§ 2.52 p.m.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy 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 their attention has been drawn to the statements by Mr. Tom Mboya, within a week of the ending of the Kenya Conference, that it was a dream that the Macleod Constitution was to last four or five years and that African elected members had given no agreement to that effect in London; and to ask further why, if that was their attitude, the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated in the White Paper signed by him on February 21, that the African elected members were prepared to accept his proposals as the next stage in Kenya's constitutional development.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH)My Lords, I have seen reports of Mr. Mboya's statements. The African constituency elected members have, in fact, as the Conference Report says, accepted my right honourable friend's proposals as the next stage in Kenya's constitutional development. The Conference did not consider for how long that next stage should last, but Her Majesty's Government would certainly reject any suggestion that the new structure should be pulled down as soon as it had been erected.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I take it, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government do not accept Mr. Mboya's interpretation of the attitude of the African elected members at the Conference. In those circumstances, have they, or will they, leave him in no doubt that any repetition of such irresponsible utterances will invalidate the present agreement and would certainly render 868 futile any further negotiations with him?
§ THE EARL OF PERTHMy Lords, I know that Mr. Mboya, in speaking, was speaking personally for himself, and not on behalf of the African elected members. Incidentally, the leader of those African elected members was Mr. Ngala and not Mr. Mboya. I looked very carefully at what he said in the statement. It has been shortened, naturally enough, in the Press, and I do not think that it was quite so shortened in its implications as is given in the Question. But it is quite clear, and I repeat, that, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, no further changes will take place unless we find there has been successful working of the present Constitution.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am glad that that statement has been made by the noble Earl. But, unless the Press report that I have is incorrect, Mr. Mboya stated—and it is put in inverted commas:
… the African elected members gave no agreement in London that this Constitution would last four years.It is certainly going to take three or four years to bring it into operation, and I still regard that as a repudiation.
§ THE EARL OF PERTHMy Lords, I think we must leave it at that. The question of the duration was not discussed in detail. So far as her Majesty's Government are concerned, what we want to know, before we go to the next stage, is that the Constitution is successful.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, would it not be well if the noble Earl would let the Colonial Secretary know that we on this side of the House, although we may not agree with every word in his White Paper, certainly welcome the progress he has made in this matter of the Treaty?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, may I say that it gives me no confidence at all?