HL Deb 13 July 1953 vol 183 cc525-55

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—

  1. (a) provide for the federation of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland (in this section referred to as "the Territories") and for that purpose—
    1. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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')—
    1. (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
    2. (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—

  1. (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
  2. (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—
  1. (a) a copy of the draft has been laid before each House of the Parliament of the United Kingdom; and
    2. 541
  2. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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"; 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 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 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 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, 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.

Back to