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 65.

  CONTENTS

  Jowitt, E.

  Bingham, L. (E. Lucan) [Teller.]

  Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

  Burden, L. [Teller.]

  Noel-Buxton, L.

  Hall, V.

  Faringdon, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Stansgate, V.

  Haden-Guest, L.

  Shepherd, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Silkin, L.

  Blackburn, L. Bp.

  Henderson, L.

  Sinha, L.

  Kershaw, L.

  Winster, L.

  Archibald, L.

  Lawson, L.

  Wise, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Simonds, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

  Glyn, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Hampton, L.

  Cholmondeley, M.,

  Long, V.

  Hatherton, L.

  Reading, M.

  Swinton, V.

  Hawke, L.

  Willingdon, M.

  Trenchard, V.

  Hindlip, L.

  Woolton, V.

  Howard of Glossop, L.

  Alexander of Tunis, E

  Leathers, L.

  Birkenhead, E.

  Ailwyn, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Buckinghamshire, E.

  Aldenham, L.

  Lloyd, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Baden-Powell, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Milverton, L.

  Blackford, L.

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Fortescue, E. [Teller.]

  Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

  Rea, L.

  Grey, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Remnant, L.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Cherwell, L.

  Ritchie of Dundee, L.

  Morley, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Munster, E.

  Derwent, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Onslow, E. [Teller.]

  Dorchester, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Selborne, E.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Turnour, L. (E. Winterton.)

  Selkirk, E.

  Fairfax of Cameron, L.

  Tweedsmuir, L.

  Fraser of North Cape, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Allenby, V.

  Freyberg, L.

  Webb-Johnson, L.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Falmouth, V.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

  House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

  ENEMY PROPERTY BILL [H.L.]
  5.41 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, it is nearly four months since your Lordships gave a First Reading to this Bill. In the course of that time your Lordships have gone into it with great care and deliberation and have discussed nearly sixty Amendments. I must therefore ask leave of the House to make one or two general observations on the Bill, in case during this length of time the main purposes may have been lost sight of. I do so for this reason. As some of its proposals have been characterised from the other side of the House as being "faintly discreditable" I am a little anxious lest this idea should gain currency. I repudiate that description. I want to make it perfectly clear that there is nothing whatever discreditable in this Enemy Property Bill. It is an indemnity Bill, and such Bills are a normal part of the business of clearing up after a war in which the nation's existence was at stake.
  On some points, I think, our memories are apt to be a little short. One in particular has perhaps been overlaid by some of the speeches to which we have listened, with a certain amount of sympathy from this side of the House, if, perhaps, not with agreement. The point is that the prevention of trading with the enemy and the denial of possible benefit to him was an important feature of our economic warfare. Therefore, where a person was resident in enemy territory, not merely was it the law, but it was essential, if advantage was to be denied to the enemy, that his property in this country should come under control. This was the case no matter what his own political or religious convictions might be. I mention that point in particular, because several noble Lords opposite appeared to be worried lest we might be doing injustice to those with whose political and religious convictions we were in sympathy and who had suffered for them during the war. Furthermore, all this was very largely dependent upon the ready acceptance of their obligations by the community here at home as a whole. Those concerned who acted in the various ways described in Parts I and II of the
  584
  Bill, and are now liable to have claims made against them, are entitled, I should have thought, to some consideration, and certainly ought not to be expected to bear the consequences if they acted in good faith.
  The second point I would make is this. It is not the case, as has been occasionally suggested during the Committee and Report stages, that would-be plaintiffs have had little or no time as yet to launch their actions, and will, perhaps, be penalised or have injustice done against them if this Bill passes into law. The contrary is true. They have had plenty of time. The courts have been open to Germans since July, 1951, to Japanese nationals since April, 1952, to Italian, Bulgarian and other Central European nationals since September, 1947, and to Austrian nationals since September, 1947. Allied nationals have been in a position to sue here ever since they ceased to be alien enemies on the liberation of the territories concerned, while the courts have never been closed to neutrals. Indeed, in some cases, notably so far as British subjects and other non-enemies are concerned, actions in the courts would now be time-barred by the Statutes of Limitation. The period of limitation as regards actions by persons formerly separated by the line of war is governed by the Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act, 1945, under which time does not run against such persons while they were enemies. In the circumstances, I really feel that those concerned cannot be heard to complain, eight years after hostilities came to an end, that they have had neither the time nor the opportunity to bring their claims, and that those against whom they would wish to do so must still remain uncertain of their position.
  My Lords, those are the two points I wished to clear up, because I felt that there was slight uneasiness that some latent injustice might be done. I think I have said enough to show the House that that is absolutely not so and that no injustice of any sort has been done or is being done. I would conclude by thanking very much the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth—who was good enough to tell me that he could not be in his place at this time—and his colleagues on the opposite side of the House, and also those noble friends behind me, who have been good enough to go into this Bill with such great care and have

  585
  done much to improve it. With those words, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Mancroft.)
  5.46 p.m.
  LORD SILKEN: My Lords, in the unfortunate absence of my noble friend and colleague, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I have been asked to say a few words in reply to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. I think he is under some misapprehension when he suggests that there was any criticism at all about the purpose of the Bill. I think we all accepted the need for an indemnity Bill. There was no opposition at all on the Second Reading, and, so far as I am aware, all the Amendments on the Committee stage were directed to improving the Bill and to ensuring that innocent people did not suffer. Indeed, in consequence of representations made from this side of the House and of some from the other side, and as a result of the Amendments we moved, I think it will be generally agreed that the Bill has been improved.
  There was just one matter to which the noble Lord referred, which did give rise to a certain amount of uneasiness. I had some sympathy with the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack because, possibly, these matters were outside the scope of the Bill. But I do not know. I could argue both ways. But I do not think any criticism ought to be directed against any noble Lord who tried to make a case for those who were as much victims of German aggression as we were ourselves. Persons, on whose behalf noble Lords on this side of the House spoke, suffered persecution and deprivation and all kinds of horrors, and it was felt that in talking of enemy aliens it was rather anomalous to refer to these people who were never enemies and who, as I say, had suffered just as much at the hands of the enemy as anyone else. It was felt that they ought not to suffer consequences similar to those imposed on enemies themselves.
  Another class of persons was concerned, and this consisted of people who were opposed to the enemy but who became technical enemies because of German invasion—people like the Danes, the Dutch, and the Belgians. It was felt that
  586
  they also ought to receive some differential treatment. I think it was perfectly right and legitimate to raise this question. Whether it was, as the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack said, irrelevant to raise it in a discussion upon this Bill, I should not care to express an opinion. It may well be that it was so. But I do not think that noble Lords who raised it deserve any strictures for having done so. As the noble and learned Lord himself said, the case they put forward is one deserving of sympathy. And I understand that in fact it will receive a certain amount of sympathy by means of ex gratia payments. Subject to these remarks, I think we can bring this Bill to a harmonious conclusion. Since the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has been good enough to thank noble Lords on this side for what they have done in improving the Bill, may I say that the noble Lord himself has conducted himself on this Bill in a most efficient way. I should like to congratulate him on the very considerable mastery he managed to achieve over a difficult and technical measure.
  LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I was not aware, until the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, spoke, of the harmony with which this Bill had been received on the other side. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, conveyed the impression to my mind that he was bitterly opposed to the Bill at one stage and thought it very unfair.
  LORD SILKIN: Only on the one point to which he referred; not generally.
  LORD HAWKE: I accept that. My noble friend, Lord Mancroft, who has piloted the Bill, has earned my great admiration for so doing. It is a Bill which, frankly, I could not understand, and a great many other noble Lords could not, either. Enemy property has always been a source of great difficulty. I had something to do with it during the war. It cropped up at every turn, whenever a territory was reoccupied. Fortunately, we had a corps of extremely clever and able civil servants who were always able to advise us what should be done, and nothing was done without the advice of these guides. It is strange to think that we should ever pass a Bill like this. It shows that we are a people who have great veneration for the law. If the Germans or Japanese had won the war, I wonder what their legislation would

  587
  have been like. I have not discovered exactly what legislation the Russians have passed in this connection. I am extremely glad we have such competent civil servants to advise us on these matters and a noble Lord who really did understand the Bill to pilot it through the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I wonder if the House will allow me to say this, in connection with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said. I should be extremely sorry if anything I said could be construed as criticism or strictures on the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. On the other hand, it was the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who referred to this Bill and to the administration of enemy property as something which was disgraceful; almost in the last sentence he used the word "iniquitous." I must confess that that seemed to me somewhat of a travesty of the provisions of the Bill and of the administration of enemy property, which has proceeded in precisely the same way under both the Socialist Government and the present Government. But if the noble Lord did say anything, I should not complain, because I ought to be capable of hearing that sort of thing without wincing. If I said anything that could be construed as being in any way offensive to the noble Lord, I am sorry for it. With these words, I will put the Question.
  On Question, Bill read 3ª; Amendments (privilege) made. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL
  6.2 p.m.
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

  MARSHALL AID COMMEMORATION BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
  THERAPEUTIC SUBSTANCES (PRE- VENTION OF MISUSE) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

  COVENTRY CATHEDRAL BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and referred to the Examiners.
  House adjourned at four minutes past six o'clock.