§ 3.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the report in the Daily Telegraph of July 12, 1960, that:
Sir Roy Welensky said that the Federal Government would use its forces in any role which best served the interests of the Federation … Britain was in no way concerned with the use that the Federal Government intended to make of its troops."]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)My Lords, under the Federal Constitution, defence, which includes the control of the Federal armed forces, is a Federal responsibility. The Federal Government are also responsible for such external relations as may from time to time be entrusted to the Federation by Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government have entrusted to the Federation a large measure of responsibility for external affairs, subject to the responsibility which they must continue to have in International Law so long as the Federation is not a separate international entity. Since the entry of Federal troops into foreign territory would involve the ultimate international responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, this is obviously a matter which would involve consultation and agreement between the Federal Government and Her Majesty's Government. As the Prime Minister stated on July 11, we are in consultation with the Federal Government and are maintaining close touch 288 with them about affairs in the Congo, which are naturally of deep concern to both Governments.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, I am much obliged for the Answer. I am not quite sure of the actual wording in the relative paragraph in the Constitution about the Federation being entirely responsible for defence. Certainly it is a difficult situation, so long as Her Majesty's Government have the responsibility for the safety and welfare, as it seems to us, of those parts of the Federation which are still under our protection—they are Protectorates. I should like to hear what the noble Earl's view is upon that point. There was some dubiety in people's minds in 1957, when there was an explanation made, I think, at the time when there were discussions going on over here, as to the position of the Federation in foreign affairs. I think that the latter part of the noble Earl's Answer this afternoon seems to be satisfactory on that. But, surely, it is fundamental that we should have not only such consultation but, in the event of disagreement, full freedom to carry out our responsibility to those who are still protected.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, yes; I think that the noble Viscount has fully understood the last part of my Answer, and that it is perfectly clear. What we have to do in these matters is to proceed by close consultation and by agreement; that is the essence of this matter. And so far as the internal situation of the Federation is concerned, of course the Federal Government is responsible for defence and the territorial Governments are responsible for internal security. So, there again, this is a matter in which we must proceed always in close consultation between the territorial Government and the Federal authorities; and that we do try to achieve.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, I am much obliged. I hope that the noble Earl's words will be be duly noted by Sir Roy Welensky.