HL Deb 07 March 1961 vol 229 cc279-301

2.40 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

rose to call attention to the situation in Central Africa; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the exceptionally long list of speakers on this Motion, and the advent of a distinguished newcomer to our debates, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, whose experience as a member of the Monckton Commission will be of special value to us, show that your Lordships on both sides of the House are fully aware of the seriousness of the present situation in Central Africa. We all realise that there is a grave and imminent danger of strife and bloodshed between Africans and Europeans. There are many different views—and no doubt they will be voiced in the course of this debate—about what the Government should do to secure the orderly constitutional change characteristic of British policy. Some will say that the pace of change is too fast; others will say that we are going too slowly. But such differences of opinion are not confined to one Party. I believe they cut across Party lines, and they all deserve respect, whatever their practical merits, as an honest interpretation of British responsibility at a very critical moment in the history of Central Africa.

I must say frankly that we on these Benches are closer to the Government in its recent policy than many of its supporters in this House and in another place. But whatever distance we may stand from one another—and I hope the Government will not draw too much comfort from what I have just said—I believe we all share the keen hope that nothing we may say will increase tension between the races, or be used to encourage either side to overstep the law. Perhaps, indeed, we might go one step further together. Could we not join in a friendly appeal to Africans and Europeans in the Federation not to allow their strong—and understandably strong— feelings about political issues to explode in violent deeds or unconstitutional behaviour?

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Judging from the support I have received from several of your Lordships in my state- ment just now, this might be a timely message to send out from this House and I hope noble Lords who follow me will be good enough to say whether or not they agree with my suggestion.

Now, my Lords, I shall try (I do not know how successfully) to look at the situation in Central Africa, and the events which have led up to it, as objectively as possible. Your Lordships will remember that since our last debate on the Monckton Commission Report three important events have taken place in the political life of Central Africa. These are, in roughly chronological order, the first stage of the Conference on the Revision of the Federal Constitution at Lancaster House, the Southern Rhodesian Constitutional talks at Salisbury and the successive stages of the discussions on the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia in London. I think that the question which springs most naturally to the mind in regard to the Federation is whether its prospects have improved or deteriorated as a result of these Conferences and this background of political developments since our last debate on Central Africa. And I fear that the answer to this question—at least, it is the answer that I give, having tried to study the facts as objectively as I can— is that the prospect of holding a Federation together is more slender to-day than it was when the Lancaster House Conference met in December. There appears to have been a distinct hardening of African opinion in Northern Rhodesia and of European opinion in Southern Rhodesia against the Federal set-up.

My Lords, this hardening of opinion on both sides, which undoubtedly we all regret, is, I think, easy to understand. African distrust of the Federal Government has been increased by the attitude they have adopted to constitutional change in Northern Rhodesia and by the attitude of both main Federal Parties, the United Federal Party and the Dominion Party, towards political advance for Africans in that territory. In a nationwide broadcast on February 21 Sir Roy Welensky said that he would "resist" (I am using his own word) any attempt to introduce the constitutional proposals of Her Majesty's Government for Northern Rhodesia "with all the means at his command." By threatening to "resist" the imposition of the British proposals, the Federal Government appeared at any rate to be offering support for interference in the internal affairs of the British Protectorate. Everyone knows, of course, that the Federal Government have the right to be consulted about constitutional changes in the two Northern Territories, but it is for the British Government to decide what these changes shall be, and any form of resistance other than persuasion would clearly be illegal and treasonable.

It is reassuring to know that Sir Roy Welensky does not mean to act unconstitutionally or to encourage anyone else to do so. Indeed, no one would expect such action from so experienced and capable a statesman. Since he arrived in this country, he has said publicly that he is not prepared to consider any of the suggestions about unconstitutional behaviour that have been made to him. Nevertheless, the Africans in Northern Rhodesia may be excused for thinking that when he talked about resistance by all the means at his command, he meant something more than a verbal protest against changes of which he disapproved. I hope that the statements Sir Roy has made since he came to London will be as widely publicised in Central Africa as his earlier statements made in Africa.

Another action of the Federal Government that has added to African fears and suspicions was the call-up of four battalions of Territorials. Although, of course, the Federal Government were entitled to do this, it does not normally take place in a Protectorate except at the request of the Governor. I do not believe that such a request was made by the Governor of Northern Rhodesia. I hope that the Government will correct me if I am wrong. Tension has certainly been relieved by the subsequent demobilisation of these Territorial units.

The other factor in the hardening of African opinion in Northern Rhodesia against the Federation has been the uncompromising opposition of the two main Parties in the Federal Legislature to increased African representation in the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council. The White Paper on Northern Rhodesia (Cmnd. 1295), issued by Her Majesty's Government, informs us on page 4 that the reason why the United Federal Party boycotted the recent talks in London was that their representatives —and I quote: challenged the view that there was any justification either for a substantial increase in the number of Africans in the Legislative Council, or for an extension of the Franchise. The Dominion Party took the same line about Northern Rhodesia and objected to Sir Edgar Whitehead's modest proposal for African seats in the Southern Rhodesian Legislative Council, where, of course, at the moment there are no elected Africans at all. Can we be surprised, in these circumstances, that the Africans in Not thorn Rhodesia see no hope in a Federal Government controlled by Parties determined to block even this gradual degree of African political advance?

The hardening of European opinion in Southern Rhodesia is due, I think, partly to a mounting fear of African rule in the protectorates and partly to the concessions made to Africans in the proposed revision of the Southern Rhodesian Constitution. The narrow margin between these two Parties, the Dominion Party and the United Federal Party, in Southern Rhodesia, would certainly make it difficult for Sir Edgar Whitehead to win his referendum in the summer. While I am sure we all hope he will succeed, no one can predict the outcome.

These being the facts of the case as I see them (I am perfectly prepared to revise my judgment if any noble Lord opposite can convince me that my interpretation of events is mistaken and I sincerely hope that my interpretation is mistaken), and that being the state of opinion in the Federation, is a major factor that the Government have to take into account in framing their policy for the future of the Central African Federation.

It seems to me that there are three possible courses open to the Government. First of all, they can go on hoping, as we all hoped last year, and as I think we all still hope, for agreement between Africans and Europeans to accept a revised Federal Constitution. But this hope has lessened with the failure of the first stage of the Conference—failure to reach agreement, at least—and the subsequent hardening of African and European opinion, as I have already pointed out, against Federal relationship. I cannot myself see any good reason for convening the Conference again unless there is a reasonable prospect of agreement between the races to make the Federation work. Only the Government can judge whether such a prospect exists. To the outsider, at any rate, it looks extremely difficult.

It should not be forgotten, if the Conference is abandoned or finally breaks down, that the Monckton Commission said quite plainly that the Federation cannot continue in its present form; in other words, it would have to be imposed by force on people who do not want it. This is only a theoretical alternative, for I cannot really believe that anyone wants the Federation to be kept going by force or that any British Government could pursue such a policy. The third course, which I hope the Government will seriously consider, if they have not already done so, is to tell the people of the two Protectorates and of Southern Rhodesia that they will be permitted to secede from Federation if they express the wish to secede at some future date. There is surely a better chance that the two races will work together if they find that they will not be compelled to live under a form of government they do not want.

In the meantime (this is another suggestion that I should like to offer; I am really thinking aloud), consideration might he given to the possibility at some future date of a much wider Federation of British Africa than the present Central African Federation. Many African leaders have declared their support for a Central and East African Federation, which would take in Tanganyika, Kenya and possibly Uganda, after these countries become independent, as well as self-governing Central African territories wishing to accede. A Federation of this size, which would be the largest political unit in Africa, would give political strength and growing prosperity to a vast area of the African Continent for which we are at present responsible.

Whatever the Government may decide about the future of the Federation and this is a matter not for us, but for the Government in the exercise of their responsibility—I think we all hope that they will make up their mind as quickly as possible, and that the present political uncertainty will not be allowed to continue for a moment longer than is necessary. Political uncertainty is killing the economic life of the Federation. Development plans are being abandoned or cut down; capital investment is drying up. This disastrous process will not stop until two essential conditions have been satisfied. The first is that the Government should declare their hand about the future of the Federation; the second is that a sense of stability should be established by agreement between the races about their political destiny, whether within or without the Federation.

I should now like to make a few comments on the other two events to which I have alluded—namely, the constitutional discussions in Southern Rhodesia and those in London about Northern Rhodesia. I think your Lordships will agree that the recent talks in Salisbury marked a strong forward step in the constitutional development of Southern Rhodesia. The Secretary of State, who presided at the meeting, scored, I think, a remarkable personal success; and Sir Edgar Whitehead showed a great deal of courage in putting forward proposals which obviously alienated a good deal of Euorpean opinion. If these proposals are confirmed by the referendum that will take place this summer, Africans will be represented for the first time in the Legislative Council, and a Declaration of Rights enforceable by the courts will he entrenched in the Constitution in place of the reserve powers of the British Government.

It cannot have been easy for the African representatives, led by Mr. Nkomo, to accept these proposals, because the Declaration of Rights is not retrospective in regard to racial discrimination, and because the Africans cannot get more seats without the support and consent of the European Parties. So it was all the more striking that Mr. Nkomo accepted, and has only since retracted under the very strong Party pressure to which political leaders in many parts of the world are submitted. If this revised Constitution is approved by the electorate in Southern Rhodesia and enacted by the Legislative Council, I think that we shall all hope that it may be possible for the Africans to take full advantage of the opportunities that will be offered to them under the new Constitution. But I am sure that it would be very helpful to Mr. Nkomo (perhaps I may venture this point, with all humility; because, of course, we have no constitutional rights in a matter of this kind) if it could be made clearly understood in Southern Rhodesia that this is only the first step towards further political advance for the African inhabitants.

It would he a tragic thing if the African leadership in the Rhodesias were to pass out of the hands of moderate men like Mr. Nkomo, in Southern Rhodesia, or Mr. Kaunda and Mr. Nkumbula in Northern Rhodesia and into the hands of extremists. But this is quite likely to happen unless these moderate men are offered terms which they can sell to their own supporters. That, of course, is the story of Party politics in every country. One of the greatest dangers in the present Constitution—and it is something that might easily occur if the Government were to go back on the constitutional proposals they have made for Northern Rhodesia—is that African leadership will pass from the moderates to the extremists, leaving no one with whom we can continue to negotiate. I hope that certain noble Lords opposite, whose proposals would make the task of the moderate Africans much more difficult, fully appreciate this very serious danger.

Finally, my Lords, I should like to make one or two comments on the proposed constitutional changes for Northern Rhodesia. Whatever view we may take about their merits, what matters most in that controversy about them should be conducted in a reasonable spirit and with a proper respect for constitutional procedures. I very much hope that the Government may find themselves in a position to stick to the broad outline of the plan outlined by the Secretary of State at Lancaster House. I say that for this reason, and without pronouncing any view about the merits of the plan as a whole. Any change made at this stage to the disadvantage of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia would be regarded as a surrender to the Federal Government and would make our task in bringing about orderly political constitutional advance much more difficult. The Federal Government was fully consulted through its representatives, both in London and Salisbury, before the plan was tabled. If it had wished to argue its case while negotiations were going on, the United Federal Party should not have boycotted the Conference at Lancaster House. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will tell us whether they feel that this constitutional duty of consultation has been fully discharged, and to their satisfaction. Sir Roy Welensky has the undoubted right to make further representations while he is in London, and I have no doubt that the Government will give them serious and careful consideration. But unless there has been a failure to consult, it is difficult to see how the Government could go back on a decision taken only last month, and at a time when the views of the Federal Government must have been known to them.

There will, of course, be art opportunity for further discussion of the plan at Lusaka with the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, and I hope that the many important details and gaps that remain to be filled in, including franchise qualifications and delimitation of constituencies, will be filled in with the advice of and full consultation with both the African and the European Parties in Northern Rhodesia. This weapon of a political boycott, whoever uses it, is absolutely devastating to any sort of negotiated, reasonable agreement, and one hopes very much that both the African and the European Parties in Northern Rhodesia will take part in these discussions in Lusaka, which, I trust, will be as the Government intend them to be, about matters of detail.

Again, in the Government plan there are advantages and disadvantages from the African point of view. They will not get an elected majority in the Legislative Council, and, of course, they must feel some sense of grievance about this because it was one of the recommendations of the Monckton Nevertheless, there will be a large increase in the African electorate and in the number of African seats on the Legislative Council. Indeed, when it is realised that the balance of power will almost certainly be held by the Liberal Party—and I think it is extremely gratifying that the Liberal Party is doing so well in Northern Rhodesia under the able leadership of Sir John Moffat—it is obvious that the plan is a move in the direction of democratic self-government. This being so, one greatly hopes that, whatever its defects, everyone concerned will make the best of it.

The whole future of Central Africa depends on the possibility of friendship and co-operation between races that are, unfortunately, steadily growing apart. A failure to settle their differences by agreement even if it is their agreement to differ, would mean a disastrous set-back, political and economic, to the Federation itself, and would have repercussions on race relations throughout Africa and far beyond it. But an agreement presupposes the willing acceptance by both races of something each does not really want. For the Europeans it means endorsement of the principle that operates in the whole democratic world, the principle of majority rule, as the target of constitutional development within the Federation. For the Africans, it means the patience and self-discipline required to go through the successive stages of constitutional development before majority rule can be attained. Partnership has hitherto been more often honoured in the breach than in the observance, but partnership could still become a reality if equality between the races were accepted as the common goal. I beg to move for Papers.

3.4 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for putting this Motion down at a most appropriate moment, at a time when our thoughts are full of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland, and also for the painstaking and careful way in which he has deployed his arguments to us this afternoon. So far as I am concerned, and so far as my Party is concerned, we fully endorse the warning that the noble Earl gave to peoples in those areas, and we, too, trust that no one there will do anything to impede the normal flow of orderly government in those territories. It is very easy to raise the devil, but it is not quite so easy to calm him down when you want to, as we know only too well. The words of the noble Earl to that effect will, I am sure, have considerable impact in Africa.

We have had a number of debates on this subject in the last ten years—I think I have taken part in every one of them, except one, when I was indisposed—and, whatever happens in Central Africa, no one can say that we in this House have been unaware of their problems. Before I say anything about those problems in detail, I should like, on behalf of the Liberal Party and on my own behalf, to express our wholehearted support of the Government and of Mr. Macleod in the action they have taken in Northern Rhodesia. We believe that their action there is one of courage and imagination, and therefore we support them. We do not necessarily say that the plan they are proposing for Northern Rhodesia is the one we should propose. But it is a plan which should have a fair run. We should give it a trial, and I hope the people of Northern Rhodesia of all races will give it a trial.

So far as I am concerned, I have always maintained that federation was most desirable for Central Africa, and I maintain that to-day. It is interesting to note that every single part of the Monckton Commission's Report—not only the Majority Report, but the Minority Reports as well—recognised the fact that it was essential for the economic progress of those territories to have some sort of association, whether federation or otherwise. As the noble Earl has pointed out to-day, quite rightly, the Africans themselves are thinking of a much larger Federation. They are thinking of a Federation which will embrace the whole British East African territories as well as Central African territories. I would ask the people of Central Africa not to destroy the Federation at this time, because if they do it will be very difficult indeed to restore it when they want to do so. I would say to them, "Get in and work it", and as two of these territories are shortly to have African majorities there should be no difficulty. There is no longer any complaint that the Federation is dominated by the Europeans; it will not be. I hope it will not be dominated by anybody, but the people who have the majority say in that Federation will be the Africans.

The second principle we should establish in this very vexed matter is that the majority of the population must have political control. The majority of the population is, of course, African. Her Majesty's Government have acknowledged that proposition right through East Africa. In Kenya, when the elections which are now going on are concluded, we shall see without a doubt that there is an African majority. In Uganda—there is no doubt about it—there is an African majority. There is nothing else. Certainly a few Asians and perhaps Europeans will be members of the Legislative Council, but the vast majority of the members will be African. The same applies in Tanganyika and in Nyasaland. It is only in the Rhodesias that this principle, to which I am sure we should all, as democrats, adhere, is in any sort of doubt. And what is the reason? It is not because of the backwardness of the Africans. The Africans in the Rhodesias are not more backward than they are elsewhere in East and Central Africa; probably the one territory where they are most backward is Nyasaland. Both economically and in every other way they are extremely backward as compared to those in some other territories. It is not their fault; they do not get the opportunity. Yet in the corning elections they will have an African majority in Nyasaland.

Therefore, we see that the question of whether a territory in Africa has an African majority or not is nothing to do with the African. The question is how many Europeans there happen to be in that territory. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I feel that the result of this new Constitution in Northern Rhodesia will be that at the next elections there will be certainly a majority of African electors and probably a majority of African Legislative Councillors. I am very glad that the noble Earl paid a tribute to and welcomed the fact that the Liberal Party in Northern Rhodesia, as the Liberal Party in this country, is supporting the Government of Northern Rhodesia in this particular Constitution He also welcomed the fact —and I hope that this is a prelude of things to come—that the Liberal Party is likely to hold a balance in Northern Rhodesia. No doubt, as things are going, it will soon hold the balance here, too, and we are quite ready, I may say, to take up that role if the electorate in this country is good enough to give it to us. We have no doubts of our own capacity whatsoever.

I myself do not feel pessimistic about all this. I feel that the Government are pursuing the right course, and I hope that they will stick to it. One of the great troubles in Central Africa has been that people did not take a firm line, that they wavered and dithered: there were too many cooks making that particular broth. But they have a firm line now, and I hope they will stick to it. I am quite sure that things will come out all right. I am not one of those who believe that there is going to be civil war and all those troubles. My view is that if Her Majesty's Government play the thing carefully and do not rush matters, things will come out all right. I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that they should make up their minds quickly on federation and try to force an issue. I would say just the opposite: do not force anything through at this moment; let things settle down. That, I am quite certain, is the proper way to handle the situation.

What do we gain by forcing the federation issue through at this particular moment? I do not think we gain anything, and we may lose a lot. Therefore, I suggest that they should follow the policy of going very carefully indeed and letting things sort themselves out, as indeed they will. I am sorry in this case to depart from my usual sort of principle of having firmly established rules and pushing things through. I am not one, as a rule, as your Lordships know, who pursues this sort of policy, or wishes the Government to pursue it. I am usually stirring up the Government to take action; I am rarely trying to urge them not to take action. Therefore, in this case it is an unusual role for me. But perhaps they will realise how strongly I feel about it in asking them to play a very careful rôle in this vexed problem of Central Africa.

My Lords, there are only two other points I should like to make. The first is in the economic field. Those of us who have to deal with the economic problems of East and Central Africa are very much disturbed about the economic field. Up to now I have been urging the European element in Central Africa to realise the political realities of the day. I now ask the Africans to realise the economic realities. Just recently one of the leaders in Northern Rhodesia made a statement (people of all races seem extraordinarily eager to make statements, and just now I think it would be better if they were not so eager) saying what he was going to do, what taxes he was going to impose on various industrial and commercial enterprises. He must be very careful: if he is not careful he may have very few to tax, because those concerned with these areas know that the credit situation is most serious. It is most difficult to get credit for East and Central Africa simply because the political situation is in so much doubt in the minds of investors. Anyone who thinks I am wrong can easily check my statements by going down to the City of London and trying to raise a couple of million pounds for East or Central Africa, or by putting a telephone call through to New York or Bonn, or Frankfurt, or Zurich and see how much money he will get from any of those centres of finance. I can assure your Lordships that he will get precious little. So the African leaders, in my view, need to be most careful of their language, and they need to realise that without European and Asian collaboration in the field of economics the only freedom they will give their people when they get independence is freedom to starve.

There is something that we can do, and should do and that is in the realm of education. In Tanganyika there is only one African barrister. Some of your Lordships who have not a great admiration for the legal profession may say what a fortunate place Tanganyika is. But, after all, the legal profession forms the basis of the Judiciary, of the magistracy; and, quite apart from that, it is essential in commerce and in the operation of the legal system; and a country which is just about to have independence which has only one African barrister is certainly not over-supplied with that particular product. The same thing goes right through the other professions and trades, both in East Africa and in Central Africa. We have not done anything like as much to train these people as we should have done. Even now there is no university in East Africa. There is one to be established quite soon, but it has not yet been established. The same thing is true of Central Africa, and I believe that the contribution we in this country can make, and should make, above all else, is to go in for a really big scheme of education and technical training, for the Africans in those territories. Unless we do that, when the time comes to hand over we shall not have done our duty.

Finally, my Lords, I would say this. I think that the Royal Tour of India, Pakistan and the other countries has shown above all else, with the enthusiasm that it created in the minds of the people in the countries which Her Majesty The Queen and His Royal Highness visited, what a link still remains between us and them. And that is true of all Commonwealth countries which have become independent in the last ten or twelve years. And why is that true? It is because we helped them towards their independence. We did everything possible to make the transition a smooth one; they acknowledge that, and are grateful for it. And I believe that the same thing is true of Africa. It is already true of West Africa, and I think that it will be true of East and Central Africa, too. If we help them now in every possible way to achieve their independence within the Commonwealth, to achieve their nationhood, then I believe that we shall reap a thousandfold the gratitude that they will be only too eager to give us.

3.20 p.m.

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH)

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on his prescience in putting down this Motion, I think about a month ago, because nothing could be more opportune than that we should have this debate at this time. With the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I welcome the debate not only because of its general importance—the proof of that is the many eminent noble Lords who are going to play their part in what is to be a two-day debate—but also because it gives me an opportunity to talk in particular about the Northern Rhodesian Conference on which there has been so much misunderstanding indeed, I intend to concentrate almost entirely on that aspect of the debate. I feel that that is the way that I can best help your Lordships, remembering that I have been present at nearly all the meetings of the Conference, whether they were formal or informal, whether they were the full Conference or just talks that we had outside of the Conference. At some of them I presided.

What are my main impressions of the Conference—and I refer particularly to the second part of the Conference when, unhappily, there was a boycott of the Europeans, and only the Liberals were there.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? When he speaks of the "boycott of the Europeans," does he mean the Europeans or the United Federal Party? I think it is important, from the point of view of the Record, that we should get this right.

THE EARL OF PERTH

My Lords, I meant to say "the Europeans except the Liberals", bearing in mind that it was not only the United Federal Party but also the Dominion Party. As I was about to say, the impression above all else that I gained, was the responsible and responsive attitude of those who were present. Your Lordships will recall, for example, that the Africans sought universal suffrage: a clear majority in the Legislative Council and Executive Council. None of those things, in the event, was forthcoming; yet, if I may so put it. they stuck it, despite their feeling that they were being strung along while a different set of negotiations were being conducted between Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government in Salisbury. As the outcome of the Conference shows, this feeling was not based on fact. We did, of course, consult the Federal Government, as we are pledged to do. But the point that I wish to make is that I felt that all the Africans present showed a sense of responsibility and impressed me with their capabilities: that they are well suited to play a part in the Government of their country.

Before turning to the constitutional proposals as they are set out in White Papers Nos. 1295 and 1301 I want just to touch on the general question of federation. I, too, deeply believe in the Federation and will do all that I can to see that it is preserved. I know that in saying that I speak equally on behalf of my right honourable friend who has again and again expressed his belief in the Federation—indeed, that is true of all Her Majesty's Government. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, taking the same point. I need not go into the reasons why I believe in the Federation. Clearly, the economies of the three territories are complementary. There is also great advantage in this Africa of so many small States having one or two units which are strong and which are composed of all races.

But we have to realise, in regard to the Federation, that we are up against the fears of the Africans. The Monckton Commission, which was so widely based and so wisely chosen, stressed these African fears: the fear of domination by the white man, the fear of Salisbury and the fear that there was an end to African advance. These fears are there, and I am afraid that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, may be right when he says that our task, as a result of the last weeks, is now no easier when there is this fear. Your Lordships will recall that the Monckton Commission proposed that to combat these fears in the Northern Territories there should be African majorities, and they also proposed that certain of the powers which are at present Federal powers should be transferred to the Territorial Governments. I do not propose to comment on these proposals—indeed, it would not be appropriate, for the Conference to consider these things is adjourned. I would stress that it is adjourned, and I am confident that it will not fail. But it will be recalled that the Monckton Committee welcomed the changes that have taken place in the Nyasaland Constitution, welcomed the changes that were proposed in the Southern Rhodesian Constitution, and pressed for similar changes in the Northern Rhodesian Constitution.

Here for a moment I want to recall that when we had the last Constitution for Northern Rhodesia, in 1958, it was laid down, or stated specifically in the White Paper at that time, that it was hoped that there would not be drastic changes every few years. The fact that we have, or propose to have, a new Constitution now is something for which we are on many sides strongly attacked. But those who attack us should also bear in mind that in Southern Rhodesia there was a Constitution set up in 1957 and that Sir Edgar Whitehead has changed that within three years. When he did it, what did he say? He said—and I quote: They have been years of very rapid change, and the proposals that we are discussing to-day, I admit to you candidly, would have been unthinkable three years ago. It would have been folly to ignore this trend, folly to ignore the recommendation of the Monckton Commission and to resist any move to go forward with Northern Rhodesia.

My right honourable friend said in May that he had no plans in mind for constitutional change in 1960 in Northern Rhodesia. But he added that he recognised that after publication of the Monckton Report he might have to look at things again. How wise and right he was in his prognostication! In fact, what did happen? What started these Northern Rhodesian Constitutional talks? It was not Her Majesty's Government that started them, but rather the Government of Northern Rhodesia. They took the initiative, and all Parties —I was going to say I stress "all Parties", but I am not sure whether it is true of the Dominion Party—but, at all events, all other Parties in Northern Rhodesia, welcomed the move, and of course it had the fullest support from this country.

The Governor talked with the various Parties in the autumn, but unfortunately they came to a deadlock on the key question: should there be an African majority or a European majority in the Legislative Council? As a natural sequel, the Conference was transferred to this country, with the hope that we might resolve the deadlock here. There was a complication—namely, that at that same time there was in being the Federal Conference, and it was agreed by all, including the United Federal Party, that the two Conferences should run concurrently. I hope that I have been able to show that we could not stand pat on the 1958 Constitution, remembering, too, that if we had done so the Monckton Commission—I am sure they were right—felt that the hope of a continuing Federation was small or non-existent. I welcome the support of the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore.

I think it may be helpful if, briefly, I set out the main changes from the 1958 Constitution. First of all, the Legislative Council will be enlarged from 30 to some 50-odd members. Of these, the elected members will be about one-third European, one-third African and one-third either race. There will still be six officials and one or two nominated members. Secondly, the franchise will be widened. There will be, instead of a potential African register of some 20,000 voters, a register of some 70.000. But—and I shall come back to this later—the voters will still be highly qualified. Thirdly, the Upper, Lower and National Roll seats will replace the ordinary, special and reserved ones; but the national seats, at least, will compensate for the loss of the cross-voting arrangements which existed in the last Constitution. There will be a House of Chiefs. We propose that there shall be a Bill of Rights and probably a Council of State. But in the present Constitution, as in that of 1958, the Executive Council will be advisory to the Governor. In both, we have been guided by the same principles.

I hope that, having made this thumbnail sketch, it will be appropriate for me to turn to the issue on which the Conference in Northern Rhodesia was deadlocked, namely, whether there should be an African or European majority in the Legislative Council. My right honourable friend, at the beginning of the Conference on December 19 in London, said that we should consider arrangements which will produce in practice something like equal European and non-European members in the Legislative Council or something short of that or something going a little beyond it. And at the end of the Conference our position was entirely consistent with his statement. I emphasise this because I know that many of our friends believe that Her Majesty's Government changed their minds in midstream owing to pressure from Salisbury.

What is the outcome of those proposals? What is the outcome of the statement of my right honourable friend on December 19, which I have read? Which race will have the majority in the Legislative Council? The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said he believed it would be the Africans. I, frankly, do not know; and I think that is right. I feel that it is for the electorate to say who should have the majority. But what I do know, and what matters very greatly, is that those having the main say in the Legislative Council and the Executive Council will be those who make the greatest appeal to all races. That must be right, remembering, as I will show your Lordships later, that the voters who are to have this responsibility will be men of right and good qualifications.

Several times the question has been put to me and to others of the Government: why did we not merely enlarge on the 1958 Constitution, if any change at all were necessary? The answer is necessarily somewhat detailed and complicated, because these issues are by their very nature complicated when one is endeavouring to maintain a delicate balance between one race and another and at the same time so 10 arrange things that those concerned in the elections have to appeal to all races rather than just to their own race. I believe that what was worked out in 1958 by my former chief the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton (and I in some small degree had some responsibility in it) was effective and good, given the conditions at that time; but I also believe that in the present circumstances, when one wants a greater number of African members and an enlarged electorate, it would not have been as suitable as what we now propose. But—and I shall keep coming back to this point—if your Lordships will study both sets of detailed proposals you will find that there is no basic change from the 1958 principles. Rather, the development is a natural one, given, as I have said, the need to enlarge the Legislature, increase the number of African members and widen the franchise.

Let us look at the principles which governed the 1958 position. The first principle shown in Part IV of the White Paper (Cmnd. 530)—was that politics should be on Party and not racial lines. That must mean that candidates to be successful must appeal to all races. The National seats, which we have tentatively set at one-third of the total, are indeed specifically designed to this very end. Without such an overall appeal no Party could hope to win the National seats. The second principle was to move away from the pre-1958 system of racial representation in the Legislative Council. I believe our present proposals do this just as much as did those of 1958. The old rural and line-of-rail seats, as they were known, are in effect the same as our Lower and Upper Roll seats, and the probability remains that in one the Africans will be returned, and in the other, the Europeans.

At this time in the development of Northern Rhodesia it would be foolish to ignore the continuance of some degree of assured racial balance. It may be argued that the non-racial feature of the 1958 Constitution, whereby appeal had to be made in all these seats to both Europeans and Africans, is lost. This is, in measure, true of the Lower Roll but not so true of the Upper Roll. But let us remember that in practice, if we had stuck to the old system, the value of the proposed enlarged franchise would have been little or nothing, since no more than a certain percentage of votes is allowed to count. It was this kind of consideration which led us to the alternative proposals we have put forward to-day.

The epitome of the 1958 Constitution was an electoral system to encourage the return of men and women prepared to consider the interests of all racial groups. That is equally the epitome of our present proposals. No one, I suppose, would dispute that this is the case for the National seats; and, for the other seats, can it seriously be argued that only extremists will be returned, when it is remembered that for Parties to hope to get an overall majority they must also appeal to voters in the National seats? Parties cannot sing with two voices, one for the Upper and Lower Roll seats and one for the National seats, when the latter will straddle the whole country and have the same electors, and for which the elections will probably he held at the same time as the Upper and Lower Roll elections. I apologise for having gone into such length in this matter, but I believe it is of great interest to some of your Lordships and it is important to try to explain why we have made changes from 1958 while following the general pattern of that Constitution.

Let me now turn to the very important matter of the enlarged franchise we propose. In passing, I might mention that not only did the African Parties urge universal sufferage but even the Chiefs supported them in this. However, we are very clear that at this time universal sufferage is not appropriate, and that only those best qualified and most responsible must be picked. It is just this that we have tried to ensure. To begin with, we have taken the highest wage earners, provided they also have an ability to read and write English, and given them the vote—which means some 40,000 out of a population of 2½ million. Then we have taken two or three categories of citizens who play a responsible rôle or are doing, or have done, a particular service for their country. I have in mind the ex-Servicemen, the registered farmers, who are specially qualified as experienced and good farmers, or, again, the village headmen of registered villages. These three categories together probably number about 20,000. In addition, there are one or two other groups, including wives, who are responsible and have a mind of their own; and thus we reach our total of approximately 70,000.

Surely, my Lords, these 70,000 voters, as I have detailed them category by category, are just the right types we should have playing their part in the Government or in choosing the Government of their country at this time. There is little that I can say on the Upper Roll, because we have deliberately not finalised the qualifications pending consultation with the European Parties mainly concerned with this roll. This was not possible earlier because of their absence from the recent Conference. We have, however, said that we have in mind to increase the African votes by between 1,500 and 2,000. This should mean that there will be about 30,000 voters on the Upper Roll and one-sixth will be Asian and African; the rest will be European. A question has often been asked why we propose to change the Upper Roll qualifications at all, since it breaks the uniformity of pattern with the rest of the Federation. I think my answer to this is, very simply, that uniformity is of little or no relevance where the conditions in the various territories are quite different in regard to both the proportion of the races and the allocation of seats and constitutions generally.

Then we come to the National seats. Here, again, we have set out the framework, but we have not filled in the detail. I am sure that this is right because such matters as the delineation of boundaries and what should be the mini- mum percentage of each roll that a candidate must obtain are details, and vastly important details, which should be settled in the territory itself or, in any event, thrashed out there. This has been the practice in almost every Constitution that has been set up.

It may be that the Governor will not be able to reach final agreement in Northern Rhodesia and reference back here will be necessary. Whether this be the case or not, it is my earnest plea to all the European Parties—I particularly have in mind the United Federal Party—that they collaborate with the Governor in trying to work out the details. We must go forward, and without their help our task is very much more difficult. It is sad that they were not with us during the last Conference, not only because we missed the value of their counsels but also because I found one of the features which has been present in almost all conferences of this kind was lacking. I have in mind the fact that when people of all races are sitting together and trying to reach a common solution to a problem, again and again one finds that much of the mistrust that is between the people disappears, and they realise, if I may put it this way, that the other fellow, the other race, is not, after all, so bad; indeed, he is someone to work with. That, alas! was missing in this last Conference.

I will touch briefly on one or two other parts of the White Paper which are of great importance but have not been the subject of the same controversy as the issue of the Legislative Council and the franchise. The Executive Council will have both European and African members without too close a definition of exactly what the proportion should be. It may well be equally that there will be an Asian, too. Unofficials will out-number the officials and, most important, it remains advisory to the Governor. There is to be a House of Chiefs. I am a great believer in a House of Chiefs, for they represent traditional authority. Theirs is an influence for moderation, and they, in their wisdom, are naturally averse to moving too fast. I feel very sure that the part they have to play in the future of Northern Rhodesia will be of great significance to all races. We believe that the new Constitution should have a Bill of Rights and a Constitutional Council, perhaps in the form of a Council of State, to protect races or individuals against discrimination. Lastly, I would comment that the plan does not cover Barotseland, for that is a matter we must discuss with the Paramount Chief.

My Lords, I am nearing the end of my speech, and I have endeavoured to show why a new Constitution so soon after that of 1958 is essential for Northern Rhodesia and also essential if we are to preserve federation. Yet we have been bitterly attacked for making this change by those very people who welcome the move in Southern Rhodesia and proclaim that when Sir Edgar Whitehead did this his was indeed an act of a statesman. I have endeavoured to show that a mere enlargement of the 1958 Constitution was unsuitable. But we have not deviated one jot from the 1958 principles, above all, in regard to the Constitution being non-racial and responsible; and yet, my Lords, I am told that we have "sold people down the river". And, lastly, I have endeavoured to show that the new Executive Council remains advisory and is designed to help all to learn the art of government while Her Majesty's Government remain in control; yet I am told we have betrayed our trust to our kith and our kin. My Lords, if we had done less we should have betrayed our trust to the Africans, to whom we have an obligation. We may or may not have got things exactly right. Again, I would appeal to all Parties to help us in the final stages of this Constitution. But our unchanging and firm purpose is to help all people in Northern Rhodesia go forward to self-government within the Federation. We shall not heed threats, but we will listen to all in our part of this task.