§ 3.36 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, may I now turn to a rather different subject and answer the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, who asked me about laying the exchanges which took place in 1953 concerning the Central African Federation? I think I must just repeat as my substantive Answer what my right honourable friend has, I hope, by now just said in answer to a Question in another place. He replied:
It is important to respect the confidential character of documents, and Her Majesty's Government must also consider the positions of the other parties concerned.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House for having answered my Question. I must say that, whilst I have every respect for the tradition and practice of respecting confidential documents which the noble 1256 Viscount has obviously alluded to in his Answer, I wonder how we are placed in respect of the situation which was created yesterday. A Prime Minister who is a Privy Counsellor, speaking in a Parliament of a British State under the Crown, reveals, according to him accurately, statements, pledges, which were given by the British Government, and in respect of what they regard as a breach of faith. I think stronger words are used in Sir Roy Welensky's speech. although he was only repeating what he says were words used by the Prime Minister in a speech he made two or three years ago in Rhodesia. They regard it there as a breach of faith; they have published this vast document which has been sent to me officially by the High Commissioner of the Central African Federation, which clearly has been handed to the Press as well, for Sir Roy Welensky indicated at the end of his speech that he was going to hand it to the Press.
I cannot refrain from thinking that, although the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, made, I thought, an excellent speech, from the legal point of view, last night, and gave a great many explanations, the general impression, not only upon our public but upon those who look, sometimes with favour sometimes askance, at the British reputation, will not be favourable. Their anxieties will not be relieved unless the Government can make some further statement upon it.
The position really is that the British Parliament passed the necessary Statute setting up the Federation in 1953, and although I am not saying at the moment that it was strictly incumbent on the Government at that time to inform Parliament that these pledges had been given; nevertheless it was abundantly clear to my own Party in 1959 and 1960, when we were discussing the setting up of the Monckton Commission, that no really satisfactory solution to the problem in Central Africa from the political point of view would be reached unless the Monckton Commission were to examine at least the question of the right of secession; and because no actual words in the instructions to the Commission allowed that to be examined my Party refrained from having representation upon the Monckton Committee.
1257 Whatever has transpired since then in any misunderstanding, if I may use that moderate word, between Sir Roy Welensky's Government and the Home Government here would not have arisen, I think, if the British Parliament had been fully informed as to what federation involved, according to the statements we listened to in the House last night from two ex-Secretaries of State for the Colonies, which revealed almost that it was assumed that nothing in the nature of a Federation would ever be set up, or could be set up, unless it was to be subjected to that overriding consideration that there could be no constitutional change in it without the full agreement of all its constituent members.
That is the situation. We heard the speech yesterday from the Marquess of Salisbury which I do not wish to comment upon—he made his statement. We heard the short supporting statements from two ex-Secretaries of State. It is unfortunate that, because of the important negotiations at present being pursued, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, who was much in the picture in regard to all the policies discussed and finally adopted in regard to Central Africa, are absent in the Bahamas. But I must say that, I think, in all the circumstances there ought to be no final decision by the Government saying that they will not lay the Papers. I am perfectly well aware that it is the usual practice that you do not feel under compulsion to lay Papers unless somebody in the Government for the time being has actually quoted from them. What is Sir Roy Welensky's position in this matter? He has told his Parliament, and he has told the world, that he is laying the Papers. It is not merely his speech; he has issued a considerable White Paper which sets out, following him, the full statement from the point of view of his legal advisers, as to what the present situation is.
I beg the Government to consider this matter. I thoroughly respect the general rule with regard to the Government of the day having the final voice as to what they reveal in the way of confidential documents, but in this case the mischief is done. Are the charges made correct or are they not? That is what we want to know. I think the public are entitled to know. Are these supporting statements 1258 and arguments of ex-Secretaries of State who are also Privy Counsellors night or wrong? This is important from the point of view of the Government. Are there not other considerations in this ease also included in the confidential documents which they would be entitled to quote in rebuttal of some of the arguments used in this great public speech of Sir Roy Welensky? I do not want the public to think that the Government are being asked to publish again just the statements that Sir Roy Welensky has made; but the Government must say whether they are true or not, and if not wholly true, let them give the evidence to show they are not true.
I am most concerned about one statement made by Sir Roy Welensky in his speech—namely, his remark about what he thinks is the dowering of public standards in this country in the last decade. I think that wants a lot of consideration before it is accepted. I hope that the Government will have regard to the principle so often advocated that not only must you make sure that you are acting the truth, but you must make it clear and seen that you are acting the truth. Therefore, I urge them to reconsider the answer that they have given me to-day.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I do not really think the noble Viscount has appreciated what my right honourable friend has said in another place. I am a little sorry that we have had quite so much detail from him. My right honourable friend never said that there had been a concluded decision not to publish this Paper. What he said was that it is important to respect the confidential character of documents, and that Her Majesty's Government must also consider the position of the other parties concerned. I should have thought that was pretty plain. What I said last night and what I say this afternoon is that there are five Governments involved in this series of discussions and they are entitled to have their confidence respected; and obviously a most important constitutional principle is involved. My right honourable friend must clearly have time to consider whether a situation has come in which we are driven to breach it. He has not said positively that 1259 a final decision has been arrived at—clearly there must be further consideration about that. But I must say, speaking for myself, that, without in any way accepting the interpretation which has been put on the speeches which we heard yesterday, and without commenting upon them, I greatly resent suggestions that Her Majesty's Government have done anything dishonourable. I fancy my standards of honour are just as high as those of Sir Roy Welensky.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords. I am not in any way disagreeing with that, and I am not at this stage saying that in my view what has been done is dishonourable. What I want established in the public mind and in the world Press and opinion is the answer to this matter. What is the real answer? If there is a real answer to these charges specifically made and quoted from documents, then I am anxious for the Papers to be laid so that the truth may be known.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, am not altogether unsympathetic to what the noble Viscount has said, but I think we must also bear this in mind at the same time. What I said last night is absolutely true. People have been rather apt—and it is not the first time this has happened with this particular gentleman—to make charges of bad faith and then to refer to documents which either have to be revealed in toto or not at all: there can be no halfway house about this. It puts the Government in an odious position—not only the Governments who took part in these particular negotiations but almost every other Commonwealth Government. The whole value of the Commonwealth, on one view, lies in the absolute freedom of confidence with which exchanges of opinion of one sort or another take place between the Commonwealth countries. If in future it is going to be the standard that what you say in confidence between Prime Minister and Prime Minister or between Prime Minister and Secretary of State is going to be dragged out nine years later and made the subject of public controversy, I tremble to think what is going to be the future of Commonwealth consultation.
I say quite frankly that I do not want to go too far, because obviously I should 1260 be doing my right honourable friend an ill-service if I did. But I would just remind the House of one incident at the time of the Monckton Commission, when a similar charge was made by the same right honourable gentleman Sir Roy Welensky, based upon a confidential exchange at that time between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and himself in a series of letters. Again we are faced with this odious dilemma. On that occasion my right honourable friend offered to publish it and Sir Roy Welensky, in my judgment rightly, said he did not want it published because he did not want to breach the principle of confidentiality. That is what happened that time—and if we are talking about breach of faith, I have always thought a breach of confidence is a breach of faith. I think some very serious things have happened in the last 48 hours, and I do not think that the fault is on our side.
I do not wish to damage in any way the relations between my right honourable friend and those with whom he will have discussions when he goes out there very shortly. Therefore, I want to be very careful indeed in what I say. I would add this. A lot of people yesterday were saying, in effect, that the statement which my right honourable friend gave in the House of Commons yesterday, and which was repeated here, was a gross breach of faith, but, of course, they went on, "We welcome the visit of my right honourable friend to Rhodesia—he is the only man who can deal with the subject." I thought there was something pretty odd about that attitude.
§ LORD CLITHEROEMy Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount this one question? Quite apart from the question of publishing or not publishing confidential documents, would the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House make it clear, as I am sure he will, that any pledge, whether given in secret or in confidence, is just as binding as any pledge made openly?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I have always tried to make my word my bond, whether what I say is private or public, and so I know have my honourable friends and my light honourable friends. But sometimes you find yourself having to defend your honour with one hand tied behind your back against people who have broken a confidence.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, I think it is obvious that, in view of the grave repercussions that there might be in a matter of this kind, the Government must have sufficient time to go into it fully. I feel that this is a most extraordinary development, as the noble Viscount has said, of Commonwealth consultation, and I would have thought a very delicate matter altogether. I do not think that we should press the noble Viscount to-day.
May I draw attention to something which is not a confidential matter, but something which was said in public yesterday by Sir Roy Welensky in the Rhodesian Parliament: that is, his statement that Britain is utterly reckless of the fate of the inhabitants of the present Federation. Well, as one who supports the Government in this instance and welcomes their decision over Nyasaland, may I ask them to repudiate completely that statement which will do a great deal of harm in some quarters?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMMy Lords, I am much obliged for both parts of what the noble Lord has said. Clearly, I repudiate quite categorically the statement which is attributed to Sir Roy Welensky. I think it would be better if his language was sometimes more temperate than it has been recently.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, before we close down upon this subject, I should like to say that I personally am not without some experience of understanding the difficulties about laying Papers. An outstanding political disappointment in my life was having to refrain from laying Papers over the mutiny at Invergordon. In the middle of a statement at that time, the Prime Minister of the day got up and suddenly quoted from a Cabinet document. Before anyone could do anything else, the Adjournment of the House was moved and everyone begged me almost on their knees, from then until 7.30, not to renew the discussion, because if I had given the whole of the facts there would certainly have been a second mutiny at Invergordon. Therefore, I did not say anything at all. I am not without experience of the repercussions that occur when somebody breaks the rule, as that Prime Minister did that day; I am not unaware of it. But you cannot 1262 expect whole Parliaments and whole sets of public opinion to make a personal sacrifice in this matter. The whole reputation of the British Government has been put at stake by the action of Sir Roy Welensky, and it is a matter to be put right with the rest of the Commonwealth and with the rest of the world. I referred to the fact that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are away at the present time. It is reasonable for the First Secretary of State to have time to consider still further the matter with his colleagues. I am quite in agreement with that. I should have read this short Answer as not indicating that at all. I shall be happy to hear that the Government will make a further statement at no long-dated future period.
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMI cannot go further than I have done this afternoon. Obviously I agree to some extent with what the noble Viscount has said, but this is a great Commonwealth issue, not simply a question of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary being in the Bahamas. There are four Governments in Central Africa which are concerned, and I should have thought that it concerned other Governments in the Commonwealth as well. One cannot be in a hurry even about defending or vindicating one's own reputation when these great issues are at stake.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMy Lords, as the House is rising to-day for the Recess, will the Government publish their decision as soon as one has been reached?
§ VISCOUNT HAILSHAMAll I can say is that I will draw my right honourable friend's attention to the noble Earl's suggestion, but, as I say, I cannot take it further than I have done this afternoon.