Sitting of 27 November 1958

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MAURITIUS

    Constitution
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made for the consideration of further constitutional progress in Mauritius.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): None, Sir. Provision was made last July by Her Majesty in Council for changes in the constitution of Mauritius and these will be brought into full effect early in 1959. To suggest that still further changes should be considered before the current changes have been brought fully into effect, let alone given the necessary thorough trial, seems to me premature in the extreme.
    Mr. Brockway: Whilst appreciating the advance which has been made, particularly in the introduction of single-Member constituencies, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the concern there is in Mauritius about the functioning of the new Executive Council and whether any Government which represents minority parties as well as majority parties can effectively administer that Colony? Will he try to remove this frustration before bitterness arises?
    Mr. Profumo: I am aware of the caution with which the Executive Council is approaching its new responsibility. When I was there nothing more than apprehension about its new responsibility was expressed. My right hon. Friend is confident that a real step forward has been made and it should work.

    Bagasse (Utilisation)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what developments are in progress for the commercial utilisation of bagasse in Mauritius; and whether his attention and that of the Government of Mauritius has been called to projects recently initiated on a considerable scale in Puerto Rico and Cuba and for the manufacture from bagasse of paper, cardboard and hardboard of high quality.
    Mr. Profumo: Bagasse has been considered for use in the local manufacture of cement, but the tests were disappointing. A very well-known paper manufacturing company investigated in October. 1956, the possibilities of establishing a pulp mill in Mauritius for processing bagasse but found that there was not enough bagasse likely to be available to support the project. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes. Sir."
    Mr. Johnson: Would the Minister confirm that 20 per cent. of the active working population of Mauritius is unemployed—that one man in five is unemployed? Is not this scandalous? Will he explore this or any other possible industries to give these men jobs?
    Mr. Profumo: I think that is a very much wider question than the question of bagasse, which is on the Order Paper and which I answered. I think I had better ask the hon. Member to put a Question on the Order Paper.

  NIGERIA

    Disturbances, Maiduguri
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the cause of the riots in the town of Maiduguri. Northern Nigeria, last September; how many people were killed and injured, what other damage was done; and what steps he has taken to punish those responsible, to compensate the victims and their dependants and to remove the cause of the discontent there.
    Mr. Profumo: These disturbances arose out of clashes between supporters of opposing political parties. There were six deaths, eighteen people were injured, and two houses were damaged. Fifty-one people have been convicted of rioting

    523
    and similar offences: no claims to compensation have been lodged. Local feeling is still running high, but the Resident intends at the right moment to convene a Reconciliation Committee to remove the causes of enmity.
    Mr. Hughes: What steps have Her Majesty's Government taken to support the forces of law and order there, in order to prevent a recurrence of incidents of this kind, which might impair the chances of ultimate self-government?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think the situation is quite as serious as the hon. and learned Gentleman imagines it is. I do not think that it calls for Her Majesty's Government's intervention. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that everything is being done on the spot.

    Constitution
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a comprehensive statement on the present and future constitutional status of Nigeria.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply of 4th November to Questions by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) and others, and to the Report of the Resumed Nigeria Conference which was published as a White Paper on 7th November.

  MALTA

    Discussions
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement about his talks with Maltese political leaders and the future constitutional arrangements for Malta.
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the future of Malta.
    Mr. Awberyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress is being made with the negotiations with the representatives of Malta on the new Constitution; and when he hopes to complete them and to be in a position to report on them to Parliament.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope to make a statement after the conclusion of the present discussions with the Maltese political parties. I cannot at present say when that will be.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend meeting each of the three delegations separately? Would not it help towards a rapid and satisfactory conclusion if the delegations could agree to sink their differences and to meet round the same table?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The reply to both parts of the supplementary question is "Yes", Sir.
    Mr. Rankin: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep before him the fact that while he waits, the unemployment situation in Malta is getting worse and worse? Will he do his best to speed up the conclusion of this matter?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is simply not so. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not lend himself to the suggestion that meanwhile nothing is happening about the economic future of Malta. Quite the reverse is the case.
    Mr. Rankin: Would it be in order. Mr. Speaker, for me to say that it is so?
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what extent, in discussions on independence for Malta. Her Majesty's Government have considered the continuation of United Kingdom economic aid.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think it would be helpful to say what has or has not been discussed at a conference which is still sitting.
    Mr. Cronin: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is an important principle of our obligation to Malta? Would he agree that this country has certain definite moral obligations to the people of Malta? Will he say definitely whether those obligations depend on Malta remaining a Crown Colony or whether they will continue if she is independent?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I think we all, Maltese and Britons alike, have duties to each other.
    Mr. Croninasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he invited

    525
    representatives of the Progressive Constitutional Party to the talks now being held on the prospective constitution for Malta, having regard to the circumstances that this party has never yet been represented in the Malta Legislative Assembly.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Because, like the Round Table Conference, I wished to consult as wide a range of public opinion as possible on the future constitutional arrangements. This party held four seats in the Assembly from 1951 to 1953.
    Mr. Cronin: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that his analogy is somewhat inexact? His Round Table Conference was a fact-finding body interrogating witnesses, whereas on this occasion the analogy is more appropriate to the occasion on which he summoned representatives in June-July, 1955, and not this party? There can be no similarity.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not agree. I want to find out facts and I also want to give some facts as a result of this conference.

  FIJI

    Legislative Council
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of members of the Legislative Council of Fiji; how many of these are elected and how many nominated; how many members are elected, respectively, on European, Indian, and Fijian racial rolls; and what percentage of the European, Indian, and Fijian populations respectively, are enfranchised.
    Mr. Profumo: There are 16 official and 15 unofficial members. Of the five European and five Indian members, three each are elected and two nominated. The five Fijian members are appointed by the Governor from a panel of names selected by the Council of Chiefs. About 12½ per cent. of Europeans and eight per cent. of Indians have the vote.
    Mr. Brockway: Is not it a very unsatisfactory position that 80 per cent. of the members of the Legislature are nominated by the Governor? Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to try to begin to apply the principles of democracy to this island?
    Mr. Profumo: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. The constitutional
    526
    arrangements for each territory must be based on the conditions, and the stage of development, of the particular territory. I think these are about right.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again in view of the possibility of an explosive situation in Fiji in the near future? Is not it a fact that Polynesians hold the land, while Indians are now more than 50 per cent. of the population and have the middle jobs and the money? Is not it worth while looking again at this question?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think that it is a question of looking at it again, because my right hon. Friend is constantly looking at it.

  TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

    Constitutional Changes
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what constitutional changes are proposed for Trinidad and Tobago, following the recent official discussions in London with governmental delegations from those Territories.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) on 3rd November.
    Mr. Brockway: Would the right hon. Gentleman be a little more forthcoming? In view of the fact that we have now established the Federation of the West Indies, is not it possible for Trinidad and Tobago to have at least the same rights as Jamaica?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think the hon. Member can have read HANSARD for 3rd November, when no less than four columns were devoted to dealing with this matter.

  AFRICAN TERRITORIES

    Tanganyika and Kenya (Trade Unions)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities are available to African trade union organisers to hold meetings to recruit workers to the trade unions on sisal and other plantations in Tanganyika and Kenya.
    Mr. Profumo: Access of trade union organisers to privately-owned estates is, of course, a matter for agreement between the organisation and the employers concerned. In Kenya all public meetings must also be held under permit from the authorities. I understand that in the case of the Tanganyika sisal industry arrangements have been agreed between the two sides which are in the main working satisfactorily.
    Mr. Swingler: Would the hon. Gentleman look into this matter again? Is not it Government policy to foster the development of trade unionism and the establishment of negotiating machinery about wages and conditions in these Territories? How can that be done unless the employers will permit propaganda for trade unions and the holding of meetings on the plantations? Will he, therefore, make an effort to see that, generally speaking, these facilities are made available?
    Mr. Profumo: I do not think anything the hon. Member has said is out of accord with the Answer I have given. It certainly is our policy to foster and encourage trade unions. I think the ways and means of doing that are not in any way being barred in these Territories.

    Africans (I.L.O. Educational Courses)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what requests have been made by the Governments of Uganda, Tanganyika, Kenya, and Northern Rhodesia for the years 1956 to 1959, respectively, for study grants for administratively, technically, or professionally qualified Africans to participate in seminars and training courses organised by the International Labour Office.
    Mr. Profumo: An African officer of the Uganda Department of Co-operative Development attended a joint I.L.O. United Nations-F.A.O. Seminar on Cooperation, in Denmark in 1957. No other requests have been made.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not this a very poor effort indeed? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable educational facilities are being made available by the International Labour Office and other U.N. Agencies, but somehow there seems a complete lack of liaison between those Agencies and the African Territories?
    528
    Can he do something to see that there is contact between the I.L.O. and Colonial Territories in Africa so that people may be made aware of the international education facilities available?
    Mr. Profumo: I think there is adequate co-operation, but, in view of the training facilities available either locally or in this country, it would be wrong in principle to ask for international assistance when the funds available are insufficient to meet all the demands on them.

  UGANDA

    U.N.I.C.E.F. (Allocations)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what funds have been allocated by the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund to the Government of Uganda to date; and what proportion of these funds have been allocated to the Government Child Welfare Unit.
    Mr. Profumo: The Answer is, 360,500 United States dollars—£128,750—up to September, 1958.
    It is not possible to answer the second part of the Question precisely because U.N.I.C.E.F. assistance is generally provided in the form of supplies and equipment purchased by it from the funds allocated to a project.
    Mrs. Butler: Would the Minister consider discussing with the Government of Uganda whether enough of the money is being allocated to preventive health work among children, bearing in mind the very widespread malnutrition among children in Uganda?
    Mr. Profumo: I shall certainly consider bringing this matter to the attention of the Governor.

    Legislative Council (Buganda Representation)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements are being made for Buganda representation in the Uganda Legislative Council, following the successful conclusion of direct elections in other parts of the Protectorate.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on 4th November. I have

    529
    just heard that judgment has been given in the Buganda case before the High Court, and that all declarations claimed by the Katikiro were refused.
    Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the outcome of the Buganda Katikiro case in the Uganda High Court, could not the right hon. Gentleman make arrangements for direct elections to be held in Buganda, similar to those held elsewhere in the Protectorate?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must await the comments of the Governor on the judgment. I have only just heard about the judgment. I very much hope that the Buganda Electoral College will perform its prescribed electoral constitutional functions when called upon to do so.

    Agricultural Wages (Report)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Report on agricultural wages in Kenya will be published.
    Mr. Profumo: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on 9th July, 1957. The Governor of Kenya announced in his speech to the Legislative Council on 4th November that the Kenya Government intend to set up suitable machinery whereby minimum wages in agriculture can be fixed after consultation with employers and employees.
    Mr. Robinson: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, may I say that that does not answer my Question? Did not he say to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), and to other hon. Members, six months ago, that the publication of this Report was imminent? Are we now to assume that it is being suppressed by the Kenya Government, after all?
    Mr. Profumo: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, because I did not mean to do so. What I said to the hon. Member for Rugby was that this was, of course, conditional on the eventual publication of the Report. I explained in a letter to him afterwards that that was what I had in mind. The Report has not been published but nothing has been suppressed. I regard it as in the interests neither of employers nor of employees that the Report should be published.

  ADEN

    Inhabitants (Yemeni Origin)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies approximately the number or proportion of the inhabitants of Aden Colony who came from the Yemen or are classified as Yemeni; what are the regulations controlling the passage of travellers to and from the Yemen; what restrictions there are on the transit of persons from or to the Protectorate; and to what extent the question of transit in respect of both the Protectorate and the Yemen is being considered in deliberations on Protectorate federation.
    Mr. Profumo: At the 1955 census there were 47,000 Yemeni out of a total population of 138,000.
    The Immigration Ordinance provides for control over the entry into the Colony of all travellers, but it is impracticable to regulate the entry of all travellers—including those from the Yemen—coming in over the land frontiers, In practice, therefore, there are no restrictions imposed by the Aden Colony and Protectorate Governments on the transit of persons back and forth between the Colony, the Protectorate and the Yemen. The Governor does not recommend, in present circumstances, any changes in this policy. This question has not arisen in discussions about the formation of the Federation of Protectorate States.
    Mr. Sorensen: In view of this extraordinarily free transit between the Yemen on the one hand and the Aden Colony and Protectorate on the other, do not all attempts to try to interfere with the inter-flow of persons both ways seem farcical? May I ask how long it takes before a Yemeni can claim to have resided long enough to attain Aden Colony citizenship?
    Mr. Profumo: I am afraid I must ask for notice of the second part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, but what he said in the first part is in accord with what I said in the first part of my Answer.

  SOMALILAND

    Law and Custom
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the ancient custom of Herr is still being fostered in

    531
    the Somaliland Protectorate, when at the same time it is regarded as obnoxious and obsolete by Somali opinion in the Advisory and Legislative Councils.
    Mr. Profumo: Herr means the whole body of Somali law and custom. As requested by the Protectorate Advisory Council, the Protectorate Government are giving consideration to a suggestion that one particular custom, under which compensation is paid by tribes to each other for persons killed, should be abolished. They are at present engaged in ascertaining the views of the tribes on this suggestion.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I hold in my hand a letter from the vice-chairman of the Somali National League? While, of course, that is an extremist body, I trust that the hon. Gentleman agrees there is nothing wrong with it being extremist. Is he aware that so far the Administration have found it
    "reasonable to consult the only section of the community that had vested interests in the continuance of this custom"
    and these bodies are paid by the Government? Will he assure us that some consideration will be given to the views of the Advisory and Legislative Councils?
    Mr. Profumo: I think that when the hon. Member reads my Answer and compares it with his letter he will find that I have answered the Question on the Order Paper. Since I know he is interested, I may add that they are going to consult all the tribes about the suggestion, but when there are strong tribal loyalties it is sometimes difficult to get evidence to convict of a murder and if we took away the custom we should only encourage retaliatory murders.

    Constitutional Changes
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now prepared to make a statement on the result of his discussions with the Governor of British Somaliland Protectorate.
    Mr. Braineasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what constitutional changes are to be made in the Somaliland Protectorate following his recent discussions with the Governor; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In opening the new Session of the Protectorate Legislative Council yesterday the Governor announced certain constitutional changes. With permission I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the relevant paragraphs of his speech.
    Mr. Rankin: For my own information and that of the House, can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not we are now to have Somalis in the Executive Council? Does he still accept the proposal that Somaliland will have self-government by 1960?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will quarrel unduly with the statement. It is a long one and it is worthy of being read in full.
    Following are the paragraphs:
    Arrangements are now being made for the formation of a Legislative Council with 13 elected members, and an Electoral Bill to provide for the method of election of these members will be laid before this Council. There will also be provision for me to nominate up to 3 unofficial members. The Legislative Council will therefore consist of the Governor as President, and, according to the number of unofficials up to 3 actually nominated, up to 17 official members, and up to 16 unofficial members including 13 elected members.
    It is also my intention to invite unofficial members of the Legislative Council to be associated with the working of groups of Departments and they will be called into consultation with the Executive Council from time to time. In this way I hope that we shall be able to provide training for unofficial Somalis in the responsibilities of the Government.
    This Constitution provides for the introduction of the electoral system into the Protectorate for the first time and is designed to prepare the way for further advances as soon as the unofficial members associated with the work of Departments have gained experience of Government activities.
    Of course there will subsequently be further steps in Constitutional advance. This and other allied subjects are at this moment being examined by the Secretary of State and his advisers, and I shall be making a further announcement in the near future. I hope this will be possible before the end of March.
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what further progress has been made in respect of self-government for Somaliland in 1960; and how many Somalis are in Government service in British Somaliland or are receiving training for this purpose.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: As regards the first part of the Question I would refer the

    533
    hon. Member to the reply given earlier to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). There are 3,981 Somalis employed by the Protectorate Government. Fifty of these are receiving advanced training abroad and sixty-five Somali students are training abroad with a view to their entering Government service on return. In addition, a number of Somalis are training locally under departmental arrangements.
    Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman how this compares with the number of Somalis being trained for administration in the neighbouring Somali areas? Is it not true that the proportion elsewhere seems to be larger than in their own territories?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot answer that without notice.

  KENYA

    African Elected Members Organisation (Memorandum)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what answer has been given to the African Elected Members of the Kenya Legislative Council to their request for a round table constitutional conference.
    Mr. Braineasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply he has sent to the memorandum submitted to him by the African Elected Members Organisation in Kenya requesting certain constitutional changes.
    Mr. Wadeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reply has been given to the request by the African elected members of the Kenya Legislative Council for a round table conference.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My reply is contained in a dispatch which I sent to the Governor early this week. I understand that this will be conveyed to the African Elected Members Organisation today, and, with permission, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Can the Secretary of State give us some details of the reply? If the reply is "No," is he aware that it will be received with very great regret both in Kenya and in this country among those who want development and
    534
    constructive good will in Kenya? Will he reconsider the reply, in view of the fact that this is put forward by representatives of 97 per cent. of the population in Kenya?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Before asking me to reconsider it, the hon. Member would be wise to hear what the reply is. It is a very long and detailed statement which I shall circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I am ready at all times, publicly or privately, to discuss it with the hon. Member.
    Mr. Wade: Whilst awaiting that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that it is of the greatest importance to gain and retain the confidence of the African Elected Members?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly it is of great importance to hold the confidence of all people in Kenya.
    Mr. Wall: Would my right hon. Friend also agree that continual change in the situation is very unsettling and damaging to the Colony?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.
    Following is the Dispatch:
    KENYA.
    No. 1948
    24th November, 1958.
    Sir,
    I have given careful study to the constitutional proposals submitted by the African Constituency Elected Members under cover of Mr. Mboya's letter of the 28th June, and I shall be grateful if you will reply on my behalf to the African Elected Members Organisation in the sense of the following paragraphs.
    2. The proposals that the number of African Constituency Elected Members in Legislative Council should be increased and that the specially elected seats and the Council of State should be abolished run directly contrary to the principles underlying the present constitutional arrangements which were put into force as recently as April of this year. In forming my judgment of what I considered to be a fair solution of current political problems in Kenya, I was certain that any new arrangements must rest firmly on four main principles:—

    (1) the maintenance of a Government in which all races in the country take part;

    (2) a limited but final increase in communal representation in the Legislature;

    (3) the creation of opportunities for representation in the Legislative Council based on the non-communal principle; and

    (4) the institution of a body of local people who from their background of wisdom and impartiality can prevent unfair discrimination detrimental to any community

    I linked those principles with a decision that the proportions between and within the groups for whom the specially elected seats are preserved shall not be varied during the next ten years and that any alteration in the total number of such seats or in the method of filling them will be subject to the approval of the Council of State.
    3. In the months that have elapsed since the new constitution came into force I have been aware of no circumstance which would justify any major departure from the settlement made by Her Majesty's Government. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to entertain proposals for constitutional change designed to alter in any significant way those features of the present constitution which I regard as fundamental to ordered progress in Kenya. For these reasons I cannot agree to the proposals relating to the increase in the number of African Constituency Elected Members, the abolition of the specially elected seats and the abolition of the Council of State.
    4. As regards the proposals concerning the Council of Ministers, I would emphasise that the decisions recorded in Command 309 represent my considered judgment of the most efficient arrangements that could be devised in present circumstances in relation to the size and balance of the Council. It is my view that for some time to come these arrangements must be afforded extensive testing. In due course, however, and after sufficient experience had been gained of their effectiveness, I and the Government of Kenya would be very ready to review the existing arrangements to consider whether further adjustments were justified in the circumstances then prevailing. It will be recalled that under the terms of Section 10 of Command 309 you have discretion to make adjustments in the burden of responsibility carried by individual Ministers and I have no doubt that you will have recourse to this as and when circumstances warrant. In this connection I must point out that the scope of the second portfolio reserved for an African still remains to he finally determined. Were the African Constituency Elected Members to put forward views about this very important matter they would be given the most careful consideration. For the reason stated earlier in this paragraph I am not disposed to reconsider, so soon after their inception, the question of the posts of Assistant Ministers. In existing circumstances I hold these to be a valuable feature of the present constitutional arrangements but I would not rule out a re-assessment of the position in the light of further experience.
    5. In explaining, as in the foregoing paragraphs, why I cannot contemplate radical changes in the constitution, I wish to make it clear that, provided the principles enunciated in paragraph 2 are safeguarded and subject to the decision on the specially elected seats referred to in the same paragraph, there is no reason why the detailed working of the constitutional arrangements should not come under review from time to time. It is my view that the constitution is sufficiently flexible to provide opportunity at appropriate periods for the experience of its working to be discussed and assessed and for constructive proposals to
    536
    be put forward designed to make improvements.
    6. In considering the whole question I have carefully studied the declaration of principles in the first part of the memorandum and the following statement of the aims of the African Elected Members Organisation. I recognise that the adherence of the African Constituency Elected Members to these principles and purposes is sincere and I naturally respect their evident desire to aim at a democratic solution of the constitutional problems of Kenya. The concept of democracy relates as much to the type of society to be found in any country as to the particular features of the machinery of government. It has been the experience of countries like the United Kingdom that the evolving machinery of government has kept pace with the changing features of the social scene and particularly with the development of a fairly homogeneous population, where geographical unity and a sense of corporate nationhood have superseded through a process taking centuries to complete the cultural, racial and religious cleavages which for long divided the country. The present constitutional pattern in Britain and other advanced territories in the Commonwealth rests on several features of society which are not yet present in Kenya, and these are unlikely to emerge until mutual suspicions have been allayed and ethnic and cultural differences have lost the undue political importance attached to them today. One important feature of a mature society is a readiness to accord weight and respect to the opinions and interests of numerically smaller groups and a complementary confidence on the part of such groups. This must underlie the free working of fully developed democratic institutions. It is therefore to the promotion of a sense of nationhood that we must advance and I can conceive no more potent instrument to this end than the development of a multi-racial or non-racial Council of Ministers, in which policies can be evolved aiming at an integrated approach to the blending of the aptitudes and aspirations of the various communities in a sense of national purpose and achievement. This principle of the participation of all groups in the executive government of the country is a gateway to the future and not a barrier to the advancement of any community. In accordance with my despatch No. 662 your present Ministers have all accepted the obligation "to promote racial harmony and friendliness and to develop opportunities for all loyal subjects, irrespective of race or religion, to advance in accordance with character and ability". This pledge might well be adopted by all as a major signpost towards the future of Kenya.
    7. Within the ambit of its fundamental principles the constitution is thus intended to evolve so as to ensure that the machinery of government can be modified from time to time to take account of the development and progress of the peoples for whose benefit it is designed. I venture to express my hope that African Members of the Legislative Council will be prepared to enter discussions, first of all with you as Governor and thereafter with the other groups, so that a determined effort can be made to create a basis

    537
    for mutual understanding. If this course can be set in Kenya I am convinced that responsible members of all communities will come to realise that the present settlement is expressly designed as the instrument which, as it is modified during the years, will make possible the progress of the country to full nation hood.
    I have the honour to be,
    Sir,
    Your most obedient,
    humble servant,
    ALAN LENNOX-BOYD.

    Detainees, Takwa Camp (Petition)
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he has taken following the petition sent him by Achieng Oneko and his fellow-detainees in Takwa Special Detention Camp, Lamu, Kenya; and whether he intends to authorise a further screening of these remaining prisoners who were originally arrested on purely political grounds.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have asked the Governor to advise the petitioners that I am unable to intervene.
    With regard to the second part of the Question, the Governor has arranged for the Advisory Committee on Detainees to re-hear certain cases in which it advised rejection of the appeal some years back.
    Mr. Johnson: Is not it a fact that neither Oneko nor hundreds of others in the camp had any connection with the beastly Mau Mau movement? They are not the hard core of physical and mental perverts who took part in the ancient initiation ceremonies, back in 1952 and onwards; they are politicos picked up in the street. Is it the intention to keep these men six years after this year without hope of expecting a second chance and of going home to their families?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman has said about Oneko or the others concerned. Provisions are being made for a second appeal. I imagine that these would apply to Oneko, but I should have to confirm this with the Governor.

    Government Quarters (Allocation)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the staff side of the Central Whitley Council of
    538
    Kenya has yet put forward its proposals with regard to the allocation of Government quarters on a non-racial basis; and when these proposals will be considered.
    Mr. Profumo: Not yet, Sir. The next full meeting of the Whitley Council will be in January and it is hoped that the staff side will have prepared its proposals for discussion then.
    Mrs. Castle: Will the hon. Member tell me what proportion of all African civil servants have meanwhile been allocated quarters on a European basis?
    Mr. Profumo: I am afraid that I cannot give the figures without notice. Perhaps the hon. Lady will put the Question on the Order Paper.

    Africans, Nyeri (Manslaughter Verdict)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sentences were passed upon two African interrogators who were convicted at Nyeri of beating a Mau Mau detainee, Kibebe Macharia, to death with rubber straps.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Both were acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
    Mr. Robinson: Is not this an astonishingly mild sentence for beating a man to death simply because, having confessed to two Mau Mau oaths, he refused to confess to a third? After all the assurances which the House was given at the time of the Kaman Kichina case, how does it happen? Is there no supervision exercised over interrogations in Kenya?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I cannot comment on judicial sentences. I am quite ready to consider placing a copy of the judgment in this case in the Library of the House. I am satisfied that this is one of those isolated cases in complete disobedience of constantly repeated instructions. The hon. Member should, I think, bear in mind that apart from the unfortunate death of this man, since February, 1957, over 5,500 detainees and 715 convicts have been sent forward to district works camps for release from this particular camp without any incident. I hope that that will help to put the matter in perspective, but I am in no way attempting to exonerate people who are guilty of such offences.
    Mr. Paget: Is not it very distressing the way in which these isolated cases continually turn up in Kenya and always the sentences seem to be so utterly inadequate? If this activity is being repressed, why is it that when it does happen occasionally, an example never seems to be made?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think the hon. and learned Member will expect me to comment on judicial sentences.

  NYASALAND

    Constitution
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a statement about the constitutional development of Nyasaland.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress he has made with the Government of Nyasaland regarding the future constitutional advance of this Protectorate.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am not yet able to add anything to the reply given to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on 4th November.
    Mr. Wall: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that Nyasaland has gained enormously economically from federation? Is it not, therefore, important to have an agreed new constitution which can develop the African politically as is new being done economically?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. J. Johnson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will give a liberal constitution this time? Is not it quite scandalous that 2,000 Europeans should have six seats while 2 million Africans have five seats and there is no black African Minister on the Executive Council? Does not he think that before 1960 that should be changed?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have already said that the new constitution will be imaginative.
    Mr. Callaghan: May I follow up on the question of the timetable and ask the Colonial Secretary if he remembers that for over a year now we have been asking questions about the date on which he is to publish these proposals? As we rise in three weeks' time, can we avoid the sort
    540
    of situation we had over Northern Rhodesia when we could not have a proper discussion because the information was published at the very moment when the House was about to rise for the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall do my best, but I am sure the hon. Member will understand that I cannot allow the movements of this House—important as they are—to accelerate unduly my conversations, which I hope will be wise and sensible for Nyasaland.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is it the case that they will not have been unduly accelerated, in view of the fact that for over a year we have been pressing this matter and we want them in operation well before 1960 when the exceptional arrangements are to be revised?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not share that view.

  CYPRUS

    Military Policy (Statements)
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will ensure that in future statements on military policy in Cyprus shall be made exclusively by the Governor as Commander-in-Chief.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, Sir.
    Mr. Robinson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whatever merits General Darling may have as a military commander, his recent statements to the Press have been arrogant in tone and ill-chosen in their language, and does not he think, particularly in view of the current E.O.K.A. truce, that it would be better to leave Press conferences to the Governor at the present time?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the hon. Member will not attach too much importance to what he calls the current truce. It is for the Governor to decide which of his advisers should make statements on matters relating to the emergency in Cyprus. I would say in general about statements in Cyprus or elsewhere that, in fairness, they should be judged in the context and circumstances of the country where they are given and of the people to whom they are addressed.

    Mrs. Cutliffe (Murder)
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been drawn to the offer of a substantial reward, made by the Mayor of Nicosia, to any citizen contributing to the capture of Mrs. Cutliffe's murderer, and to his appeal to any Greek Cypriot with information about the murder to come forward; and what response has been made by the Government to this offer of assistance.
    Mr. Profumo: A report appeared in the Cyprus Press stating that the Mayor of Nicosia had offered to raise a fund to reward any citizen who came forward with information about the murderer. The Mayor did not consult the Government or inform them of his offer, which was coupled with a vehement rejection of the idea that E.O.K.A. was responsible for the murder and a suggestion that it was deliberately staged by hostile interests to throw blame on the Greeks.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not the Under-Secretary of State aware that when I asked him last week what offers of assistance in the discovery of the murderer of Mrs. Cutliffe had been made by Greek Cypriot authorities, he replied, "None"? Is not it clear that that answer was untrue? Cannot the Colonial Office read the Cyprus Times, in which the Mayor of Nicosia offered to raise a reward of £5,000 and appealed publicly to any Cypriot who knew anything about the murderer to come forward? Should not the Government have responded to this offer of assistance from a leading Greek Cypriot? Is not the hon. Member aware that the criticism made by Dr. Dervis was that when the Government had been given a description saying that it was a fair-haired youth, they indiscriminately rounded up all the dark-haired youths? That is what is said. The fact is that the Mayor made an offer of assistance.
    Mr. Profumo: I am sorry, but I do not see any reason to change the answer which I gave on the last occasion. Perhaps I could explain. I must give responsible answers and I do not regard something which appears in a newspaper as always being a real offer. I think I should add that on the night of the murder Athens Radio proclaimed it as the work of E.O.K.A. patriots, and I have no reason to suppose that the claim
    542
    was ill founded. Two weapons were used and, from the markings on a cartridge case found on the scene, were identified as those of a weapon used in other E.O.K.A. crimes in the Famagusta district. At the inquest the verdict was, "Murder by persons unknown".
    Mr. P. Williams: Would not it be better if the Mayor of Nicosia and other mayors in Cyprus helped in preventing murders rather than offered to help afterwards?
    Mr. Ellis Smith: And King Paul.
    Mr. Shinwell: There has been an implication in certain quarters—not in the House but elsewhere—that this dastardly crime should be laid at the feet of the Cyprus Government and our forces. Is there any evidence to that effect? If not, will the implication be sternly and emphatically repudiated?
    Mr. Profumo: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for one of his usual very wise supplementary questions There is no evidence at all—absolutely no evidence. I hope that when the right hon. Member reads tomorrow the answer which I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) he will regard it as a categorical denial in the strongest terms of which I am capable.
    Mr. Swingler: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment in order to get the facts clear.

    N.A.A.F.I. (Dismissed Cypriot Employees)
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what representations he has received from trade unions about the mass dismissal of Cypriot Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes' employees.
    Mr. Profumo: None, Sir.
    Mrs. Jeger: Is not this at variance with the information which has been published by several trade unions in this country, including the Civil Service unions? Have not these mass dismissals involved many Cypriots who have given loyal service to Her Majesty's Government, often in circumstances of great danger to themselves?
    Mr. Profumo: I have answered the question which was asked which was, what representations had been made to my right hon. Friend. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 12th November, the dismissals and suspensions were made for security reasons.
    Mr. Callaghan: But the Prime Minister accepted that this was no form of collective punishment. Is there not, therefore, some obligation upon the Government to try to find some alternative employment? What steps are being taken in that direction?
    Mr. Profumo: If peaceful conditions are restored there will be work for all.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is that an answer to the question? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Is it an answer which ought to satisfy the consciences of hon. Members opposite? If 4,000 or 5,000 workpeople have been dismissed on security grounds and it is no form of collective punishment, do not the Government accept their responsibility for trying to ensure that some other form of employment is secured?
    Mr. Profumo: I am afraid that I cannot add to what I said in my original reply, but the question of the dismissal or suspension of N.A.A.F.I. workers is a matter for N.A.A.F.I., and, in this House, it would be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

    Future
    Mrs. L. Jegerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what further steps Her Majesty's Government now propose to take towards a settlement of the Cyprus problem.
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have nothing to add to the Prime Minister's statement on 12th November.
    Mrs. Jeger: In view of the very important debate now taking place in the United Nations, can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to put some statement of the Government's current position before the House?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Questions relating to a U.N.O. debate should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who made a statement on this matter on 24th November.

  NORTHERN RHODESIA

    Children, Urban Areas (Education)
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many African children of school age in the urban areas of Northern Rhodesia do not attend school; and what steps are being taken to provide education for them.
    Mr. Profumo: Some 45,000 children of school age in the urban areas of Northern Rhodesia do not attend school. The steps taken to provide increased educational facilities include the allocation of £230,000 for capital expenditure on school accommodation in urban areas and schemes to enable a greater number of children to attend existing schools.
    Mr. MacPherson: Is not it a fact that there are more children not attending school than there are attending school and, since that situation has lasted now for several years, is not this a case of trying to supplement the ordinary provisions by some sort of emergency or experimental provisions? Will the hon. Gentleman give his mind to that possibility?
    Mr. Profumo: In reply to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that the proportions are about equal. As to the second part, under the general heading of accommodation, which I have announced in my Answer, are included arrangements to use classrooms for half-day schools and all other school accommodation during the holiday periods for additional classes.
    Sir A. Baldwin: Can my hon. Friend say how many children are attending school in the urban areas compared with the number that were attending school when the Federation took place? Is he aware that the limit of the increase of education is decided not only by the rate of school building but also by the number of teachers who can be recruited?
    Mr. Profumo: The answer to the last part of the supplementary question is "Yes", Sir. As to the first part, I have no doubt that there have been substantial improvements since those earlier days.
    Mr. Callaghan: Is not it important that we should get the facts right? Are not they precisely the opposite to what

    545
    the hon. Gentleman suggests because of the increase in urbanisation over the last few years? Is not it rather shameful that we should be drifting into the position in which fewer children are attending schools in these areas now than was the case two, three or four years ago? May reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend because, as the Under-Secretary is aware, there is a growth of juvenile African delinquents in these territories because at least half of them, if not more, have never been to school at all?
    Mr. Profumo: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that the substance of the supplementary answer which I gave is correct. We are well aware of the problem. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel on reflection when he reads the answer that some progress is being made.

  OVERSEAS CIVIL SERVICE
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many British Colonial civil servants are now serving as district officers and otherwise in British Colonial territories and Protectorates; and what is approximately the number of those who, during the past five years, were in the British Colonial Service but who have continued to serve in ex-Colonial Territories when these became self-governing, under arrangements concluded with Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Profumo: About 16,000 pensionable overseas officers and 6,600 non-pensionable overseas officers were serving in the dependent territories at the beginning of this year.
  As regards the second part of the Question, which relates partly to territories for whose administration Her Majesty's Government are no longer responsible, I am not in a position to supply the total figure requested, but I wil1 send the hon. Member such information as is available.
  Mr. Sorensen: Meanwhile, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his general impression is that a large number of these colonial servants are continuing in territories when they become self-governing? If that is so, will not it be highly encouraging to ourselves as well as to these territories?
  Mr. Profumo: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say from information at the moment available to me that it appears that an appreciable number of officers formerly in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service are still serving.

  TANGANYIKA

    Makerere College (Extra-mural Work)
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what proposals have been made by the Government of Tanganyika during the last twelve months for providing funds for extra-mural work by Makerere College.
    Mr. Profumo: None, Sir.
    Mr. MacPherson: Is not this an urgent matter in view of the fact that extra-mural work is going on successfully both in Kenya and in Uganda? Is it not possible for the hon. Member to find ways outside the ordinary revenues of the Colony to obtain money, in view of the fact that the success of the work in Kenya depends very largely on a grant from the Carnegie Corporation?
    Mr. Profumo: I understand that the Tanganyika Government will be reviewing the matter afresh in the light of the forthcoming recommendations of the Working Party on Higher Education.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Land Drainage (Heneage Report)
    Mr. C. Hughesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will state the Government's policy towards the implementation of the Heneage Report.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): Discussions with the associations have been progressing. No agreement has yet been reached, but in order to examine the practical application of possible alternative lines of action, the river boards are carrying out a number of technical surveys. I hope that these surveys will be completed by the end of the year, and discussions will then be resumed as a matter of urgency.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Minister agree that there is really an acute need for improved agricultural drainage, and for better organisation? As he has had the Heneage Report in his hands for six or seven years, is not it high time that he should make up his mind what he intends to do about it?
    Mr. Hare: I agree with the hon. Member that this is, indeed, a most difficult and important problem. In fact, as I think he knows, the search for practical alternative proposals must inevitably take some time if we are to try to secure agreement between the associations concerned, as I hope he and most other hon. Members would wish.

    Arsenical Sprays
    Lieut.-Commander Maydonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware that more than twenty cattle have died at two Somerset farms at Tytherington and Wellow from arsenical sprays; if he will name these sprays and their makers; and if, in view of growing anxiety about the safety of many toxic sprays, both to animal and to human life he will consider instituting research into their composition and use.
    Mr. John Hare: Yes. Sir. These arsenical sprays are highly toxic. There are a number of them on the market, and I will, with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those known to my Ministry. Precautions in their use and in dealing with treated crops have already been recommended by my Ministry on the advice of the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture and Food Storage. The Committee has been asked to review the question of arsenical sprays in the light of all the evidence available.
    Lieut.-Commander Maydon: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that in both of these cases there is a common feature; the apparent irresistibility of this poisonous substance to cattle? In both cases, the cattle went through fields of kale, and broke down substantial fences in order to eat this poisonous substance.
    Mr. Hare: I am very grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for bringing public attention to what has happened; and to the danger of these sprays. we
    548
    have issued our own advice, to which as much publicity as possible should be given, and this advice is available to farmers.
    Following is the information:
    The sodium and potassium arsenite weed-killers and haulm-killers known to my Ministry, and their manufacturers. are:
    Acme Arsenical Haulmkiller—Acme Chemical Co. Ltd.
    Acme Arsenical Weedkiller—Acme Chemical Co. Ltd.
    Arsenical Weedkiller—Lunevale Products Ltd.
    Arsenicola—The Standardised Disinfectants Co. Ltd.
    Atlas Arsenical Haulmkiller—Atlas Preservative Co. Ltd.
    Battle's Arsenical Weedkiller—Battle, Hayward and Bower Ltd.
    Bayacide Potato Haulmkiller—Bayer Agriculture Ltd.
    Bil Arsenical Weedkiller—Rugge's Insecticides
    Dee Foliet—J. D Campbell & Sons Ltd.
    Eradiweed—Pan Britannica Industries Ltd.
    Eureka Arsenical 1/50 Weedkiller—
    Tomlinson and Hayward Ltd.
    Eureka Arsenical 1/100 Weedkiller—Tomlinson and Hayward Ltd.
    Foliatox—Fisons Pest Control Ltd
    Haulmite—Bugge's Insecticides.
    Haulm Killer—Vitax Ltd.
    Hawmac—Plant Protection Ltd.
    Juvare Potato Haulm Destroyer—Chisholm Fox and Garner Ltd.
    Potato Haulm Destroyer—British Schering Ltd.
    Potato Haulm Destroyer—Murphy Chemical Co. Ltd.
    Razetops—Vigzol Oil Co. Ltd.
    Shell Potato Haulm Killer—Shell Chemical Co. Ltd.
    Sodium Arsenite—Baywood Chemicals Ltd.
    Sodium Arsenite—W. J. Craven &Co. Ltd.
    Sodium/Potassium Arsenite—E. C. Longmate Ltd.
    Sodium/Potassium Arsenite—Universal Crop Protection Ltd.
    Weedicide—Plant Protection Ltd

    Ice Cream
    Mr. Haymanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has completed his consideration of the comments of interested parties on his draft proposals for regulations governing the composition and description of ice cream; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Hare: I am still considering these comments.
    Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that a conference of European milk producers, recently held in Cremona, passed a resolution calling on all Governments that had not already done so to bring in

    549
    legislation to define ice cream as a product made only from butter fat? Will he take that resolution into account?
    Mr. Hare: Certainly. I have taken that into account, as well as a number of other representations made by parties on both sides of the argument. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is very strong feeling on the subject, and that that very strong feeling exists on the one side just as much as on the other.
    Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on this question there are very strong feelings in all parts of the House; and will he take that seriously into account before reaching a final conclusion?
    Mr. Hare: I have already said, and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows, that I am considering all these representations; not only what has been given to me by various organised bodies but the sentiments expressed on this matter on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Willey: Can the Minister say whether this has been discussed with the New Zealand Government, who are making representations to us about butter?
    Mr. Hare: I think that it would be much better for me to make a statement when I am in a position to do so. I would rather not answer that question at the moment.

    Labelling of Food (Prosecutions)
    Mrs. Mannasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many prosecutions have been made for misdescription in labelling of food; and who was responsible for initiating proceedings in these cases.
    Mr. John Hare: There were 61 prosecutions in England and Wales during 1957, and so far there have been 45 prosecutions this year. The proceedings were initiated by local food and drugs authorities.
    Mrs. Mann: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether local authorities could proceed under the Act of 1913 which deals with the misdescription of goods?
    Mr. Hare: I will certainly have a look at the question which the hon. Lady has put to me.

    Apple and Pear Trees (Fire Blight Disease)
    Commander Scott-Millerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is aware of the damage to apples and pear crops caused by fire blight; how many acres have been so affected; and whether he will consider compensating the growers in the same way as farmers affected by foot-and-mouth disease, since the trees so blighted have to be totally destroyed.
    Mr. John Hare: Yes, Sir. About 2,500 pear trees have so far been confirmed as infested with fire blight disease; no acreage figures are available. There is no true comparison with foot-and-mouth disease and compensation could not be justified. Only infected trees, almost all of which would die in time, are destroyed. And since alive they menace all apple and pear trees in the neighbourhood, destruction is to the advantage of the growers concerned.
    Commander Scott-Miller: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that this question illustrates another of the difficulties which all horticulturists have to face and, since they do not get the support of the guarantees, may I ask him if he will reconsider the matter, with a view to the payment of compensation in cases of this kind?
    Mr. Hare: I do not think there is any real argument that compensation should be used in this kind of instance. This disease is a very serious disease. It is in the interests of growers to eradicate all infected trees immediately they notice that they are suffering from the disease.

  GOVERNMENT POLICY
  Miss Burtonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement giving further details of Government policy as outlined in the Queen's Speech on the efforts proposed to secure a just balance between the expanding demands of the modern State and the freedom and status of the individual.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): As this Parliament proceeds, the outline of Government policy given in the Gracious Speech will be filled in. Meanwhile, I hope that the

  551
  hon. Member will be satisfied with such Measures as the Town and Country Planning Bill, which has been given a Second Reading without a Division, and the Emergency Laws (Repeal) Bill.
  Miss Burton: In the context of "a just balance" and the "status of the individual", would the Prime Minister look into the position whereby organisations are to use Government money for discrimination against more than one half of the population? Is he aware that the Building Societies Association has issued a statement that it does discriminate against women in the granting of mortgage loans, simply because they are women? Does not the Prime Minister feel that this is not only out of date, but stupid and unfair? The women's organisations are very concerned about this. Would the right hon. Gentleman look into this statement, if I send it to him, as it affects the Queen's Speech?
  The Prime Minister: I will, of course, be very glad to read any communication that the hon. Lady might send to me, and I will do my best to reply to it, if I can find a suitable envelope for my reply. Meanwhile, I think that, perhaps, this matter might best be discussed when we come to the details of the Bill itself.

  SPORT
  Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister if he will take steps to appoint a National Sports Council, and recommend a suitable financial annual grant so that the council may function in the same form that the Arts Council does.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think that this would be appropriate. As I said on 20th November in reply to the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) the Government's financial assistance to the development of sport in general is given through local authorities and directly to voluntary and other bodies.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: I appreciate what has been done in this respect, but in view of the need for central direction, central consideration and central control of sport in Britain, will the Prime Minister reconsider that reply?
  The Prime Minister: I will, of course, consider it, but I would have thought that this was particularly one of those matters best dealt with by local devolution.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mrs. Butlerasked the Prime Minister if he will help to promote agreement on the suspension of nuclear tests by setting up control stations on all British territory and inviting the United Nations to supply personnel for them.
  The Prime Minister: This is, indeed, one of the matters which we want to work out with the United States and Soviet Governments at the Geneva Conference. So far as any control posts on our territory are concerned, we are certainly prepared to have them manned by international staff.
  Mrs. Butler: Is not there a hope that such practical unilateral action taken now could, by demonstrating the faith of this country in the possibility of reaching agreement to end the menace to humanity of nuclear weapon tests, transform the whole situation at Geneva? We should have nothing to lose by it, and we might succeed in cutting through the Gordian knot in which those discussions seem to have become tied.
  The Prime Minister: I appreciate the purpose in the hon. Lady's mind, but these negotiations and discussions are going on, and if control is to be effective there must be agreement on the structure of the international organisation, and on many other matters, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 24th November.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Will the Prime Minister make clear whether it is simply a dispute about the controls to be set up that is holding up the Geneva negotiations, or are there other obstacles between Her Majesty's Government and the Soviet Government?
  The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we are discussing the agenda and the method of approaching the problem, but the present difficulty is the attitude of the Soviet representative who will not discuss controls until the text of a treaty to end tests has been

  553
  agreed. We regard controls and the continuance of tests as related matters neither of which can be settled without the other.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Does it matter in which order these issues are discussed—as long as the signing of the agreement is, of course, made dependent on both points?
  The Prime Minister: That, of course, is just the point at issue.
  Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister says that this is just the point at issue, but what does he mean by that? Does he say that the point at issue is the order in which things should be discussed, or not? If it is, why should not we agree to discuss the agreement on the suspension of tests first, so long as the signing of the agreement is, as I say, held up until there has also been satisfactory discussion and agreement on the controls to be established?
  The Prime Minister: I think that that is really the point. The Soviet idea is first to have an agreement on tests, and then to have a discussion on controls. That we cannot agree to. But I am sure that what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind is what we are striving for, and I am not at all without hope that we are making some progress towards what I agree would be a sensible agreement, to discuss the matter as a whole, and then towards the signing of a comprehensive agreement in which everything would be included.

  ADVISORY BOARDS (CHAIRMEN)
  Mr. G. Thomasasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Cabinet Ministers acting as chairman of outside committees set up as advisory boards for Government Departments.
  The Prime Minister: The merits of such an arrangement depend on the circumstances of each case.
  Mr. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are no merits in the case of the Council for Wales and Monmouth shire? Is he aware that we might have
  554
  borne the burden of the end of this Council much easier than we can bear the burden of having the Minister as its Chairman? Is he further aware that, as long as the Minister is in the Chair, we regard this as a Departmental Committee rather than as a Committee representing Welsh interests?
  The Prime Minister: As I made clear in my letters to the members of the Council, this was a step which we thought it right to take as a temporary arrangement. I am bound to say that the view expressed by the hon. Gentleman is not by any means universally held in Wales or in the Committee itself.
  Mr. Thomas: Is the Prime Minister aware that he himself said a year ago that this Council must be independent if it is to fulfil its functions, and that he has never explained to the Welsh people why he has changed his mind on this important issue?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that, some time in September, there is to be a new Council appointed, and it was thought that, in the circumstances which had arisen, the Minister for Welsh Affairs could assist by taking the Chair himself and working out what might be changes in the proposed character and organisation of the Council. On the whole, that has been received with as much support as opposition from those concerned.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Is the Prime Minister aware that there has been some confusion of opinion about this? Is it the intention of the Government, not merely to appoint or re-appoint persons to the Council, but to consider changing the whole character of the Council from September onwards?
  The Prime Minister: As regards the constitution, I think there has been a good deal of discussion on whether it could be improved, and on—and this is also very important—its close relations with the Minister concerned.
  Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister aware that there is a variety of opinion about this, and that opinions are changing even from day to day? Would he agree that it might well be beneficial to wait a while before making a final decision?

  UNEMPLOYMENT (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland at Cumnock on 14th November on the question of unemployment in Scotland represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the unemployment figures in Scotland are double what they were at this time last year, and that the number of the partly unemployed has gone up four times? Does he think that unemployment in Scotland has reached its peak, and could he give some indication of what is the long-term policy for the diversification of industry, which was announced by the Secretary of State for Scotland?
  The Prime Minister: Those are different questions, and if the hon. Gentleman will put them on the Order Paper, I will do my best to answer them or see that they are answered. I was asked to say whether I agreed with the speech made by my right hon. Friend, to which I replied that I did. It was a long, elaborate and very interesting speech, and I found that it dealt very ably with the problem.
  Mr. Ross: While we agree that it was a long and elaborate speech, bearing in mind the fact that unemployment has risen to an alarming extent in Scotland, and particularly in that part of Ayrshire, following upon a regimen of restrictions, credit squeezes and the like, does not the Prime Minister agree that it is a rather commendable confession of Government failure for the Secretary of State to declare that the Government's policy in the last six years has been aimed at expansion?
  The Prime Minister: The policy which the Government are taking with regard to special areas of high unemployment in Scotland has been described in this House, in the Act which we passed, and in many other debates. We shall continue to work for that, and I believe that we shall get the support of Scottish hon. Members.

  GHANA AND GUINEA
  Sir R. Robinsonasked the Prime Minister, in view of the constitutional effect on the Commonwealth, whether he will make a statement about the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the joint declaration of intention to establish a union signed by the Prime Ministers of Ghana and Guinea on 23rd November.
  The Prime Minister: Ghana is, as the House knows, an independent State and a valued member of the Commonwealth. Last Saturday Dr. Nkrumah informed me that negotiations were in progress and that it was likely that a joint statement would be made on Sunday indicating the intention of himself and the Prime Minister of Guinea to enter into a union. On Sunday I received the text of the joint declaration issued by the two Prime Ministers in Accra.
  This declaration states that the Prime Ministers of Ghana and Guinea have agreed to constitute their two States as the nucleus of a Union of West African States. It is my understanding, however, that no separate union of Ghana and Guinea has come into existence and indeed the declaration speaks of harmonising the policies of the two States.
  This is an interesting development which may have political, constitutional, economic and other implications not only for Ghana and Guinea but also for the Commonwealth and other countries. I know that the Government of Ghana value their association with the Commonwealth; and the joint declaration says that the actions which the two Prime Ministers are taking are designed not to prejudice in any way the present or future relations between either Ghana and the Commonwealth or between the Republic of Guinea and the French community. My impression is that almost all the detailed arrangements between Ghana and Guinea which would be necessary to give effect to this statement of intention on the part of the two Prime Ministers have yet to be worked out. I have no doubt that Dr. Nkrumah will keep all his Commonwealth colleagues informed as the negotiations proceed.
  Sir R. Robinson: In view of our friendly relations with France, will the Prime Minister make it very clear indeed that the initiative on this matter came

  557
  from Ghana and Guinea, and not in any way from the United Kingdom?
  The Prime Minister: Of course, this matter was a complete surprise to us when we heard of it. I would again repeat that the declaration specifically reserves relations between Guinea and the French community.
  Mr. Gaitskell: In view of the important and somewhat delicate issues which may be involved in these matters, would not it be wise if we suspended judgment on it, and, indeed, allowed discussions to take place privately, as no doubt they will? May I ask the Prime Minister if in fact any discussions are taking place with other Commonwealth nations?
  The Prime Minister: I think it will, of course, be for Dr. Nkrumah, as I am sure he will, to inform his colleagues in the Commonwealth, and the right hon. Gentleman knows the structure and system by which this is carried out.
  Mr. Shinwell: Apart from the constitutional problem involved, which no doubt at some future date may be re-salved, ought not we to encourage an independent State like Ghana, which is part of the Commonwealth, to use its gravitational pull on contiguous nations so as to expand the Commonwealth, on the assumption that, in this particular instance, the French Government have no objection?
  The Prime Minister: I think I would prefer not to add to my statement. I said that it is a most interesting development, but there are, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, certain points of delicacy, and I think it would be best to let these negotiations proceed, while keeping in the closest touch with them at all points.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 1ST DECEMBER—Second Reading of the New Towns Bill and Committee stage of the Money Resolution.
TUESDAY, 2ND DECEMBER —Debate on Commonwealth and International Economic Problems, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
It is intended on this occasion that we should deal with the Montreal and Delhi Conferences, in particular.
WEDNESDAY, 3RD DECEMBER—Motion to approve the Coal Industry Nationalisation (Borrowing Powers) Order.
THURSDAY, 4TH DECEMBER—Debate on Foreign Affairs, particularly on European political problems, on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY, 5TH DECEMBER—Consideration of private Members' Motions.
Mr. Gaitskell: May I take it that as the debate on Thursday is to be on the Motion for the Adjournment, it will be open to raise any subject? is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we should wish, in addition to discussing the situation in Berlin and the general problem of European security, also to raise the subject of the Geneva negotiations on the suspension of nuclear tests?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir; I will draw that to the attention of my right hon. Friend principally concerned.
Mr. Bellenger: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed a report in the Manchester Guardian today which seems to show that that newspaper had some prior knowledge of the business for next week, or, at least, of the business on one day next week?
I am not making any complaint about that, but the question I have to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this: for the convenience of most hon. Members, especially those who wish to prepare themselves for future debates, would it not be possible to give the House longer than a week's notice about forthcoming business?
Mr. Butler: As is well known, a large part of the business is, under our constitution, due for discussion with the Opposition. I do not think that it would be possible, normally, to give more than a week's notice. I cannot myself explain why there has been any leak or misunderstanding about the business for next week. These things are discussed confidentially, and they are agreed between the

559
usual channels. I think that it will be very difficult to meet the right hon. Gentleman's request.
Mr. Bellenger: May I just put this point of view to the right hon. Gentleman? He must know that business for longer than a week ahead is considered in the office of the Patronage Secretary. Would it not be possible to discuss the matter through the usual channels, and, if the main outline of business is agreed, to let hon. Members know a little more than a week in advance?
Mr. Butler: This particular case is an example of how the business can be settled only almost at the last minute, very often on the Thursday morning, the reason being that we try to keep our topics right up to date. If they are not up to date, or not suitable for discussion, we very often postpone them for a week. Therefore, to follow the right hon. Gentleman's wishes might very often lead to misunderstanding.
Mr. Grimond: May I ask whether it is intended that any part of Tuesday's or Thursday's debates will deal with the European Free Trade Area? If not, is there to be a separate debate on that later?
Mr. Butler: No, Sir. As I said, the debate on Thursday will, I think, essentially be on European political problems, with the addition which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has just mentioned. The object on Tuesday is to respond to a request which has been made, very naturally, for a full report on the Montreal and Delhi Conferences and their consequences. I do not think that the Free Trade Area would normally come in on either day.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I reinforce the plea made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) and ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is a widespread opinion in the country, as well as among certain hon. Members, that the procedure of the House would, to some extent, be facilitated if longer notice could be given? Without committing himself in any way today, will my right hon. Friend agree to give consideration to the possibility of making an experiment in this matter next Session?
Mr. Butler: The experiment need not necessarily be in the next Session, if it would work. I should, however, have to discuss this idea through the usual channels, and also, of course, with hon. Members concerned. Sometimes there is a calculated indiscretion, by which it is indicated that, at a future date, a debate will take place on a certain subject. We might be able to enlarge and codify such a practice.
Mr. Shinwell: Will the debate next Wednesday, on borrowing powers for the coal industry, be restricted to the financial aspects associated with borrowing powers, or will it be a general debate, enabling hon. Members to deal in general with the state of the coal industry?
Mr. Butler: I have here the Order, and the debate will be on that Order. The extent to which the debate can range must be a matter for Mr. Speaker and the Chair.
Mr. Osborne: Further to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the Leader of the Liberal Party, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that the European Free Trade Area proposals are of such importance to many industries, he will find time for a debate, if we cannot have it next week, during the following week, or, at least, give us an opportunity to discuss the matter before Christmas?
Mr. Butler: I think that it depends entirely on how the negotiations develop. At present, I do not think that the matter is ripe for a useful discussion. It depends entirely on developments.
Mr. H. Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we have pressed very strongly for a debate on the Free Trade Area, as he knows, we are all very anxious to have a White Paper before the debate can take place, and are as conscious as he is that there are important meetings to take place in Europe, actually next Tuesday, which would make it very difficult for the Paymaster-General to say anything very constructive at this time? Will the right hon. Gentleman take into account what the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has said and let us have a

561
debate as soon as it can be fixed, provided that we can all have the necessary information first?
Mr. Butler: Yes. It was partly because of the difficulty of laying a White Paper and giving the information, owing to the state of negotiations, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and his hon. Friends were in agreement that the time was not ripe for a debate, Of course, when the time is ripe for a debate, we can certainly make the arrangements
Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) about the length of notice of business, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that Members have duties in their constituencies and elsewhere which cannot always be adequately performed, nor can appointments be made, unless they receive more than a week's notice?
Mr. Butler: I must say that we have all managed to keep going in our constituencies and elsewhere, under the present arrangements, for a very long time, and I do not think we must be too worried about the future. I have undertaken to consider the request made to me, but I cannot guarantee that there will be any result.
Mr. F. Noel-Baker: In view of the interest evidently felt in all parts of the House in the subject which we started to debate last Friday and the deep anxiety felt outside the House on the matter of advertising, and of the fact that your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, was that the subject was inadequately debated on that day, may I ask the Leader of the House when he will provide Government time to continue the discussion of my Motion?
Mr. Butler: The answer, in short, is "No, Sir". I should like to say that we at least had the satisfaction of having adequate time to understand the hon. Member's point of view.
Mr. Noel-Baker: With great respect, may I point out to the Leader of the House that the answer to the question. "When?" cannot be "No, Sir"?
Mr. Biggs-Davison: May I ask a question about Tuesday's business? Without wishing to press the Government for a premature statement on the Free Trade Area, and since the subject is connected with the Commonwealth and is an international economic problem, may I ask the Leader of the House whether it will be in order for back bench Members who are lucky enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye to refer to the Free Trade Area?
Mr. Butler: I am quite certain that on a subject like this, which relates chiefly to the very comprehensive reports from Montreal and Delhi, any matter referring to the expansion of trade would certainly be of interest, but I do not think that it would be profitable for the House to consider the immediate impact of the negotiations or the future of a Free Trade Area for Europe alone. The general expansion of trade would be quite reasonable.
Mr. Mellish: Is the Leader of the House aware that on Monday last we had a debate on the Grigg Report to which a reply was to be given by the Minister of Defence? In fact, the right hon. Gentleman left the Chamber at half-past five and did not return until ten to nine, and, not having heard the debate, he then replied to it. Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that in the business for next week and the weeks to come the House will not be treated with such arrogance and that we shall have a little more courtesy from the Front Bench?
Mr. Butler: I should not like to attribute arrogance to any of my colleagues, but their degree of perception, perhaps, is greater than the hon. Member realises.
Mr. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when we can expect the White Paper on education and whether we shall have an opportunity to debate it before the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Butler: I cannot give a definite answer about a debate, but I can say that it is hoped that the White Paper will be laid some time next week.

NORTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES)
3.42 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Command Paper No. 530 relating to Proposals for Constitutional Change in Northern Rhodesia.
The House will recall that at the end of last March the Government of Northern Rhodesia published a White Paper putting forward certain proposals for changes in that territory's Constitution. These proposals were the result of discussions which the Governor had here over a very long period. They were not agreed proposals in the sense that all members of the Northern Rhodesian Government had undertaken to support them exactly as they stood. Indeed, as the House will have realised, the White Paper made it clear that there was no member of the Government in full agreement with every detail of the proposals when considered in isolation and who would not like to see some of them changed. All members of the Government, however, agreed to put forward the proposals for public discussion in the belief that they constituted a good and honest scheme which merited the support and faith of all sections of the community.
In the following months, these proposals, which are reproduced as Appendix II to the White Paper, Cmd. No. 530, which I presented to Parliament in September, were exhaustively discussed by all kinds of bodies and organisations throughout the territory. These discussions culminated in a debate on a composite Motion in the Legislative Council which lasted, with breaks, for no less than 45 hours. In spite of the great and ever increasing interest which Members of this House are showing in these very important and difficult matters, I do not think that we can expect to challenge that record.
The debate in the Northern Rhodesian Council showed that there were certain features of the Government's proposals upon which all concerned were agreed. Agreement was also reached on one or two minor changes to the proposals. There remained, however, a measure of disagreement. I had hoped to go to
564
Northern Rhodesia myself, but, unfortunately, it was not possible for me to leave London at that time. At my suggestion and invitation, therefore, the Governor came to London with a representative delegation from the Legislative Council to discuss the proposals with me.
I had long discussions with the delegation. It did not, however, prove possible to resolve the differences of opinion which had revealed themselves in Northern Rhodesia. But these discussions enabled me to supplement the knowledge that I had already gained from studying the records of the debates and other discussions in Northern Rhodesia and enabled me to gain the kind of understanding of the various points of view which, I think, can only come from personal contacts.
I was greatly impressed, as were all my colleagues who met them, by the spirit of courtesy and mutual tolerance with which all members of the delegation put forward their views. By the end of July, it had become clear that it would be necessary for me to reach my own decisions about the advice to be tendered to Her Majesty. I would, of course, have greatly preferred, as I am sure would all Members of this House, that this should have proved unnecessary and that a fully agreed solution should have been found in Northern Rhodesia itself.
That this did not prove possible was certainly no fault of the Governor, Sir Arthur Benson. For three years or more, he has worked tirelessly to produce a scheme which would both fit the circumstances of the territory and be acceptable to those mainly concerned. No one who, like myself, has followed his efforts can have failed to admire the enthusiasm, skill and perseverence with which the Governor has pursued his objective. To anyone who knows all the difficulties of the problem and the situation, it comes as a surprise not that he failed, as, in a measure, he has, but that he came so near to success.
My discussions with the Northern Rhodesian delegation ended just as the House was about to rise for the Summer Recess, as I have been reminded this afternoon. There was a very natural desire, which I shared, that the House should have an opportunity to debate these matters before irrevocable decisions were taken. At the same time, as the House

565
generously recognised, there were considerations in Northern Rhodesia itself which, to some extent, restricted my freedom of manoeuvre as regards timing. If the, life of the present Legislative Council was not to have to be extended—and this and the inevitable period of uncertainty that that would have involved would have been highly undesirable—elections would have to be held in the spring next year. This meant that it would be necessary for work on the registration of voters to start in early autumn this year.
Accordingly, I made it clear to the House, at the end of July, that I intended to tender advice to Her Majesty during the Summer Recess that provision should be made at an early date to enable arrangements for the delimitation of constituencies and the registration of voters to be undertaken without delay. I undertook, however, at the same time, that provision for the holding of elections on the lines proposed would be left to a later Order in Council which would also give effect to such other decisions on the Constitution as I might take and which I would not advise Her Majesty to make until there had been an opportunity for debate in this House. I also undertook to publish my full proposals in good time so that hon. Members would be able to study them.
The first Order in Council was accordingly made on 11th September, as hon. Members who follow these matters know. It was entitled the Northern Rhodesian (Electoral Provisions) Order in Council, 1958, and was laid on 17th September. The conclusions which I reached after my discussions with the delegation from the Legislative Council in Northern Rhodesia are set out in my despatch of 10th September to the Governor, which appears as Appendix I to Cmd. 530. I recognise that these proposals may seem complicated, but so is the problem. It would be unrealistic, I think, to imagine that a simple solution is possible. Nor will these proposals, I think, be complicated for the individual who has to register and later to cast his vote.
I think that it may help the House if I stated briefly what the position of each qualified voter will be under the proposals. I am conscious that this appears to be the most complicated aspect of all. Every qualified voter, of whatever race, in Northern Rhodesia will have two
566
votes. In the area covered by the special constituencies, an ordinary voter will be able to cast one vote in the election for his special constituency and one vote in the election for one of the two seats reserved for Europeans. Neither of these votes will in any circumstances be devalued. In the area covered by the ordinary constituencies, each ordinary voter will be able to cast one vote in the election of the member for his ordinary constituency and one vote for the election for one of the two seats reserved for Africans. Neither of these votes will in any circumstances be devalued.
A specially qualified voter in the area covered by the six special constituencies will he able to cast one vote in the election for the member for his special constituency, which will not be devalued, and one vote in the election for one of the two seats reserved for European members, which in certain circumstances may he devalued. A specially qualified voter in the area of the ordinary constituencies will he able to cast one vote in the election for the member of his ordinary constituency, which, in certain circumstances, may be devalued, and one vote for the election to one of the seats reserved for African members, which will in no circumstances be devalued.
I recognise that even with a desire to give this explanation, I no doubt have left some Members still a little uncertain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can, however, assure hon. Members that if they carefully read what I have said—perhaps I have failed to put it in the simplest of language, although I do not think so—they will find that it is nothing like as complicated as it seems. For the individual who does not have to go through all this procedure, not being in all these various categories, the proposition is relatively simple.
Mr. James Callaghan: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in the middle of this intricate discourse, but can he give an answer in principle to this question: why is it that certain African votes are to be devalued whereas others will not be devalued? If the right hon. Gentleman is explaining this, well and good.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is one of the great issues with which I intend to deal. I do not think that it will be difficult to explain.

567
For the rest, these proposals as they now stand may be summarised as follows. There would be a common voters' roll containing both ordinary and special voters in accordance with the qualification set out in Appendix A to my dispatch. The Legislative Council would consist of a Speaker and 30 members, of whom 22 would be elected, six officials and two nominated members. There would be 18 constituencies, 12 comprising the Crown Lands adjacent to the railway and certain adjoining areas of native reserve and native trust land, the other six being largely rural constituencies and including some smaller areas of Crown Land away from the railways.
Within the area of the ordinary constituencies, there would be two further seats reserved for Africans, and within the area of the six special constituencies there would be two further seats reserved for Europeans. In all the 22 constituencies, all votes would count in full provided that in each of the 12 ordinary constituencies and the two constituencies reserved for European candidates, special votes would not be permitted to count in total more than one-third of the total of ordinary votes cast. I hope that this is a little easier to understand than my earlier remarks.
Candidates standing in all constituencies would be required to hold ordinary qualifications, except in the six special constituencies, where special qualifications would suffice. Every candidate in a special constituency would be required to obtain a certificate from not less than two-thirds of the recognised chiefs in the constituency that they had no objection to his standing as a candidate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame".] I shall deal with this matter in greater detail later.
The Governor will preside over an Executive Council containing 10 Ministers, consisting of four officials and six others, of whom for the time being four would be Europeans and two Africans. The Governor would nominate the two members of the Legislative Council after the results of the election were known.
These proposals differ in a limited number of respects from the proposals put forward in the White Paper of the Government of Northern Rhodesia. The two most important changes were these. First, the Government of Northern
568
Rhodesia proposed that there should be nine Ministers, of whom five would be unofficials and two assistant Ministers, and that of these 11 not less than two should be Africans, of whom one should be a Minister. I have proposed that there should be 10 Ministers, of whom six will be unofficial Ministers, and that for the present it should be an instruction to the Governor that two of these should be Africans and four Europeans. [An HON. MEMBER: "More democracy."] I have not proposed that there should he any assistant Ministers.
Before any hon. Member shouts, "More democracy" or anything else, I wish he would hear the story as a whole. This is a genuine attempt to meet the particular problems of Northern Rhodesia, which cannot be solved by trotting out the slogans and clichés which, no doubt, are applicable to the United Kingdom in the twentieth century.
I know that there is a strong feeling in the Federation that appointment as Minister should be by merit only. I hope that the time will come when confidence between the races has so improved that race can be disregarded in Ministerial appointments. The constitutional instruments themselves will, therefore, not make provision for the allocation of unofficial Ministerial offices by race, but for the time being it will be an instruction to the Governor to allocate these offices as I have said.
Naturally, if the full number of members suitable for appointment to these Ministerial offices could not be found among the members of the Legislative Council, the composition of the Executive Council would still be considered complete even if the full number of unofficial members had not been appointed. Given the arrangements that it is proposed to make for filling the unofficial seats in the Legislative Council, however, I cannot believe that, in practice, such a situation would arise.
Under the original proposals of the Northern Rhodesian Government it had been intended that the African Minister sitting in the Executive Council should be permitted to discuss the business of the Executive Council with the African assistant minister. I felt, however, and I feel sure that a great many hon. Members will agree with me, that this was not an entirely satisfactory arrangement and that

569
it would be better to create one additional unofficial Ministerial post so that there can be two African ministers.
This, and, indeed, other aspects of the proposals, do not, I claim, make it impossible for normal party practices to function. Indeed, I believe that normal party politics can, and will, function in Northern Rhodesia under this scheme. It is certainly my wish and the wish of my colleagues that they should so function. The proposals provide, however, that until they function on a non-racial basis, African interests will be ensured representation.
The second main change was that the rotes of the ordinary voters should in certain circumstances be devalued. Under my proposal, this will not happen. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked why.
Mr. Callaghan: No.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I understood that that was what the hon. Member had in mind. I felt that it was wrong in principle that anyone who possesses the necessary qualifications to obtain an ordinary vote should have his vote devalued and that it would be particularly unfortunate if an African who had previously been on the special voters' roll then qualified for the ordinary voters' roll, only to find that his vote carried less value than before in elections for the six special seats or for the two African reserved seats. I do not believe that that would have been a happy development and that, to me, was the overriding consideration which led me to make the change.
There is not tune to go into all the details of all the other changes which are made, but I should like, however, to mention one. The proposals of the Government of Northern Rhodesia contain a provision that the qualifications required to be registered as a special voter should be progressively raised at certain stated intervals, until, after the expiry of ten years or more, no persons would be registered as special voters. I felt that it would be right to qualify this provision to the extent that the qualifications should not be raised at each stage unless and until there were as many persons registered as special voters as there were persons registered as ordinary voters. I was particularly anxious to link this change with an objective test and not
570
merely with the passage of time. Needless to say, under this revised proposal, special voters would remain on the Special Roll for the rest of their lives unless and until they qualified as ordinary voters; and there is no question of the roll being completely abolished at the end of ten years.
These were the proposals set out in my despatch. As the House well knows, they have not escaped criticism, any more than did the proposals of the Northern Rhodesian Government. I have received communications from the Federal Party members in the Northern Legislature, from the African members and from one of the European members representing African interests, all expressing disappointment either at the exclusion or at the inclusion of some feature or features in these proposals.
I also saw yesterday, at the Colonial Office, Paramount Chief Undi, Senior Chief Shakumbila, and Mr. Nkumbula, who had come to make representations to me on the subject of these constitutional changes, and I had discussions with them on the subject. Further, I and my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs have, during the last few days, been discussing with the Federal Prime Minister certain representations made by the Federal Government.
It was, of course, their absolute right to communicate their views to me, not only because of their natural interest in constitutional development in the territories which form part of the Federation but also because of the understanding reached at the time of the Conference on Federation in January, 1953, which, however, made it clear at the same time that the responsibility for advising Her Majesty on changes in the territorial constitution would continue to rest with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
It has been a very great pleasure for me and my colleagues to welcome Sir Roy Welensky again to London so soon after his formidable triumph in the Federal elections. We are also very glad indeed to see again our old friend Mr. Julian Greenfield. The coming years will bring great opportunities to the Federation. There will be also, of course, as is inevitable in the early days of any federation, difficulties to meet as well. We wish the Prime Minister and his colleagues every success. How greatly we shall all value his understanding and

571
statesmanship in approaching not only the immediate problems before us, but also the issues on which, before long, it will be the duty of the five Governments to seek to find wise solutions together.
I should like to return for a moment or two to the Northern Rhodesian Constitution. I am considering with the greatest possible care all the representations which have been made to me. I shall also, naturally, consider with no less care any advice or suggestions which may be put forward during the course of the debate, and before we disperse for the Christmas Recess I shall inform the House whether I have decided to make any changes in the proposals as they now stand. I cannot mention this afternoon all the points on which representations have been made to me, but on one of them, however, I should like to say a few words. This is the proposal that candidates proposing to stand for election in the six special constituencies should be required to obtain a certificate of approval of their candidature from two-thirds of the chiefs in their constituency.
I should like to say a few words about the thought that lies behind this proposal. In the rural areas of the African territories for which we are responsible the traditional authorities have a very great part to play. The progress of Africa is likely to be more peaceful and more fruitful if the development of representative institutions can take place in a manner which ensures that these authorities continue to play an important rôle in this and other aspects of the life of their people.
Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to see the position of those on whom so many have relied so long as the sources of wisdom and authority suddenly undermined. It is of great importance that there should be a bridge between the old Africa and the new, for a sudden jump from traditional means to the mysteries of the ballot box is always very perplexing and often is very dangerous. Therefore, I think that it is desirable that there should be close association between the native authorities and the Government, and the risk of a cleavage between the Legislature and the
572
native authorities should be prevented as far as possible.
Without such a proposal it has been strongly argued that there will be no link that most Africans can recognise between the native authorities and official members of the Legislative Council. Again, it is said that many Africans whose lives are still concentrated in the tribe and around their chief, and who will not as yet be on the register, will feel more secure if they know that the representative of their area in the Legislative Council is considered by the traditional authorities to be a suitable person to hold that position.
I will not conceal from the House, and I know that I shall learn of it again this afternoon, that this proposal has many critics. I ask all who criticise to realise that all the critics are not against it for the same reason. But it is true to say that many of them doubt its wisdom not because they disagree with the objective, but because they think that this would have the opposite result of that intended. Their fear is that, as a result of this provision, the chiefs may become too involved in politics. They have also drawn my attention to certain practical difficulties which the provision might cause in the actual conduct of an election.
I am looking into certain points which have arisen out of the representations made to me. I will also consider carefully any views on this subject which may be expressed in the course of the debate. I say frankly that the conduct of the debate might perhaps have been easier if it had been deferred until I could announce the final conclusions of Her Majesty's Government. But, certainly, the debate then would have been far less valuable to me and my colleagues and the House as a whole. In any case, I know that right hon. and hon. Members opposite were anxious that the debate should not be too long delayed. I can say today that if any alterations are made in the scheme they will not be alterations which will affect the fundamental principles underlying it.
I should like to remind the House of those fundamental principles. The first is that the arrangements made should be, as far as possible, such that participation in the political life of the country will depend not on race but on other criteria

573
designed to measure capacity to make a useful contribution.
I say "as far as possible" because the scheme as it now stands provides for the reservation of two seats for Africans and two for Europeans, and also that for the time being there should be a certain allocation by race of the six unofficial portfolios. I am certain that at this stage of the territory's development it is not possible completely to ignore racial considerations. I am, however, no less certain that this principle is right, that it would be doing Northern Rhodesia a great disservice to provide for separate racial electorates and for the reservation by race of all or a majority of the Unofficial seats in the Legislative Council, and I have been asked to do both of these at different stages over the last year or so.
While I understand the thinking of those of my African friends who ask for parity between the two main races, I must say that I do not agree with it, because it seems to me to lead inevitably either to a dead-end or to a struggle for power fought out on a purely racial basis which could not have anything other than disastrous consequences for the territory's future. By contrast, I believe that our proposals are designed to provide all men in public life with an incentive to consider the interests of the country as a whole and of all its inhabitants irrespective of race.
It is, therefore, my hope and that of my colleagues that they will lead to considerations of race playing a far less important rôle in the politics of the territory than they do today. I hope and expect that our policy will have that result. However, I fully admit that this constitutes a great new experiment and that it is not possible to be certain that it will produce this result or how fast it will produce it.
Consequently, the second fundamental principle lying behind these proposals is that for the time being the Governor and his official advisers must remain in a position, in case of necessity, to hold the balance on issues which affect the interests of one community or another and are controversial. Subject to that, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government, which I am sure this House will endorse—and this is the third fundamental principle lying behind these proposals—that the people of Northern Rhodesia should be given increasing opportunity to take part in the conduct of the territory's affairs.
574
I know that some of my European friends feel that my proposals do not go far enough in that direction and that they would, for instance, like to see provision made now for a Chief Minister. If the great experiment of this new Constitution is successful, and the necessary confidence is established between ourselves, the time for changes such as this will come later. I do not feel that they would be generally acceptable, or indeed appropriate, today.
Let the House, however, not forget that in our proposals there is provision for six unofficial Ministers and, for the first time, for an unofficial majority in the Executive Council. Of course, it will fall to the Governor to appoint these six unofficial Ministers, but before making his appointments he will consult the leader who, in his opinion, is most likely to command a majority in Legislative Council, and will pay due regard to his views. He will no doubt also hold similar consultations before he appoints the two nominated members of the Legislative Council.
The Governor will continue to have reserve power so that, through him, Her Majesty's Government can in the last resort make sure of being able to discharge their ultimate responsibility for the good government of the territory, but if European and African unofficial Ministers can work together in the interests of the territory as a whole, as I am sure they can and will, then, with the help and advice of their official colleagues, they will be able under these proposals to take the major part in guiding and directing the progress of Northern Rhodesia.
Her Majesty's Government and this House will, of course, still be ultimately responsible for the territorial government of Northern Rhodesia, but now that all the elected members of the Legislative Council are to be responsible to mixed electorates, and now that the Executive Council is to include Africans as well as European unofficial members for the first time, I hope that hon. Members will agree that it would be appropriate for us all to encourage the Northern Rhodesian Government to exercise an increasing degree of responsibility.
I do not say that occasions will never arise when we ought to intervene, but I hope that we shall all, irrespective of party, feel it right to avoid continuing intervention on minor matters or on questions which are questions of judgment or degree rather than of major principle, and

575
so lend our support and encouragement to all those who are trying to build a new nation in Central Africa.
4.14 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"declines to approve the proposals for constitutional change contained in Command Paper No. 530, which leave the African people inadequately represented, fail to promote confidence and will worsen relations between the races throughout Central Africa".
Having heard the concoction from the Colonial Secretary, I do not know how any hon. Member could vote against this Amendment. If there is one thing I have always admired about the Colonial Secretary it is his capacity to present to the House a lucid exposition of the particular cause he happens to believe in on the day that he is standing at the Dispatch Box.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): Oh.
Mr. Callaghan: The Under-Secretary need not get to peppery right at the beginning of my remarks; he will have much more to get peppery about as I go on.
I thought that the right hon. Gentleman's exposition of the system under which the African is supposed to vote must have led all of us who heard it into a maze of complete incomprehensibility. It is all very well for the Colonial Secretary to say that the African will not have to understand every aspect of this system because what he has to do is to put his cross on the paper. That is not the point. What the Colonial Secretary has to do is to convince the African that the system under which he is voting is a fair one, and the right hon. Gentleman cannot convince him of its fairness unless he can make him understand it.
If the right hon. Gentleman had seen the look of bewildered comprehension on the faces of his hon. Friends as well as on ours, who are, after all, sophisticated politicians, I do not know what he would do if he were faced with the responsibility of explaining this complex and intricate system to Africans overseas and trying to persuade them that this was a great
576
advance and a tremendous new experiment. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that in my view, having studied this Command Paper most carefully and, I hope, having understood it, it seems to me to be a compound of bureaucracy run mad plus prejudice.
What is it all about? What is it designed to do? It is designed to prevent the African from having too large a say in the affairs of Northern Rhodesia. That is all it is for. If it were not for that, we could have a simple system of voting such as exists in other territories According to my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), there has been only one previous experiment of anyone attempting to introduce a system of devaluing the vote, and that was the fancy franchise introduced by a Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Disraeli. It was thrown out by this House very properly, and it has taken seventy or eighty years to creep back again into a colonial territory.
As I examine the proposal to devalue the vote, I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite will feel uneasy about what is being done in their name by Her Majesty's Government. I must say in extenuation, however, that they had considerable influence brought to bear upon them by the Federal Government.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman, by that remark, is seeking to suggest that the principle of devaluation, for example, was introduced because of pressure, I hope that he will not pursue the argument because it is untrue. All the principles I have enunciated are enshrined in the White Paper which emerged from the discussions of the Legislative Council and which was presented to me.
Mr. Callaghan: I think that the principle of devaluation is the result of Civil Service bureaucracy. I do not ascribe that to the Federal Prime Minister. As far as I can understand, it arose from the proposals of the Governor, and it should have been thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman if he had looked at it in the normal way and with the robust common sense that he usually exercises, even when I disagree with him.
It seems to me to be the fate of Britain, as it does not work under a written constitution itself, to prepare a mass of written constitutions for other territories,

577
none of which lasts very long; and this one will be no exception. I warrant there will not be a shred of this left in five years' time because it is almost unworkable, and in so far as it is found to be unworkable, if not impracticable, it will go the way of the other written constitutions which were devised with the object of preventing people from playing a full part in the affairs of their own nation. That is the basic reason for its weakness and why it will fail.
I must say right away that nothing would have pleased me more than to have been able to agree with the right hon. Gentleman about this Constitution. Nothing would have given me greater pleasure than to have been able to say to the people of Rhodesia that there was a united view in the House of Commons, and therefore in the United Kingdom, on this matter. We simply cannot afford to allow differences of opinion to carry over into Rhodesian or other African territories, unless they are based on deep-seated principles.
I hope to show the House later that there is a deep-seated difference of approach between the Government and their advisers and my hon. Friends. The country must be aware of that difference and must make up its mind about it, because the future, happiness and proper development of Europeans and Africans depend on a correct assessment of the proper way in which to treat the advance now taking place in the Constitution.
We know that the right hon. Gentleman does not think that this is a factious difference. It is a deep-seated difference which goes to the heart of the future development of these territories, and we cannot attempt to paper it over in the interests of a so-called unity which would be a mere façade. That is why we must expose the differences this afternoon. They are deep-seated and fundamental.
I want, first, to make some detailed criticisms of the proposals. In our Amendment, we say that the African is under-represented. I am not taking up the case of the African National Congress, which wants parity of representation. It is not the job of the Opposition at any time to associate themselves with one party or group in any of our Colonial Territories. It is our job to judge the situation as fairly as we can—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and I hope
578
that those hon. Members who are so loud in their appreciation will apply that to their own relationships.
Let us consider the basis of representation. There are 65,000 Europeans who are to have 14 members in the Legislative Assembly. There are 2 million Africans who are to have eight members. There will thus be one member for every 5,000 Europeans and one member for every quarter of a million Africans. I do not know on what basis one can assume that that is adequate representation, but there is not a Member of Parliament who represents anything like 250,000 people in the United Kingdom, even though we are concentrated in a very narrow, urbanised community.
Rhodesia is three times the size of Britain and throughout the whole of that area there are to be only six African constituencies. I do not know what hon. Members opposite would say if they had to try to canvass that sort of constituency to secure election to the House of Commons. Perhaps there would be fewer candidates.
Mr. Gordon Walker: They would have more motor cars.
Mr. Callaghan: It is clear that the African member, who is supposed to he representative of the community, cannot hope to cover a constituency whose boundaries may be as far as 400 miles apart and which may contain a quarter of a million people.
Therefore, unless we hear anything better from the Government, I do not see how we can fail to dispute the argument that the African is properly represented. It does not matter what the alternative figure should be, nor what the African National Congress suggests. If we are to have representation, how can six people represent a territory three times the size of Britain? That is a simple question which warrants a simple answer, and, until I get it, I shall continue to assume that the Africans will be under-represented.
Because of the special physical difficulties, I was very glad to hear the Colonial Secretary say that he might reconsider the provision for the necessity of obtaining the consent of two-thirds of the chiefs in an area. I had a look at the map when I was preparing this speech, and, for the purposes of illustration, I chose, of course.

579
the largest constituency. In the North-West constituency, from Balovale to Solvezi is 250 miles. In Luapula, from Broken Hill to Abercorn is 400 miles. In such territories, there may be 50, 60 or 70 chiefs. According to the Colonial Secretary's proposal, a candidate would have to get the assent of at least two-thirds of that number of chiefs over a distance ranging from one end of Britain to the other, and a candidate has to get positive assent, in writing.
I ask the Under-Secretary to address himself to the practical administrative problem. How is it proposed that candidates should get positive assent from two-thirds of the chiefs? Do they have to see them? I know that some would like to do so, because they fear—I do not know how to judge this, but it is something that the House should know—that because the chiefs are civil servants, in effect, who are appointed and who can be removed, there will be at least some influence on them not to sign the nomination papers of certain possible candidates.
I do not know whether that is likely to happen, but it is a legitimate fear which the Government must remove, because there must be no implication that a chief is susceptible to influence by a district commissioner or anyone else able to prompt him not to sign a candidate's nomination papers. I can tell the Government from representations which I have received that such a fear exists.
In an area as large as this, where there are large groups of chiefs, some groups may be in opposition to each other. There is at least one constituency which I shall not name, because I do not wish to advertise it, where there are two large groups of chiefs who are opposed to each other. Supposing each group has in mind a rival candidate and that neither will give way, what happens if there is no agreement on the man whose name is to go forward? How can any candidate, in those circumstances, get the support of two-thirds of the total number of chiefs?
How does the Colonial Secretary propose to deal with that situation? These are merely practical difficulties and I shall deal with the larger issues later. If we are to try to devise a Constitution of some merit, we should have answers to those questions. There is none in the
580
White Paper and the right hon. Gentleman gave none in his speech.
I should like to hear what is happening about the preparation of registers. I will willingly give way if we can have an answer at once. I understand that the registers are to be closed on 31st December.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The registers will remain open each month as new people come along to register, if they have not registered before 31st December. The list will be closed on that date, but those who register in that month will be able to vote in the subsequent month, if an election takes place.
Mr. Callaghan: I am glad that those who register after 31st December will have the right to vote. That is important, but it does not destroy my major argument, that there is inadequate time to prepare the registers. Even in this country it takes four months to prepare a register and I have heard—I do not think that this is private and I believe that I read it somewhere—that there is to be an election in February.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): That is what Transport House thinks.
Mr. Callaghan: Transport House is very well informed about elections. I do not know whether the General Election will be in February. I know that Her Majesty's Government will hang on to the last possible moment, since they know that they are heading for inevitable defeat.
Let us take the analogy of Uganda. In Uganda, the procedure took about six months to complete. It is important that it should not be thought that there is inadequate time to prepare the registers and to enable people to put their names on them. I do not want a repetition of the farce which occurred in the Federal elections when the Under-Secretary told us on his own authority, or that of his advisers, that there would be about 20,000 African electors and when it turned out that there were fewer than 1,000.
Mr. Alport: I do not dispute the figures, but I was dealing with those who were eligible for the register and not those who would come on to it, which is quite a different matter.
Mr. Callaghan: That is exactly what I am saying. We were told that more than 20,000 people were eligible, but in fact fewer than 1,000 took part. I am surprised that the hon. Member did not tell me why. I will tell him.
It was, first, because of apathy—because no preparations had been made and the proposal had not been put across to them—and, secondly, because of the boycott of the African National Congress. Is there any dispute about that? [Interruption.] Cannot hon. Members opposite see what I am trying to get at without trying to score cheap points?
Unless there is confidence in these electoral arrangements we shall have once again the farce that we had in connection with the federal elections. That is what I fear, and hope that hon. Members will do me the honour of trying to understand my point, which is that there must be confidence that these arrangements are being carried out properly and fairly.
I wish to say this quite boldly, and as a separate sentence: I trust that the African National Congress will not boycott these elections. I want to see that Congress taking part in them. But there is equally a responsibility upon the Colonial Office to help them by convincing them and convincing the House that the arrangements are fair, proper and adequate, and that there is sufficient time to do the job. I do not think that that can be said at present.
I think that I have established some of the difficulties which will arise. First, the Africans have to register, and they have to do so in English. They cannot register in their own language. That in itself is a difficulty, because there must be literacy before there can be qualification for the vote. Those who know the difficulty which arises in connection with registration, even with electorates in this country, must, if he visits these territories, appreciate the difficulties involved, and the time that must elapse before anything like a complete register can be compiled, unless a tremendous administrative effort is put into the job.
I now turn to the question of constituency boundaries and the value of the vote. These boundaries have been drawn almost ostentatiously to give the Europeans a majority in 12 constituencies. Other boundaries have been drawn to give the Africans a majority in six con
582
stituencies. I do not see how anybody who looks at the list can possibly come to any other conclusion; indeed, paragraph 13 of the White Paper almost says so. It becomes a little difficult to tolerate hearing the Colonial Secretary say that he wants to get away from racial politics, because the whole purpose of this exercise is to entrench the Europeans in 12 seats.
But even with the best efforts in the world, it so happens that many Africans are qualified for the vote, even in those constituencies where the boundaries are so drawn as to get the Europeans in. If we look at the table in Appendix B we see that there will be 18,800 European voters and 17,200 African voters in the 12 ordinary constituencies. Those totals are very close; indeed, in five of those 12 constituencies the African voters will outnumber the Europeans. If any hon. Members want to know why the vote was devalued they need look no further than that table. Unless the votes were devalued there would he a risk that an African and not a European would be returned.
So, by a simple stroke of the bureaucratic pen, we divide every African vote by three, and, instead of there being 17,295 African votes, the number is reduced to 5,765. This is called democracy. It is a system which nobody can feel proud of, and I put it to the Colonial Secretary that it would be far more honest to have genuine communal elections than the jiggery-pokery of this procedure of having votes devalued and boundaries specially drawn, which does nothing to disguise the truth from any African who has the capacity to understand it and takes the trouble to master it. I would far sooner have an honest approach, by way of a communal vote, than this system.
I do not see how anybody can come to any other conclusion when he sees what is to be done in the case of the constituency where it seems that the Africans will outnumber the Europeans, and then realises that, having provided for that, we go on to say, "If, at any time in the future, the Africans look like outnumbering the Europeans we shall raise the financial status which qualifies for a vote." Is not that what the Colonial Secretary told us just now?
Sir Archer Baldwin Sir Archer Baldwin (Leominster) rose—
Mr. Callaghan: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) wants to reply to my question for the Colonial Secretary, but the right hon. Gentleman said that as soon as the number of Africans in a constituency nears the number of Europeans the income qualification level will be raised from £150 to £300.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: What I said was that it seemed to be desirable to link the raising of the qualification to an objective test—such as the number of Africans on the special vote over the territory as a whole being near to the number on the ordinary register—rather than, as proposed by the Northern Rhodesia Government, by linking it solely to the question of timing.
Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman is repeating what he said before. That is exactly what I am saying. At any moment when it looks as though the Africans on the roll will exceed the Europeans we shall raise the financial test, and say, "From now on you must have a higher income before you qualify for a vote." What has this to do with democracy?
Mr. Patrick Wall: That refers only to the special vote, and not the ordinary vote.
Mr. Callaghan: That is exactly what I am talking about. In my view, there is no case for a special vote of this nature. I would far prefer an honest approach upon a basis of communal voting—because this is communal voting under the guise of democracy.
Sir A. Baldwin: Can the hon. Gentleman break down his figures for the African voters in these 12 constituencies? How many of the 17,000 Africans are ordinary voters and how many are special voters?
Mr. Callaghan: This information is to be found on page 34 of the White Paper. I do not think that I would be justified in taking up the time of the House on that matter.
It comes to this. In the European constituencies 17,000 African voters will have their votes written down to 5,700, and they will not have a single member to represent them, as Africans. On the other hand, 7,000 Africans will have six members in the six special constituencies. I
584
do not want to get too involved with these figures, because they are too intricate, but I hope that the House will accept from me that we are effectively disfranchising a larger majority of the ordinary people in the ordinary constituencies than we are enfranchising the people in the special constituencies—and this system is put before the Africans as an exercise in democracy.
I now come to the major objection of the Federal Government, who have taken several bites at this cherry. First, we had Mr. Caldicott here in August. The Colonial Secretary saw him, and he made his representations on behalf of the Federal Government. Then, "after long and anxious consideration", to use his own words, the Colonial Secretary published his proposals. We have now had Sir Roy Welensky here, and he has tried to undermine those proposals. The Federal Government are exercising an undue influence over British territories which are under the control of the Colonial Office, and they have had two bites at this cherry, one before the Government took their decision and the other afterwards.
According to statements I have read as being made by the Federal Prime Minister, a great issue of principle is involved here. It is said that, by proposing to have two African Ministers, we are introducing the colour bar in reverse; that this is racialism. In the light of all I have said, I do not think that any unprejudiced hon. Member would reach the conclusion that we have been talking about anything else but racialism. The whole scheme stinks of racialism from beginning to end.
Perhaps I ought not to remind the Federal Prime Minister, but it was his party—at any rate, it was the Northern Rhodesian Party, which is a wing of his party—which originally suggested one African Minister and was ready to accept one African Minister. What is the great issue of principle which divides one from two? I could understand had it been said that there should be no African Minister. The party was ready to agree to one, but once there was a proposition that there should be two, then a really great issue of principle arose; then we got into the field of racialism. I agree with Sir John Moffatt who, during the election, told the country that Sir Roy

585
Welensky was raising his usual constitutional scare of a crisis against the Colonial Office. That is exactly what happened in this case.
I am bound to say, though I do not much relish doing so, that the Federal Prime Minister whom we see on television is a very different person from the Prime Minister who speaks in Salisbury. One would hardly recognise him as the same man. Here we have a liberal, bluff man of honest common sense who is doing his best for everyone. The story is very different when one reads the speeches delivered in Africa.
In my view, the Federal Government are responsible for much of the dislike which attaches to the Colonial Secretary and his administrators in the Colonial Office. For years the Federal Government have been conducting a campaign against the Colonial Secretary and his administrators, to undermine the Colonial Office administration of these territories. It ought to be understood in this country that the Federal Government are trying to filch away British Colonies for which we have the final responsibility. The attacks made on the colonial administrators in these territories are extremely unfair to a loyal body of people who are trying to do their best in difficult circumstances.
Why do the Federal Government want to do that? It is because the whole object of the Federal Government is to obtain control of native policy in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, as they have done in Southern Rhodesia, and to get it away from the Colonial Office. That is the whole purpose of the campaign of denigration against Colonial Office administrators which has been going on for so long. There is a well-designed plan that, having discredited the Colonial Office, the Federal Government will take away control from the colonial police and put it into the hands of the federal police; they will take away the colonial civil servants and replace them with a federal civil service. In this way the responsibility of this House will be undermined. We shall be left with a shadow of responsibility and the reality will remain in Salisbury.
That is what is behind what is going on and is the reason for all these crises, and the scares which attack people from time to time. I hope that this will be
586
fully realised by people of this country. The purpose of it is one with which I suppose anybody ought to have some sympathy. It is to enforce white standards and European standards in a country where the Europeans are a tiny minority and the great bulk of the population is black. That is the purpose and it is one which we ought to try to understand.
I can understand the cry of the British settler who goes there not knowing the history, not knowing the background of these territories and the pledges we have given, and who says, "If Ghana and Nigeria are fit for self-government, are not we?" Any migrant who does not know the background is bound to raise that cry. But the true background is that the United Kingdom Parliament undertook the care of these Northern Territories as a trust and responsibility, and to advance them towards self-government when they were ready; not to divert or distort their development in the interests of a comparatively small number of European migrants whose numbers have grown substantially only in the last thirty years.
A few days ago I looked up one of the early Reports of the Commission. Only thirty years ago there were but 4,000 Europeans in Northern Rhodesia. Now their number has grown and we have 65,000 to 70,000 but relatively that is still a handful. This European problem has been created by recent immigration. I do not believe that many of the European migrants into these territories understand basically what development was proposed or understood by the Africans there.
The Hilton Young Report of 1929, which I studied when I was preparing for this debate, made clear that it was intended that Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should follow the same pattern of development in their native policies. What is the cause of the tension now? It is simply that Uganda and Tanganyika have gone one way; Ghana and Nigeria have practically attained self-government; South Africa has gone completely the other way—there we have apartheid. Only in Kenya, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland does the battle still remain unresolved. This is the importance and significance of the decision that the British Parliament is having to take today and will have to take

587
in 1960, because there are these influences which are pulling the Africans the other way.
If, thirty years ago, you were told that your natural pattern of development was on the same lines as that of Uganda, and today you find that Uganda has universal suffrage, but that in Northern Rhodesia fewer than 20,000 are to get the vote and even then large numbers of votes are to be devalued to one-third of their real value, what are you to assume; except that your interests are being subordinated to those of the incoming Europeans who have been there for a comparatively short period of time? Let us face it; here is a real dilemma for the British Parliament. Of course, one can understand the natural cry of the European, but, on the other hand, is the British Parliament to betray the pledges that it gave freely and voluntarily to these people?
Here, in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be the real test of British policy, as to how far Africans will regard the Europeans as their friends and allies in the years that lie ahead, and how far there is to be affection between the European and the African races. My basic objection to these proposals—I have done my best to study them fairly and objectively—is that they will increase and not diminish the tension. If I may say so—I wish I could persuade some people to believe this—they will endanger the long-term future of the Europeans in these territories and not make it more safe.
I have taken a long time over this speech, but I consider that this is one of the most important problems in the colonial field that British people have to face, and I am grateful for the forbearance with which the House has listened to me. I say to the Federal Prime Minister that I think it unfortunate, having won an election, and against the background which I have painted, that his first step should have been to come to London to try to persuade the Colonial Secretary to change his mind about having two African Ministers and reduce it to one.
That is not the sort of partnership that Africans can be convinced was meant in the federation proposals. The tragedy is that federation need not have done this; and when I look at the federal scheme
588
and the way it is worked out it seems to me that all the time the Federal Government give the impression that they are trying to hold people back rather than to push them forward. Is that impression wrong? We shall be told, no doubt, that it is, but I can only say that that impression is shared by a great many people beside myself. There must be something in it if so many people reach the same conclusion.
I should like to put forward proposals. I do not suppose that they will be accepted, but I would like to go on record with them. If this partnership is to succeed, there are certain things that could be done which would have a profound effect on the people there. The first is to withdraw the demand for Dominion status. If that were done it would have a salutary and healing effect upon divisions that are becoming deeper as 1960 approaches.
The second proposal is one that I would ask not only the Colonial Secretary but the Federal Government to carry out. The Federal Government should help Africans in Nyasaland to obtain a majority in the Legislative Council before 1960. What a transformation might take place in Nyasaland if it were known that the Federal Government were pressing this point upon the Colonial Secretary; but I fear that the Federal Government will always be pulling back and trying to prevent the Colonial Secretary from going what they think is too far in that direction.
There are social discriminations. I know that we cannot force people to mix if they do not want to, but we must not make it legislatively impossible for people to meet together, as is the case at present. Every hon. Member who has been out there knows what I mean. Let us go for inter-racial development and education.
I conclude by saying that the whole future of Africa is at stake in this matter. We can have a group of African States in the Northern part which will be linked in friendly relations with each other and associated closely, I hope, with the Commonwealth. That is a development which I would like to see. On the other hand, some of these territories where there are European immigrants could become battle grounds between white and black. The desire, I am glad

589
to say, is to avoid that, and that is why, in all good faith, we have put forward these proposals. When we vote tonight we shall be voting not on the devaluation of the vote, or whether two-thirds of the chiefs must support a candidate, but whether Britain proposes to remain true to its pledges that the future development of Africans shall not be diverted in the interests of any other group of people. I am glad to think that when we cast that vote it will be on the side of constructiveness and harmony and of the long-term future, safety and welfare of Europeans as well as of Africans.
Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to second the Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has made a constructive speech which will be noted with the greatest interest not only here, but in Africa.
4.54 p.m.
Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: When the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was speaking, my mind went back to a year ago when we set off together on a hot and dusty morning to Barotseland. I would remind him that in those days, whatever he may say about the inadequacy of these proposals, no African had any vote at all. Certainly so far as I know, no African was in any position even of quasi-power in the political structure of Northern Rhodesia.
When the hon. Gentleman attacks these proposals and asks whether we call them democracy, I would reply that I do not call them democracy but one step towards democracy, which cannot be realised overnight, or even in one year. Again, when he was attacking the Federal Government, I thought rather irrelevantly, he asked that social barriers should be broken down. My mind went back to Salisbury where, unfortunately, I went into the wrong end of a post office and I had to be turned out. I am told that that sort of thing has gone and that rainy of these things have now been changed. The hon. Gentleman attacked the Federal Government, but I do not think he gave it sufficient credit.
Mr. Callaghan: This is no part of my case, but my name has been taken in vain pretty heavily in the elections in the Federation.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I do not want to become involved in the politics of the Federation. We are discussing the franchise and the constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia. It is clear, on the hon. Gentleman's own admission, that my right hon. Friend listened perfectly properly to the proposals of the Federal Government, which they are entitled to press, and that my right hon. Friend has. I think quite rightly, in many cases resisted them.
In paragraph 24 of the White Paper there is a most important sentence:
"The Governor will preside over an Executive Council containing ten Ministers consisting of four officials and six others of whom, for the time being, four will be Europeans and two will be Africans."
The importance of associating Africans at an early stage with executive responsibility is paramount. If I have a criticism to make of our colonial policy in the last 50 years, it is that we have concentrated overmuch on inducing Africans to busy themselves more with the Legislative Council rather than with the Executive Council.
The consequence has been that the able and ambitious African has too often felt that he would never get a position of power until his race got a majority and complete power in his territory. That is a wrong emphasis and one which our neighbours understand. The Belgians and the Portuguese have a policy of bringing forward able Africans into positions of responsibility, so that their ambitions can be fulfilled long before they get the vote. Social frustration is much less in evidence which makes for much happier relationships between the two communities. Even though it might be thought in some quarters that Africans are not the best people, looked at objectively, for this executive responsibility, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has determined that they shall have it. There is, of course, no better way of learning a job than doing it, and it is only by doing it that they will equip themselves for it. Whenever a new law officer is appointed at the Bar there are great mumblings that so-and-so is not really up to the job. Yet after a year or two, by reason of doing the work, we find he is perfectly capable of doing it he has had that experience.

591
Even if they are not the best people for the job, who are we to say that the Front Bench of any Government is always stacked with those best-equipped to do the job? We know there are exceptions—like my right hon. Friend, who is the finest Colonial Secretary we have had since Joe Chamberlain—but, with few exceptions like that, there are bound to be appointments made on the basis of pressure groups, interests, or whatever it may be. They are none the worse for that. I do not myself adopt nor accept the theory that we have to carry what one might call anti-racialism so far that we cannot appoint any African to a position of power until we can say that he is absolutely the best man in the whole territory irrespective of his colour. That seems quite wrong.
I was interested to find that in the federal elections that was rather the attitude which was taken. I believe the Dominion Party had some posters in Buluwayo which sought to attack Sir Roy Welensky, saying he was going to appoint an African Minister. Sir Roy, or rather his party, replied with posters saying, "No African Minister except on merit". There was raised in bold relief this very interesting question, what is merit in that connection? Does merit mean that you have to be the best man in the whole of Southern Rhodesia or the whole of the Federation for that job? Or does it mean that you have sufficient merit to hold the job down even though there might be a white man, European or Asian, who is absolutely better than you are? Surely it must mean the second. Therefore, we must all welcome very warmly—I regard it as a great advance—the appointment of two African Ministers.
I hope this question will not stop at Ministers. One of the great successes of the transfer of power in India was the fact that, throughout the Civil Service structure, by the time the transfer took place there was a long tradition of Indian public servants. I do not believe it right to contemplate any sort of transfer of power until for a long time there has been a tradition of public service by the African population from the top to the bottom. This is really a start in that direction, and I hope it will be encouraged as much as possible. Provided that is done, the legislative aspect of the
592
matter will not be as dangerous as I fear it otherwise will be.
The mystique and magic of all these complicated voting arrangements in the various territories—I understand the reason for them and do not wish to criticise them—unfortunately has diverted everyone's attention, the Africans included, from the necessity of getting them to co-operate with government as it is rather than seeking the empty power of mere vocal opposition. The faster we can bring Africans into the civil public service the safer will be the balance in the constitutional arrangement. I hope that into the public service, and more officially into that service than at present, will be brought the chiefs. I fully understand the desire of my right hon. Friend to associate the chiefs with the new constitution. That must be clone one way or the other, but whether his present suggestion is quite the right way is open to question.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he has an open mind on the difficult point of the meeting of the old and the new. I am glad to know that there is no question of any chiefs' veto on the Ministers who are to be appointed, nor on those appointed to the public service. I should like to see appointed as Ministers not necessarily the "good boys" who appeal to the "establishment". After all, those who have some spirit in them often make the best Ministers rather than those who are mere "yes" men.
Surely it is a function of government, and a quality of good government, to be able to spot among some perhaps unruly members those who once they have been given the responsibility of office will prove less unruly. I hope, therefore, that the Ministers who are appointed will not be those who have never shown any independence but those who deep down in them have gold, even though they appear from time to time to show a bit of dross. They are not the sort of men who, perhaps, will be so likely to appeal to the chiefs. That is why I hope the chiefs' approval will not necessarily be a sine qua non of the appointment of Ministers.
On the question of Africans in the public service and responsibility of Africans in the Executive Council—which at the moment is most important—it seems that in Northern Rhodesia we can go further than we might otherwise

593
be able lo go in other Colonies because there is a very valuable long-stop in the Federal Constitution. I am sure the right development for this Federation, which must continue, is for the two Northern Territories to give to their African populations greater executive power, and that rapidly.
On the legislative side, I am not equipped to discuss the various details of the franchise, and I do not propose to try to do so because I think that has been raised into some extraordinary idol. Everyone's mind is so concentrated on it that the real point and great advance in this White Paper in the giving of real responsibility to Africans has been missed. I hope the advance will continue, because it is safer to do it for Northern Rhodesia than in a totally independent Colony. It is safer to do it because there is the long-stop of a Federal Government with its great powers. If that policy should be pursued it seems we should be following the line which offers the greatest hope of a harmonious conclusion to this very tense situation.
There are many hon. Members who want to speak and many who no doubt will defend, as I think should be defended, the great advance contained in this White Paper. I appeal to hon. Members opposite, even though it does not appear to them to move as fast or as far as they would like, to give this proposal a chance and not to crab it. If it goes out from this House that the Opposition thinks this is going to make matters worse than the status quo—that is what would go out if they voted against it—it would not be given the chance it deserves.
It is a great advance. We had much the same argument in the debate on the federal constitutional arrangements six months or perhaps more ago. Although it is true, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East pointed out, that very few Africans registered, nevertheless out of the results of the election which resulted from the constitution there came arrangements which he would not be anxious to deplore or disparage. So far as one could see, the elections were conducted in an admirable atmosphere, and the forces which I think on the whole he would regard as the forces of light triumphed, whilst none of the disasters
594
some hon. Members opposite predicted in fact occurred.
I know that it is only one small chapter in a long story, but there it is. Cannot we do the same for Northern Rhodesia, even if some hon. Members do not like the devalued vote? There are one or two things about it which I do not like very much. Nevertheless, it seems to me a thousand pities if, in the name of some extraordinary theory, this is not a complete or even a substantial democracy—and it is indeed neither of those things—we should nevertheless somehow crab what is a very great advance.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: I am glad to follow the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and to take up two things which he said. The first was that he would be delighted—I hope I am quoting him correctly—to see some "naughty boys" as Ministers in the resulting Parliament. I could not agree more. I should be happy to see soon a man called Harry Nkumbula sitting in the Executive Council. This would be a good thing.
I had the pleasure of taking Mr. Nkumbula a year ago to see, for the first time, the Chief Secretary, Mr. Hone. If we can get the so-called "naughty boys" into a position in which they can do something for their own side instead of being ostracised and put beyond the pale for so long, that would have a good effect.
Another thing the hon. Member for Darwen said, almost in terms of psychophantic admiration, was that the Colonial Secretary was the finest Colonial Secretary we have had since Joe Chamberlain.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: I do think so.
Mr. Johnson: In some parts of the world, like Ghana and elsewhere, the Colonial Secretary has done a good job, but in this matter I am bound to point out to the House that the Colonial Secretary has had a most difficult time. He has been hit from all quarters, and I do not think that anyone has patted him on the back, from the editor of East Africa and Rhodesia to Sir Roy Welensky, a most unholy combination.
These proposals and this constitution are very complex and fearfully important, because I believe that Rhodesia is the

595
key to Africa. The liberalisation which we carry on before 1960 in the two Northern Territories of Rhodesia and Nyasaland will be some token of the way in which we wish to go. Whether we have the confidence of Africa and the Commonwealth as a whole, this is the path on which we have to go.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made a most admirable speech. He asked: "What is all this about? What is the object of this exercise?" May I, because I think that this is fearfully important, quote the Colonial Secretary's two aims set out in the White Paper, so that he cannot think that I am being unfair in what I shall say later in a factual sense. In page 20, paragraph 19, the Minister says this:
"All parties are agreed that the new constitution must win the confidence of all the peoples of Northern Rhodesia…"
That is the first basic point. The other is on page 18, paragraph 14, in which he says
"…the Territory of Northern Rhodesia itself and the Federation as a whole have each become unified and indivisible and are pledged to a policy of partnership of the races."
Let us look at these two things. We are pledged to partnership, and we must have behind this constitution the support of the peoples in the territories. Certainly he has not the support of the Africans in this matter, unless he thinks that Godwin Lewanika is the spokesman for 2 million African people, which of course he is not. The right hon. Gentleman has only to look to Harry Nkumbula, President of Congress, and Kenneth Kaunda, Secretary of Congress, who has split away at the moment, and again responsible people like Mr. Chileshe and Mr. Ngandu, who have been members in the Lusaka Legislative Council.
The second thing is that not only is partnership making little headway but, and this is the distressing thing to me, it is quite obvious that the white people there have not attempted to work out what is meant by the word "partnership". Those Rhodesians who endeavour to attempt this, like Dr. Alexander Scott came an awful thump in the last federal elections, with the Constitution Party.
This is a matter of winning the support of the Africans. In October the African Representative Council met at a place called Serenje. Twenty-nine delegates
596
spent six-and-a-half hours debating and discussing this constitution. They were happy about the appointment of two African Ministers, but they insisted that there should be a parity of African and non-official European membership in the Legislative Council. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said, we are not arguing about numbers and about whether we want parity or 75 per cent., but the Africans themselves say that they are not content with the eight representatives which they have at the moment.
Secondly, the franchise qualifications are quite inadequate. This two-tier franchise is a hyprocrisy. Mr. Sokota, M.L.C., and others say that along the Copperbelt there are thousands of Africans who deserved the vote but who will not get it under this franchise—with its property qualification.
What is the point of increasing European respresentation in legislative councils in a State which is predominantly African, when the Government will be governing millions of Africans and will be mainly concerned with territorial African affairs. It will be African affairs which are debated. European agriculture and health have been taken out of their jurisdiction lately. What is the point in adding more and more Europeans to debate specifically African affairs?
Hon. Members on this side of the House hope, like such African members as Mr. Chileshe, M.L.C., and Mr. Katilungu, leader of the African mineworkers, that there will be no boycott of this election. They have said, "Vote, if you have a vote, and attempt to work this election constitutionally. Let us see how we get on. Although we do not like it, let us see whether we can work it." I could go on quoting these sensible men who have been in the Legislative Councils who do not like this Constitution but who have, nevertheless, said that they will look at it and try to work it.
Mr. Katilungu pleaded for more constituencies, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East. He wanted smaller geographical constituencies and more black African members, particularly on the Copperbelt. There is no doubt of the need for this. It sticks out a mile. Six members are quite inadequate. It is a farce to expect a member here, as in Nyasaland or Kenya, to look after these enormously

597
wide open spaces. There are no communications, the country is difficult, there are swamps—it is not like a closely knit urban constituency in the United Kingdom—and these African members have an impossible task in such constituencies.
We have heard a lot about the franchise, but I think it is hypocritical. The Africans boycotted the two-tier franchise in the federal election. Kenneth de Courcy, who sends out international affairs notes to enlighten the Members of the House of Commons, said that in tie last General Election the Africans did not vote because they were too lazy, because of inertia and because they could not be bothered. That is complete nonsense. The reason is that their own chosen leaders said, "We do not wish you to vote." If they do vote in these territorial elections it will be a different kettle of fish.
The chiefs had been mentioned. I had the honour of meeting some of these gentlemen last year. We have had the Paramount Chief of the Chewa Undi here and also Shakumbila of the Salla peoples.
What are these men saying on behalf of their own people? They are saying that if we ask chiefs like them to endorse the character of African candidates, we are setting them an unfair and indeed an impossible task. This is what they have written:
"We very much regret that [in this plan] all candidates…should gain the endorsement of two-thirds of the chiefs of their areas…In doing this we feel that you have given way to the prejudices of the Europeans. We are Chiefs and are not likely to think of our fellow-Chiefs as unworthy of responsibility or unconcerned with the welfare of their people, but we see this plan as a means of dividing the Chiefs from their people and forcing them to take sides for and against candidates the people wish to nominate. This is an intolerable position for Chiefs who have always and by tradition ruled with the consent of their people."
It is much more insidious than that. I think we should look at the whole setup of the position of chiefs vis-à-vis these political organisations.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether he himself shares the belief that the insertion of this provision of vetting by chiefs, if I may call it that, was in response to European or Federal Government pressure? If he does not, perhaps he would say so.
Mr. Johnson: I was quoting verbatim. Nevertheless, I think this is a most dangerous game which we have been playing for some years whereby we use people like Chitamakula of the Bemba and the chiefs whom I have just quoted to outlaw and to prescribe Congress movements inside their own areas. If we think that such people in Congress are subversive politically and we do not like what they are doing, we should put them on a charge and let the district commissioners take action against them, not shield behind chiefs. We pay £20 a month to a chief and £60 a month to a paramount chief and we expect the chiefs to do our work for us. This is a most dangerous situation in which we are using the old traditional chiefs to do this job of banning the political leaders of their own tribesmen.
A paper constitution like this is completely meaningless unless it has the confidence of the people behind it. There must be the will to work it. The Africans must feel that the dominant community, the Europeans, are willing to make concessions and to give the indigenous people more and more power to shape their own future. I have been reading a book by Philip Mason, "The Birth of a Dilemma," which deals with the conquest and settlement of Rhodesia. This is what he said about the settlers:
"The settlers, that part of the community which is in power, is faced with the dilemma that confronts every conqueror; maintain the position by force and make certain of hatred in the end, or aim from the start at an equality which involves an immediate sacrifice of power."
This is Philip Mason of Chatham House, not Harry Nkmbula of the Illa, who is speaking.
Where are the signs of many of these things occurring? There is the University College, which is a bold and heartening experiment; I have every admiration for what is happening in the university in Salisbury and I wish it good luck. I firmly believe that segregation is disappearing there, if it has not already disappeared. Men of both races share the same dormitory.
What of the hotels? I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) shook Meikles a little when she was in Salisbury, but I nevertheless think that the Ridgway is the only hotel in North Rhodesia open to all races. But

599
what of the coloured people? The African Congress leaders go to the hotel, and so do some of the wealthy business community, but that is all, and we need a much more modest hotel in which people can mix at the middle levels.
We need much more of this progress if we are to convince the Africans of these Protectorates and Colonies that behind the written constitution something physical has happened. We have no D.Os. and no assistant D.Os. at all in Northern Rhodesia and we are beginning to have just one or two assistant D.Os. in Nyasaland. What about appointments as postmasters? I am told that since the Government took over the post offices it has become more and more difficult for Africans to become postmasters. When is the colour bar on the footplate to end? This concerns Sir Roy Welensky's own union. We can have black men on the footplate in Mozambique and the Belgian Congo but not in our own colonies. When is Sir Gilbert Rennie's school, named after the High Commissioner, going to play Munali High School in Lusaka at soccer?
These are the facts of life. It is no good giving people a vote once every five years if we do not see that the races begin to integrate and live together. Much to our shame, it is no good blaming Sir Roy Welensky for some of these things, because they have happened under our own Governors in our own Protectorates. Much has been done in housing. Colonel Hartley has done a wonderful job in Salisbury. But in local government what are we doing to put some meaning into this White Paper? If one goes to Lusaka one sees an African township, which some Europeans call the native location. One finds no lights, many potholes but no pavements. Why cannot better amenities be provided in these African townships to convince the black Africans that the so-called white Africans mean to partner them in this wonderful venture which is to work out a plural society? Instead of that, we see the white settlers in the centre and on the periphery we see the Africans in their native townships.
The African Advisory Council, of course, receives the beer taxes from the beer halls, but why cannot these black African wards be integrated into the town itself? People from this side of the House are often warned, "Do not bother
600
your head so much about these wonderful national constitutions. Start the Africans in the localities. Give them an apprenticeship in local government." We have heard that often. We are told that the Africans should go into local government to learn to govern before they aspire to the dizzy heights of being Ministers of State. But what are we doing about this? I talked to John Roberts, leader of the Europeans in Lusaka, about this question. There is no indication of when or how there is to be any intention of having Africans upon town councils in these two Protectorates in the Federation. We shall never convince the Africans that we mean partnership unless we do it in our day-by-day conduct. It is no good giving them a paper constitution without having some of these arrangements behind it.
I have just been to the U.S.A. and I was very fortunate to spend a little time in the deep South. I had the good fortune—and I mean that—to spend two-and-a-half hours talking to Governor Faubus in Arkansas. If I had closed my eyes when I was talking to him I could have imagined that I was in Lusaka or Salisbury or Bulawayo; it was the same atmosphere of gradualism. In Arkansas they say, "Let Arkansas men look after the negroes. Washington should not bother." What do we say in Central Africa? We say the same thing. We say, "Rhodesians know their own Africans. Let London mind its own business." It is almost the same atmosphere.
I will say this about Sir Roy Welensky; I have much respect and admiration for him and he has won a landslide victory at the election. I wish him luck in his task of governing the Federation. Nevertheless, I am bound to say that the mentality of people like Sir Roy is not unlike that of the deep South: "Give us time. We will go on. We are liberal. Give us time and let us advance gradually."
This, of course, is the question mark—the unknown factor. Welensky has won the elections—here is his big chance. No longer can federal politicians tell us in the United Kingdom that if they are not elected others will get in whom we may like less. For a long time we have had this almost political blackmail: "If you don't support us Liberals you will let in those reactionaries." We now have the Welensky Government, with an overwhelming majority, instead of a Dominion

601
Party believing in apartheid and looking south to the Union.
Only this weekend there appeared in the Observer a "profile" of Sir Roy Welensky, but in it many questions were left unanswered to which I myself have yet no answer. Sir Roy has always protested that he is a Liberal at heart. Here is his chance to show it before 1960. He has a unique part to play in the modern history of Africa, and, indeed, of the Commonwealth. People like Viscount Malvern talk about a "Boston tea party" in 1960. Is this possible?
I have looked again at the speeches made during the last election, and I note that Welensky attacked Winston Field, the Leader of the Dominion Party, because he talked of this kind of thing in 1960. Sir Roy said, "This man Field talks of a 'tea party', but how can he do this when in our two Northern Territories we have Governors appointed by the Queen; two police forces owing allegiance to London? We have, of course, two secretariats, and two civil services, also appointed out of London. Therefore, it is sheer nonsense to talk like this." I am glad to hear him say that in 1960 there is no hope of Rhodesian people behaving in this way.
I should like to finish by commending to Sir Roy Welensky, and, indeed, to the Colonial Secretary himself, what is said in paragraph 21 of the White Paper. It quotes the Tredgold Commission on the Federal Elections, and says that the members of that Commission are
"…fully conscious that 'no system that leaves any substantial section of the people labouring under a justifiable grievance can, in the end, prevail', because government must ultimately rest on the consent of the governed,"
It is my belief at the moment that the white minority, who number a little under 4 per cent. of the total, have not convinced 6½ million black Africans that they are justifying their trusteeship. Quite candidly, I do not think that this complex, obscure constitution will help a great deal. Many Africans do not understand English, yet in order to qualify for the vote they must fill in application forms in English. Many Africans will not be helped very much by that. I hope that before we come to federation constitutional talks in 1960 we shall get something more liberal for the Nyasaland Constitution than this. Time is getting perilously short.
5.34 p.m.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: I am particularly grateful to be called on at this juncture because, as I said to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) outside the Chamber only yesterday, in the last four or five debates of this nature I have been called immediately before him so that he has had the chance to come back at me afterwards. But despite the somewhat virulent comments he has made on my remarks in the past. I do not propose to follow his example but hope rather to make one or two constructive comments on his speech.
He was good enough to say something, about the rather statesmanlike remarks of Sir Roy Welensky during the recent Federal Elections in Central Africa. I know that we both have a genuine liking and respect for the gentleman in question, but I must point out that it is a little difficult to understand this tribute in view of the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) earlier stated that Sir Roy is an angel over here in his speeches but an ogre when he speaks in his own country.
Mr. Callaghan: He says so many things, including the remark that he is quite sure that if they cannot have Dominion status in 1960 the Europeans there will not have any less guts than others have had in the past in the same situation, that we say that it will he deeds that prove what he believes in.
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman really should discuss this not with me but with his own hon. Friend so that they can pay their tributes to Sir Roy on the same plane. The hon. Member might also remember that what is said during elections here by members of the Socialist Party—and doubtless sometimes by members of my party—is not always what is said in this Chamber. I think we have all been guilty of saying things outside that we might not wish on reflection to repeat in the calm of debate here.
I do not think the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is altogether innocent in that respect—and the hon. Member for Rugby certainly is not. For I once had the pleasure of debating with him, outside this House, where opportunities arose for criticising or approving the Government's colonial policy, before an

603
audience that was predominantly coloured. I certainly would not have recognised his present statesmanlike remarks today after hearing what he said then.
Generally speaking, I can only agree with one of the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East—that these proposals are remarkably complicated. In fact, they remind me of a rather gruesome moment in my military career when, having reached the dizzy rank of major, I had to take some soldiers through an A.B.C.A. intelligence test. I was horrified to think that they might ask their instructor to put the examination puzzle together, for I knew that I would not have done so in the required two minutes.
These proposals may be regarded as good, bad or indifferent, but, be that as it may, I do hope that locally they will be put out in more simple form than they are at present. We have all had difficulty in understanding the different sorts of constituencies there are to be, and the voting. It may well be, however, that, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, though we are here looking over the whole area, differing voters in particular areas will have to look only at that section that concerns them, and that may make it easier for them to understand than for us.
I particularly welcome these proposals, because, if I have one profound conviction at all about constitutional development in our overseas territories, it is that they should not proceed on communal, racial lines. I know that this may be crying for the moon, and that it is very difficult to put into practice because suspicions and prejudices do exist between different races, creeds and colours. But that does not seem any reason at all for not trying to continue on the lines of what may loosely be called the common roll—whatever our views may be on its speed and extent—rather than on communal rolls.
If we look further afield, to India, we find that it is certainly the fact that Mr. Nehru, who holds a wide measure of respect among hon. Members opposite, and in the House generally, has always set his face rigidly against any form of communal voting at all, because, as he has said on more than one occasion, this
604
can lead to the creation of increasing frictions between different communities.
The same thing has happened in Pakistan. Thus it is not simply a matter of European and African, but a problem which others have had to face all over the world. Right hon. and hon. Gentlement opposite who criticise these proposals have in the past certainly not criticised the solution along common roll lines in other territories now independent, even though a common roll might mean there, as it has meant, that certain religious and other minorities are in a state of permanent under-representation numerically, as they would call it.
Mr. John Stonehouse: Would the hon. Gentleman expand the point he was making about India, and tell us what are the franchise qualifications demanded there?
Mr. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman is off on another point. What I was dealing with was the point, which I think most hon. Members understood, whether on principle we should try to proceed on communal lines or on common roll lines. I was only trying to draw a rough parallel, in principle, between proceeding one way or on alternative lines, which, I think, was understandable to most of my colleagues.
In this case which we are looking at, there is another outstanding feature which no speaker in the debate so far, not even my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, has mentioned, but which I think should be noted in commending these proposals. It is that, for the first time, we are enfranchising scores of thousands of people, potentially and actually, who never had the vote before, and these are not British citizens, but British protected persons. That is an advance for the first time other than in the recent Federal proposals, which were not altogether dissimilar. I should have thought that that was of welcome concern to all hon. Members, and in view of the importance of these proposals we ought seriously to bear it in mind.
Before, however, I come to make a general review, I should like to state my own particular detailed reservations about these proposals. I must confess that I am not altogether happy about the two nominated African members in the Legislature on the Executive Council.

605
I am not going into the point whether there should be one, two or three Africans as such, but I envisage difficulties arising, under the system in which, if I am right, eight African members, too, will be elected under this franchise and this Constitution. It seems to me that their position will be a little difficult if the Governor has to decide, on whatever good grounds, that none is fit for higher appointment, and he has to go outside to pick two other members, other than the eight elected ones.
In that case, I think that the position of these eight members might be made extremely difficult as regards their colleagues and their voters. It might be, first, that their influence will lessen, or that, alternatively, the two members chosen by the Governor will not have the confidence of the Africans who, after all, will have largely chosen their own representatives. I quite realise the reasons which led my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to do this, and it may be that, on balance, the advantage falls on what he is doing, but I think that we should seriously think of some way to get this result without involving these risks.
Now I wish to say a word about the chiefs' veto. Frankly, I quite understand the reasoning behind this, and do not by any means disapprove of it, although it might be called reactionary. Contrary to the popular belief, we are not talking about chiefs in the form of a handful or more of decadent African monarchs, but, instead, of a very substantial number of Africans chosen according to their own traditional methods by their own people to do day-to-day administrative work in each instance in these territories. Unless their way of life and work can proceed with some measure of confidence in the elected African members proceeding to the Northern Rhodesian Parliament, I can see that considerable difficulty, stress and strain could be caused.
It may well be that this is not necessarily the best way to proceed in this respect. In fact, the Secretary of State has hinted that he has not altogether closed his mind in this respect. Perhaps it might be possible to change it round the other way, to the extent that unless a given number of chiefs actively express disapproval of a candidate or candidates they should be allowed to stand. That,
606
I think, would be easier to obtain, from an administrative point of view, and also would mean that they would not normally do so on fractious grounds, or in trying to advance any particular candidates of their own.
It might be laid down that, unless the chiefs give some valid reasons and take the trouble to lodge objections by certain dates, the candidate should be allowed to go ahead. That is merely one suggestion. Certainly, as the proposals stand, I must confess, as I have said, that while I quite understand and appreciate the reasons behind the proposals, because I have been in that part of the world, the sheer mechanics of collecting a sufficient number of affirmative approvals will take the candidate so long that he will not have the time to do anything else before the election comes along. Particularly this would be so if it happens to be in Northern Rhodesia during the rainy season, as I know, when movement difficulties become even more formidable.
Now, if we are generally looking at what may happen in regard to these proposals and the resultant elections. I think it is worth while having regard in some detail to what has so far happened in the recent federal elections, because, although there are quite a variety of differences, I think that hon. Members on all sides would agree that, generally speaking, they are on the same lines as the Federal proposals. There are variations, but in general principle the ideas are on the same lines—the same slow steps towards a growing common roll to match advances in culture and education in the different racial sections of the community.
One of the things that was said during the recent debate here on this subject of the Federal Constitution, and which was repeated in Northern Rhodesia by the African Representative Council, was, in fact, that in Northern Rhodesia there was going to be a boycott of the whole idea of taking part in special elections for two specially elected candidates. It was said in this House and was repeated out there. When the time came, in actual fact—I do not know how generally this is known here—there were 15 candidates for the two seats, which does not sound to me to be an altogether effective boycott, so far as local candidates are concerned.
Another point is in regard generally to the registration of voters, and the

607
question whether or not there has been a boycott there. I have no doubt myself that, probably, more in Nyasaland than elsewhere, disapproval by the African Congress has had a bad effect in preventing registration. I do not know, but it is fair to accept that the African Congress played some part in it. In Southern Rhodesia, before any of these questions became as vivid and long before anybody spoke against registration, it was the fact that only a handful of Africans who were allowed to register for the vote ever took the trouble to do so. The answer is that they are not politically literate or ambitious enough to become politically literate, as we in this country are, and this apathy has contributed to the present situation.
Mr. J. Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Northern Rhodesian African Congress holds meetings of 4,000, 5,000, and even 6,000 and more of its members, that it has a membership of 100,000 paid up, with a women's section of 50,000? If their leaders tell these people to vote, I am quite sure that they would, but, in this case, they were told not to vote.
Mr. Bennett: I do not think that that is altogether a fair interruption. I have already conceded the fact that the African Congress has had an effect, but I was saying that it was by no means the only cause.
There is a very considerable difference from what might have been expected from telling the people not to vote, and, even if the Congress had not said anything, I doubt whether very many more would have registered. The hon. Gentleman may be right in saying that, if the African Congress had gone out of its way to make the people register, as a positive piece of advice, then a good many would have done so. I think that most of us would regret that the African Congress did not take that statesmanlike course.
In truth, it is not only apathy and the attempts of people to boycott registration which have had an effect. There is another most important factor which, I think, is too often overlooked. In this country, where we have the right to vote, irrespective of our means, we do not, as a matter of practice, come under the watchful eye of the Inland Revenue when
608
we register our vote. That is a factor to which far too little attention is paid, particularly by people who have not been to these countries and spoken to Africans. Many Africans are perfectly well entitled to register today and will say to one, if one gets to know them, that the reason that they do not register, either on the special roll or on the other roll, is that, immediately they do so, they believe their means become known and they become the object of watchful attention by the tax inspectors.
There are many Africans who would prefer not to have the vote and go on earning a higher income than appears on paper, because they would, otherwise, have to show a considerably higher figure. The hon. Member for Rugby, who is now laughing, knows perfectly well that that is right.
Even in our highly developed country, if it were the practice that the Income Tax inspector wrote to a person only if, or when, he registered for a vote, there would be many more people than either the hon. Gentleman or I might readily imagine who would willingly forgo the chance of voting—even for the hon. Member for Rugby—if they could thereby avoid paying their annual taxes.
Mr. J. Johnson Mr. J. Johnson rose—
Mr. Bennett: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. He has had his fun on other occasions, and it is my turn now.
It has been said that the registration figures have gone up only to 1,000. I apologise in advance if my figures are wrong, but I have taken a great deal of trouble to find out how many African voters were on the general and the special roll in the Federal elections. According to my knowledge, it is a great deal nearer 2,000 than 1,000. It may, indeed, be over 2,000. I am not aware whether, in the figure of 1,700 or just over 1,800 that I have been able to elicit, according to the best information available to me, there are included the 400 to 500 former Southern Rhodesian voters on the old common roll who were allowed to carry on into the new one, from previous times.
Certainly, at the worst, the figure would be 1,700, and, at best, it might be over 2,000. Hon. Members may say that, out of a possible potential 30,000, that is not a very impressive figure. But this is the

609
first election after only a very few months, and I do not think that 2,000 or so, one way or another, is at all a bad start towards the awakening of political interest in the African population.
Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: How can the hon. Gentleman really expect a large registration of Africans when there is also applied a literacy test? Tens of thousands of Africans, who might otherwise be eligible for registration, cannot register because of the imposition that they must fill in their forms in English and be able to talk the English language in their own country.
Mr. Bennett: It would take far too long to go into detail, but, in the various categories, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) will be aware that the educational requirements vary to some extent in accordance with financial qualifications. If a man is on a certain level of financial qualification, the separate education qualication he has to have—speaking from memory. I think that this is right—is considerably lower. However, it may well be that, in detail, there are improvements which could be made in that respect.
Over all, none the less, I do not think that it stands in the way. If it did, that would run entirely contrary to what the hon. Member for Rugby said earlier, namely, that the lack of registration was not due to the fact that the people could not write English but was due to the fact that there was a rather effective boycott by the African Congress. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite really must make up their minds which of the three horses they want to back.
Mr. J. Johnson: That is really not so. It is a combination of both. There is the test of English, and again, they have been told not to vote. In any case, since we are speaking of literacy and having money on this scale, I should like to say, in passing, that I met only one man in the whole of Northern Rhodesia, a glass cutter in Lusaka, who was earning the £60 a month which would qualify him on the top level, with no literacy qualification.
Mr. Bennett: I do not know whom the hon. Member for Rugby met or did not meet in Southern Rhodesia. I can assure him that there are many Africans in
610
different parts of the Federation now who are earning quite substantial salaries in businesses. That is a matter of fact, as some of the registrations go to prove.
Looking at this matter again in this light, another interesting feature of the federal elections is the number of Africans on the general roll who must have voted for Europeans. If there were strong racial discord and it were widely felt among all Africans that they were being put upon, one would not expect this to happen. In fact, Sir Roy and his colleagues in the Government undoubtedly received a substantial number of votes from Africans who were quite prepared to take part in the election on a strictly non-racial basis. Likewise, so far as Africans elected in the federal elections are concerned, a very substantial number of Europeans must have voted for Africans, too. That seems to me to be one of the most hopeful signs which has emerged, and it is a most hopeful sign for the future if, tonight, as I hope we shall, we adopt this Constitution.
In this country, if we are ever to reach stability and peace in our overseas territories, we must get away from the idea, which is always forthcoming from the benches opposite—the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East, who opened the debate for the Opposition, made the point again and again—that Africans are under- or unrepresented because so many of them are to have only a certain small number of African members in their Parliament. If we proceed on that basis, saying always that the only people who are capable of looking after the interests of a substantial section of the population must belong to a particular racial section, we condemn Central Africa to permanent racial discord, and we shall forever prevent the partnership which it is our hope to establish.
Only when we accept that a European is just as capable of looking after African interests as an African is, and vice versa, shall we have any hope of reaching our goal. This business of counting heads and trying to show that one section of the population is badly treated as compared with another does nothing but harm to the concept of partnership we are trying to establish. If we followed that idea to its logical conclusion, we should reach the stage in this country where we should have to add up the number of coloured people we have here from

611
Jamaica, Pakistan and elsewhere, and then decide that there ought to be three or four Members in this House to represent their interests because none of us was capable of looking after them.
If we adopt the line which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen do about our kinsmen overseas, it would be just as logical to say that there should be four or five Members of this House, on a racial basis, to represent coloured people in this country. That must be so, unless hon. Members opposite are prepared to set themselves up as morally superior to their colleagues overseas in their capacity to represent the interests of overseas peoples.
Mr. Dingle Foot Mr. Dingle Foot (Ipswich) rose—
Mr. Bennett: No; I am sorry, but I cannot give way any more. If the hon. and learned Gentleman or his hon. Friends do not agree with what I am trying to say, I think that, judging from the number of Members who want to speak, they will have a very good opportunity of developing the matter in their own speeches.
The other factor which I found singularly heartening was that, in one of the Salisbury constituencies, on the general roll, a coloured man defeated, by a considerable number of votes, the third candidate in the election which took place. The first was the successful Federal Party representative. I do not want to go into details of names and constituencies now. The second candidate in the result was a coloured man, and the third man was another European. Here again, we find a distinctly heartening circumstance. In a constituency where the roll must have been predominantly European, a majority of Europeans, in fact, preferred to vote for a coloured man rather than for a European. That is a matter of fact; there can be no argument about it.
Finally, I wish for a moment or two to look a little further into the past and consider the criticisms which have been made, and which doubtless will be made again, in the light of what has happened in this part of the world since the war. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite will immediately say that this is digging into the past and that we are talking now only about the present and the future; but Northern Rhodesia has not just appeared on the scene in the last six or
612
seven years. Developments have been taking place there on the constitutional level steadily since the end of the last war. It is worth taking these points into account in deciding whether the Government are now moving too fast, too slowly, or not at all.
Another thing which Members opposite sometimes say to us on this side when we ask about what happened from 1945 to 1951 is, "What do you expect? That was just after a war and you cannot expect things to be right immediately after a war." That will not run with regard to Northern Rhodesia. Constitutional development was not affected by economic circumstances arising from the war, and if right hon. and hon. Members opposite believe in the criticisms that they are making tonight in a responsible way, I still cannot understand why, during their six or seven years of office, they did not make even a fractional move towards greater representation for the Africans than, in fact, they did.
Let us look at the record.
Mr. Creech Jones Mr. Creech Jones rose—
Mr. Bennett: The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to reply.
Mr. Creech Jones: As I was responsible at that time for Northern Rhodesia, as Secretary of State for the Colonies, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that his history is hopelessly wrong. For the first time, Africans were admitted to the Legislative Council. For the first time, not only district provincial councils were formed but there was a national council in order to secure African representation. Further, on the Governor's executive a European was appointed to represent African interests. A further convention was laid down that no decision should be taken affecting Africans without the consent of the representative of African interests. Those were major advances where no political progress on behalf of the African had previously been made.
Mr. Bennett: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has made his objections in advance, I would say that that is why I suggested that he might wait until I gave the facts. He said that my history is hopelessly wrong: but he does not even wait to hear my history. I will now give the history of the matter and he will, perhaps, be in a position to comment afterwards.

613
Of course, he is right in what he has said, but we are talking about constitutional proposals for advancement in the electoral field. That is what I am now contrasting naturally within the Order and within the debate that we are having.
What was the situation when the party opposite was elected in 1945? Admittedly, there was not then a single African member of any sort in the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council. Hon. Members opposite say that we are holding back the African today in giving him eight representatives in the Legislative Council and two members of the Executive Council as ministers. They think that that is far too slow; but I would point out that they did not even give the vote to British-protected persons in that country.
As regards African members of the Legislative Council, the party opposite did nothing at all until finally, in 1948, it settled on the grandiose total of two. The right hon. Gentleman said today that 10 members or eight members between 2 million is grossly insufficient. Would the right hon. Member for Wakefield like readily to explain, when his turn comes to speak, how it is, then, that he thought two constituencies of 1 million, if we are to use the same sort of arithmetic, were any more suitable than what we are proposing now? The Socialist Government, unfortunately, did not go out in 1948, but stayed on until 1951. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was in office at that time, so we can excuse him for the latter stages. Nevertheless, it was not until a Conservative Government came in that the African figure in the Legislative Council was doubled from two to four, and today we are seeing another very great advance.
It may be that we are still proceeding too slowly. There are those who have the right, perhaps, to criticise. I think that we are proceeding at just about the right pace, taking into account the fact that on the one hand it is no good thinking that we can work without European co-operation in that part of the world any more than we can work without African co-operation, and, therefore, everything has to be a compromise.
One must be extremely careful too, not to create racial discord by more sorties
614
into communal voting than are absolutely necessary and thus stress discord between the races. Criticisms could possibly be made against us, but I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, despite his spirited defence, which did not go to the heart of the matter, that a party which, In six or seven years of office, managed to get up to two African members for the whole of Northern Rhodesia and is slashing us tonight because we propose to have a Parliament in which Africans can not only have their own members in six constituencies and can not only have two others as well in amalgamated constituencies, and, in addition, two nominated members, but, in addition to that, British-protected persons will be in a franchise in a way never done before, is a classic example of those in a glasshouse throwing stones.
In addition, thousands of Africans will now, as never before, be entitled to vote for Europeans as well and thus help to secure the most moderate form of European. So, when we are considering the great advance which is now being made, and compare how the party opposite produced the tiny mouse I have recalled, I find myself completely at a loss to know how it has the insolence to criticise us.
Mr. Creech Jones: When the Labour Government took office in 1945 there was no representation of Africans and the political development of Africans was then in its very elementary stages. This was a Protectorate.
Mr. Bennett: It still is.
Mr. Creech Jones: The responsibilities of Government were with the Government here in London and there was no suggestion of a transfer to a European minority. Moreover, the African had the right to vote. There was a common franchise in Northern Rhodesia and that common franchise, to a large extent, has been whittled away by the transfer of political power into the hands of a European minority.
Mr. Bennett: I do not think that I need add anything to my remarks, because I think that the record will show clearly what the history is.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. J. Grimond: I must start by expressing my regret that I missed part of the Secretary

615
of State's speech because I was called away. I speak with some diffidence, because I think that I am the first hon. Member to speak in this debate who has never been to Northern Rhodesia. I have, however, done my best to study the question under consideration without going there, and it will be generally agreed, I think, that this Constitution raises matters of the widest principle and will have effects far outside the territory concerned.
The advance of Africa and the African is one of the most important matters for the British people and possibly for the Western world, and it will become more important as the Communist countries, and Cairo, take more interest in what is going on in that continent. We are all bound to form the best judgment that we can of the development of these territories and particularly of those countries in which there are several races. This is a quite different matter from Ghana, where the inter-racial difficulty does not arise, or at any rate does not arise so acutely.
I listened with great interest to the speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). I think that the hon. and learned Member for Darwen made a very skilful speech. He expressed doubt about whether we were right to concentrate so much on the proposals for the Legislature and wondered whether the vote itself was so important. That was a very interesting line of thought. I had a great deal of sympathy with him when he said that he was glad that Africans were being brought into executive positions to take an actual part in Government. But after all, these proposals are very much about the franchise and are concerned very much with the Legislature. I noticed that the hon. and learned Member did not make a very enthusiastic defence of the qualification of voters nor, indeed, of the proposals for representation of Africans.
The hon. Member for Torquay, like the hon. and learned Member for Darwen, came down on the side of the White Paper; but he, too, tried to justify it rather by an interesting historical discourse of what had been going on in the Federation in general than by defending
616
the proposals before us. When the hon. Member suggests that we should not say that only Africans can represent Africans, or Europeans represent Europeans, I entirely sympathise with him. The hon. Member is, however, well aware that under these proposals it is a very small number of Europeans who will exercise the dominant power and that if the principle of one man, one vote were applied, it would be Africans who would be looking after European interests. In this case, we are not concerned with a situation in which the majority of Europeans are threatened by a few Africans but with a situation in which a very small number of Europeans are seeking power over a great number of Africans.
Apart from the intrinsic importance of these proposals, the way in which we handle constitutional change in Northern Rhodesia would be very closely watched by African opinion as an indication of the future pattern of development in Africa and particularly in the Federation. One of the things that concerns Africans to whom I have spoken is the effect that these proposals will have on the conversations which take place in 1960 and with the representations of Africans when 1960 comes. I know of nothing which has lessened the need for this country to remain, at least for a considerable time, responsible for ensuring that the rights of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia are protected. I believe that the Government would be well advised to turn their face firmly against Dominion status and that if they were to make a statement to this effect, it would have a reassuring effect.
I agreed very much with the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) when he referred to page 20 of the White Paper. In fact, I had already marked the two passages which he read out. Surely, the whole crux of the debate is that these proposals are not acceptable to African opinion. In the White Paper, we have these categorical statements which have already been read to us—in paragraph 19:
"All parties are agreed that the new constitution must win the confidence of all the peoples of Northern Rhodesia."
In paragraph 21:
"The Government of Northern Rhodesia…are…fully conscious that 'no system that leaves any substantial section of the people

617
labouring under a justifiable grievance can, in the end, prevail', because government must ultimately rest on the consent of the governed."
I regard that as conclusive argument against the White Paper from the White Paper itself.
In face of that, I do not believe it to be necessary to criticise in detail the proposals for the franchise, but I reiterate very much what has been said about their complication. I cannot believe that it is an advantage for people who are being led along a gentle course towards self-government to have to start on this very advanced paper in mathematics. This is, however, probably a lesser point, the main point being that under these proposals the qualifications, both in language and in property, are too high and will exclude far too many Africans and give Africans too small a representation.
I might be asked what I would suggest. Like others who have spoken today, I do not know that for the purposes of this debate one needs to state exactly what one wants as a franchise. The fact is that we must carry the Africans with us. One African body has said that it wants parity on the unofficial side and another has said that it wants parity taking the official side into account. At least, I should have thought that we must carry a substantial number of Africans with us and certainly give them parity on the unofficial side or, possibly, take into account the official side as well.
I cannot believe that there is very much much to be said against going this far. I know that the Government have had a tough time with Sir Roy Welensky, who wants to whittle down what is contained in the White Paper. Certainly, I believe that the Government have put up a stout resistance, but they are not likely to convince Sir Roy Welensky that they are right and I do not believe that they would lose very much by going rather further than they have been prepared to do in the White Paper.
I also concede that the Colonial Office has a genuine desire to break down racialism in all its forms. I am sure that there is just as much desire within the Colonial Office as outside it to see the colour bar disappear. Here again, however, the fact must sooner or later be faced that there is a reactionary viewpoint on this matter with which conciliation is not possible.
618
Like the hon. Member for Rugby, I have been to Little Rock. The fact about Little Rock is that there is one section of opinion there with which nothing can be done and which must simply be written off. What the Government must do is to give a firm lead to the people who want to break down racial discrimination. Those are the people in whom we are interested. If we fail to give a firm lead on this, we shall be faced with irreconcilable African hostility.
The only other detailed point about which I should like to ask a question is that of African candidates receiving the approval of two-thirds of the chiefs. I may be wrong, but there is, I believe, a provision that the district officer must be present. I do not follow the need for that, unless he is required as a sort of a returning officer. Possibly it is no more than a procedural matter. It would be useful for us to be told more about this. Certainly, the Africans to whom I have spoken feel that this procedure will drag the chiefs into politics and, very likely, impair their standing with their own people. As the Government have shown willingness to reconsider this matter, I should like to press them to do so.
I do not think that the Constitution meets the paramount need of assuring the Africans that we are sincere about their future and the partnership to which it must lead by definite stages. I do not believe that it will work in the face of the African opposition which now exists. There have been numerous letters, in The Times and the Manchester Guardian, which I will not bother to quote, criticising the Constitution severely from the African point of view and pointing out that if moderate African opinion is not met on this sort of matter, we can expect only that the more extreme African opinion will gain a bigger hold in Northern Rhodesia.
Nat only is it of the greatest importance that all Africans should not be split on the question of black versus white, but it is of great importance that we in this country should not be split on these lines. It would be a great pity if it came to be considered that there were two factions in British politics, one of which always took the line of the white Africans and the other the line of the black Africans.

619
I am sure that that would not be true. We should be able to devise constitutional proposals and to map out ahead a programme of ever-widening franchise and ever-growing executive responsibility for Africans with a considerable amount of agreement between all parties here.
Unless we can achieve that, however, the future in Africa will be extremely difficult. But while I say that, and while I pay tribute to the sincere efforts of the Colonial Office to pursue a liberal policy in Africa, all the advice which I have received leads me to the conclusion that the White Paper does not represent a sufficient step forward in Africa. As far as I can see, it will not reduce racial tension. I do not think that it will create confidence for the conversations in the 1960s or, indeed, for the future development of the Continent.
6.18 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) has pointed out the importance of this debate upon the future of Central Africa. We all agree that partnership in Central Africa is of vital importance, not only to that part of the Continent, but to the Commonwealth as a whole. Where we disagree is on the question of speed. The hon. Member has come down on the side of those who say that we are not going fast enough. My view is that there is considerable danger in exceeding the speed limit. If we do so, we run the risk of increasing the racial tension and of a loss of confidence in Rhodesia and, therefore, suffering a loss in investment. A loss of that nature would mean that there would not be the money available to pay for the education of the African. Education and economic advance is of vital importance to the African in bringing him to his full status and the exercise of full responsibility in his own country.
I would say only one other thing about speed. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who opened the debate for the Opposition, said that 40 years ago there were only 4,000 Europeans in Northern Rhodesia. He forgot to point out, however, that 30 years before that, there was nothing in Northern Rhodesia. A visitor 70 years ago would have found no difference if he had previously visited the country 700
620
years ago. We must always judge these issues from the background of the country that we are discussing and not from the background of Great Britain.
During my service in the Royal Marines I was always taught to tackle problems by first trying to define what our aim or object was to be. As the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) has also pointed out, we must have an aim in Central Africa and I believe that our aim surely is partnership without a lowering of standards. I think that the vast majority of hon. Members opposite would agree with me over the first part of the aim—partnership. I do not think that all would agree about the second part. They are no doubt sincere in their belief that we should go faster and so create greater confidence in the Africans, but I am sure that they ought to be aware of the danger of going too fast and thus losing the economic stability which is so very important. A lowering of standards will just do that.
Looking at the proposed Constitution from the standpoint of whether it helps to achieve our aim of partnership without a lowering of standards, I would say that it does so, for the following reasons—it enfranchises British-protected persons and it gives, for the first time, a direct African vote not only for the election of the African's own representative but also for the election of Europeans. In other words, it starts a common roll and cross-voting. It increases the number of Africans in the Legislative Council from four to eight, and it introduces Africans for the first time not only into the Executive Council but to Ministerial responsibility, which is of great importance, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has already pointed out. I submit, therefore, that these proposals go a long way towards achieving our aim.
As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South East, who was with me in Northern Rhodesia last year, will know, we were always faced with two bodies of opinion. There were those who said that we were going too fast, and others who said that we were going too slow. We have exactly the same division of opinion in this Chamber.
There are two main arguments about these proposed constitutional changes put forward by those who say that we are

621
going too fast. First, a large number of Europeans in Northern Rhodesia say that the devaluation of the special roll vote is not enough. They say that there is a great danger in the value of the special roll vote being even one-third of the ordinary vote. They say that there is a great danger that even the devalued African vote could outweigh the European vote in European constituencies in future. I do not say that I agree with that opinion or that if it is correct it means that this is a retrograde constitutional enactment. I do not say that the fears of certain Europeans that this constitutes a great danger to Europeans are justified, but it is interesting to note that those fears are to be found among reasonable, normal European opinion in that country and it shows that many people consider these proposals to be too great a step ahead.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has not decided to devalue the ordinary vote in the special constituencies. It is of the utmost importance that the people who have the responsibility of a full vote and therefore require to have certain educational and earning qualifications should have the full value of that vote. I should like to read to the House one paragraph from a leading article in the Central African Examiner, which is a very liberal paper, on this subject. It says:
"Very wisely, Mr. Lennox-Boyd agreed not to devalue the ordinary vote so that it counted for only a third in special constituency elections—the absurdity of this was shown in the fact that the Paramount Chief of Barotseland's vote could have been valued at a mere third of his herd-boy's."
The second point made by those who say that we are going too fast concerns the fact that there are to be two Africans on the Executive Council. We must be fair to Mr. John Roberts and his colleagues in Northern Rhodesia. They have been at great pains to point out that they do not object to two Africans sitting in the Executive Council, but they object to their being there merely because they are Africans. They would like to see two Africans on the Executive Council, but only provided that two Africans can be found who are willing and able to fill the rôle. However, I believe that my right hon. Friend was quite right in insisting upon this point. Many of us have seen the difficulties experienced by a single African Minister in Kenya who
622
was unable to consult with another man of his own race and was compelled to be the sole repository of State secrets. It is an intolerable burden to put upon a single African Minister, and I support this change.
Now for those who say that we are going too slow. They suggest, first, that the Africans should have more elected members in the Legislative Council. I sympathise with them to a considerable degree. At the moment there are eight Africans, compared with fourteen Europeans. Personally, I should like to see two more Africans if that were possible, but we must understand that, though perhaps it would not he correct to describe this as an agreed Constitution, there has had to be a certain amount of give-and-take to obtain a balance. What the Africans really want, and they have said it repeatedly, is parity, or even a majority of elected members immediately and, in five years' time, a complete majority. That is a very dangerous step to take or even to contemplate. If we tackle this question on the basis of counting of heads on a racial basis in the Legislative Council, we shall make the whole idea of partnership a complete absurdity.
The next criticism made by those who say that we are going too slow is that the franchise qualifications are too high. The franchise qualifications correspond broadly to the federal qualifications, but were not the financial qualifications worked out when the price of copper was high and it was supposed, therefore, that African development both economically and educationally would proceed at the same rate as it has done during the past year or two? But will that economic development proceed at the same rate now that the price of copper has fallen? If not, can we expect the African to cross the hurdle of a fairly high financial qualification for the franchise if his standard of living is not continually improving? That is a point which might well merit being looked at again.
The same argument applies to the fading out of the special roll in ten years' time. If the copper revenue of the Federation falls, and African economic and educational advancement falls with it, should not we therefore consider extending that period perhaps to fifteen years? I hope that these two points, which I think have substance, will be

623
dealt with when the Minister replies to the debate.
As to the question of two-thirds of the chiefs having to approve an African candidate in his constituency, the fundamental point, which I am sorry is not made clear in the White Paper, is that the requirement is for the approval of the chief in council, not the chief himself. I submit that there is a very great difference between the two. If it requires the approval of one man, the chief himself, it is anti-democratic. If, on the other hand, it requires the approval of the chief in council, that is, surrounded by his advisers, it is not anti-democratic. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen will remember the great impression which the Paramount Chief of Barotseland made upon us when he sat in council with his Katiko.
This is not an anti-democratic idea. Indeed, it ties the old tribal system which has worked well for many generations in Africa with the modern idea of local government and Parliamentary democracy. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will underline this provision and, if I am right, that he will not only say so but it will be clearly provided in the Constitution when published that the chief in council is meant and not just the chief by himself.
I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend has allowed not only civil servants but also teachers to stand as candidates in Northern Rhodesia. This is a move which is to be commended.
Now I turn to some other criticisms of what I might term the nuts and bolts part of the Constitution. I will not weary the House with a lengthy description of my first criticism that the Constitution is too complicated, or the second, namely, that the Governor nominates two members to the Legislative Council. It is said that this is undemocratic but I think it will prove of use not only to the Africans but also to the Europeans.
The real point at issue, which has not been raised in any great detail in the House today, is the composition of the Executive Council and the power of the Governor to appoint to the Executive Council. As I understand it, the Executive Council will consist of two Africans, four Europeans and four officials and, according to the White
624
Paper, the Governor appoints them. I think my right hon. Friend said that it would be appointment after consultation, but it does not say so in the White Paper, and I submit that we can discuss only what is stated there.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will clear up this point, because apparently we could get the position where two Africans have to be on the Executive Council because they are Africans, and two of the Europeans on the Executive Council could, as far as I understand it, be taken from those whom the Governor has nominated to the Legislative Council and therefore not be subject to an election; two of the other Europeans presumably must be elected members, and then there are the four officials. In other words, though no Governor would do it, he could choose a Cabinet completely unrepresentative of the majority party in the Legislative Council. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to clear up any anxiety there may be on that point.
Mr. Alport: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies referred specifically and very carefully to this point. Perhaps it would help the later stages of the debate if I say that if my hon. Friend will look at my right hon. Friend's speech tomorrow he will find that point dealt with.
Mr. Wall: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I remember the Minister referring to it, but I was not clear whether he was referring to two nominated members of the Legislative Council and also to the Executive Council, or one or the other, or both, but undoubtedly it will be reported in HANSARD. I make no apology for underlining this point, which is a most important one for Northern Rhodesians, who want to be able to exercise more control of their own affairs.
I understand that there is a convention which presumably is swept away by these new proposals, and that is that at present the nominated members of the Governor's Council are chosen by a two-thirds majority of the elected members of the Legislative Council, which gives them some control over their Cabinet Ministers. That does not follow in the new proposals. This underlines the importance of the point I have just referred to.
The last of my criticisms is a question that has been brought up frequently in

625
the Northern Rhodesian Legislature, but not touched on in the White Paper, and that is whether it is possible to transfer certain local issues to the sole competence of the local Legislative Assembly rather than exercising complete control from the House of Commons here. It would be utterly wrong to suggest that, at this stage, the House of Commons should give up responsibility for African affairs, agriculture, and so on, but it might be a start to give to the Legislative Assembly the right to take full responsibility for local affairs, such as roads, public works, forestry, and surveys. I believe I am right in saying that this matter has not been touched on in the White Paper. Again, it is a matter of considerable interest to Northern Rhodesians and I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with it at the end of the debate.
This is a balanced scheme. Every member of every party in Northern Rhodesia, and right hon. and hon. Members of all three parties in this House, have criticised certain aspects of it. It may be that this shows that it is a reasonably fair one, since everybody can pick holes in it and everybody is pleased with certain parts. The whole House will, I hope, wish it success, but, if not, we must consider carefully what is the alternative. The only real alternative is to leave the issue until 1960, which would mean leaving Africans without any direct vote in their own representation. It would mean only four Africans on the Legislative Council and no Africans on the Executive Council. That surely underlines how far and how great a step in advancement these proposals represent.
There is one other issue I should like to deal with—that is the question of the numbers of voters in recent elections and the effect on the future. I understand that in the recent federal elections throughout the Federation 72 per cent. of those on the general roll voted. I am also told, though exact figures are not available, that about the same figure, certainly between 70 per cent. and 80 per cent., of those on the special roll voted. This is of interest and it shows that Africans who bothered to register took the same interest in voting as did the Europeans.
The figures for Northern Rhodesia are still more interesting. I understand that of the Africans on the general roll 65 per cent. voted, and of the Africans on
626
the special roll 68 per cent. voted. This seems to bear out the fact that there was considerable apathy. We know about the Congress boycott, but surely these figures show that it was chiefly apathy. If a man disobeyed the Congress boycott and registered, that was a considerable thing to do for an African, but then only 65 per cent. on the general roll and 68 per cent. on the mainly African roll bothered to exercise the vote. This indicates that Africans do not attach quite the importance to the vote that we do in this House.
There is an important conclusion to be drawn from the Congress boycott because the apathy, or the boycott, or both has meant that there are now eight elected Africans in the Federal Parliament, seven of whom belong to the United Federal Party and one other to the Dominion Party. In other words it illustrates that the example for Northern Rhodesia to follow is that it pays in the long run to make a Constitution work. I hope that Africans in Northern Rhodesia, particularly leaders of Congress, will listen to the advice given to them by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and the hon. Member for Rugby, both of whom advised them, even if they dislike this Constitution, to use it, because in that way they will greatly increase African authority and representation.
Finally, because of the recent elections and the overwhelming win of the United Federal Party, Sir Roy Welensky and his party are in a strong position. They do not have to look over their shoulders any more at European reaction. Sir Roy has got eight Africans elected, seven of whom are members of his own party, in his own House, and he can now prove to the world that he listens to their advice. In other words, the seven Africans of the United Federal Party have an influence on the affairs of the federal Cabinet which is at the moment wholly white, and may I add that I hope there will be an African minister in that Cabinet in due course. Co-operation is a far better course for the Africans in Northern Rhodesia to follow than the one followed by Congress in the federal elections, which resulted in not one of their members being now in the Federal Parliament.
In conclusion, I would say that any weakening of the Federation would be a great disservice to all. I

627
believe that the federal elections, and the debates we have had over the last two years on the various constitutions for Central Africa, can now be shown to prove that the Africans are being given an increasing say in their country's affairs—perhaps hon. Gentlemen opposite would say not enough, but at least an increasing say in their affairs—and a greater opportunity of influencing the affairs of the Federation.
We all hope that they will use the opportunity offered, and use it sensibly, and that it will result in the fruition of a far more equal and true partnership in the near future. What happens in Central Africa will affect not only Central Africa, which, in some ways may be of relatively minor importance, but it will also have a very great and lasting affect on the future of our great Commonwealth.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: It is with much diffidence that I speak in a debate of this sort. Like the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) the Leader of the Liberal Party, I have not been to Northern Rhodesia. Unlike him, I have not even been to Little Rock. I find myself in discussion with many people with an enormous amount of on-the-spot knowledge, so I do not expect to lay down the law. I want to make one or two points very diffidently, indeed.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) referred to the pace of African advance, and most hon. Members have considered that one of the most important aspects of this matter. I agreed with the hon. Member when he said that there was a danger of tension in going too fast. There are all sorts of dangers in going too fast, but there are dangers in the opposite sense in going too slow. None of us is able to say exactly what is the right speed, although one hon. Member opposite said that he felt that the present pace of advance was exactly right.
I am not sure how he reached such a precise conclusion. I tried to measure the speed by the standards which I could find, and it seemed to me that we were going too slowly. The first criterion which I took is difficult to define, but I think, sound for all that. The speed of advance is too slow by comparison with the sheer pace of African aspirations and African
628
advance in recent years. That is especially the case not so much since the war, but since the granting of independence to India and other formerly dependent territories.
Such things suggest that the speed of African aspirations and achievement is far greater and stronger than many hon. Members are inclined to assume. In that situation, I deprecate references to the last 700 years in the history of Northern Rhodesia. In that sort of situation, there is no point in comparing the last ten years with the last 700 years.
Another criterion is the speed which is being achieved in other African territories. In discussing Northern Rhodesia, one must consider what has been achieved in places like Ghana and Nigeria. In the East and West Regions of Nigeria there is complete adult suffrage, and in the Northern Region there is adult male suffrage. That is far ahead of the sort of Constitution we are discussing, although that may be due to the different kinds of society.
In Northern Rhodesia, there is the complication of the considerable number of Europeans who live there, but ultimately the problem is one of fair dealing and equality between races and between the Government and those who are governed. In the long run, we will have to consider how to deal with the Africans fairly in comparison with the Europeans.
The Africans themselves recognise the difficulty in Northern Rhodesia as compared with the difficulties of other communities, as is shown by the moderation of their demands. I disagree with the hon. Member for Haltemprice, who thought that the demands of the Africans were immoderate. Their immediate demand is simply for parity with the Europeans. I regard that as an expression of their realisation that, because of the large number of Europeans, their problems are rather more complex than those of Ghana and Nigeria. We should be able to agree to a demand of that sort.
A third criterion is supplied by the year 1960. I am reminded on this point, if one needed reminding, by an organisation called the Scottish Council for African questions, which includes a number of people with a strong African connection. As hon. Members know, Scotland has had a long connection with African problems through missionary and other work.

629
I am reminded of the great importance which that Council attached to the promises given in the preamble to the Constitution. I will not read them, because hen. Members are familiar with them. If, in the spring of 1959, when the next election takes place, out of the 2 million Africans of Northern Rhodesia oily 10,000 or 20,000 are able to vote—and the maximum figure I have seen is 24,000—how, in 1960, if it becomes necessary, will it be possible to get an expression of the opinion of the inhabitants of the territory?
We have to keep in mind what may be needed in 1960, and we have to try to speed up the mechanism of enabling the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia to express themselves on major political questions. For those reasons, it seems to me that the pace of advance is much too slow and that the African people of Northern Rhodesia are greatly underrepresented.
Another criticism has been directed to the complexities of the proposals. The Secretary of State dealt with this question very lucidly, but not very comprehensively. It is all very well to say that the voter will know what he intends to do. He will not vote in all the arrangements of the criss-cross system at once. He will have two votes to cast and he will know how to cast them. However, he ought to be able to understand whether the outcome of the election is fair and whether it fully represents the opinions of the electorate, or of the people of whom the electorate is a small fraction. He will not be able to follow the rights and wrongs of the case through all the intricacies of this complex system.
The charge of complexity is a very serious charge to make against any Constitution which is being considered as a step towards a reasonably democratic ultimate Constitution. Complexity is not one of the characteristics which has proved helpful to democratic systems, air own system has been greatly simplified one way and another. We have eliminated plural voting, yet we are now about to introduce it into this Constitution. We have eliminated the difference in the status of voters. Men and women are now on the same basis.
I have no doubt that one of the reasons why our political system has been so successful is that it is extra-
630
ordinarily simple. Most of us react in a hostile way to proposals made to amend our system, not because we think that they are unreasonable in themselves, but simply because we feel in our bones that they would add an element of complexity which would to some extent befog the minds of the voters.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does not the hon. Gentleman consider that in a primitive society, as ours was in centuries past, it is, paradoxically enough, often essential to have a rather more complicated voting system, and only in a more sophisticated and well-educated society is it possible to have a simple "one man, one vote" system—because that is a very delicate instrument?
Mr. MacPherson: I am not sure whether the hon. Member would address that argument to the present state of Ghana, but it does not seem particularly relevant here. I do not recall a stage in our Parliamentary history when we could have been described as primitive.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Oh.
Mr. MacPherson: I do not think so. The faults that we have to find with our earlier system of voting are not essentially faults of complexity, but of another kind—the influence of land and privilege, and such things as the rotten boroughs. The analogy with this country's history is not a good one. What we can say is that our system is extremely simple. It works, we have great confidence in it, and it is a reasonable, if not logically essential, assumption to conclude from that that simplicity helps. I think that it would help in this situation, but a study of the mechanics of the scheme shows that it is extremely complex and open to question upon the ground of equity and fairness.
The division of the two groups of constituencies is described in the White Paper as a geographical one, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) pointed out that a good deal of this system was really based upon racial considerations. The geographical description seems to be masking the reality of a division not completely but largely upon racial lines. No justification is put forward in the White Paper for the numbers involved in these groups. There are 12 constituencies in one group

631
and six in the other. Although a great number of points put forward in the White Paper are argued, there is no argument explaining why those proportions were arrived at. It does not say why the proportions should not be 12 and 12, or 12 and 18.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary cannot be particularly happy about the criticism levelled at that aspect of the proposals which deals with the approval of the chiefs. I do not think that anyone has said any more than a tentative or hypothetical good word for that proposal, and I do not think that it deserves one. My hon. Friend has damned it thoroughly from the point of view of the practical difficulties involved.
My first reaction was that in a scheme which was put forward in the hope that the people could be led gradually along—as fast as possible but still gradually—to full democracy, in spite of our efforts to make the way as clear as possible, we were here adding additional complexity and trying deliberately, through the person of the candidate, to tie central Government to local government. I have no doubt that the principle of linking the two together is a good one, but I do not think it is necessarily desirable that they should be linked together by the candidate for the Legislative Council. Even if it were, can it be said that that complexity should be introduced into The legislative system at this stage?
The hon. Member for Haltemprice repeated a point that he made in the debate held just before the Recess. He thought that the consent required was not the consent of the chiefs individually, but the chiefs in council. I see no sign, either in the Northern Rhodesia White Paper or the Secretary of State's statement, that that is what is meant, and the Governmen have given no sign that it is meant. The hon. Member for Haltemprice put the question very bluntly to his Front Bench, and I hope that he will get a clear answer. The hon. Member for Haltemprice made no bones about the fact that if the answer is that it is a matter for the individual concerned he would consider it to be an anti-democratic system; indeed, I believe he used a fairly strong qualifying adjective before the word "anti-democratic."
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is intended to mean the chief in council—in foro publico. It is the chief, and the councillors with him.
Mr. MacPherson: In that case, the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Haltemprice, on the grounds of democracy, is weakened; the system is not so anti-democratic. But the argument which my hon. Friend put forward on the ground of practicability is greatly strengthened. In the case of 50 or 60 chiefs, in a constituency spread over an area of about 400 miles, it will be necessary for the candidate to get the consent not of two-thirds of the chiefs, but of two-thirds of the chiefs in council.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the chief were prepared to give his approval he could give it as an individual, but if he were not prepared to do so, and was proposing to dissent, he would have to take the matter to the council, and the decision would then be that of the chief in council.
Mr. MacPherson: That appears to be adding still further to the complexity of the system. If that is how it will work, the principle of the chief in council might have been mentioned in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, especially as the question was raised in the debate which took place before the Recess. I am glad that the point has been cleared up, but it is plain that its clearing up has not diminished the force of the attack upon the practicability of the system which was made by my hon. Friend.
I also want to comment upon paragraph 67 of the White Paper, which talks about having the major principles of the system entrenched. That seems to be a thoroughly objectionable procedure, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will state the Government's attitude towards it. The paragraph lists a number of points which it is considered ought to be entrenched, including some which seem to me to be among the most objectionable parts of the proposal. In any case, as one of my hon. Friends has pointed out, the recent history of Africa has been one of Constitutions which have lasted for a very short time and have then been replaced. There is no argument for trying to entrench the principles of what I hope will be a temporary Constitution.
The Labour Party has taken a clear stand on the question of the Federation.

633
We on this side have decided, and have said publicly on many occasions, that we shall help to make the Federation work, so far as and when it is our responsibility. But we have always added two provisos; first, that it should be with the consent of the Africans—"with the voluntary adherence of the Africans"— which is the phrase used in the last official Labour Party statement—and, secondly, that there should be a genuine racial partnership.
I do not intend to argue either of those points this evening, but it does not seem to me that the history of the Federation since its inception has been working out n such a way as to meet these two provisos. It does not seem to me that the partnership has been a true one, or that we have anything like the voluntary adherence of the African peoples. Indeed, the partnership seems to have been whittled down in a great many ways and the opposition of the African peoples to, have been increasing.
I greatly fear that these proposals will increase rather than diminish the opposition from the African peoples and thus increase the tension between the two peoples. I hope that the Minister will have second thoughts. at least on some of the specific practical points which have been criticised.
7.1 p.m.
Mr. Bernard Braine: I thought it a pity that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) should start his interesting speech with a false argument. He said that the pace was too slow in Central Africa and in Northern Rhodesia in relation to what was happening elsewhere on the African Continent, and he mentioned West Africa. One cannot equate the sophisticated, educated Ghanaian and Nigerian leaders, whom most of us have had the pleasure of meeting over the years, with the unsophisticated and backward people dwelling in Central Africa; any more than one can equate an adult with a child—
Mr. Stonehouse Mr. Stonehouse rose—
Mr. Braine: I have scarcely got out a complete sentence, but I will give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman wishes.
634
The point I wish to make is that the whole course of events in West Africa has been totally different. The West Coast has been exposed to contacts from the outside world, from Islam across the desert, or from the West, for long centuries. Challenges have brought response. Moreover, the capacity of any people to attain self-government is dependent on their capacity and experience. Indeed, there are people who would say that, far from being too slow in Northern Rhodesia and Central Africa, the pace has been too fast. After all, we are dealing with people who in their youth—I am speaking now of the people of Northern Rhodesia—did not know that the spoken word could be written down that there were such simple aids to living as the wheel, the loom or the plough. Bearing this is mind, what has been achieved in recent years is quite fantastic. I think, therefore, that these proposals represent just about the right pace for the conditions which obtain in that part of Africa.
I would allow only one point to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It is that any qualitative franchise must of necessity be complicated, and that which we are discussing here is more complicated than most. I observed, however, that the hon. Gentleman did not condemn the principle of a qualitative franchise. The Amendment refers solely to the proposals leaving the African people inadequately represented. He did not tell the House whether in his view and that of his right hon. and hon. Friends the kind of representation should be one man, one vote. Had he really believed that, I am sure that he would have said so and been honest with the House. If he believes, as I am sure the party opposite believes, in a qualitative franchise, what is the first and obvious point to make about these proposals? It is that they represent a very considerable advance on the constitutional and political position of Northern Rhodesia since the party opposite left office in 1951.
Then there were only two African members of the Legislative Council out of a total of 24. Now, at the moment, there are four African members out of a total of 26, and these are selected for appointment by the African Representative Council. Under these proposals

635
there is likely to be a minimum of eight out of 30 from the outset. But—and this is the important point which I wish to emphasise—as the African electorate increases in size and influence, the number may increase.
In 1951 there were no African unofficial members of the Executive Council. Under the new proposals there are to be four ex officio Ministers and six other Ministers, of whom four must be elected and two must be African. That represents a very considerable advance, not only for Africans, but for Europeans, too. In 1951 the vote was restricted to British subjects. Then, as now, the Africans were virtually excluded from the franchise. I would not criticise the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) in going so slowly in making constitutional advances in Northern Rhodesia. When he was in office he was a realist. He knew the situation. He was leading the territory forward step by step, and I think it unfair that anybody should criticise him for not going faster. But it is equally unfair, in fact it is grossly unfair, for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to cast stones at us now for laying before this House proposals designed to enable the Africans and Europeans in this territory to take a great step forward. As the Northern Rhodesia White Paper says in paragraph 10,
"The present franchise law, in practice, excludes Africans."
The proposals now laid before this House ensure that a large number of Africans are to be enfranchised. Their aim is to broaden the franchise and to do so in a way which will ensure that members of the Legislative Council feel responsible to an electorate composed not merely of members of their own race but of all races. That is a very important step forward.
Paragraph 26 of the White Paper says that the present representation in the Legislative Council—a representation which we inherited from the party opposite—
"is by racial divisions: and the tendency is, therefore, naturally for European members to feel themselves Primarily responsible only to a non-African electorate, and for the African members to feel that they have no responsibility for interests other than African interests. In a system where members are politically responsible to one section of the community alone
636
there must be the danger that a member will from time to time feel himself precluded from advocating in public what he believes to be sound and right, for fear of causing offence to at least a section of the racial group he represents."
This goes absolutely to the heart of the matter. The proposals of my right hon. Friend remove that danger and difficulty by providing a new loyalty for both Europeans and Africans in Northern Rhodesia, a new goal which it is possible for them both to achieve. This is the only basis on which it is possible for a modern state to exist. Of course, at the moment this means a qualitative franchise for the Africans. But I repeat that the proposals taken together represent a substantial and imaginative leap forward. They increase the number of Africans who can vote. They increase the number of Africans on the Legislative Council, and they ensure that the Africans elected are broadly representative of the African people who are not yet qualified to vote. They give Africans a say in the election not merely of African representatives but of Europeans as well; and to this extent, for the first time in the history of Northern Rhodesia, these proposals will put political power into the hands of an African electorate which will provide them with a powerful instrument for helping to shape the destiny of their own country.
I am delighted that in his despatch of 10th September the Secretary of State agrees with the Northern Rhodesian Government in rejecting the idea of separate representation of European and African interests in favour of arrangements which will make it possible for the political parties to develop on non-racial lines and for politics to cut right across racial divisions. I heartily endorse the view and I am sure that everyone in this House will endorse the view expressed in paragraph 6 of this despatch, which says:
"…the changes to be made now must not be such as to perpetuate the present system of racial representation, but such as may make possible and encourage 'the return of men and women who are prepared and indeed disposed to consider and balance the interests of all racial groups'."
That is the crux of the whole problem. Either one accepts the idea of federation or one rejects it. If one accepts the idea of federation, it follows as inexorably as day follows night that advance must be along the lines proposed by my right hon. Friend. I allow that there are serious divisions of conscience on this. In fact,

637
the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East was commendably frank with the House when he said that there were serious fundamental differences between us. All I would say is that these differences make strange allies.
We have been told that the African National Congress rejects the idea of federation. The right-wing Dominion Party throughout the Federation rejects the idea. There are individual right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who also reject it.
The assumption all these people make is that it is not only morally right to think in terms of separateness but it is also practical to do so. This assumption is wholly false. The interests of the races in Central Africa are now so closely interwoven that it is impossible to separate them without grave damage to both races. It is still insufficiently realised—I do not say that it is in this Rouse because we are all keen students of these things, but in this country—what enormous benefits have flowed from federation since its establishment.
In six years the national income has risen by 40 per cent., and I know of no other country that has registered a rise of that order in that time. In the last Budget the Federal Finance Minister, Mr. McIntyre, reported that investment had reached the level of 43 per cent. of the gross national product. That must also be a record since it compares with a figure of 18 per cent. in the United States and about 24 per cent. in neighbouring South Africa.
It is relevant to ask in the context of this debate why figures like these are so high. The answer is clearly because of people's faith, both inside the Federation and outside, in Central Africa's economic potentialities. Those potentialities cannot be realised unless the three territories are treated as one. Secondly—and this is perhaps a great imponderable, but it is enormously important—because of people's faith in the wisdom and leadership of those who have been governing tile Federation since its beginning and in their belief that the will exists to make the system work.
We might ask why anyone should think in terms of separateness. The majority of the federal voters have shown very recently that they accept the idea of federation. Sir Roy Welensky himself is completely dedicated to the concept. But
638
we are told from the other side of the House that the Africans in this part of the world are opposed to it. Are they? On what grounds?
A few months ago the African Representative Council in Northern Rhodesia debated a motion:
"This Council is of the strong opinion that there is no need to elect African members to go to the Federal Parliament."
That Motion was carried with one vote against, and a number of people abstained. Earlier, the same Council had voted in favour of the secession of Northern Rhodesia from the Federation There was the prospect of federal elections coming off very shortly, and a Motion like this, might deprive the Africans of the right under the federal constitution to send representatives to the federal Parliament. Quite rightly, the Governor of Northern Rhodesia acted. What did he do? Instead of the African Representative Council numbering 34 members functioning as an electoral college, he called together all the members of that Council and of the African provincial councils, 19 members of the superior authority of the Barotseland Protectorate and all Africans registered on either the general or special federal electoral rolls, numbering altogether about 250 persons. This truly democratic and representative Assembly reversed the previous decision. It is significant that 15 nominations were made and five of them were of people who, in the original debate in the African Representative Council, had voted in favour of not sending representatives to the federal Parliament.
Of course, no one has said so so far in this debate, but there is an element of intimidation in this situation. We all know that it exists. Most of us have had the privilege at some time or another of meeting Mr. Godwin Lewanika, who is the founding father of the African Congress and the president of the Northern Rhodesian Mines African Staff Association. Addressing the Royal African Society here in this country last July, he had this to say on that subject:
"What I know is that there are groups of Africans—they may be Congress or not—who through lack of political knowledge and understanding, are trying to discourage other Africans from co-operating with liberal-minded Europeans by ridiculing and jeering at them—branding them as traitors or informers. This is a real stumbling block and hinders less courageous moderate Africans from

639
demonstrating openly their firm belief in racial harmony and co-operation for fear of being hated and becoming unpopular with other Africans."
When one bears in mind the number of people who, no doubt from the noblest motives, many thousands of miles away, have encouraged the idea that cooperation with liberal-minded Europeans is a bad thing and who think in terms of Northern Rhodesia on the lines of Uganda or Ghana, it is not surprising that such African opinion as has been expressed takes this strangely unconstructive and unco-operative form. Behind all this is the belief—I have heard it often from some of my African friends—that if there were a change in the Government of this country federation would be undone. I do not believe that would be the case, and I believe that there is a duty on the part of all of us in this House to dispel that illusion. After all, the party opposite launched the idea of federation in the first place.
Mr. Speaker: I do not want to interrupt, but I should remind the House that we are not really debating federation. In so far as it is relevant to the White Paper it was in order, and I think that it is the proposals in the White Paper that the House ought to consider.
Mr. Braine: I accept your Ruling entirely, Mr. Speaker. What I was about to say was that, in so far as these proposals provide the framework within which it is possible for more Africans in Northern Rhodesia to take an effective part in the direction of their government as citizens of a multi-racial community and in the sense that this is also a step forward for Europeans in that territory in responsibility, these proposals ought to command the support of the House.
I know that these proposals have been criticised here on the Floor of the House and by Africans in Northern Rhodesia who want parity in the Legislative and Executive Councils, who have described the proposals as a betrayal of African interests and who have even alleged that they could perhaps provide better Government than the present European Administration. The proposals have been criticised in Northern Rhodesia too by Europeans who view the appointment of two African Ministers on the basis of race as being somewhat incompatible with the
640
policy of establishing a political system on a multi-racial basis.
These criticisms lead me to think that, on balance, my right hon. Friend's proposals are just about right. I think we ought to face the facts. Only a small proportion—and this is the answer to the arguments of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson)—of the African population of about two million is literate. Out of that population there are only two qualified doctors, only two registered state nurses, and only one barrister-at-law. It is interesting to note that in the provisions to enable Africans to stand as candidates it has been necessary to make a special dispensation for civil servants. Civil servants, by the nature of their jobs, are viewed as qualified and responsible people, and that provision has had to be made because there are so few who can be so described. Thus there is difficulty enough in finding the right kind of candidate for the Legislative Council, let alone finding Ministerial material.
I have the greatest sympathy with the argument of Sir Roy Welensky that the Africans appointed to Ministerial posts ought to be chosen from the majority party in the Legislature and chosen for their personal qualities and their abilities and I have no doubt that this will happen, and will happen quite soon. But it is essential—and here I agree with what has been said on this score from the other side of the House—that we carry moderate African opinion with us.
If we are to deny Africans a place in Government at this stage until one of the right quality and experience emerges, we may have to wait for a considerable time, and in the meantime we may lose the confidence of those moderate Africans who are willing now to accept partnership because there is no tangible sign that we mean what we say. I recognise that there is a dilemma here, but I think that my right hon. Friend is right at this stage to tackle it in the way in which he has done.
I agree with a great deal said by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs about the trials and difficulties of democracy. Surely, experience has shown that democracy cannot be superimposed. Where the instinct for democratic self-government has never existed, it cannot be developed overnight. One has only

641
to look at Pakistan and the Sudan, where only yesterday there were Parliaments on our model. It is said by those who swept hem away that the Parliamentary system in those countries made for weak, ineffective and corrupt Governments. I make no comment on that; indeed, it would be improper to do so. All I k now is that the Mother of Parliaments in the last few months has lost two of her children. I feel that that reminds us that there is a great obligation upon us to gear the pace of constitutional advance in emerging countries to the capacity and the sense of responsibility of the people concerned. If we go too fast we may well ruin the chance of ever developing parliamentary democracy at all.
The ideal, of course, is full Parliamentary democracy as we understand it in this country, but I am convinced that the road to it in the territories of Central Africa, and indeed in certain other territories in the Colonial Empire, must be by way of the qualitative franchise, based on literacy and a real stake in the country. We may argue between ourselves what should constitute the stake we may argue between ourselves about the pace. But I feel that we must never lose sight of what is really at stake in Central Africa.
The Central African Examiner of 13th September put this whole matter in a nutshell. Discussing the territorial election results in Southern Rhodesia, it wrote that these
"should have proved conclusively to liberals both in the Federation and overseas that the choice before the country is not Welensky or someone roughly equivalent to Todd. It is not really even Welensky or Field. Ultimately it is Welensky or Verwoerd."
The federal electors, including those of Northern Rhodesia, have since given their answer to that question. Although 50,000 European voters in the Federation voted for African candidates for the first time. In the two Northern Territories, no European had ever before voted for an African. I was most interested to see that during the campaign in Northern Rhodesia, and elsewhere in the Federation, Europeans flocked to meetings addressed by the most outstanding African candidates. They went to hear what the candidates had to say and they stayed to listen. This is quite unprecedented, and could not happen south of the Limpopo. Today there are nine African
642
members of Parliament sitting in Roy Welensky's party in Parliament—members of a political party, not sitting there as Africans but as citizens of the Federation who think in a certain way.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) asked where was the evidence that federation is working. In matters of this kind one must preserve a sense of proportion. If one considers what has been happening in the Federation in the last few years, and in Northern Rhodesia in particular, against the background of history, if one considers it in relation to the views so strongly held in other parts of Africa, then the pace is not slow. The pace is rapid. It is encouraging. It is exhilarating. After all, it is less than 60 or 70 years since the first pioneer column reached into the heart of what was then very largely an empty country and came into contact with a primitive people whose way of life had been completely unchanged not just for centuries but for thousands and thousands of years.
The achievement since then, particularly in the economic field but also in the political field, has been phenomenal. For myself—and I think I speak here for a good many hon. Members on both sides of the House—it is no small comfort to know that the fortunes of this young and exciting country are in the hands of so dynamic and far-sighted, so courageous, tough and liberal-minded a man as Sir Roy Welensky. For in my view, the past achievements of the Federation, and of course of Northern Rhodesia, and the present confidence which the Federal Government inspire, call for a demonstration of trust from us. It is for that reason that I shall warmly support my right hon. Friend's proposals in the Lobby tonight if that becomes necessary.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. John Stonehouse: I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) He speaks with much enthusiasm, and when he has a weak case he speaks with much more enthusiasm than when he has a strong case. He has a weak case today, and we have had a very energetic and enthusiastic speech from him, but I am afraid that occasionally he took us up a number of dead ends. He led us to a number of perorations but, when we were all waiting anxiously—at

643
least those on this side of the House—for the point which he seemed about to reach, he switched us somewhere else.
The hon. Member said that there has been much economic advance in Rhodesia since the three countries have been associated in the Federation, but he did not go on to say what advantage the mass of the people living in those countries have received from those economic advances.
Sir A. Baldwin: Education.
Mr. Stonehouse: That may well be so. I agree that it is so in certain parts of Nyasaland. Some advance has been made. But in Northern Rhodesia thousands of Africans are still denied the opportunities which they should have of going into the skilled occupations. Even on the federal railways, of which Roy Welensky is so proud, Africans are not allowed to drive trains, although just across the border, in the Belgian Congo, they are driving main-line trains—
Mr. Patrick Maitland: Would the hon. Gentleman explain—I think that he has knowledge of this—whether or not there is a trade union facet to that; that the trade union of European workers is responsible?
Mr. Stonehouse: I am grateful for that intervention. It is absolutely true. The European trade union in the Federation has made conditions about the employment of African train drivers. Personally, I think that it is most regrettable indeed, but it is the responsibility of the federal authorities to do something about it, just as it is the responsibility of our own colonial Administration in Northern Rhodesia to make sure that the African mineworkers there have the same opportunities to take skilled jobs as have their fellows across the border in the Belgian Congo.
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Would the hon. Gentleman apply the same lesson to the relations between trade unions in the United Kingdom as he suggests should now apply within the Federation?
Mr. Stonehouse: In Rhodesia, there is discrimination against citizens on the ground of colour. Where that applies, I—and, I think, all my right hon. and hon. Friends—will certainly agree that Government action should be taken to
644
eliminate it. I am proud that my own party has gone on record in this respect; and that we are determined, after the next election, to eliminate colour discrimination—
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can say, with a good deal of knowledge of the subject, having long watched it, that during the years that I have been Colonial Secretary more progress has been made in the Copperbelt than ever before in this field.
Mr. Stonehouse: I do not dispute that there may have been some progress and that there is now a happier relationship between the African and the European trade unions, but there should be much more progress, and I submit that one of the causes of the Africans in Rhodesia being so suspicious of these moves to give the small white minority so much political power is that the Africans feel that, as a result, they will still be denied economic advancement.
It has been my privilege to meet a great many people who come over here from Rhodesia. I also meet great numbers of them from Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda. These people are very suspicious about the move to give independence to Rhodesia, because they feel that a genuine attempt has not so far been made to bring Africans into the contract; that the Africans are being squeezed out. They suspect that if Rhodesia gets independence after 1960 without the Africans in Rhodesia and Nyasaland being given their constitutional rights Rhodesia will be a white-dominated country with the Africans unable to have the rights to which they are entitled.
They are very suspicious indeed. So far, they have limited themselves to protesting in a constitutional way. I am sure that all hon. Members appreciate that restraint, and the statesmanlike way in which their point of view has been put, but, in all seriousness, can we expect this restraint to continue if we do not do something to retain their confidence? If we press ahead with the giving of more political rights to the small European minority, the Africans' confidence may eventually snap altogether, and then it will be the extremists who will control the course of events in those countries, and there may be no way by which we can stop the events that flow from that.

645
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), I had the opportunity of considering the representations made by the African chiefs, Undi, Paramount Chief of the Crewa, and Shakumbila, Senior Chief of the Sala, to the Colonial Secretary. I should like the Under-Secretary of State to give us the details of his right hon. Friend's reply. For instance, how did he reply to the point about two-thirds of the chiefs in an area being required to endorse candidatures? Is it not also the case that not only is that endorsement required, but that the chiefs' signatures cannot be given unless there is present a witness appointed by the authorities? Who is to be the witness? Will he be a district commissioner, or some other official appointed by the authorities? Is there not a danger of the official bringing some pressure to hear on the chief if the authorities do not approve of a candidate?
The chiefs also reject absolutely the proposal for two electoral rolls, based on different qualifications. They ask that there should be no status of a sub-citizen, as a result of rolls based on wealth and education. When I read this memorandum, it does not seem to me that there is much difference in the points of view that the Secretary of State had to consider. He gave the impression this afternoon that the representations that he had had were not very strongly against his proposals, but these representations are very serious indeed and wholly reject the idea of two electoral rolls.
Furthermore, I understand that there is to be some discrimination between various headmen. Only the headman who has 25 taxpayers in his village will be allowed a vote on the special roll, but in Northern Rhodesia headmen have been recognised even when villages have had only 10 taxpayers. This has been known for a long time, and has been generally accepted. Why should there now be this discrimination between headmen with 25 taxpayers and those with fewer? It can only lead to some feeling of embarrassment on the part of the headmen with the smaller numbers of taxpayers, and make their job even harder.
The memorandum also submits that to give a man a vote because he has had
646
long service with an employer is absolutely wrong. The chiefs say that it is part of the European settler's way of thinking—the way in which they think of the Europeans as masters and of the Africans as servants. What is the reason for allowing a vote to a man who has had this long employment against a man who may have been in similarly important work, but who has moved from one job to another?
Then they go on to put the point, which has already been taken up by some of my hon. Friends in the debate, that it is absolutely outrageous to ask that all the voters should fill up a registration form in English. There are many Africans in Northern Rhodesia who are perfectly literate in their own vernacular. There are even four official languages other than English. Why is it that these other languages, which are used in the official broadcasting service, are not recognised as valid for the filling up of the forms for registration?
The chiefs also say that it is wrong that a person who registers for the vote has to make an oath of allegiance to the Queen, and puts this point, not in any disrespect, but merely asking that the legal constitutional position should he checked. I hope that when the Under-Secretary replies he will clarify this point, because it is a serious one. Most of the people in Northern Rhodesia are British-protected persons, and I am told by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) that, when the Buganda Agreement was being negotiated, and the arrangements were being made for the return of the Kabaka to Buganda, it was made quite clear that British-protected persons in Uganda owed no allegiance to the Queen as British subjects. If that applies in Buganda, it certainly must be the case in Northern Rhodesia. It seems to be regrettable that on all the forms that have to be signed by voters they have also to sign an oath of allegiance to the Queen.
The hon. and learned Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) made one of the most interesting speeches from the Government side of the House. He said that in the Belgian Congo the African advance has been faster than it has been in Rhodesia, and that there have been happier relationships between the races as a result. Although we have a lot to

647
teach the Belgian Congo in political advance I believe that we can learn a great deal from the Congo in economic advance. I suggest that one of the key factors in this whole background of suspicion that we find in relation to these constitutional proposals and to federation as a whole is the fact that the economic opportunities for Africans to advance in Rhodesia are much less than those in the Belgian Congo.
The hon. and learned Member also said that we must give these constitutional proposals the chance they deserve. Do they deserve any chance to succeed unless we recognise at this time—in 1958—that our aim and object is universal adult suffrage, with everybody allowed the exercise of the vote? We have not had the acceptance of that idea either from Ministers or from hon. Members an the other side of the House, nor have we had acceptance of that idea from the white politicians in Rhodesia itself. We have, however, people like Mr. Malcomson, from Northern Rhodesia, saying that he does not believe in this business of "one man, one vote," and we have Sir Roy Welensky himself making similar comments.
How can these people expect us in the Labour Party to have any trust in them when they criticise the basic political ideals which we strive to serve? We cannot possibly give more political power to a small minority in the midst of a mass of Africans for whom we are still responsible. We cannot afford to give them more political power unless they are prepared to accept wholeheartedly the political ideals which we want to see applied there, and which many of our forefathers fought to have applied here.
Therefore, we do not have the confidence in the Europeans in Northern Rhodesia, and in the Federation as a whole, which many hon. Members on the other side of the House have. They have not shown by their actions that we can have confidence in them, and, in these circumstances, it would be absolutely wrong of us to move further along the road to giving more political power to the tiny white minority in Northern Rhodesia.
When we strip down these White Paper proposals, we see that that is what they mean, and, though we have had all
648
this talk about partnership, about cross-voting and about the non-communal electorate, what the proposals really mean is that 72,000 Europeans in Northern Rhodesia are to get a tremendous amount of political power at the expense of the 2,100,000 Africans who live in Northern Rhodesia. That is what the proposals mean, and for hon. Members on the other side of the House to engage in progressive hypocrisy is wholly undignified of them.
Mr. Braine: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify one point? Surely he is aware that, under these proposals, from now on. European members will have an African electorate? Does it not follow that only those Europeans who think in terms of a multi-racial state are likely to succeed in getting in?
Mr. Stonehouse: That would be true if there were any number of Africans being included in the special roll, but if we accept the figures given in the White Paper the total number to get on the special roll would be about 20,000, which is only 2 per cent. of the total adult population in Northern Rhodesia. There is another figure which has been produced by two investigators of the Rhodesian Selection Trust, which gives an estimate of 10,000, which is only about 1 per cent. of the total adult population. I would agree with the hon. Member if any number of Africans were to get these political rights, but they are such a tiny minority that they cannot have any possible influence on the result of an election in their constituencies.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) illustrated so well in his speech, even the constituencies have been drawn in a particular way so that Europeans will be able to maintain their political power. We have all this paraphernalia of two-thirds of the chiefs having to sign forms before candidates can go forward in particular constituencies, which is still further designed to prevent anybody of real ability who can speak for his people coming forward to the Legislative Council.
The whole thing is an absolute fraud and we in this House should admit it to be so. To claim that the White Paper is an exercise in partnership is sheer dishonesty. It is an exercise in European

649
domination. If we agree to the White Paper, and to the constitutional proposals contained in it, going through we shall be asking the Africans in Northern Rhodesia to lose confidence in us. We shall also be asking Africans in many other countries in Africa to believe that we are now allowing this tiny white minority in Rhodesia to exercise more dictatorial power at the expense of the masses of the African people. As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said at the outset of his speech, this will be a gift to the Communists, enabling them to engage in propaganda in Africa.
If we are to keep the confidence of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia, or in any other African territory, we must show not only by our words but by our deeds that we aim to give them the political rights which they deserve.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: The hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) did better in his first speech. The little extra speech we have just had was marked by some exaggerations of phrase which went ill with the thoughtful words preceding it. We were told about dictatorial powers in the hands of a tiny European minority. He said that this was European domination. The whole thing, he said—I have his words—is an absolute fraud. Just before that, we were told by the hon. Gentleman that hon. Members on this side of the House were guilty of—I think his phrase was—arrant hypocrisy; at any rate, we were guilty of some kind of hypocrisy. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman, whose usual contributions to these debates are thoughtful as well as well informed, will really be very happy when he reads HANSARD tomorrow and sees what he said at that stage.
I wish to go back to some of the things the hon. Gentleman said in the earlier part of his speech which contributed usefully to the level of our debate. He acknowledged, for example, that there had been at least some educational advance in Nyasaland as a result of the economic expansion which followed Nyasaland's pant in the Federation. That is a point I shall return to. Although we are not tonight debating federation, we are debating something fundamental to the survival of
650
the Federation, and it is the post-1960 situation which we all have in our minds at the present time.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury was entirely frank, and we respect him for it, when he acknowledged that at least an element in the practice of the colour bar in Northern Rhodesia derives from the restrictive practices of European trade unionists. His remedy for that was not only a strong central Executive, but one which would interfere in the kind of terms that trade unions lay down to protect the interests of their members. I do not quarrel with that, but I believe that there Is an implication flowing from it which is germane to the theme of this debate.
If the hon. Gentleman says, as I think he does, that at the end of the day we want a strong and effective Federation—I do not say a dictatorial one—in order that these things can be dealt with by a strong central Executive, he is surely saying that, when the time comes and we have to look at the implementation of the pledges given by this House, we must be quite sure that the system of consulting the people of the Central African. Federation is one that accords with our intentions in this House when those pledges were given and accepted and is, at the same time, a procedure which will be practicable. This is why I believe that tonight's debate is really a debate about the implications of a quantitative or, alternatively, a qualitative interpretation of the franchise.
I was much interested, as I always am when he speaks, in the comments of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson). He is not now in his place. His contributions on these matters are always thoughtful. He made the point that in democratic government—he cited this country as a most obvious example—it is the very simplicity of the system which leads to what one might call an authentic and real result. He did not, I thought, take full account of the fact that the simplest system of all is one where there is no choice of candidates, which, of course, is the system of the other side of the Iron Curtain.
I felt that the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs over-laboured the point about franchise simplicity. It is quite true that we have graduated in these islands towards a system of election

651
which is increasingly simple. The university seats were abolished. I believe that that was a mistake, and I should like to see them restored; but they were abolished, and I fear that, to a very large extent, the public as a whole accepted their abolition without demur and there were very few tears shed. For better or for worse, we have moved towards a very simple franchise. It is complicated, no doubt, by considerations as to how many automobiles ought to be used, and other such questions, but the principle is very simple.
But, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out, the very simplicity of our system is made possible, and the system is made to work, only because ours is a country which is politically mature. The population is, at least, literate, and everyone has had some primary education and, in very many cases, secondary education, too. Also, we have a tradition of judging political events.
I was very interested, as were others of my hon. Friends, when the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs replied to interjections on this very point. It was put to him, "What about Ghana?", and he said "Yes; what about it?". It is because in Ghana a simple system has been produced, perhaps, too rapidly, that one sees the spectre of Cromwellian rule stalking through the council chamber in Accra. It is because of what I think may well have been the premature and precipitate establishment of a simple system that we see those things happening in Ghana. Speaking for myself, it is the fear that we might have the same sort of thing occurring in Central Africa which causes me and, I believe, some of my hon. Friends who are not illiberal in our sentiments to pause and take stock.
It is very important to think carefully of what we mean when we say, "One man, one vote." It is important to bear that in mind when we think of the pledges which were given in this House before federation was introduced. When Lord Chandos, as he now is, gave those pledges, he made it clear that he had no very precise idea about how the desires of the majority of the people would be ascertained. I wonder whether any hon. Member here now is very clear about the answer to that question.
652
When the hon. Member for Wednesbury speaks of universal adult suffrage being our goal, he is speaking of something about which we agree. What we do not agree about is how quickly and how safely the goal can be reached. Some of us look with great apprehension and anxiety at the course of events in Ghana. We wonder whether universal adult suffrage in Central Africa can be a wise thing just yet. But of course I do not for a moment deny that it is the ultimate objective.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The hon. Gentleman is giving the illustration of Ghana. Is he not aware that nearly all the things of which he complains in Ghana have been simultaneously taking place in Colonies for which the British Government are responsible? Deportations without trial, detentions without trial, the crushing of oppositions— these are common features of the British colonial system. When it happens in Ghana, all is denunciation. When it happens in British Colonies, all is support.
Mr. Maitland: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because it brings up a very important point. The question is: why denounce deportations in Ghana but not, for example, in Cyprus?
Mr. Brockway: Not Cyprus.
Mr. Maitland: Or wherever it is. Let us pick any territory. I think the answer is that we know jolly well that an authoritarian colonialism, paternal if one likes, but call it dictatorial if you will, something which does not yet govern through a fully representative legislature, does resort to these means. We know that. Nor are they agreeable to me; but when a Parliament is established with total sovereignty upon universal suffrage and proceeds to deport people, that, I think, is something different in kind. I am sure hon. Members will agree that if we started in this House to rig a majority and then used that majority to deport people we should all be shocked and ashamed.
Mr. Brockway: Who says "rig"?
Mr. Maitland: Let us skip the word "rig" and just say that if this House used its elected majority at any time to deport political opponents I am sure we would all agree that we were going back

653
to the sixteenth or the seventeenth century. It is that Cromwellian spectacle of the seventeenth century which worries me and which, I believe, is made possible by the premature—or precipitate—grant of universal suffrage, coupled with a fully sovereign Parliament, before the electorate is fully mature and able to sustain its responsibilities.
Mr. Stonehouse: Does not the hon. Member agree that the same dangers arise if political power is transferred to a European minority?
Mr. Maitland: That is a fair point, and it is helpful to elucidate the issue. One point that emerged from the speech of the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs was this. We are talking about a progress towards, shall we say, full democracy. We have before us a project for what one might call a weighted democracy and a weighted franchise. It is, of course, evident that the small literate European minority has a very much greater power than the mass of the Africans around it. I imagine it is also true that they pay more taxes, but I do not know positively. But to say that they are using or are going to use that pawn or, indeed, have up to now used that pawn in a dictatorial fashion is a little ungenerous.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Maitland: I will gladly give way presently, but I should like to make the central point that I have in mind.
My difficulty in this subject is that it is to me largely an abstract one, because I do not have any close knowledge at first hand of the situation. Of course, we in Scotland have a very considerable and widespread book knowledge of Central Africa, because, as everybody knows, the kirk of Scotland is deeply involved in missionary work in Nyasaland. My own family was somewhat involved in the Universities' Mission to Central Africa, but my knowledge of these matters is, I must confess, secondhand, and that is why I would gladly give way to experts at the appropriate times.
But looking at the matter in a rather abstract and distant fashion, and studying the problem of the kind of franchise that we can or should approve, having regard to the problems that will arise after 1960 about pledges and so on several things
654
stand out in my mind, looking at the scene from this distance. There seem to be three or four different poles of political activity in the African continent, or at any rate in the territories within the Commonwealth of Nations.
There is West Africa's progress in building up a series of virtually all-black African States. That is a progress which in general, from a distance and without close personal knowledge, I hail. Although I have made some allusions to events in Ghana and have likened the Prime Minister of Ghana to Cromwell and have talked about a Cromwellian attitude, I still would like to counter-balance that by saying that I am very glad that the great State of Ghana is going forward, according to the reports I receive from there, and I am very glad, for example, about the imaginative approach to international relations that Mr. Nkrumah is showing, and I am much stimulated about the project for a West African Federation and for a Ghana-Guinea Union. I believe that these are positive, constructive and valuable things and represent, speaking broadly, one pole of affairs in Africa.
Another pole is the whole approach to separateness on Apartheid in the Union of South Africa, which I am certain all of us as individuals from a distance tend, in principle, to deplore or at any rate dislike. I do. Never having been there and never having had to live alongside Africans, it does not lie in my mouth to preach to them, but we find it disagreeable to read about these things. The South African situation represents another quite distinct pole of political activity in the African continent.
There seems to be a third pole which, I believe, can be distinguished from the other two, namely, what I choose to call the somewhat paternalistic attitude in East Africa—a white paternalism. Before hon. Members jump up and interrupt me, as I am sure they are itching to do, may I say that a number of my family spent a great part of their working lives as civil servants in East Africa and, therefore, although I am speaking at second hand, I am rather impressed by their integrity and their genuine fatherly attitude to Africans around them. Whether it is enlightened is another matter, but I think that their motives are sound.

655
If there are those three poles—the West African States heading towards West African federation, the separateness in the Union of South Africa which many of us find disagreeable, and the white paternalism in East Africa—we find in Central Africa something different—a self-conscious effort at partnership. I believe that challenges about sincerity or insincerity, of hypocrisy and the like do not belong to our debates in this House and normally we forswear them. One of the features of our Parliamentary life is that we do not challenge each other's motives, although we may tear each other apart on matters of judgment. Therefore, when one speaks of the effort toward partnership in the Central African Federation, I do not believe that it lies in our mouths here to challenge the sincerity of purpose of the people who speak about partnership. We must take it as it stands and see how it works out.
It is with regard to those four distinct poles of political activity in Africa that I find myself entirely in sympathy with the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He said, in effect, that the decision about Africa will probably be made in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I believe that he is quite right, and I believe that that is fundamentally why we are so concerned about the matter and why our debates perhaps lack a good deal of passion. We do not want to stir each other up; we want instead to give the best thought we can to it and to operate as a real council of State. If that is the case, if the reconciliation, if one likes, of these four poles of political activity in Africa has to be in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, then I take it that essentially the pledges given in this House, endorsed and accepted by this House and which this House has resolved on both sides to see honoured, mean that we have to be sure that there is real fairness for the African. I do not mean fairness in quantitative terms, but in real terms. Secondly, we mean by those pledges that we require a sense of balance at what seems to be the fulcrum of the African tension.
That is why I ask this question. Is Parliament—are we on both sides of the House and both sides of the Gangway—making sure that our own Executive is holding this balance or at least doing
656
its best to hold this balance truly and wisely?
In asking that question, I am again looking at the scene from a distance and concerned about two opposite dangers. One of these is the danger of pressing the Europeans too far and too brutally from Whitehall. There is a long story of European settlers and of colonists from the United Kingdom going overseas, feeling that they are up against tough jobs, perhaps not showing great political wisdom, but developing a country and bitterly resenting the pressures and the preachments that come from Whitehall—as we in Scotland can know how to resent them. None of us will deny that that mood exists among some of our colonists oversea. If we have it up in my country in Scotland, let us think how much more our people have it out in Nyasaland, Tanganyika or elsewhere.
Therefore, I am alarmed at the prospect of the white people getting pressed to exasperation. There is plenty of talk going on, I understand, about secession from the Federation to join the Union. It may be that that is wild talk and premature, but I felt that there was more than a whiff of it in a letter I read only the other day in the Daily Telegraph, which I take leave to quote briefly. It said:
"If British opinion is to allow the settlers alone"—
we have not said that—
"to decide how Africans should live and whether they should receive the vote, we may as well say goodbye now to the ideal of a multi-racial Commonwealth."
But we are not saying that—at least, I hope not. I am not aware of anybody responsible saying it. We are not wanting the white settlers alone to decide it. If we talk in that way, however, it merely stirs up tension and possibly provokes the very thing we want to avoid.
Mr. G. A. Pargiter: What do the settlers say?
Mr. Maitland: It is being reciprocated here and it bounces back like a tennis ball, as the hon. Member well knows.
I thought that some of the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East were perhaps not entirely correct. I am alluding to his arguments against the new franchise as being inadequate on a whole number of points. The hon.

657
Member made what I will call the broad quantitative point about one man, one vote. He did it very well and at length, but it can be summed up in that phrase. It is a point which must be countered by the other question of whether to recognise the principle of one man, one vote when many of the people have not the least idea what they are voting about.
When the hon. Member says, as he did in his speech, that these people are apathetic, that they do not want federation and that was why they did not register, that is not an altogether sound counter-argument either. I can only thaw the analogy—but it is a useful one because the people concerned are largely Africans by origin—of the West Indies Federation. I was in the West Indies Federation at the time of the first federal elections. There was certainly no white domination. Yet the proportion of the electorate to go to the poll was something like 35 per cent. There was all the apparatus of publicity and the rest to build it up. The people all knew what it was about. At least, they had had primary education. The standards are relatively higher in the West Indies Federation than in Central Africa, but nevertheless there was this apparent apathy. The reason was that it was something they could not understand. If that is the case in a country which has had rather more extensive education than, say, Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia, it is a little false to suggest that the principle of one man, one vote should apply there and that the apathy at the federal elections was due to a positive desire to boycott or a positive mistrust of the whole operation. It was if known.
Mr. Callaghan: We do not need to go as far as the West Indian Federation. In Uganda, where there have recently been elections and the boundaries are much closer to Northern Rhodesia, there was a poll of 85 per cent. because the people felt that they were participating in something which really belonged to them and in which they had confidence.
Mr. Maitland: The only answer I can make is that all generalisations are wrong, including this one, and Africa is not the same in one place as in another. Perhaps, however, we are both making debating points and I had better let it go at that. I am obliged to the hon. Member for
658
correcting me, as I am always willing to be corrected, in good faith.
Another point which the hon. Member made and to some extent laboured was the question of the size of the constituencies. We can understand that it does not take the hon. Member long to get round his constituency in Cardiff, but some of my hon. Friends who represent great tracts of ground in Scotland find that it takes a lot of time to get round. The argument upon size and area is not altogther valid anyway, and less still if we have regard to the tempo of Parliamentary life in Central Africa and the tempo of Parliamentary life here. Does the hon. Member suggest that members out there have to attend the same number of bunfights that we do or that they have to hold "surgeries" and the rest? No, of course not. This business about the enormous area to be represented is not a sound argument.
The point that the hon. Member made about the chiefs has already been answered, although he may not have been present at the time, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who pointed out that it is a matter of consulting the chiefs in council. It is not a question of going round and trying to collect a lot of signatures from people dispersed all, over the country. It is a matter, of the chiefs in council, and that was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State while the hon. Member was out of the Chamber.
Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member has got it quite wrong. The chiefs will be allowed to give their signatures in the presence of a witness officially appointed In the case of there being any dispute according to an intervention by the Secretary of State during an earlier speech, there will be an appeal to the chiefs in council. Initially, however, authority will be given by a chief with a witness officially appointed.
Mr. Maitland: I am obliged to the hon. Member. The point remains, however, that even though a number of motor cars may be required to go around and get the signatures, ultimately it is a question of an appeal to the chiefs in council.
What fortifies me in my attitude to this question is a document I received the other day from the Scottish Council

659
for African Questions. It is a knowledge-able body with a considerable membership of people who have had personal experience of work in Africa. The Council sent me a resolution saying:
"The Council welcomes…the introduction of at least two Africans in the Executive Council and the first step towards a common roll in Northern Rhodesia…".
In fairness, I must say that the resolution goes on to join hon. Members opposite in regretting
"that the Secretary of State has thought it necessary to include ratification of candidates by chiefs…"
It seems to me, however, that we are really only arguing about the mechanics, whether it will be physically possible to get the chiefs together, and so on, and not about the principle. Surely, in a society which has recently been patriarchal, there is something to be said for making sure that the man who is to be a spokesman publicly under the new regime should have some kind of endorsement from the traditional leaders of his country.
But rather than take up much more of the time of the House, I should like to go back to a point made by the hon. Member for Wednesbury when he spoke about Nyasaland and we were thinking of the advanve that has come from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) made the point that under federation Nyasaland had progressed very considerably. The answer was, "Yes, but how much of that has gone to the people?" It is not very easy to sort out, but I notice that the national income of the Federation as a whole has risen from £236 million in 1957 to £326 million in 1958. On current account alone, Nyasaland is £3 million a year better off as a result of federation. About £4½ million were spent out of revenue and capital accounts on Government service in 1952, whereas in the current year the figure is £12 million.
Nyasaland has benefited by, as it were, contracting out or being contracted out from the Congo Basin Treaties, and other economic advantages have sprung from federation as well. When we come back, as we must in this debate, to the democracy which we want to see in Central Africa, we must take account of
660
the fact that it is one thing to erect a Parliamentary façade but it is quite another to build a modern State with all the apparatus of economic development that goes with it.
When we consider this matter we are surely not looking at a single debate about the slogan of one man, one vote. We are looking at the whole complex that builds up and is the fabric of modern democracy. It is not simply the £, or voting; it is also trade unions and many other things which are part and parcel of a modern State and which are possible only on a fairly wide economic basis.
One reason why we have to go carefully about this is that if we say in the House things which have the effect of dividing opinion in Northern Rhodesia, instead of uniting it, of encouraging criticism of the federal project rather than encouraging people to rally behind it, we may well tend to scare away capital and the means of development, upon which in the end the full universal franchise which we all want will depend for its stability and success.
I am equally worried when I see some of the Europeans who likewise take an unduly negative line. I was disappointed to read that Mr. Garfield Todd, as well as Sir Roy Welensky, were talking about the two Africans in the Executive Council as being a kind of "colour bar in reverse". I am worried just as much that unwise things will be said incautiously by the Europeans out there as by ourselves in respect of Africans.
If we do not seek in the House to reach the highest common factor of agreement, we shall be helping to set aside and to weaken a Federation which I believe is indeed not the last but the best hope in Africa. That is why I believe that we are wise and responsible if we give our support to Her Majesty's Government now in their proposals.
I am not arguing, and I would not claim the knowledge with which to argue, that these proposals are perfect, or even that they are very good, but they are the product of very considerable thought and discussion with the best people on the spot. I do not believe that they correspond to some evil white ambition simply to establish a sort of dictatorship. I believe, rather, that they represent a courageous effort to hold the balance,

661
without which there is indeed the danger that these four poles of Africa will fly apart.
8.25 p.m.
Mr. G. A. Pargiter: The hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Patrick Maitland) said that this was a simple system of suffrage. If it is, God save me from a simple system.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: I said that the British system, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) referred, was simple. No, by contrast this African system is very complicated.
Mr. Pargiter: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member, because I would regard universal adult suffrage as the only simple system that I know. Whether this is the appropriate time to introduce such a system in this case is a matter for discussion, but let us get out of our minds any idea that there is anything simple about this proposed system.
It is unfortunate that these or any other proposals will be judged by the Africans on the basis of whether or not they will mean that ultimately power will rest with the majority of the people, whereas the white minority will judge the proposals by reference to whether power will be taken away from them. As I understand it, neither side in Northern Rhodesia is agreed on these proposals, and the Secretary of State, therefore, has decided that the proposals must go through. He says, "I do not agree with either side, but this is what it will be, because I consider that the proposals are reasonable."
Politically, that may be the right thing to do, but the important and underlying fact in connection with this or any other system of suffrage in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland is not whether there will be five or six Africans or more sitting in the Legislative Assembly, or a certain number of Africans sitting in the Federal Parliament. These proposals will he judged by the ultimate effect upon the people themselves.
The Africans want proposals, not in terms of the number of people in the Legislative Assembly or elsewhere, but in terms of where the real power rests. When we think in those terms we must turn our minds to some statements made not many weeks ago in connection with
662
the election, when the Government Party were outdoing the Dominion Party in demands that they would make on this Parliament in 1960. No proposals of any value at all will be acceptable to the African population under this umbrella, as they see it at present, if there is a possibility of power being handed over in terms of full Dominion status to the Federation in 1960, I think it would give federation a much greater chance to survive—and it is becoming now a question of survival—if the Government said emphatically that there can be no question of Dominion status in 1960.
Even if these proposals were to lead to a much wider franchise, the African population would ask what guarantee they would have about what would happen under Dominion status. We would say. of course, that we would include entrenched clauses. Well, we all know what happened to the entrenched clauses in South Africa. They have gone with the wind, and, in exactly the same way, if a party in power in that Dominion though: fit, any entrenched clauses would also go the same way. We must have regard to that basic factor in considering African opinion about any proposals we put forward. These proposals can be offered as an advance because they start from virtually nothing, and so anything is an advance for African suffrage; but does I represent any advance from the point of view of real power?
When we think in these terms, I am reminded of two Questions I had down for today, the Answers to which I have here. They are significant. In one Question I asked what was the position with regard to African apprenticeship in the mining industry in Northern Rhodesia, and also what opportunities there were on a multiracial basis. The Answer I received was that since June there have been opportunities for African apprenticeship in the mining industry, but to date no African has been appointed. When I went on to ask what opportunities for multi-racial training there are, I was told that there are no opportunities for the multi-racial training of apprentices.
Can one imagine Africans being trained for the mining industry unless there is multi-racial apprenticeship? How can they be trained? The answer is that they will not be trained. The Africans know

663
it. Basically they know these things will not happen, and basically they will always be suspicious of everything we do. It is not what we put on paper that matters, it is how we behave—how the white people who are in Africa behave—that really matters. I cannot help thinking that this is one of the things that make them believe that, when we talk here about the advancement of Africans, we are talking with our tongues in our cheeks.
There are proposals to federalise European agriculture in Nyasaland. I do not know whether there are any powers under the Constitution to do that, but I find that the Governor is to discuss this question with the federal authorities. How does this appear to Africans in Nyasaland? What is the object behind federalising agriculture if it is not eventually to strengthen the position of the white minority in Nyasaland? It might be a good thing to do, but it does not appear so to the average African. These are important factors and, for these reasons, these constitutional changes are unlikely to be acceptable.
Again, for the first time this year the federal forces undertook their manœuvres not any longer in Southern Rhodesia but in Nyasaland. There is nothing much in this. They are in the Federation, but Nyasaland is regarded as a possible trouble spot and there might be a certain prescience in exercising the troops in that country. At least, that is how it would appear to the African people. The intention may have been innocent, but I should have thought that, with the tension there is, the last thing the Federal Government ought to he doing is to create any additional suspicions.
The fact remains that the suspicions are there. We were all asked at the time of our visit, "If Ghana can have self-government, why cannot Rhodesia, with its long record of progressive government?" It depends what is meant by the phrase "progressive government". It is difficult to get these people to see that there is a great difference between an area with a white dominant minority in a vast African country, and another area which has never been subject to white dominion.
There were troubles in Ghana. It was said that certain of the Europeans were inclined to give derisory smiles and to
664
say, "This is what you get for handing power over to the native people", and not being particularly sorry because those troubles were occurring. These are the people who are seeking power in Central Africa. One cannot wonder that the Africans are suspicious. One cannot wonder that, whatever methods of franchise are adopted, they will be suspicious until they are certain that a great measure of progress has been made about African franchise and that there can be no question of more power being handed over to the white people who at present rule in the Federation.
If it were not bedevilled with talk of possible Dominion status in 1960, federation would still stand a chance of success. Provided that it is multi-racial, federation is the right course. It is not right that Nyasaland should be hived oft as the poor relation with few resources, nor that that should happen to Northern Rhodesia. As a conception, federation is a good idea. It should be encouraged, but it can be encouraged only by a much greater and more progressive movement towards handing over more power to the African people and a clear understanding that they will not be subject to the domination of a white minority, and that by the time it is appropriate to discuss Dominion status, there will be at least a sufficient number of Africans to exercise a dominant vote on whether Dominion status should be attained.
The Government should regard these proposals as merely an interim in the context of the present troubles in Central Africa. In that context, the proposals do not matter so much and they can be seen as some progress on the lines along which development takes place. Whatever Sir Roy Welensky said to the Secretary of State during his recent visit, when he discussed the future of the Federation, we should make it perfectly clear that no more power will be handed over to the Federation until we are satisfied that there is more progress towards equality between white and coloured—and I mean "coloured" in every sense.
If we can do that, the Africans may see themselves progressing faster than is now the case and they might then be prepared to play a much more active par than they are likely to do with the present proposals. It must be appreciated that from time to time we shall be faced with the fact that the Africans have found the

665
power of the boycott. They have not always used it wisely, but they have recognised its power.
We can all agree that there will be no ultimate solution to these problems unless the Africans are brought into it. If they use the power of the boycott, decisions reached as a result of elections in which Africans have not taken part will have no validity whatever. It is highly desirable that we should give some stability to this country, and that will be obtained only if the Africans can move forward with a degree of security in the future, ultimately to take their proper place in the government of their own country.
8.38 p.m.
Sir Archer Baldwin: The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) compared South Africa with what we are now proposing for the newly formed Constitution of Northern Rhodesia.
Mr. Pargiter: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. I said that if there were any question of handing over Dominion status, whatever might be said about entrenched clauses and things of that kind, entrenched clauses would possibly go the same way in this case as they had in South Africa.
Sir A. Baldwin: I am sorry that I did not follow what the hon. Member was saying.
I want to emphasise a point made in a letter to The Times this morning. It is signed by Laura Grimond—I do not know whether she is Miss, or Mrs., or whether the lady has any connection with the Leader of the Liberal Party. She said:
"The obligations of Protectorate status and trusteeship necessitate the specific inclusion of Africans in the Legislature until the franchise is broadened to give them a more equal share in the choice of all representatives."
The letter comes from the Africa Bureau.
That is exactly what we are proposing in this Constitution. We do not agree with what was done in South Africa. In that case, instead of waiting for a steady evolution control was handed over too rapidly—I believe by the Liberal Party—with the result that we had apartheid. It is to avoid any chance of apartheid in Central Africa that we are taking these steady and slow steps in this Constitution. To say that the suggestions being made for a reform of the Constitution are not
666
improving the position of the African is just nonsense. At present, there are four Africans in the Legislature, and we are proposing that there shall be eight. That is an immediate advance of 100 per cent., and that is making a very great contribution to the improvement of the position of the African in Northern Rhodesia.
During the last century Britain and other European countries went in for colonialism. In the twentieth century colonialism is quietly going out, and in the early part of the century Canada, New Zealand and Australia have evolved from Colonial Territories into great independent countries. That was done by a steady evolution, and we want to do the same thing for the countries that we are talking about today.
What the House must decide is the pace at which we shall give the African more representation in his own country. It is no good trying to give illiterate and uneducated Africans a universal vote. Of all the nonsense that I have heard today the idea that we should give them universal suffrage is the greatest, and I am sorry that any hon. Member can be so unrealistic—
Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I always listen with interest to what the hon. Member says. Would he apply his remarks to Jamaica, to whom we gave universal suffrage although the inhabitants were illiterate?
Sir A. Baldwin: The difference between Ghana, Jamaica and some other countries to whom we have given a greater or lesser degree of self-determination is that they are not multi-racial societies. We are now talking about a country which we want to build up on a multi-racial basis, and if we attempt to drive the Europeans out of Northern Rhodesia it will be a sad day not only for them but even more so for the Africans.
I am sorry that certain statements have been made tonight, particularly by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), whose vicious attack upon a liberal-minded man, Sir Roy Welensky, drove him away from the House, where he had been listening to the debate. I am sorry about that because we all have a great respect for Sir Roy Welensky, and we know what he has done in following in the footsteps of that other great Rhodesian, Lord Malvern I fear

667
that Sir Roy will go back with a very poor opinion of this House.
Much criticism has been made of the common roll. A decision had to be made between a common roll and a communal roll, and I am sure that the Government's decision for a common roll was the right one. The idea of a qualified vote is an excellent way of giving the vote eventually to many more Africans. At present, we have two standards, and it is right that there should be two standards. It will create in the man with the qualified vote today the ambition to get on to the ordinary voters' list, and he will do all he can to reach that status.
I was surprised when the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East quoted a figure of about 7,000 Africans on the qualified voting roll as against about 8,000 on the ordinary roll. When I asked how many of the voters on that roll were special and how many were ordinary he said that I ought to read the White Paper. I wanted the hon. Member to say that all the 7,000 voters were, in fact, not fully qualified voters. Therefore, it is quite right that their vote should be devalued to make it fair compared with the European vote. Obviously, it is unfair to make a European pass certain standards before he can obtain a vote and do something less in the case of the Africans.
Until all the Africans can qualify as ordinary voters, as they will do eventually, this arrangement of a qualified and an ordinary vote is an excellent way of achieving fairness.
Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member will run himself out of Northern Rhodesia if he goes on like that.
Sir A. Baldwin: If the present practice continues, there will be a good chance of bloodshed in Central Africa. Let us go on quietly in the way we are proposing and as we have been doing for many years. The difference between hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite is that hon. Members opposite think that the only advance which Africans desire is political advance. I agree with Lord Malvern who, some years ago, when he was Sir Godfrey Huggins, said, "I am bringing my Africans to understand"—
Mr. Callaghan: "My Africans"?
Sir A. Baldwin: Sir Godfrey Huggins said he was bringing his Africans—
Mr. Callaghan: "His Africans"?
Sir A. Baldwin: —to understand that they must prove themselves economically before they advanced politically. That he did, and when I visited the country before federation, the relationship between the Africans and Europeans in Southern Rhodesia was excellent. Today, we are trying to disturb the whole arrangement which has been built up among those people.
There is one way in which the African will qualify for an ordinary vote and that is by an improvement in his education. We have made great strides in that direction. I do not know the present figures for Northern Rhodesia, but the figures for Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia are outstanding. In Southern Rhodesia there are 10,500 African teachers. How many were there twenty-five years ago? They reach a maximum salary of over £1,000 a year and that must be a great advance. There are three African education officers in Nyasaland who receive a salary of £1,300 a year and that is the sort of thing which we consider should be encouraged.
The ordinary African in Central Africa should receive his education in that country. I do not agree with the idea of a few Africans being brought to this country to spend three years in a university and then for them to go back to Africa with the sole idea of dominating their fellow Africans. To me, education means a universal education, particularly for the women.
I am sorry that we were unable today to hear a speech from Mr. Stanley Evans, who was the former Member of Parliament for Wednesbury. He would have made a valuable contribution to this debate because he had a robust, sensible and common-sense outlook. He was a fellow delegate with me on a visit to the territories before federation was agreed to, and I should have been glad to listen to what he would have had to say had he been able to take part in this debate.
A great deal has been said about holding back the African workers in the mines and on the railways. I agree that that is happening, but it is the fault of the European Mineworkers' Union. It has been suggested that we should interfere with

669
the union in that country. I wonder what would be said if we started to interfere with trade unions in this country. It is a matter which must be dealt with, but it must be dealt with by the trade unions in Africa.
Times were rather bad when I was in Africa and I remember a meeting of mine owners who told us about the difficulties which mine owners were experiencing with their unions. He said that if they continued to try to hold down the Africans there would be bloodshed in the Copperbelt. That is what was happening there. It was not the European settlers who were holding these people down; it was the trade unions. The same applies to the railways. They will not allow the ordinary Africans to advance on the railways. We have to give the African a greater chance in life, a chance not based on the colour of his skin.
When I was out there I said to some of the Europeans, "If you have no confidence in being able to compete with the Africans, then you ought to leave the country and go to England, where there is a Welfare State and you can get something for nothing." This is something which has to be tackled promptly, otherwise there will be a great deal of trouble in Central Africa. I speak as one with a great affection for the African and the European in Central and East Africa. I know quite well that if we do not interfere with them and we let them advance to equality they will remain a happy country because they have made great advances in education and other ways during the last forty or fifty years. If we in this country interfere too much I shall be very sorry to think of what the eventual outcome will be.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I understand that the hon. Member for Leominster (Sir A. Baldwin) said that Sir Roy Welensky had left the House offended by what had been said during the course of the debate. I should have thought that Sir Roy would hardly be offended by anything that had been said today, they being so gentlemanly compared with his own remarks. I should like to quote what was reported in the Observer on Sunday, 9th November. The report referred to a meeting which Sir Roy was addressing and he is reported as saying:
670
'…'the fairly large proportion of the people of the Federation who look over the shoulders of the Federal Government to a certain element that sits in the House of Commons—an element that always has been prepared to give comfort to Britain's enemies. If we are going to build up a great State in Africa, that cannot continue—I am going to stop it.'"
The report goes on to say that he was cheered by 700 white settlers, but that
"a hundred curious Africans at the back of the hall were silent."
I say to Sir Roy that we shall do all possible to stop Dominion status if this is the kind of rule to be carried out at the expense of the overwhelming masses of these British subjects and British-protected persons for whom we have a responsibility.
Sir A. Baldwin: The right hon. Gentleman is quoting a newspaper which is anti-British every time.
Mr. Bottomley: My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) began his speech by putting, clearly and concisely, many searching questions and I hope that the Under-Secretary will reply to them. For the sake of brevity and to give him more time, because I understand that he wants a litle longer time tonight, I will not repeat those questions but leave him to answer them.
I think that the Colonial Secretary lacked his usual zest and confidence this afternoon. I know that he was suffering from a slight infection of the throat, but I think that if the truth wore told he and his Department had not their hearts in the proposals contained in the Command Paper now before us. All are agreed that this Constitution determines the make-up of the Northern Rhodesian delegation to attend the Federal Conference in 1960. I do not think that any independently-minded person will say that the Africans have fair representation in the Legislative Council under these proposals. There are to be 22 elected members, six official and two nominated; and yet of this number, only eight are to be Africans. There are to be two African ministers.
I took careful note of what the Secretary of State said. These Ministers are to be appointed by the Governor after consultation with the leader of the majority party. Does this mean that an African

671
cannot be appointed without the white political majority agreeing to his appointment?
Mr. Lennox-Boyd: After consultation, but the discretion remains wholly with the Governor.
Mr. Bottomley: I know, but after the leader of the majority party has had his say it will be a very brave Governor who flouts his wishes completely. Time will tell.
The Colonial Secretary said that if the claim to parity were conceded this would mean a greater struggle for power. Does he think that the struggle for power would be so intense under those conditions as it will be now, when the majority of Africans—the moderate Africans and those who do not share the more moderate opinions of their colleagues—are to combine? They will put on the pressure, and the struggle for power will be much greater than it would have been if there had been parity and if many Africans had been given responsibility, jobs to do and a share in the administration.
I understand that no group of any race supports the proposals contained in the White Paper. The African Congress certainly opposes it, as do the other African organisations they are unanimous in this respect. I think that the proposals are made to ensure a European domination. Of course, they are made to appear as an inter-racial democracy, but I make the accusation that there has been some gerrymandering. I prove that by quoting the way in which the constituencies have been arranged. They have been arranged to ensure that the African elected representatives come from the rural areas.
Two-thirds of the chiefs must give their support before a candidate can stand for election. Most of the progressive chiefs have been removed, and we cannot lose sight of the fact that the chiefs now in power are civil servants, and to this extent there is not the same freedom to give opportunities to a candidate to stand for election as if they were completely traditional chiefs in the accepted sense which the Colonial Secretary mentioned in his speech. The Constitution gives less opportunity for the vocal and more politically conscious African in the townships to stand for election, and to this
672
extent I think that there has been gerry-mandering even in providing for the election of candidates to the Legislative Council.
The Governor of Rhodesia said that he wants a system of government which will give confidence, which will rest on consent, which does not imply domination of any one race over another and which, in the light of events, will remain durable. These are admirable sentiments which we can all share, but the Government does not rest on consent. The vast majority of the African population will not be represented on the Executive or the Legislative Council. Both of them will be dominated by Europeans. The system perpetuates European domination in the Assembly.
Many Europeans in the territory are only temporary settlers, but both they and those of a more permanent character were aware when they entered Northern Rhodesia, or should have been aware, of the solemn promises made to the Africans that under no circumstances would they be transferred to the political control of a European minority. There are restrictions on the potential African voter, and we have been told this afternoon how complicated these proposals are.
My hon. Friends—and hon. Members opposite—have admitted how complicated the proposals are. If it is difficult for hon. Members to understand, how much more difficult is it for Africans to understand a White Paper which, I am told, is very difficult to translate into an African language? So these poor souls have presented to them a document difficult for them to understand for that reason, and there are other restrictions that make it difficult for them to get the vote.
These restrictions go further than anything that we have ever done in this House. In the whole of our political history we have never said that it would be necessary for a person to be able to complete in English, without assistance, a form making application to vote, yet this is what we are putting on the Africans in Northern Rhodesia.
For the following particulars I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand). He told me that Professor Douglas Cole once said that a Fabian meeting, about forty years ago, was contemplating electing the executive by proportional representation. One delegate

673
failed to fill in his paper correctly. He went up a second time and, again, was wrong. That gentleman was Lord Pass-field, then Sidney Webb, if such a matter was difficult for him to comprehend, we can well imagine the position of the poor African faced with this necessity of writing in English, and of being able to fill in all the necessary details in order to have the right to vote.
I intervened when the hon. Member for Leominster said that the Africans were illiterate and uneducated, and should not, therefore, have the vote. Let us learn from experience. In the last war, we gave the Jamaicans universal adult suffrage, even though they were illiterate, and even though they were ignorant. That experiment worked, and we now have a plural society, and a community that really belongs to the British Commonwealth of Nations—something that we all desire.
We want to give to the Central Africans the same advantage that we gave to the Jamaicans, but the Governor of Northern Rhodesia has said that he does not want the vote to be given to those who have not given to the country its wealth and welfare and cannot exercise the vote with judgment and public spirit.
What does the White Paper do? What it does not do is to make provision for an African miner or for an African agricultural worker, but would anybody deny that those workers contribute to the wealth of the country? They do, and many of those Africans whom we have met here exercise a judgment and a public spirit equal to that of any European.
The constitutional proposals blow cold wind on the hopes of African moderate opinion. I believe that, as presented, the Constitution strengthens federalisation, the policy followed by the Government since the Central African Council was ended. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) had that Council in mind as a means of bringing about economic federation, with great benefits to the community.
Southern Rhodesia saw the dangers of this. That Council was destroyed and, from them on, there was a political federation moving forward more strongly than other causes that were justified, such as economic development. As a result
674
of federation, the Federal Government wanted still further to strengthen their position, and, therefore, introduced amending legislation resulting in the Constitutional Amendment Act and the Franchise Act.
The African Affairs Board came into being to safeguard the interests of Africans. It had one European and one African representative from each of the three territories, with Sir John Moffatt, whom we all accept as an able and impartial person, as chairman. He was disgusted at the action of the Government. saying that
"The African peoples were told at meeting after meeting of the safeguards which the Constitution contained for them. We pledged our word.
Then we let the Africans down by going against not only their wishes, but the wishes of those responsible for their protection. In my opinion, the Government sold the pass as far back as April. 1957 It was then that they told the Federal Prime Minister that the United Kingdom would agree to entrust the Federation with greater responsibility, and certain other powers were given to it, such as direct access to the Sovereign on particular matters.
It was agreed that the Civil Service in the Federation should be recruited and locally based. What was the most dangerous thing? It was to suggest a review in 1960 as a further means of constitutional advance, saying that it would enable the Federation to become eligible for membership of the Commonwealth. The Federal Prime Minister has just been here, fortified, as he says, in that demand to obtain full membership of the Commonwealth, and I quote his words:
"I regard the Election result as a clear indication by the voters of the Federation that they wish to see more progress towards early independence."
Who are the voters? There is a population of 7 million Africans and 300,000 Europeans. On the general roll of voters, only 4 per cent. are non-Europeans. The mass of the Africans refused even to register to vote. Only 692 of them, in fact, took the trouble to do so, although I do not think that they all voted. The Africans say that they are opposed to federation because of the political power that is concentrated in the hands of the small European population before the Africans have reached a stage of political

675
experience to hold their own. Now we make it more or less impossible for them to be adequately represented.
I ask whether we can leave the destiny of the Africans to this small minority? Let us not forget that the total European population in the Federation is less than that of a large-sized English town. As a matter of fact, on looking at the voting records, I find that the Prime Minister received fewer votes than I received when was first elected for a town council nearly thirty years ago. Is this the formidable victory? Is this the man who demands the leadership to which the Colonial Secretary referred this afternoon? We should be failing in our duty if we regarded this as a formidable election victory. It is far from it. He is the leader of a very small minority in a large country.
It is my belief—and it has been said on both sides of the House—that Sir Roy Welensky is a liberal-minded person, but not as liberal-minded as he used to be. I am sure that he would not take it amiss if I place him in the same category as the late Field Marshal Smuts. I remember going to the United Nations, where I was privileged to become friendly with him. He once said to me, "I want the advice of my revolutionary friend. I think that the Indians in South Africa ought to be represented in our Parliament. It would be very difficult to get an Indian to represent the Indians, because the white people would not stand for that, but I want to establish the principle, and, once the principle is established, from then on we could go ahead with an Indian to represent the Indians. But what has been the result? I have had an election in Natal and have lost votes, and the Indians say they will not have a white man to represent them at any cost. There have been riots, and some have been killed and many wounded."
I remember that I said to him that there are no degrees of a principle. I said, Stand on the principle," and, if he were alive today, he would, I am sure, be the first to admit that it was as a result of not following that principle that the Nationalists got into power and made it possible for them to continue doing the disservice which they are doing to the British Commonwealth and probably to the whole of the Western world.
676
As a matter of fact, there is no difference indeed between the Dominion Party and the Federal Party. The reactionaries are getting control. They destroyed Garfield Todd, a liberal-minded man. Let Sir Roy Welensky reflect that he has taken over the leadership where a man of greater liberal outlook was pushed out because he wanted to advance too quickly. It is to the Garfield Todds and the liberal-minded men that we ought to give our support. They are there, and 600 voted for the Constitutional Party. I agree that is not a lot, but there is a hope in this reactionary area when, all told, 650 of these white colleagues of ours know that we must advance at the right rate if we are to save that part of the world for the kind of life in which we believe.
The Africans dislike intensely the way in which they are treated. Only last week, I met a clergyman home on leave from the territories. He said he was distressed at the way Europeans—not all, of course, but just the rather so-called hard-headed, reactionary few—treated the Africans. Before he left his last church service, he told me, one of his staunchest church members came to him and said, "I hate white men." The clergyman told me that in all the years he had been in the territory never had that been said to him before. He looked at the African and said, "I am a white man", but the African, he told me, just smiled.
That is the kind of atmosphere which is developing in this part of the world. Africans hate being called "boys" and "natives", or, to take the words the hon. Member for Leominster just now used in a possessive sense, "my Africans" and "our Africans". They are, after all, individuals in their own right. Many of them may be ignorant and illiterate, but that is no fault of theirs.
It would be wrong to dismiss the Africans as being without culture or tradition. Ancient civilisations existed in Africa long before our own. I suggest that Africans ought to be regarded as of a different culture rather than of an inferior culture. Moreover, there is the impact of Western civilisation upon them. There are African bishops, judges, doctors, journalists, craftsmen, technicians, and an African Prime Minister. Who will deny that all of these can hold their own with any holding similar positions in any other race?

677
Good relations must be established, and this depends upon mutual respect. In this country, we have our class differences. The professor and the dustman seldom meet. They have not much in common. But their sons may become doctors together, in which case they will discuss common problems. They may even become friends. They will live in the same kind of district and the same kind of house. Their children will go to the same kind of school. But if an African becomes a member of a profession or a craftsman, it is not only human nastiness which puts up the colour bar. The colour bar is used as a political and economical weapon.
Racialism can become a boomerang. There is a fear among white people of meeting racial equality, but I say to my friends in the Federation that the longer they go on not recognising the need for racial equality, the more will they ensure that a premium is put on rabble-rousing. Of course, racial equality does not mean equal pay for all. It does mean equal pay for equal work. It does not mean government by voodoo, but it does mean the sharing of leadership in politics among intelligent men regardless of pigmentation. We have a responsibility for these Africans in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. They are protected persons, and we cannot ignore our responsibilities.
The time has come for us to pause and think deeply on the trends now developing throughout the African continent. Africa has been the sleeping giant over the ages. During this century, the giant has begun to stir, chafing against the chains. He is now on the verge of full awakening. We in Britain may be treated as his friends or his enemies. This is still to be decided. Our actions tonight will greatly influence that decision.
The lifeline of democracy and Parliamentary forms is dangerously stretched in Asia and in Africa. I need hardly emphasise the importance of these two continents in our twentieth century world. We have seen quite recently in Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia and the Sudan—we hope only temporarily—the ending of Parliamentary democracy. We shall betray our responsibility as a world influence if we just shrug our shoulders at this development, telling ourselves that we have no responsibility.
678
Tonight, we have to consider our responsibilities to Central Africa in this wider context. What we really have to do is to discuss and decide in this House the character of the society which we aim to produce in the Central African Territories. We are by no means the only determining factor. Nevertheless, we have a major responsibility which we cannot shirk. After all, well over 6 million of the inhabitants of Central Africa are still in one degree or another under our protection. Do we want to see a Central African society recognising the individual rights and responsibilities regardless of race; or are we content to assist in creating an aristocratic society in which a small minority dominates the majority?
The decisions that we make on the Constitution which we are discussing will, in fact, determine this issue. We no longer have much direct influence on the policies of the Federal Government. We have, however, an unlimited responsibility for the political affairs of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. What we are determining tonight is not simply how those political affairs are to be ordered for the next few years; we are deciding two vital points.
First, as I said earlier, the character of the Northern Rhodesian delegation which will attend the 1960 conference on the future of the Federation. The apologists for federation, both here and in Central Africa, have always claimed that there was no way of measuring African opinion. Here is our opportunity to put the matter right. But are we to ensure that the views of the 2 million Africans are heard, or shall we allow them to be whittled down to a minimum? This is what will happen if we accept the Northern Rhodesian constitution tonight.
It is ridiculous to suggest that the 2 million African inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia can be adequately represented by only eight members. Even these members, as I have tried to show, will be in varying degrees subject to European influence. I emphasise once again that so long as there is the situation where the chiefs, two-thirds of whom must be responsible for allowing a candidate to go forward, are not free men in the accepted sense, it is obvious that there will not be a free and independent candidate. This is not, in my judgment, the way to ensure that the wishes of the inhabitants are met

679
so that their views will be fully represented at the federal conference which is to be held in 1960.
The second point to which I should like to refer is perhaps of even greater importance. Since the Federation was first mooted in 1951, there has been a steady loss of trust by the Africans of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland both in their white neighbours and, perhaps more important, in British faith. We must stem this trend and again take the initiative in leading those who trust in us towards a healthy friendly society. To do this, we have to show them that we believe in their right and capability to become full and equal citizens, taking a fully responsible position in the conduct of their own affairs.
There are already dangerous trends that can be seen in both territories and, indeed, throughout the whole of multiracial Africa. White racialism inevitably provokes black racialism. Some sections of the African communities have already despaired of the white man and are turning their faces against him. In South Africa for instance, in Tanganyika, in Kenya and in Uganda, which the Under-Secretary of State and I know so well, having been together on a Parliamentary mission to Kenya, as well as in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, people who call themselves Africanists have begun to agitate against those Africans who, like us, believe in the democratic way of life.
These Africans declare that Africa is for the Africans and that they want to get rid of the white man. This is understandable in places like South Africa, where the white man has imposed an absolute tyranny on the African population. But the danger which we have to face is that it is now spreading to other places where the final authority rests with us.
I suggest to the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that this is an extremely dangerous development. It is caused when the white communities appear to try to hold on to their dominant power instead of holding out a genuine hand of friendship to the African and encouraging him to enter fully the political scene. When the Colonial Office seems to be supporting such a white policy, faith in Britain inevit
680
ably suffers. The African masses inevitably turn impatiently against those leaders who continue to preach democratic evolution.
We on this side condemn this racialist trend as completely among black racialists as among white. Condemnation, however, is not enough. We have to use our influence to ensure that the pace of African progress is sufficiently fast to convince the African that there is a future for him in the world of democracy. We on this side believe that we have made that case and that if the Government were doing their duty towards democracy they would support our Amendment.
9.21 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I am sure my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary would wish me to start by saying that this debate has been not only of great interest but of great value to him in making the final decisions which he must make with regard to this problem.
I wish, however, to correct the impression given by the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) when he alleged that my right hon. Friend's heart was not in the contents of the White Paper. I assure all right hon. and hon. Members opposite that this proposal for Northern Rhodesia has, from the very beginning, received the closest and most careful personal consideration by my right hon. Friend. It is a matter to which he attaches the greatest importance, not only in its general principles but in its detail also.
We have had a number of speeches which have brought forward points of inquiry and criticism, and with many of which, even with the additional time which the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham has so courteously allowed me, I may not be able to deal; but I should like to try to cover as much ground as possible.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) drew attention to the importance of framing our policy for territories in process of constitutional change in such a way as to ensure that all effort and attention is not paid to constitutional mechanism and franchises alone, but so that we may also develop within those

681
territories an adequate, informed, skilful civil service, drawn from the peoples of the territories themselves, which maintains the high standard of integrity we have always wished to obtain and have obtained from our public services overseas.
One of the first things which has happened, for instance, in the case of the Federation has been the reorganisation of the federal public service and the opening of its various ranks to Africans who, as a result, will be able to assist not only in the detailed work of the Administration but will also be able to develop full opportunities for rising to most responsible positions in that territory. That seems to me to he full evidence of the importance which not only my right hon. Friend in his responsibilities but the federal authorities also pay to the particular point which my hon. and learned Friend mentioned. I am sure that he is right in saying that in our experience of the Indian Empire the greatest of all the legacies we left behind at the time of the transference of power were those skilled men of great experience and high integrity who formed part of the Indian Civil Service during the latter days of the Raj.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) asked me, among other things, whether it would be the duty of the Governor to consult the leaders of the majority party not only in the selection of the Executive Council members, but in deciding upon the selection for nomination of the two nominated members. The Secretary of State has confirmed that while it will be incumbent upon the Governor that he should undertake these consultations, discretion remains, as is always the case, with the Governor as to the eventual decision at which he will arrive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine), in what, if I may say so with respect, was a most excellent speech, drew attention to a point which is too often overlooked in our debates here, and particularly in speeches from hon. Members opposite, and that is the very real material advantages, economically and socially, which have already resulted from federation. In the circumstances of a country which has really a very long way to go in its political and economic development, we
682
would be totally wrong to leave out of account the important economic progress which the Federation has made since federation and which in the long run will provide the only firm basis for the political future of the country as a whole.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and, indeed, many other hon. Members questioned me about various aspects of the plan for a veto by the chiefs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—and I mention this in order to clear up a misunderstanding which I think is in the mind of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse)—when asked if he would give his ideas as to what would be the relationship of the chiefs to their councils in this matter, gave this explanation: be said that if there were to be an affirmative decision by the chief in respect of a candidate, that would be signed and witnessed in the way set out in paragraph 52 of the Report. If it were to be a negative decision it was my right hon. Friend's view that the probability was that the chief, in those circumstances, would carry out his functions in what ho referred to as in foro publico, with the assistance of his councillors and advisers.
I was asked about the process of signing by the witnesses of the chief's decision. That is set out clearly in the paragraph to which I have already referred. The certificate needs to be signed in the presence of witnesses duly appointed by the Governor, and the character and nature of the witnesses will be, naturally, for his decision.
In reply to various other points raised in the debate, the best that I can do is to repeat the words which my right hon. Friend used in his speech when he said:
"I am looking into certain points which have arisen out of the representations which have been made to me and I will consider carefully any views on this subject which may be expressed in the course of this debate."
My right hon. Friend has firmly undertaken to consider all the points raised. I know the importance which he attaches to this aspect of the proposals and in due course, having done so, he will make up his mind.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury repeated, if I may say so, the outrageous

683
speech—and I use "outrageous", which is a popular word with him—which he made on the last occasion that we debated these matters. He asked why British-protected persons should swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. But it is incumbent upon British-protected persons to owe allegiance to the Queen. Therefore, there should be neither any difficulty nor any degree of reserve on their part in carrying through that profession.
I should like now to mention one or two other points. I am sorry this should be a catalogue of replies, but I have been asked a large number of questions. One was included by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East in his speech. He criticised the fact that there might not be sufficient time, despite the additional months for registration, to get the register in existence before the forthcoming election was held. It was precisely to give enough time for that register to be completed that my right hon. Friend felt it was necessary for him to advise Her Majesty the Queen on the issue of the first Order-in-Council. That would give a lapse of time of some five to six months which, although it may not be as much as those concerned with preparing the register would wish, I think would be adequate in the circumstances of Northern Rhodesia, realising that the numbers concerned are not as colossal as they are in the United Kingdom, for the purpose of compiling a register adequate for an election in February or March of next year.
Now I will turn to the main body of the remarks of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. I will quote his words as exactly as I can and as I put them down. The hon. Gentleman said there was a deep-seated difference between his party and our party which goes right to the heart of the problem. He added that the difference of principle this represents is fundamental. This is the second time we have debated these proposals. On the previous occasion when we discussed them we were bitterly assailed, perhaps more bitterly than today, by the party opposite. All sort of tough words were used, such as hypocrisy, scandalous, humbug, outrageous—[An HON. MEMBER: "And today."] We had most of them today, but they seemed to come from different quarters.
684
At the previous debate hon. Gentlemen opposite made it clear that it was a curtain-raiser for this one. The hon. Member for Rugby was frank enough to say that this was the beginning of a great campaign against Her Majesty's Government's policies in Central Africa. I think we can take it that what was said then, what has been said this afternoon, and no doubt what will be said if the campaign materialises, will arouse great expectations in the breasts of those African politicians who regard the party opposite as their spokesman here. They will assume that all the things which are said and promised and hinted at in the speeches from the other side of the House will be carried into practice immediately a Labour Government is returned to power.
I do not want in any way to discourage hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I think I would be right in saying that many of them are beginning to feel deep down in their hearts that there may not be a majority Labour Government for a very long time, if at all. But let us suppose, for the sake of argument here, that there was one next year or the year after.
I wonder what makes hon. Members think that in handling the constitutional development of the territories of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland they will be able to advance the African community at a quicker pace than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the present Administration. Let us consider what happened when hon. Members opposite were in power during those six long years of 1945–51.
The most significant constitutional advance in the eyes of the European community in Northern Rhodesia was made at the time of the so-called "gentlemen's agreement" negotiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield and Mr. Welensky, as he then was. By that agreement, the then Secretary of State accepted the principle that if the four unofficial members of the Executive Council of Northern Rhodesia were agreed upon an issue, the Governor would accept their advice, unless the matter were so grave as to warrant the use of his reserve powers, even against the numerically preponderant official element.

685
At that time, there was no African member of the Northern Rhodesian Executive Council, although one of the European members was entrusted with the representation of African interests. While we have listened to speech after speech from hon. Members opposite devoted to the importance of having Africans as representatives of the African community in both the Legislative and Executive Councils, I wonder whether hon. Members opposite realise that when their party was in power they were perfectly happy to allow the official majority to be overridden in all matters going before the Executive Council by a body of four unofficial members, all of whom were Europeans.
Mr. Creech Jones: The Under-Secretary has repeated a quite fallacious statement which he made in the hook which he wrote on this problem. I have corrected him before, and he should know better than to repeat the legend which he has just stated. He knows perfectly well that there was appointed a person who had the confidence of the Africans to represent African interests—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— on the Executive Council. He did not tell the House that the convention which was reached was that any decision taken by the unofficial European members would be valid only in so far as the representative of African opinion endorsed it.
Mr. Alport: I said precisely that in the remarks I made before the right hon. Gentleman rose The point I am making is that hon. Members have been talking in terms of the representation of Africans by Africans, but that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of which he was a member and the party opposite were perfectly prepared, seven years ago or thereabouts, to have the representation of Africans on the Executive Council undertaken by an unofficial European member, and were prepared to allow four Europeans to override the official majority, that is, the Colonial Office representatives.
Mr. Creech Jones Mr. Creech Jones rose—
Mr. Alport: That is quite right. I have checked this extremely carefully.
Mr. Creech Jones: The Under-Secretary knows full well that the reserve powers of the Governor in respect of the decisions of the Executive were never
686
modified and therefore decisions reached by the Executive Council were subject to the Governor's consent.
Hon. Members: So what?
Mr. Alport: I have said all that. It does not detract in any way from the point I made—and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read my speech—that European representation was good enough for the Africans when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power, but that it is not now.
The moral which I hope will be drawn from this in Africa is that the attitude of the party opposite in these matters, when in Opposition, is very different from their attitude when in power. In 1951, when the Socialist Government left office, the political development of Northern Rhodesia had reached the stage where there were only two Africans in the Legislative Council and none in the Executive Council of the territory. Yet, only seven years later they are complaining that a proposal which makes it probable that there will be ten Africans in the Legislative Council, and certain that there will be two in the Executive Council, does not represent sufficient constitutional progress for the African peoples of Northern Rhodesia.
It would be fair to say that when the right hon. Member for Wakefield and the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) resided at the Colonial Office and had to tackle these matters in their stark reality they realised that the true issue of statesmanship in dealing with a plural society was not the simple matter of providing one man with one vote, but the twin problems of assuring that the constitutional development of the territory proceeded in such a way as to ensure the emergence of effective Parliamentary institutions and, at the same time, maintaining a Government of stability and law and order.
The transference of power by the provision of a constitution based upon universal suffrage is the easiest exercise that any Government can undertake. What is difficult is to ensure that the constitution is worked and provides stable Government, with the ability to maintain law and order and to promote the progress of that country subsequently.

687
I want to quote from what Sir John Moffat said in the Federal Assembly in July of this year. Sir John Moffat has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as an able and impartial person. Let me make it clear that I do not necessarily endorse Sir John Moffat's views; nor, indeed, do I share his pessimism, because I believe that in the foreseeable future to which he refers—however far ahead it may be—we shall see success for the policy of partnership and the emergence of moderate and democratic influences among the African people, without which franchises and Parliamentary constitutions can have no meaning at all. Sir John Moffat referred to
"the mathematical certainty that within a period which can be calculated with sufficient accuracy for all practical purposes the African peoples under our present electoral law"—
that is, the franchise law—
"will be in a majority on the voters roll."
He went on:
"It appears to me to be just plain stupid to try to brush this off by saying that it cannot happen in the foreseeable future because in the future which in general cannot be foreseen there are a few factors which can be told with absolute certainty, and this is one of them. Now it is possible that when that situation has been reached the African majority may be ardent and devoted democrats. It is possible, Mr. Speaker, but I do not believe it. It is possible, but the only evidence which I have available to me on which to base any judgment at present confirms my doubts in this matter. Until our African people cease to demonstrate that they are wholly subject to the extremist elements within their own society, any swing of power would be in effect a transfer of power to these extremist elements. As I have already indicated, that would mean the immediate death of democracy."
The conclusion which I wish to draw from all this, and to which I hope my arguments have brought me, clearly is this: that if the party opposite were returned to power tomorrow—which they will not be—the speed at which they would wish to press forward with the political advancement of these two territories will at best be no greater than that which has been followed by my right hon. Friend, and, from the form which they have shown when they were in power, it might very well be considerably less.
Mr. Callaghan: The last thing which the hon. Gentleman or anyone else should try to do is to make this debate a competition between the parties as to
688
who is giving advance to which quickest. What we should like to do—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Not one hon. Gentleman opposite who is shouting has been listening to the debate or has heard my speech—not one.
I want to say to the Under-Secretary of State that we would like to hear from him whether the Government stand by the pledges given to the African people, and whether they will firmly resist any attempt to whittle away the powers of the Colonial Office in favour of Dominion status?
Mr. Alport: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to the rest of my speech, during which I shall deal with those subjects, among others.
When the hon. Gentleman says that there has been no indication, no attempt or hint, by the party opposite that they are more in favour of African constitutional political progress than we are, it is frankly one of those statements which, when he reads it in cold print in HANSARD tomorrow, will make the hon. Gentleman believe that he must be dreaming—or that he was dreaming when he said it. We have not listened to the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite during the five years in which this matter has been debated in this House without knowing perfectly well that they have put themselves forward as the champions of the African people, and the campaign to which the hon. Member for Rugby was referring—
Mr. J. Johnson Mr. J. Johnson rose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Alport: —was a campaign precisely aimed at that objective. It is very dangerous—
Mr. Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right for the hon. Gentleman to say that I said something when I have not even opened my mouth? I challenge the hon. Gentleman to produce the quotation from HANSARD to which he refers.
Mr. Alport: I am willing to show it to the hon. Gentleman. I looked it up carefully, and I can promise him that will show it to him. I will produce it.
Mr. Johnson: Produce it now.
Mr. Alport: On the last occasion when we debated federal franchise I remember perfectly well making a speech in which I said that I hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not vote against us on the Motion which was then being debated, because I believed that it was so much to the advantage of Africa and the United Kingdom that there should be some form of bipartisanship in colonial politics. What happened? Everyone laughed as though I was so naive that I did not understand the party opposite. The trouble is that I gave them too much credit for having a responsible attitude to colonial affairs, and I do not intend to make that mistake again.
Hon. Gentlemen have put forward criticisms regarding the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and, as I said earlier, some of these criticisms have been constructive. They will be considered very carefully by my right hon. Friend. One point was raised by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. He said that the whole of the criticisms of my right hon. Friend's proposals would amount to the fact that they were not agreed by the Africans. I assume that he concluded from that that no constitutional progress could be justified or would be justifiable in this House unless it had been agreed by the Africans. But these proposals have not been agreed by the Europeans either. Therefore, I assume the hon. Gentleman would say that unless these proposals were agreed by the Africans and by the Europeans no constitutional progress could be made. The answer to that is simple: there would be no constitutional progress at all.
Mr. Grimond: I did not say that.
Mr. Alport: I am sorry if I have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Grimond: In the right hon. Gentleman's White Paper it says that for general purposes it is essential that even if there is not agreement by the Africans at least it is necessary to carry the Africans with him. That, so far as I know, is just what this scheme has failed to do.
Mr. Alport: That is perfectly true; that was said in the White Paper. But what is vitally important, so far as the particular proposal which my right hon. Friend has put forward, is that they
690
should be practical, and there is no evidence that the hon. Gentleman can produce that the majority of those who are to take part in the election, when they have registered and cast their votes, are not in favour of these constitutional proposals as they stand.
I have no doubt at all that in Rhodesia there are Africans who are in favour of constitutional progress and development of this kind. This will not produce all that the Africans want, any more than it will produce all that the Europeans want, but it is a step in the direction which it is the policy of this Government to take, and I would have thought that in those circumstances there would have been no other way of ensuring that step was taken.
Turning to the question of franchise, the proposals of my right hon. Friend are based upon those which were accepted for the Federation as a result of the legislation passed earlier this year, although it is perfectly true that they are applied to the constituencies in a rather different way. It has been suggested that this form of qualitative franchise is unfair to the African community. We have had an opportunity of testing this in the light of practical experience.
In the federal election, which has just been completed, so far as my figures go, I think that about 1,700 Africans registered for a vote. It is alleged—and I put it no higher than that—that in Nyasaland at any rate strong pressures were brought to bear upon the African to boycott the election. If that is true, I think that most reasonable people would infer that the most influential Africans in Nyasaland are not interested in exercising their democratic rights and are concerned only with power. If it is not true, the only inference that a reasonable observer can draw is that only a handful of the most educated and the most responsible Africans are as yet prepared to undertake the obligations which fall in a Parliamentary democracy to the enfranchised citizen.
I have been challenged from time to time with regard to the estimates which gave in the House when we were discussing the Franchise Bill. The figure that I gave was 48,000. Frankly, I see no reason to depart from that figure, but I am prepared for the sake of the argument we have been hearing to accept the

691
figure in The Times and the Economist of 40,000.
Despite the energetic efforts made by the Federal Government—I have plenty of evidence of it—to encourage qualified Africans to register, only 1,700 of this total were prepared to take the trouble to do so. Parliamentary democracy does not spring ready born into full maturity like an Athene from the brain of Zeus. Indeed, we have seen that Parliamentary democracies, unless firmly rooted in the consciousness of the people, wither like desert flowers under the tropical sun.
As far as the Northern Rhodesian Constitution is concerned, we are, I think the whole House will agree, at an early stage in its constitutional development. It is a testing time not only for our ingenuity as constitution makers and for our statesmanship, it is equally a test for the potential African electorate. It is no good pretending, in our view at any rate, that a different or more extensive franchise might solve the political problems either of Northern Rhodesia or of the Federation if, as a result of unwillingness or intimidation, there is as yet so little indication that the general body of African voters are prepared to exercise the normal responsibilities inherent for the average citizen in a Parliamentary democracy there.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East asked me about 1960 and all that. The object of Article 99 of the Federal Constitution was to ensure that the five Governments concerned had an opportunity of considering such technical changes as from experience might appear to be desirable in order to ensure smooth working and to enable the Federation to go forward along the road towards full membership of the Commonwealth.
It was summed up in an announcement made on behalf of the United Kingdom and Federal Governments as a result of discussions held in London in 1957. We referred in the first place to the future conference and, secondly, we said:
"The purpose of this conference is to review the Constitution in the light of the
experience gained since the inception of federation and in addition to agree on the constitutional advances which may be made. In this latter context the conference will consider a programme for the attainment of such a status as would enable the Federation to become eligible for full membership of the Commonwealth."
These words represent the only two commitments into which the United Kingdom Government have entered. The United Kingdom Government will be but one of the five Governments represented at the Conference, the others being the Federal Government and the three territorial Governments.
The truth of the matter is that the experience of this Federation since it was formed has more than justified the expectations which we had before 1953 of this bold political experiment. In the history of all federations there has always been a period of adjustment in the relationship between the new central Government and its component parts. There have been such occasions, for instance, in Australia and elsewhere. Such controversies and friction have in some places reached a climax of bitterness, but in the end all this has been resolved in a way which has enabled these countries to achieve great status and to maintain the integrity of the federation.
I should like to make this clear: what we regard as being most remarkable about the Federation during the last five years has been not the extent and the seriousness of the friction which has been aroused but much more the smoothness with which the Federation has been able to embark on its career as a State, which we believe to have a tremendous future. Her Majesty's Government do not contemplate any possibility of amalgamation or secession in the future. We believe that the Federation has come to stay.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 238.

Division No.13]

AYES

[9.59 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

Atkins, H. E.

Altken, W. T.

Arbuthnot, John

Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S)

Armstrong, C. W.

Baldwin, Sir Archer

Alport, C. J. M.

Ashton, H

Balniel, Lord

Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

Astor, Hon. J. J.

Barber, Anthony

Barlow, Sir John

Green, A.

McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Barter, John

Gresham Cooke, R.

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Batsford, Brian

Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Baxter, Sir Beverley

Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)

Beamish, Col. Tufton

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G..

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

Gurden, Harold

Maddan, Martin

Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Bidgood, J. C.

Harrison, A. B. C (Maldon)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Biggs-Davison, J. A.

Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.

Bingham, R. M.

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Marshall, Douglas

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Mathew, R.

Bishop, F. P.

Harvie-Watt, Sir George

Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

Black, C. W.

Hay, John

Mawby, R. L.

Body, R. F.

Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

Bosom, Sir Alfred

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Medlicott, Sir Frank

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Boyle, Sir Edward

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Morrison, John (Salisbury)

Braine, B. R.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Nabarro, G. D. N.

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Nairn, D. L. S.

Brooman-White, R. C.

Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

Neave, Airey

Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Nicholls, Harmar

Bryan, P.

Hobson, John (Warwick &Leam'gt'n)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Holland-Martin, C. J.

Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

Burden, F. F. A.

Hope, Lord John

Noble, Michael (Argyll)

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hornby, R. P.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)

Horobin, Sir Ian

O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)

Campbell, Sir David

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.

Carry, Robert

Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Cary, Sir Robert

Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian (Hendon, N.)

Chichester-Clark, R.

Howard, John (Teat)

Osborne, C.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston

Hudson, W. R. A. (Hulf, N.)

Page, R. G.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmith, W.)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

Partridge, E.

Cole, Norman

Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

Peel, W. J.

Cooke, Robert

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pickthorn, K. W. M.

Cooper, A. E.

Hurd, A. R.

Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)

Pitman, I. J.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E' b' gh, W.)

Pitt, Miss E. M.

Corfield, Capt. F. V.

Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

Pott, H. P.

Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

Hyde, Montgomery

Powell, J. Enoch

Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Iremonger, T. L.

Price, Henry (Lewisham. W.)

Crowder, Sir John (Finshley)

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.

Crowder, Petra (Ruislip—Northwood)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Profumo, J. D.

Cunningham, Knox

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Ramsden, J. E.

Currie, G. B. H.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Rawlinson, Peter

Dance, J. C. G.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Redmayne, M.

Davidson, Viscountess

Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

Renton, D. L. M.

Deedes, W. F.

Joseph, Sir Keith

Ridsdale, J. E.

de Ferranti, Basil

Kaberry, D

Rippon, A. G. F

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Keegan, D

Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Ken, Sir Hamilton

Robertson, Sir David

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

Kershaw, J. A.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Doughty, C. J. A.

Kimball, M.

Robson Brown, Sir William

Drayson, G. B.

Kirk, P. M.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

du Cann, E. D. L.

Lagden, G. W.

Roper, Sir Harold

Duncan, Sir James

Lambton, Viscount

Russell, R. S.

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

Langford-Holt, J. A.

Sharples, R. C.

Elliott, R.W.(Ne' castle upon Tyne, N.)

Leather, E. H. C.

Shepherd, William

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Leavey, J. A.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Errington, Sir Eric

Leburn, W. G.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Erroll, F. J.

Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Fell, A.

Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

Speir, R. M.

Finlay, Gramme

Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Fletcher-Cooke, C.

Linstead, Sir H. N.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard

Fort, R.

Llewellyn, D. T.

Stevens, Geoffrey

Foster, John

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfleid)

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)

Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

Freeth, Denzil

Loveys, Walter H.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Storey, S.

Gammons, Lady

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

Gibson-Watt, D.

Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Glyn, Col. Richard H.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

Godber, J. B.

Macdonald, Sir Peter

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Gough, C. F. H.

Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

Gower, H. R.

Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

Teeling, W.

Graham, Sir Fergus

McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

Temple, John M.

Grant, Rt. Hon. W. (Woodside)

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

Grant Ferris, Wg Cdr. R (Nantwich)

Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

694

695

Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)

Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Wall, Patrick

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Turner, H. F. L.

Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)

Wood, Hon. R.

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

Woollam, John Victor

Tweedsmuir, Lady

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Vane, W. M. F.

Webbe, Sir H.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Webster, David

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Vickers, Miss Joan

Whitelaw, W. S. I.

Mr. Oakshott and Mr. E. Wakefield.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Greenwood, Anthony

Moody, A. S.

Ainsley, J. W.

Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)

Albu, A. H.

Grey, C. F.

Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewle'm.S.)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mort, D. L.

Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)

Moss, R.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Grimond, J.

Moyle, A.

Awbery, S. S.

Hale, Leslie

Mulley, F. W.

Baird, J.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Neal, Harold (Bolsover)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Hamilton, W. W.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

Hannan, W.

Oliver, G. H.

Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)

Hastings, S.

Oram, A. E.

Benson, Sir George

Hayman, F. H.

Orbach, M.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Healey, Denis

Palmer, A. M. F.

Blackburn, F.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Blenkinsop, A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Pargiter, G. A.

Blyton, W. R.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Parker, J.

Boardman, H.

Holman, P.

Parkin, B. T.

Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

Holmes, Horace

Paton, John

Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)

Holt, A. F.

Peart, T. F.

Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)

Houghton, Douglas

Pentland, N.

Bowles, F. G.

Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)

Prentice, R. E.

Boyd, T. C.

Hoy, J. H.

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

Brockway, A. F.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Probert A. R.

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Proctor, W. T.

Brown, Thomas (Ince)

Hunter, A. E.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Burton, Miss F. E.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rankin, John

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Redhead, E. C.

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Reeves, J.

Callaghan, L. J.

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Reid, William

Carmichael, J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Reynolds, G. W.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Janner, B.

Rhodes, H.

Champion, A. J.

Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

Robens, Rt Hon. A.

Chapman, W. D.

Jeger, George (Goole)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Chetwynd, G. R

Jeger, Mr. Lena(Holbn & St.Pncs,S.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Clunle, J.

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Robinson Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Coldrick, W.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N)

Ross William

Collick P. H. (Birkenhead)

Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)

Royle, C.

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Shinwell Rt. Hon. E.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Short, E. W.

Cronin, J. D.

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Shurmer, P. L. E.

Crossman, R. H. S.

Kenyon, C.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

King, Dr. H. M.

Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

Darling, George (Hillsborough)

Lawson, G. M.

Skeffington, A. M.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)

Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

Deer, G.

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

Sorensen, R. W.

Delargy, H. J.

Lipton, Marcus

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Diamond, John

Logan, D.G.

Sparks, J. A.

Dodds, N. N.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Steel, T.

Donnelly, D. L.

McCann, J.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W.Brmwch)

MacColl, J. E.

Stonehouse, John

Dye, S.

MacDermot, Niall

Stones, W. (Consett)

Edelman, M.

McGhee, H. G.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

McInnes, J.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent, C.)

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

McLeavy, Frank

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Swingler, S. T.

Fernyhough, E.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Sylvester, G. O.

Finch, H. J.

Mahon, Simon

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Fitch, Alan

Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Fletcher, Eric

Mann, Mrs. Jean

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Foot, D. M.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H.A.

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W)

Forman,. J. C.

Mason, Roy

Thomas George (Dundee, E)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mayhew C. P.

Timmons, J.

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)

Mellish R. J

Tomney, F.

Gibson, C. W

Messer, Sir F

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Gooch, E. G.

Mikardo, Ian

Usborne, H.C.

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mitchison, G. R.

Viant, S. P.

696

697

Warbey, W. N.

Wilkins, W. A.

Winterbottom, Richard

Watkins, T. E.

Willey, Frederick

Woof, R. E.

Weitzman, D.

Williams, David (Neath)

Yates, V. (Ladywood)

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Zilliacus, K.

Wheeldon, W. E.

Williams, Richard (Openshaw)

White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Wigg, George

Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of Command Paper No. 530 relating to Proposals for Constitutional Change in Northern Rhodesia.

SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRY
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I wish to raise the subject of the future prospects of the British shipbuilding industry. On the surface, there does not seem to be very much to worry about. Output is being maintained and the order book shows between five or six million tons. However, if we look a little further, there is a good deal to cause concern.
If we look at the employment figures, the industry is now employing 15,000 less than it did 12 months ago. There are no vv about 13,000 men unemployed in the industry. Most of the unemployed are in ship-repairing, but it is significant that they have not been absorbed by the shipbuilding industry. If we look at the shipbuilding localities, we find that local unemployment is already beginning to show.
Looking at the order book itself, we find that particular yards, at any rate, are now facing difficulties. I know of two yards on the Wear which are already apprehensive. A third of the yards which provide dry cargo vessels will lay their last keel next year. Half of the 40 or so specialist firms have made their last launch this year, and the remainder will launch their last vessel next year unless they receive further orders.
Looking beyond the shipbuilding industry at shipping itself, we have to recognise that freights are now running at an index of about 66 as compared with 189 a couple of years ago. Moreover, these freight rates are 20 points less than the rate obtaining at the last crisis in
698
1954. We have to recognise that the depression in world shipping has persisted now for 18 months without any sign of recovery.
More important still, the trade recession is only part of the cause. If we look at the volume of the world mercantile marine, we find that whereas it was 69 million tons pre-war, it is now 110 million tons, without paying regard to the "moth-ball" fleet of 14 million tons of the United States. Indeed, the United States has not only a subsidised fleet but it has also the "Panlibhonco" fleet, which has already reached 15 million tons. All of us who are concerned with shipping and shipbuilding are concerned also about United States policy with regard to shipping and its effect upon shipbuilding.
This situation calls now for some Government action. That Government action must be not only domestic it ought to be international, too. I suggest that we should consider what action we can take within the N.A.T.O. Powers. The longer we procrastinate, the weaker becomes our negotiating position.
To turn to shipbuilding, the complacent notion that the order book was shortening and our competitive position would thereby be improved has gone. We realise that we now face a remarkable situation in world shipbuildng. Quite true, there has been some slackening of output from the Japanese yards, but this year, surprising though it may seem, world shipbuilding will attain a record output. The industry is catering for a boom which no longer exists and has not existed for 18 months.
The figures are certainly a cause of real concern. The capacity of world shipbuilding before the war was about 3 million tons. In 1950 it was 3½ million tons. This year it is more than likely that the world's shipyards will turn out 9 million tons. In other words, they will be turning out new shipping at the rate of 10 years' replacement. We all know that the replacement rate for shipping

699
remains at about 25 years. It is clear, therefore, that world capacity has considerably outrun demand.
Against this background we have to recognise that the record of British yards is disappointing and their position is becoming increasingly disturbing. To take the percentage of world output, whereas in 1948 British yards built over half the new shipping in the world, last year the percentage fell to 17 per cent. If we consider world tonnage for export, whereas in 1948 we were producing 41 per cent., a percentage which later increased to over half, last year that percentage dropped to 7 per cent.
Mr. Cyril Osborne: As this is very interesting, would the hon. Gentleman break the figures down for cargo and liners?
Mr. Willey: No. I am concerned with the general position of the shipbuilding industry.
Mr. Osborne: As a whole?
Mr. Willey: Yes. I will return to the question of the importance of the export market to British shipbuilding.
Looking at our main competitors, we must recognise that Japan in 1950 completed 350,000 tons and last year completed nearly 2½ million tons. Germany in 1950 completed just over 150,000 tons and last year completed 1¼ million tons. British shipbuilding faces an entirely new competitive position in world shipbuilding.
On top of this, we are facing competition from countries which have considerable new capacity. The new element which has entered into competition in world shipbuilding comparatively recently is that of price. Japan is now charging 130 to 140 dollars for the same tonnage for which only a year ago it was charging 250 to 290 dollars. Not only are we now being out-competed by the Japanese, but more recently we have been out-competed by both the Germans and the Dutch.
I said to the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) that I would deal with the importance of the export market to British shipbuilding. We have been accustomed to export one-third of the new shipping completed in British yards, but of the tonnage being constructed in
700
British yards, only 10 per cent. is for export. In the light of the new price competition, we have now to face considerable British orders going abroad. I remember well enough the significance in 1938 when, for the first time, Britain became a net importer of shipping. The disastrous thing is that that has happened again. If we turn to the Lloyds' Returns for the third quarter of this year, we find that whereas we have under construction for export a quarter of a million tons of shipping, British shipowners have under construction abroad 377,000 tons. In other words, we have become once again a net importer of tonnage. This is a serious matter and we have to face up to it.
We should pay attention to the fact that the American Maritime Commission, which is charged with the responsibility of investigating shipbuilding abroad, has come to the very distressing conclusion, to quote the Commission's Report, that:
"The United Kingdom has been eliminated as a competing shipbuilding centre and it is not foreseeable that it will become a serious contender in the near future."
That is the view of an American Commission to which we must pay regard. It means that at any rate we must have serious concern for the British shipbuilding industry.
In case I am thought to be unduly pessimistic, I immediately call in aid the Financial Times, which recently stated that
"unless they"—
that is, British shipbuilders—
"can obtain new orders soon unemployment may occur in some areas."
We must recognise that at the moment cancellations are running at a rate three times that of new orders. We must realise that many of these orders are subject to immediate or early cancellation and that the very substantial order book could evaporate if this position continues.
I concede at once that the British shipbuilding industry has twice since the war faced a position such as this. We faced difficulties in 1949 and in 1954, but surely we cannot anticipate another Korea. We cannot anticipate another Suez. In fact, the disturbing feature is that the international crises during the past 18 months have not affected the freight rates, because the position is very different now. We

701
now have a surplus of both shipping and shipbuilding capacity.
In this situation, it seems to me that the Government are unduly complacent and almost indifferent. I discharge the Civil Lord from any such stricture. I realise that he is interested and concerned about shipbuilding—he has been visiting the yards on the Clyde. I am talking, however, of the attitude of the Government at large. Again I call in aid the Financial Times, which recently said:
"The Government in its distribution of industry policy will have to examine very carefully the employment prospects of the shipbuilding trade over the next few years."
What sign have we that that is being done? Development Area policy must mature if alternative employment is to be provided. If alternative work is to be provided in the yards, these are matters which must be thought out beforehand.
To turn to the industry itself, I say no more about shipping than that everybody in this House would recognise that some initiative from the Government in the international sphere is called for. It also calls for examination of the various requests that have been made for domestic action. If we turn from shipping to shipbuilding, we get the same indifference.
I have repeatedly made a modest proposal. I have asked for no more than a fact-finding committee. The Civil Lord will say again that there is the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee, but that is not enough. I am asking for a high-powered committee because I am sure that if its report was published it would create the climate in which the Government would be bound to take effective action. I very much wonder, however, whether the time is not becoming rather late for such an approach. We might as well consider whether we should not have a Reorganisation Commission to examine and take effective action about the difficulties that confront the industry.
This is an assembling industry, depending largely on management and on labour. Here is an industry with high labour costs. I should have liked such an examination of the problems of the industry. Let us make a new approach to the industry and consider such matters as value engineering, lay-out, reorganisation on a wider scale in the individual yards and standardisation. I am not being dogmatic about these things. I realise that equally
702
important with standardisation is the question of operating costs, but let us have this examined. Let us see whether we can get batch production and longer runs. Let us also examine demarcation, a problem about which both sides of industry realise that something must be done. There is the difficulty of each side of the industry taking effective action. I would like such a committee to consider this matter.
I would like a greater incentive and initiative to be given to research. I join my hon. colleague the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) in recognising the importance of a new form of propulsion. This might change the prospects for shipbuilding. It is a very sorry thing that we lost the lead on the diesel engine. We have the lead at the moment on the gas turbine.
I should like to see more resources being given to the promotion of gas turbine propulsion. I also support the hon. Member for Sunderland, South on nuclear propulsion. These are matters to which we must give the same drive that we give to aircraft industry to ensure that British shipbuilding maintains its position in the world.
We have also to consider immediate short-term remedies. I appreciate the visit of the noble lord, Lord Selkirk, to the Tyne, but his statement was disappointing. I should like the Admiralty to be pressed by an independent committee so that we could be sure that it was taking whatever steps are open to it to help maintain work in our repairing yards.
I notice that the managing director of Fairfields raised the point of aid to the industry. I have been waiting for it to be raised. I make no excuse about the industry asking for aid. I believe in a measure of national planning, and aid for industry is an aspect of planning. If we consider aid, we have to consider in advance the forms of aid and whether they should be accompanied by different forms of scrapping redundant shipping, the building of a reserve fleet and the like. All these are questions which should be considered now. There are also more urgent questions of providing long repayment loans. Aid has been given to the aircraft industry for large civil aircraft. This is not a purely constituency point when I say that I regard shipbuilding as being as important to Britain as the British aircraft industry.
Mr. Paul Williams: Does not the recent statement about the Export Credits Guarantee Department cover the point which the hon. Member is making?
Mr. Willey: I hope so, but I have in mind the effect of the Japanese terms to shipowners. We should consider how we can make ourselves equally competitive. I know that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has views about taxation and I think that all these matters should now be considered. I do not wish to be dogmatic, but I want an earnest constructive approach towards a great national industry which has been neglected before and which we hope will not be neglected again.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. Paul Williams: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) recommends a high-powered committee, but in detail he makes no particular recommendation. If we were to look at this matter from a partisan point of view, we could say that the hon. Member is not yet in a position to make a detailed recommendation, but it is a worrying thing that neither are we on this side of the House. The hon. Member suggested a planning committee, Although that may be all right from a long-term point of view, it does not meet our problem now.
The hon. Member also raised the question of taxation, to which I have given a certain amount of attention. That matter is out of order this evening, but that seems to me the only way in which, in practice, the Government can immediately help the home shipowning industry. I certainly intend to write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point, and I hope that in due course the Admiralty will support us who are interested in shipping and in the shipbuilding industry. If I can consult with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, not with a view to pressing for a subsidy for the industry, but with a view to asking for the removal of the burden of taxation, I think that that would be a more positive and immediate way of doing something about this problem.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Civil Lord will say something about the Export Credits Guarantee Department. It seems to me that if the facilities which are made
704
available to the aircraft manufacturing industry were applied to shipowning they could be of as much help to shipbuilding as they are intended to be to aircraft manufacture. If we can have an assurance on that point I shall be extremely grateful.
10.29 p.m.
The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I regret that I have had to cut out from the debate two hon. Members whom I know would have liked to speak, but there is not a great deal of time.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) made a very interesting and well-informed speech, and I agreed with much of what he said. I will do my best to answer most of his points. However, I could not agree with him when he suggested that the Government were complacent about this matter. That was a ridiculous suggestion. Sponsorship for the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries is one of the Admiralty's responsibilities in which the Admiralty as a Department and myself personally take a very great interest.
It is now nearly six months since we last had a debate on this subject, and I am glad of the opportunity provided by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North to bring the picture up to date. In June, it was generally agreed that in spite of difficulties in some respects, overall the shipbuilding industry was in a reasonably strong position.
Since then, so far as I can make out, in spite of everything the hon. Member has said, there has been no great change in the position. The order book in June stood at about 6 million tons and today it stands at about 5·7 million tons. In June, there was some cause for concern because of the cancellation of orders. Naturally, that concern still exists, but there has not been any recent spate of cancellations and, so far as I can see, at the moment the future in this respect seems to be slightly brighter than it was.
Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East): Does the hon. Member realise that there are now 1,300 men out of work in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industries on Tyneside alone, as against 400 a year ago, and that that causes concern?
Mr. Galbraith: As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sunderland, North stated, that is mainly in the ship-repairing industry.
Dame Irene Ward: It is very important.
Mr. Galbraith: Of course, it is important, but we are discussing the prospects of the shipbuilding industry.
The figure for the rate of completion remains steady at about 1½ million tons a year and it looks like continuing at that rate for at least the next two years. Therefore with the order book at approximately 6 million tons, and a rate of production of 1½ million tons a year, the shipbuilding industry would seem to he in a fairly sound position.
Unfortunately, as was pointed out, in spite of this overall strength, there are some firms building smaller types of ships which are rather badly off. I know that a number of yards will not have further work to lay down once their present orders are completed, and empty berths have already begun to appear for those firms, as distinct from the larger firms.
The position is serious, as I know only too well because I have just returned from a visit to some of the smaller yards on the Clyde, where I have had the advantage of hearing about these difficulties "straight from the horse's mouth." Although we know a lot about the difficulties, the correct remedy is far from clear. Indeed, it is not clear whether a remedy for the industry is needed. Even the industry, which discussed this problem with me, is by no means sure of the solution, and at this moment I am waiting to hear from the industry the results of its deliberations on the subject.
Mr. P. Williams: Both sides of the industry?
Mr. Galbraith: Not both sides of the industry—one stage at a time. I have asked the employing side of the industry and when I have that answer, it will be opportune to discuss the matter with the other side.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that it is time to draw both sides of the industry together for a conference on this urgent matter?
Mr. Galbraith: Bringing both sides together is a matter which I intend to discuss if there is time.
706
The trouble is that a world-wide depression in freight rates, following upon the recent heavy building programme, has created a situation in which there is likely to be the keenest competition between the various shipbuilding countries in the world. This means that if British yards are to secure orders they must be able to offer high-quality goods, a reasonably firm price and a reasonably firm date of delivery.
I do not think that we have very much to fear in this country about quality. As for price and date of delivery, there are three things which will make a great deal of difference: first, the state of modernisation of the yards; secondly, the availability of material; and, thirdly, the effective use of the labour force, which I believe is probably the most important of them all.
It is when we come to this third factor in competitive ability—the relationship between management and men—that things are perhaps not quite as good as they ought to be. I know that this is a very difficult subject to discuss, but criticisms have been made of the shipbuilding industry in this respect by people abroad and it is perhaps only common sense to try to see ourselves as others see us.
Two main complaints have been made by these foreign observers. First, they say that somehow or other the industry has not the right relationship and sense of confidence between men and management and that it needs a move on both sides to put this right. In a way, I am surprised by this observation, because I have met both sides of the industry, and generally I find them most reasonable and helpful; but somehow or other they do not seem to be able to hit it off together.
The second criticism from abroad is that we have not yet adjusted our shipbuilding trades and customs to modern methods of shipbuilding and that we are not taking the best advantage of the new techniques. Here again, it is very difficult and probably rather presumptuous for an outsider to say what ought to be done to put the matter right, but I think that most people will agree that in this sphere there are difficulties which must he overcome before we can say that the industry is truly efficient and truly competitive.

707
What I fear are not the international matters to which the hon. Member referred. What I fear is that if these difficulties are not overcome then they are bound to have the effect of influencing ship owners to place their orders in foreign yards, because in the last resort, as the hon. Member said, it is firm dates and firm prices which determine where the orders will go.
What I have said is in a way rather cold comfort because what it amounts to is that, as I see it, the most necessary thing to be done for the future prospects of the industry is for the industry to help itself. I think that to a certain extent the hon. Member agrees with me. He suggested, however, that some other things might be done, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams); they both suggested that something might be done to extend credit. The evidence, as far as I have been able to obtain it, is that up to date no British ship owners have placed orders abroad because of better credit facilities. Nevertheless, we are keeping an eye on the position and when ordering starts again, if easier credit facilities turn out to be the determining factor, we shall certainly examine the possibility of helping the industry in this way.
As to the committee which the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend wished to have, I have listened carefully to what has been said but I am still not convinced that we have not all the information we need. I distrust committees and reports. I think that we have too many of them. But I am always open to conviction, and if the hon. Gentleman likes to continue
708
the discussion later I shall be glad to listen to his suggestions.
I do not believe that there are just reasons for taking a pessimistic view of the prospects of the industry. Technically, it is in a strong position. The principal yards are up-to-date and the main weakness in the industry, if our foreign friends are right, is in the field of human relations which it is well within the power of the industry to improve itself. I have no doubt that if men and management find that orders are going elsewhere because other yards are more efficient in the use of labour, they will soon buckle to, in their own way, to prove once again that our shipyards can solve their own difficulties in bad times just as well as they can in good times.
In saying that, I do not want the House to think that I am suggesting that the present difficulties are due to any defects in the industry. They are world-wide and affect every country alike. All I am saying is that once orders begin to pick up, as they are bound to sooner or later, on an international scale, competition for them will be extremely keen. Therefore, I think that it behoves the industry, during the present lull, to make certain that it will be in a position to face that competition and to get a good share of any orders which may be going.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Mining Industry (Africans)
  Mining Industry (Africans)
NYASALAND
  European Agriculture and Tobacco
  European Agriculture and Tobacco
  Disturbances, Blantyre and Zomba
  Disturbances, Blantyre and Zomba
UGANDA
  Maize Flour
  Maize Flour
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Condemned Meat
  Condemned Meat
  Beef
  Beef
  Fenton Farm, Stoke-on-Trent (Fluorine)
  Fenton Farm, Stoke-on-Trent (Fluorine)
  Improvements to Fixed Equipment (Loans)
  Improvements to Fixed Equipment (Loans)
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
  Welsh Beekeepers' Association
  Welsh Beekeepers' Association
  River Crouch (Flooding)
  River Crouch (Flooding)
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Ewes and Rams (Report)
  Ewes and Rams (Report)
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Food and Agricultural Production
  Food and Agricultural Production
  Import and Retail Prices
  Import and Retail Prices
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Summer Time
  Summer Time
  Victor Jureczko
  Victor Jureczko
  Firemen (Protection)
  Firemen (Protection)
  Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents (Grant)
  Royal Society for Prevention of Accidents (Grant)
  Flick Knives
  Flick Knives
  Maintenance Orders Act, 1958
  Maintenance Orders Act, 1958
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Mobile Shops
  Mobile Shops
  Daniel Killgallon
  Daniel Killgallon
  Crimes of Violence (Victims)
  Crimes of Violence (Victims)
  Bank Robberies
  Bank Robberies
  Probation Service
  Probation Service
  Police Regulations (Recruitment)
  Police Regulations (Recruitment)
EDUCATION
  Wales
  Wales
  Child, Birkenhead (Schooling)
  Child, Birkenhead (Schooling)
  Welfare Centre, Stoke-on-Trent (Weston Coyney)
  Welfare Centre, Stoke-on-Trent (Weston Coyney)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Ireland
  Ireland
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  North-East Area
  North-East Area
  Cinematograph Films (Levy)
  Cinematograph Films (Levy)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Cutlery and Silverware (Tax)
  Cutlery and Silverware (Tax)
  Commercial Vehicles (Tax)
  Commercial Vehicles (Tax)
  Greyhound Racing
  Greyhound Racing
  Industrial Production
  Industrial Production
  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  Building Societies (Interest Rates)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  Company Profits and Dividends
  Company Profits and Dividends
  Financial Secretary and Economic Secretary (Duties)
  Financial Secretary and Economic Secretary (Duties)
  ICELAND (BRITISH TRAWLER "HACKNESS")
  ICELAND (BRITISH TRAWLER "HACKNESS")
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RECOMMENDATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (RECOMMENDATION)
NATIONAL SERVICE
  School Teachers (Deferment)
  School Teachers (Deferment)
EMPLOYMENT
  Retail Prices of Food
  Retail Prices of Food
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham
  Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
The Lord Fisher—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who succeeded to the Barony on the death of his mother—Sat first in Parliament.

PARKING OF VEHICLES BY DISABLED DRIVERS
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, beg 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 the police are permitted to exercise a reasonable discretion to facilitate parking by severely disabled users of motor vehicles.]
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the police are, along with everyone else, sympathetic towards this problem. They have very much in mind the difficulties which disabled drivers have to face and they do all they can to help them. They cannot give them a general dispensation from the operation of the law, though they do not enforce it harshly against them. In certain congested areas it is not possible to allow a disabled driver to leave his car in the place most convenient to him, however desirable this may be.
LORD FRASER. OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that generally throughout the country the police are extremely kind and helpful 1;0 disabled persons, and especially to crippled persons who cannot walk far from their vehicle; and that it will be helpful to the police to know that public opinion and, I hope, your Lordships' House support a tolerant and, within the law, helpful policy in this matter?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am aware of the fact which the noble Lord has mentioned and, for what it is worth, I myself certainly hope that will always continue to be the case.

GHANA: PROPOSED UNION WITH GUINEA
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg 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 proposed union between Ghana and Guinea.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, Ghana is, as the House knows, an independent State and a valued member of the Commonwealth. Last Saturday Dr. Nkrumah informed the Prime Minister that negotiations were in progress and that it was likely that a joint statement would be made on Sunday indicating the intention of himself and the Prime Minister of Guinea to enter into a union. On Sunday the Prime Minister received the text of the joint declaration issued by the two Prime Ministers in Accra. This declaration states that the Prime Ministers of Ghana and Guinea have agreed to constitute their two States as the nucleus of a Union of West African States. It is my understanding, however, that no separate union of Ghana and Guinea has come into existence and indeed the declaration speaks of harmonising the policies of the two States.
This is an interesting development which may have political, constitutional., economic and other inplications, not only for Ghana and Guinea, but also for the Commonwealth and other countries. I know that the Government of Ghana value their association with the Commonwealth; and the joint declaration says that the actions which the two Prime Ministers are taking are not designed to prejudice in any way the present or future relations either between Ghana and the Commonwealth or between the Republic of Guinea and the French community. My impression is that almost all the detailed arrangements between Ghana and Guinea which would be necessary to give effect to this statement of intention on the part of the two Prime Ministers have yet to be worked out. I have no doubt that Dr. Nkrumah will. keep all his Commonwealth colleagues informed as the negotiations proceed.
LORD OGMORE:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that statement. May I take it that the various Commonwealth countries are already considering this matter and its implications?
THE EARL OF HOME: Yes, my Lords. Dr. Nkrumah informed all his Commonwealth colleagues at the same time as he informed the United Kingdom, and, of course, as matters proceed the Commonwealth countries will consider them individually and together.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, should such a union, or whatever it is, be accomplished with Guinea, would it prejudice the position of Ghana as a member of the British Commonwealth?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we had better not speculate and look forward, because I think the word "union" might be in itself misleading. I think the less we speculate and the fewer hypothetical questions we ask the better it will be. The main thing is that we can be certain that Dr. Nkrumah, whatever he has in mind, will consult the other members of the Commonwealth as matters proceed.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, may I ask whether any communication has been received from the French Government in relation to this transaction?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not think that the French Government were notified at the same time as we were ourselves. Of course we have been in touch with them but I do not think there has been an official notification.

COUNTY COURTS BILL [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords I beg to move that this Consolidation Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

AGRICULTURAL MORTGAGE CORPORATION BILL
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Waldegrave, I beg, to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, this is the annual Bill to renew a great multiplicity of laws which would otherwise expire this year. I understand that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, wishes to discuss the law relating to immigration, and that he agrees that the most convenient way would be to put down for the Committee stage an Amendment to the Schedule which continues that law. As I imagine that the same or a similar procedure would probably be more convenient in respect of other points which your Lordships might wish to raise, I shall say nothing now, except to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Earl. It is my intention to raise a point on the restriction of immigration of people into this country on account of their real or supposed political or economic opinions. The case I have in mind, of course, although it is now past and finished, is the case of Dr. Niemoeller. But that is only a case in point—the issue is much larger. However, as the noble Earl quite rightly says, the proper course would be to move to omit the Aliens Act from the Schedule. That is what I propose to do, and I thank him.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

THE ARTS COUNCIL
3.14 p.m.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN rose to call attention to the Report of the Arts Council for 1957; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on July 11, 1957, I moved a Motion relating to the arts, when I drew attention to the urgent need for increased financial assistance by the State to the arts. I do not intend to repeat to-day most of the case that I then put forward. In that debate I tried to establish three main principles: the first was that art is essential to the life and culture of the people; the second was that art is international, and that not only have we been enriched by the art of other countries but also that other countries have been enriched by the art of this country; and the third was that in no country in the world are the arts self-supporting, and that the financial contribution to the arts in other countries is substantially greater than that in our own.
Those were the three propositions I put forward in that debate. There were eighteen speeches, and sixteen of them were in complete agreement with the case I put forward. Among them was that by the late Lord Waverley, who, unhappily, is no longer with us but who made a strong speech in support of the doctrine that I put forward. The only voice that was raised in opposition to the broad principles that I laid down was that of Lord Blackford, who I understand is going to speak this afternoon (and I am very glad he is) but who is not here at the moment. Then, of course, the Government spokesman, Lord Mancroft, has been replaced by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I hope that he will be able to give a more sympathetic reply than the one given by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, on the previous occasion.
At that time the general purport of the reply of the Government was that we were in a state of financial difficulty, that there was the danger of inflation, and that this was not the time to spend more money on the arts. My Lords, the climate is rather different this afternoon. According to noble Lords opposite, we are no longer in a stale of inflation, thanks to their efforts. We are all being actively encouraged to spend more money. The gates are being flung wide open, and we are being encouraged by the Government. by the banks, and by everybody else, not
914
only to spend the money that we have got but even to spend the money that we hope to have in the future. So I very much hope that the reply by the noble Earl this afternoon will be very different from the reply that was given in July, 1957. At any rate, he will not be able to reject my plea on the same ground as that on which it was then rejected. If he does reject it, it will have to be on some entirely different ground.
I would make only one further comment on the fact that we are asking for more money to be spent on the arts, and that is that, of course, the case is not wholly a financial one. We are not asking that more money should be spent on encouraging the arts because it is a profitable undertaking. On the contrary, it is not. However, I did reflect the other day as to what would have happened to this country if Shakespeare had not been financially supported. If there had been no Shakespeare, how much poorer this country would have been, not merely aesthetically, but financially! When one comes to take account of the large sums of money that are being spent by foreigners in buying Shakespeare's plays, and by the people who come here in order to go Stratford to see his plays, and of all the money that is being spent in connection with the Shakespeare "cult" (if I may so call it), then I suggest that even from a financial point of view the encouragement of Shakespeare and of many artists like him has been of immense financial value to the country.
To-day I move a Motion which is somewhat narrower than the one I moved in July, 1957. I am confining myself to the report of the Arts Council for 1957, and the Arts Council deal with a narrower range of subjects than those that were dealt with in the debate last year—music, opera and ballet and the orchestra, the visual arts, to a large extent contemporary, and poetry. It is interesting to note that, as against the eighteen speakers we had on the last occasion, we have almost as large a number this afternoon. It is an indication of the great interest which your Lordships' House always take in matters of this kind. I believe that most of the speakers are going to support, in one form or another, the case I hope to put.
In moving that the Report be considered, I want to draw attention to a number of specific aspects of it. In the

915
first place, it draws attention to the three ways in which the arts can be assisted at the present time. The first is by way of Government grant, which the Arts Council are receiving. The second is by way of local authority grant. Under the Local Government Act, 1948, and subsequent amendments, local authorities are empowered to spend up to a 6d. rate in support of the arts. The third method is by way of what the Report calls "the third force of patronage"—that is, assistance from television and large private enterprises.
I want to say a word first about the Government grant. In the year under review, the grant was £985,000, an increase of £100,000 on the grant of the previous year. Of this sum, almost half —£531,000—went towards the assistance of opera and ballet; about £113,000 towards assisting a number of orchestras, of which the principal were the Royal Philharmonic, the Royal Liverpool, the Hallé, the City of Birmingham and Bournemouth; and about £7,000 towards drama, mostly by way of assistance to repertory companies, including £12,000 to the Old Vic. I will come back to the Government grant later on in my speech.
The second form of assistance is from local authorities, and there are encouraging signs that grants from local authorities are increasing. London County Council are spending £20,000 a year in respect of its open-air exhibitions of sculpture at Battersea and Holland Parks. They have commissioned a number of works of art and have purchased others for the Festival Hall. This year the Council are giving a separate grant to Sadler's Wells and, of course, they are maintaining the Festival Hall. I do not know whether or not the Festival Hall is making a profit at the moment, but at any rate the London County Council are making themselves responsible.
In Scotland, some eighty local authorities have combined to provide an annual subsidy of £40,000 for the Scottish National Orchestra. In Lancashire and Cheshire. forty-four local authorities have got together and are providing £20,000 a year to be divided equally between the Hall and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic orchestras. In South Wales, there is the same story: a number of local authorities have got together. And this,
916
I hope, is something which will grow, because there is a feeling that some of the larger contributions that are being made out of public monies are being spent in respect of activities in London, and it is desirable that art should be widespread throughout the country and that local authorities should feel they are playing a part in encouraging and developing the arts in their own localities.
In the last year, there has been an encouraging development in the direction of private benefactions, the Arts Council's third force of patronage, and a number of examples are referred to in the Report. One record company is devoting a proportion of its royalties to the encouragement of music and a number of industrial undertakings are providing, in the aggregate, about £50,000 a year. Most interesting of all, the Independent Television Authority last year devoted £100,000 towards assisting the arts in a variety of ways. I think that that is an excellent way of disposing of some of the very high profits they are making, and I hope that if these high profits continue the grants towards the arts will increase.
But all these things are really no substitute for State assistance, to which I now want to revert. As I have said, out of about £531,000 devoted to opera and ballet, which represents well over half the total Government grant, the three largest grants were to the Royal Opera and ballet, £302,000; to Sadler's Wells, £142,000 and to the Carl Rosa Opera Company, £63,500. Admittedly, these are substantial sums, and I do not want to minimise what the Government are doing; but I think it only right, as I did in July last year, to say that the total Government grant is only one-third of the grant being made by France to her four national theatres—the Opéra, the OpéraComique. the Theôtre Français and the Odeon; it is only one-third of what is being provided by Italy as a contribution towards her national opera, and it is no more than many towns in Germany are providing to support their own opera and theatre. Hamburg alone, for example, is providing a quarter of a million pounds, and little Denmark is providing the same amount in support of the Opera House in Copenhagen. So, in comparison with what other countries are doing, our own contribution does not strike me as being unduly generous.
Let me take Covent Garden alone. This is a national and international institution. Of foreign tourists, 75 to 80 per cent. go to Covent Garden at least once during their stay in this country. The Covent Garden Company performs forty-seven weeks in the year, and also undertakes tours to the larger centres of population, such as Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Liverpool and Manchester. Its performances are definitely equal to any in the world. I hesitate to say that they are superior, because as between different excellences it requires somebody more expert than myself to judge; but certainly, having heard the opera in a number of countries, I have no hesitation in saying that our company can stand up to any other opera company in the world, and we are clearly rendering a great service to opera and ballet in this country. Yet we have allowed the accumulated deficit of Covent Garden to stand, at March 31 last, at £150,000.
It is a most worrying thing for an organisation of that kind to be concerned with overdrafts and ways and means of making ends meet, rather than with improving the excellence of their programmes and trying out things which ought to be tried out, even though they may not be entirely remunerative in the beginning. I do not know whether I have stated it in this house before, but, if so, it is worth repeating: that every navel work of art is unpopular at the outset. I am told that when Beethoven's Fifth Symphony was first produced it was found dull. It takes time for the public to get accustomed to novel works. But if the Covent Garden Opera never produced a novel work, we should still be playing all the operas of the 17th century, and we should have never gone further. So it is essential that they should be free to produce works of art which they may know at the outset will not be profitable or give a satisfactory return. But with an overdraft of that magnitude, they cannot do it: they have got to play the old favourites, which are sure of a reasonable return but which do nothing towards the advancement of music.
The same thing applies to Sadler's Wells and the Carl Rosa Opera Company, and during the year discussions arose as to possible amalgamation. I do not know whether in this country to-day it is possible to maintain three first-class opera
918
companies. All I would say is that I think we ought to be able to maintain: them. After all, the total capacity of Covent Garden is only about 500, and the figure at Sadler's Wells is substantially less; and in this country of ours we should be able to provide facilities for more than 700 or 800 people to visit the opera at the same time.
Nevertheless, it may be that at the moment there is not room for three first- class opera companies, and the question arose, as a result of the desperation of all of them, of the possibility of some kind of amalgamation. However, I do not think any of them is very keen, and no doubt difficulties have arisen, with the result that any suggestion of amalgamation has been dropped for the time being. The Arts Council remain of opinion that some form of integration—whether that is the same thing as amalgamation I do not know—is desirable, and I hope that discussions will continue to take place with a view to that possibility becoming a reality. In the meantime, all three of them are in a parlous state.
It is true that the Sadler's Wells Company have surmounted their difficulties temporarily, with the assistance of a grant of £25,000 from the London County Council and £5,000 from Independent Television. With these, and the grant of £150,000 from the Arts Council, they have managed to get along this year. But they have no assurance that these other grants will be available in later years, and they are still in a difficult position. So is the Carl Rosa Opera Company. We owe a great deal to that Company. They have helped to popularise a type of opera which may not be everybody's taste, but is the taste of a large number of people, and they have done a great deal to give people in this country a love of opera. It would be a thousand pities if that Company were allowed to die. My noble friend and Leader Lord Alexander of Hillsborough is interested in the Carl Rosa Opera Company and he is going to say something on that particular problem.
Suggestions have been made that the Covent Garden Opera Company might make economies or increase their prices; and I referred to that in my speech last year. As they themselves would be the first to admit, it is impossible for anybody to say that the last word in economies has been reached and I expect there

919
is still some scope. In their view, however, there is no scope for major economies, although there may be some minor things which they can do. And there is certainly no hope of increasing their revenue by raising the prices of seats. In my view, and certainly in their own, they have reached a point of diminishing returns, and any increase in prices might result in a loss of total receipts. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether we want a national opera, and, if so, whether we must not accept the financial responsibility for maintaining that opera in a proper state, worthy of the dignity of the arts in this country, so as to enable it to carry on without these recurring financial crises and without the difficulties they are constantly having to face.
While I am on the subject of opera, I should like to ask whether we are doing enough to educate our young people to appreciate and enjoy the opera. There has been some correspondence on the subject, in The Times recently, and today there is a letter from friends of mine, Sir Robert and Lady Mayer, who have done so much to popularise music with their Saturday morning concerts. They put in a plea for opening the Opera House for young people on a specific number of days each year, the cost, presumably, to be assisted by the local authority. Could we not give young people privileged places at reduced prices, or even, as they suggest, have special performances for children and young people? We are doing a few intermittent performances at Sadler's Wells, but why not have regular and frequent performances, as is done in New York, France, Canada, Germany and Vienna, and give them both at Covent Garden and at Sadler's Wells? I believe the effect on children would be sensational.
I well remember the first time that I was taken to the Covent Garden Opera House. I saw Aida, and the memory of the first notes of the orchestra as it struck up will never leave me. It was a most moving and sensational experience. I then heard Caruso, Melba, Madame Destinn and Sammarco. These are names that I suppose to-day we should find it difficult to equal, but I can assure your Lordships that if more young people saw the opera, if not under those conditions. under similar conditions to those that I
920
experienced—and I was very much crowded in the gallery, although I forgot the discomfort of sitting there—it would have a most beneficial effect on them and on opera generally.
Now I want to turn to drama. I think the repertory companies of this country are doing a fine and remarkable job of work. It is obvious that a repertory company, except in rare cases, cannot possibly be made to pay. It is a popular form of providing drama to the people, and in the nature of things they perform in rather a small area. They have to make frequent changes of programme, and each change is costly. The result is that it cannot be a remunerative proposition. I am glad that the Arts Council is assisting in financing so many of our repertory theatres, some of whom produce excellent performances. I would instance particularly The Playhouse in Nottingham, which I happened to visit some months ago and where I saw a first-class performance which would have been a credit to any West End theatre. I should like to see more of these theatres set up in the new towns where there is a great shortage of amenities of that sort. But, obviously, the Arts Council are so tied up with helping the repertory theatres that already exist that any assistance to the new towns is unthinkable. I would put to the noble Earl that this is one way in which they can help to spread drama and, incidentally, help in the social development of the existing fourteen new towns.
While on the subject of theatres, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he can tell us what is happening to the National Theatre. We have a splendid site which has been donated by the London County Council. The foundation stone was laid by Her Majesty the Queen Mother some years ago, and now, dead silence—and dead silence for a number of years. What is happening? I know that at one time the Government promised to make a substantial contribution towards the cost of building. I know also that the cost of building has gone up since that time, and that the amount the Government then promised would not be sufficient to cover the whole cost. Nevertheless, that is no reason why the whole scheme should lie dormant. There is an urgent need for a national theatre in this country, and I should be grateful

921
if the noble Earl could tell us what is the present position.
Is there any way by which the admittedly piecemeal and haphazard way in which the arts are being maintained could be improved? Here, I want to refer to a number of proposals that were put forward in the Romanes Lecture last June by the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. I wish he were here to state his proposals himself, for I know he would do it much more effectively; but he is not here, and I think he will not mind my putting them forward as his very inadequate substitute. He deplored the annual doles or grants which were being provided on a piecemeal basis and which gave nobody any security. He brought in the grants to the National Gallery, the Tate Gallery and the British Museum as well. I am not dealing with those to-day, but I should like it to be understood that everything I say would have applied equally to the arts and the acquisition of pictures as to the case I am making in respect of the opera, music and drama.
This is what the noble Lord puts forward: first, that there should be created a body similar in status and function to the University Grants Committee. Their job should be to cover purchase grants and other crucial expenditure of the national museums and galleries, as well as other expenditure of that kind. Secondly, he suggests that the Arts Council grant should be a quinquennial one instead of an annual one. That would enable the Arts Council to make plans ahead, and enable its beneficiaries equally to make long-term plans. They would know exactly what they could expect for the forthcoming five years, and they would have to cut their coats according to the available cloth, or get further assistance as best they could. At any rate, they would be left in no doubt whatever, year by year, as to what their grants were going to be.
The noble Lord suggested that the Arts Council should have two separate grants from Parliament; the first to deal with the expensive needs of opera and ballet. and the second to deal with the rest of the art activities they support—music, drama, the visual art and poetry. As I have said, at the moment a large portion of the Arts Council grant goes to opera and the ballet, and there is a feeling among the other forms of art, especially
922
those that are not practising in London, that they are in competition with opera and ballet, and that the more that goes to opera and ballet the less goes to them —which is, of course, true—.and the more that is available for expenditure in London the less in the provinces. That is an undesirable feeling for those engaged in art activities to have. If the two grants were separated, one to opera and ballet and one to the rest, there would not be that feeling of competition and rivalry between them, and each would know that what he was getting was not at the expense of the other.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. suggests the possibility of setting up what he calls a new form of patronage. He contemplates a partnership between governmental bodies. municipalities, charitable trusts and private benefactors which. to use his words,
"could combine forces in a new species of collective patronage."
I believe that a great many private institutions would be proud to come into an organisation of that kind, and I have no doubt at all that if we set up a council of that kind we should get far greater and better organised support than the spasmodic kind of support which private undertakings are giving at the present time. At any rate, I think all these ideas are worthy of exploration, and I would ask the Government whether they would not consider the possibility of setting up a Committee of some kind—I do not say a Royal Commission, or anything of that sort—to report very quickly as to whether there is not something in these ideas, and whether this would not be a way of putting art on its feet for all time.
It is quite certain that in an age which is becoming increasingly scientific, mechanical and materialistic we must devise a means by which the arts can live, flourish and thrive, side by side with scientific knowledge and practice. We are running a grave risk of so concentrating all our thoughts and efforts and minds on the practical, mercenary, mechanical side of life, that we may be neglecting something which is at least equally precious. We are at last, I hope, living down the reproach of the 19th century that we are "a nation of shopkeepers", but our approach to the arts is still too grudging and parsimonious.
I would tell the noble Earl who is going to reply that in the document which

923
I have before me, which I hope he will read, The Future Labour Offers You, there is a paragraph which says that Labour will increase the amount of money available for the arts, through which all our lives can be enriched. I would recommend him to take a leaf out of this book and enter into competition with Labour for further support of the arts. I can promise him that if he does steal our clothes in this respect we shall not complain and we shall not make Party capital out of it. I beg the Government to take a more civilised and generous view of their responsibilities, and I look forward to a more sympathetic and favourable reply than we had on the last occasion. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT ESHER: My Lords, Desmond MacCarthy once said that the mind of a man is like a musical box; it has only a few tunes that it can play. Your Lordships know well that when my mind is wound up out comes "More money for the Arts Council". Your Lordships have heard my ineffectual appeals so often that I cannot expect you to conceal your boredom. Over and over again those of us who believe that the arts are being starved have made out our case, and it has been made admirably again in the Arts Council Report, especially in the eloquent preface by Sir William Williams.
Up till now the Government has always displayed self-satisfaction about its expenditure on the arts. The Government always reminds me of a Victorian Government, when confronted with the problem of poverty, boasting about their expenditure on the Poor Law. The Treasury, however, have displayed some slight evidence of an uneasy conscience, for they have brought out an apologia pamphlet which gives a beautiful gloss of generosity to their own parsimonious behaviour. Figures, of course, sound impressive to the ignorant, to people who are unaccustomed to dealing in millions. But you will observe that no comparison is made in the pamphlet with what other countries are doing or with what we ourselves are spending on other things. The subsidy of £250,000, for instance, to Covent Garden sounds a lot until you discover that Vienna pays £1 million, four times as much, to support its opera, and
924
that even the one German city of Hamburg, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out, receives a subsidy of £416,000 a year from the State. After all, opera has an established place here in this country and we have at this moment the most outstanding composer in the world.
What about drama, in which throughout the centuries we have excelled? From Elizabeth I to Elizabeth II our genius in drama has held universal admiration. Yet we are the only civilised country that has no National Theatre. Furthermore, the Arts Council has only £70,000 to allot to drama, in comparison with the £14 million that the German theatres receive every year in State assistance. But the comparison with the other things on which the Government really en joy spending money is even more striking. The expenditure of the Arts Council on all the arts is £1,100,000. Compare this with that nice little deficit of £75 million that they are finding for the railways this year, or the £25 million they are finding for the coal mines —two obsolescent industries—or with the £125 million that is going to be spent on really important matters of water supply and sewerage. They are spending £125 million on that, and the National Theatre would cost less than £2 million, which could be very favourably compared with the Ell million that is going to be spent on three and a half miles of the Oxford Western bypass. Of course, that is a much more important thing than the National Theatre; I realise that; but still the comparison is decidedly odious.
I hope your Lordships will not think that I am against these forms of expenditure. The point is that money can always be found for them, yet we are always too poor to support the arts. I have the suspicion that in the eyes of those serious public men who adorn the Front Bench of your Lordships' House the arts are nothing but entertainment, a jolly time out of business hours, and cannot rank with the important commitments —I am sure that is the official word —of industrial and governmental life. In fact, I do not believe that those public men see any difference between Hamlet and My Fair Lady. They do not believe that one is a delightful evening and the other is one of the basic foundations of our civilised life as a great nation. So

925
they give only £1,100,000 to the Arts Council, under the wing of which English talent is given its opportunity and our national art is produced; but they give £3,600,000 to the British Council for showing the world what we can do. Obviously the latter sum is well spent, but the former, which provides the material, is equally obviously absurdly small.
In the same way, the Government cannot afford the £2 million of capital expenditure necessary to give us the prestige of a National Theatre, but the Ministry of Education will spend £69½ million on its capital building programme this year. No one will grudge that money; but if we car afford £70 million for the one, surely we can afford £2 million for the other. I think it is only fair. And we have a right to ask, "Education for what?" No one could admire Lady Albemarle more than I do. I sat on the Arts Council with her for many years and I think that everything she does is perfect. I cannot imagine why she is not a Member of your Lordships' House. I have no doubt that she will take the chair with her usual sparkling ability in order—to quote the words:
"To review the contribution which the youth service can make in assisting young people to play their part in the life of the community. in the light of changing social and industrial conditions, and of current trends in other branches of the education service"—
a most important job. But she will not call me as a witness before that Committee, because I might ask the important question: educated for what?—just to turn out useful little industrial workers, and scientists and technicians bent over their test tubes or the latest electrical device.
I warn the Government that there is a change coming over the intellectual development of this country. The people will not be satisfied with well-paid, monotonous efficiency in their work and with empty, boring lives at home. They want to be full citizens in a civilised country, and it is the democratic duty of the Government to put the Arts Council in a position to give them what they want.
4.3 p.m.
THE EARL OE DROGHEDA: My Lords, it is with a sense of great humility and extreme trepidation that I seek your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes while I speak in this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. My sense
926
of humility is increased by my knowledge of the affection which many of your Lordships felt for my father who, until his death last year, was for a number of years your Lordships' Chairman of Committees.
I have a very direct interest in this debate. Since early this year. I have been chairman of the board of directors of the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, a position to which I was elected following the death of my most distinguished predecessor in that position, Lord Waverley. At any time the Arts Council Report would be a matter of interest to me, since the Royal Opera House is the chief recipient of Arts Council funds. This year it is of very great concern to me, because the Report contains a statement that unless there is a substantial increase in our resources the centenary which we celebrated earlier in the year may soon be followed by our demise. This statement may seem somewhat dramatic when your Lordships consider that this year we are receiving from the Arts Council a grant of £362,000, which is more than the figure quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. It is, however, a fact that the conduct of a national opera house which is responsible for performances of both opera and ballet of international standard, is extremely costly, and our true needs are in fact considerably greater. We have balanced our budget, on paper, this year only by the deferment of essential maintenance and other work, and this, of course, means increasing the problem for the future.
I wonder whether your Lordships would bear with me while I quote a few figures to show the comparable grants of other great opera houses. There seems to be a slight difference of opinion over some of these figures, because Lord Esher said that Vienna received £1 million, or the equivalent; my information is that the figure is about £900,000. With Hamburg it is the other way round, because my information is that, together with the Hamburg orchestra which plays for the opera, the grant is over £700,000. Munich receives approximately £600,000. This is of interest because the grant is received not only from the Bavarian State, but also from the City of Munich and the Bavarian State Radio. In Paris, the two houses together, the Opéra and the Opéra Comique, receive over £1

927
million. The Scala, which has a considerably shorter season, receives only about £300,000 from the State, but it has a good deal of municipal support as well. I think it is true to say that in none of these cases is it necessary for the theatres to pay rent for their premises, whereas here in London we pay rent and rates amounting to £40,000, or thereabouts, a year.
As for the United States, it is perfectly true that the great opera houses there receive no Government grant, but the tax laws are quite different, and sums which are contributed by individuals and corporations in America to an institution such as the Metropolitan Opera, in New York, are regarded, up to a certain proportion of those individuals' and corporations' incomes, as charitable contributions and are deductible for tax purposes. I should like to see something similar here —but I feel that it is unlikely that we shall do so!
It may be felt that, despite the comparative figures which I have given, Covent Garden could in fact manage with a smaller sum if we were to charge more for our seat prices. We shall soon be publishing an Annual Report for the year 1957–58, and this will show that, compared with 1950, we have put up our prices by about 70 per cent., which I think is more than keeping pace with the rise in the cost of living. I may perhaps be permitted here to say that the actual capacity of seats in Covent Garden is 2,200 and not 500, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Silkin said. I have lately seen a statement which gives the comparative prices charged in other opera houses in Western Europe, and it is the case that, almost without exception, our prices are higher than those in any other house in Western Europe. Nevertheless, we are soon going to make a further increase in seat prices. It will not be a drastic increase, because we do not want to invoke the law of diminishing returns.
What of the quality of our performances? I believe—and I hope that those of your Lordships who attend Covent Garden will agree with me—that there has been a considerable improvement in the quality of the performances we give. I think this was borne out by Lord Silkin, who made, a good deal better than I could hope to make them myself, many
928
of the points that I should like to make. I think that to-day we can stand up to comparison with almost any other opera house in the world. Since the war, we have not only been engaged in building up a National Opera House, but we have also been the home of the Royal Ballet. I think one can fairly say that that is a national asset of international repute and renown; and I believe that it would he hard to exaggerate what the Royal Ballet has done to enhance British prestige throughout the world. If Covent Garden were to close, as is suggested in the Report of the Arts Council, the Royal Ballet, while it would not die, of course, would certainly suffer immeasurably; and I do not think anyone would happily contemplate such a development.
I am convinced that Covent Garden, which now gives some 300 performances a year, is economically run, and I do not think that integration with Sadler's Wells or any other organisation would Yield economies of any significance: if anything, it might work the other way. We have, in fact, been into this matter most carefully. There has been a certain amount of talk of our giving lavish and costly productions, but in fact productions represent a very small part of our total outgoings. In my view, we should spend more on new productions; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, it is most important for us that we should encourage new artistes and new talent, and should not always be forced to "play safe", which has tended to happen to us recently. For international artistes whom we engage we naturally have to pay the international rate, otherwise we simply do not have them here; but for the most part the salaries and wages we pay are governed by trade union agreements. We have a small, devoted, administrative and technical staff who work very hard and are by no means overpaid. We have not yet been able to start a pension scheme for that staff. I am absolutely satisfied that the greatest care is taken at all points to ensure the economical running of the Opera House, and I am perfectly convinced that we are not extravagant.
To the statement of the Arts Council that we need a substantial increase in our resources, I would add that we also need an assurance to be able to plan for more

929
than twelve months ahead. In this connection, I should like to say how greatly I welcome, as I believe many other noble Lords have welcomed, the most wise and statesmanlike Romanes Lecture of the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. It deserves to be widely read and seems to me to set out with unanswerable logic the case for State support for the arts being planned on something more than merely an annual basis.
In conclusion, I hope that your Lordships will not think it pompous of me if I say that I believe Covent Garden is to-day an integral part of our cultural life, and that London would be a poorer place without it. I should like to hope that, if a beneficent Government do decide to do something to help us to receive our true needs after they have been most carefully assessed, and are able to do something to enable us to plan on more than a hand-to-mouth basis. that action will receive your Lordships' sympathetic support.
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, it falls to my lot to follow the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda. who has just delivered a maiden speech which I feel sure has appealed to all Members of your Lordships' House as not only appropriate to the occasion but very skilled, full of knowledge and delivered with a charm which we might have expected of his father's son. I hope we shall often have the privilege of hearing him again. I should be rather jealous if he were to devote the whole of his future speeches to this one subject. Perhaps we might hear him again, even on other matters of interest to your Lordships' House.
At the end of his speech the noble Earl said that he felt that Covent Garden was an integral part of the life of the whole nation from the point of view of the arts. That leads me to say at once that I wish to talk about a particular aspect of the Arts Council. There are other parts of the country to be considered as having provided for a maintenance of art standards in the nation besides these very important and highly-valued centres of production and culture in London. I do not speak as Leader of the Opposition because I feel certain that all of us in this House would wish to approach the work of the Arts Council on a purely non-Party basis. To-day we all have an
930
interest in the arts, and we all want to see done for them the best that can be done.
The figures which have been given by my noble friend, Lord Silkin, in what I thought was an admirable speech in opening this debate, and by the noble Lords, Lord Esher and Lord Drogheda, show quite well, I believe, that compared with other countries in the world. this country is by no means advanced in the amount of public State support it gives to the culture and promotion of the arts. Nevertheless, there have been in this country, in the past, institutions which have done a great deal for that culture and development, and, without detracting one word from the general case which has been so ably put by my noble friend, Lord Silkin, I want to speak especially to-day on that part of the Report of the Arts Council for 1957–58 which commences on page 14 under "Notes for the Year", dealing with what I call the shabby and unjustifiable treatment of the Carl Rosa Opera Trust.
I believe the position is one which justifies the request which has been made by the present board of the Carl Rosa Trust that a searching inquiry should be made into all the circumstances. At the outset of my remarks on this subject, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government, that I believe that in the case of the Carl Rosa Opera Company they are committed, whatever may have been the general practice of the Treasury in the past in saying of bodies like the University Grants Committee, the Arts Council and the like, "We have given them so much money and it is their job to spend it. We have nothing further to say about it."
I believe Her Majesty's Government are committed in the case of the Carl Rosa Opera Company, and committed in a double sense. In 1951, my late noble friend. Lord Calverley. raised this question in your Lordships' House, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in replying for Her Majesty's Government on that day, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 178, col. 1060]:
"I can say, quite categorically, that the Arts Council—and Her Majesty's Government are in the greatest sympathy with them—want to keep the name of the Carl Rosa Opera Company in the opera houses and theatres of this country. Everything that can humanly be

931
done so that this should happen will be done."
Subsequent events over the next year or two seemed to indicate that that would be done. At any rate, the Carl Rosa Opera Company—which up to the present year has done eighty-three years of profitable work for art in this country, is the oldest opera company in the world and, so far as I know, is the only opera company in the world that persistently sings its operas in English—was, as a result of all that took place after that statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government in 1951, acquired with public money granted by Her Majesty's Government to the Arts Council. The Company was turned into the Carl Rosa Opera Trust, of which there is, of course, a board of management. It was acquired under a formal, legal document in which it is laid down, as a condition of the acquisition of the Company by the Trust, that its purpose and function is to present opera in the principal provincial centres of Great Britain in accordance with the tradition, style and general policy formerly pursued by the Carl Rosa Opera Company.
There is no doubt in my mind, or, I suppose, in the minds of many other of your Lordships, that the work of the Company in the provinces over the years has been quite magnificent. I say that as one who was brought up in the provinces and who, certainly until the age of thirty-four or thirty-five remained there. The Carl Rosa Company was the only means I had of obtaining any access to the music and the acting of the opera, and of increasing my knowledge of it. If I think back on my own acquaintances made and friendships gathered since then, I find that numbers of them—and many of them have been translated to the notoriety and successes of Covent Garden—were formed in the cultural school and practice of the Carl Rosa Opera Company. Some of my personal friends, such as Parry Jones, Norman Allin, Miss Gladys Park and other people (I could go on and make a list of them), in common with a whole range of other and notable singers and performers, have been brought up and trained in, and have excelled in, the particular form of production of opera which the provinces desire, and which has kept opera popular with wide and varying classes of people in the provinces.
932
What has happened? In the last twelve months there has certainly been an extraordinary upheaval. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, had just a word to say following up what my noble friend Lord Silkin said about integration. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, felt that integration might or might not be of benefit, but that, at any rate, it was worth looking at. The noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, said he did not think integration would be of much service to Covent Garden—I gladly give way to him.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I wanted only to say to the noble Viscount that I did not say it would not be of service to Covent Garden, and I should not like to say one way or the other as to whether it would be of service. What I meant to say is that there would not be any financial economies to be derived from integration.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, as it happens that meets my view, because I should gather that it has been very largely the financial aspect of the matter of integration which has been in the minds of the Arts Council. If we consider their Report this year it will be found that on page 14, and over to pages 17 and 18, there are one or two very interesting statements. First of all (and my noble friend Lord Silkin must have had this at the back of his mind when speaking) the Arts Council say this:
"The lack of the means to sustain opera on the basis of the ascertained and accepted need is due, year after year, to the fact that the Treasury grant to the Arts Council turns out to be substantially less than the careful and accurate estimate of requirements submitted."
From that point of view I think that the Arts Council have put in their own Report the case submitted by the noble Lords, Lord Esher and Lord Silkin. Without a shadow of a doubt the grants made are insufficient.
When it comes to the question of integration, then it seems, from the events of the last fourteen or fifteen months, that the attempts made, if not by the direct intervention at least by the gospel preached, by the Arts Council in favour of integration have turned out to be a most dismal failure. They say in this Report:
"… the Arts Council has repeatedly asserted the belief that many advantages could result

933
from some measure of integration or association between the various opera companies—Covent Garden, Sadler's Wells, Carl Rosa and the Welsh National Opera Company. In furtherance of this belief the Arts Council brought together, in the first place …"—
and then the Report goes on to describe the meeting between the representatives of Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells. Therefore I do not think it is much use for the Arts Council now to report and act as if the attempts made at amalgamation or integration in the last twelve months have not been open to the Arts Council.
I do complain, however, that the happenings with regard to the Carl Rosa Opera Company certainly have, at least by default of any reference to it, been allowed to lie, quite unjustly, to the blame of the Carl Rosa Opera Company. The proposed agreement of integration between the Sadler's Wells Company and the Carl Rosa Company was not made upon the initiative of the Carl Rosa Opera Company; it was made upon the initiative of the Sadler's Wells Company. The situation is not as would be implied from the remaining passages on this matter in the Arts Council's Report. It was not at any time the subject of final agreement by the Carl Rosa Opera Company.
In my view, the Government Department—the Treasury, I take it—which has to deal with this matter ought to pay great attention to the submissions made on behalf of the Carl Rosa Trust and by the chairman, Mr. Charles Wilson, that there is room for an inquiry, because they submit that in certain respects the comments made on this matter by the Arts Council cannot be proved to be true. If that is the feeling as to how they are being dealt with in the allocation of public money it seems to me to call at once for a proper inquiry, and it is of no use for the Government to try to ride off on the idea that it has always been the practice of the Treasury in such matters, whatever Government has been in office, to say they must leave it to the body which has been set up to administer the grants.
I often hear quoted, in support of that attitude of the Treasury, the example of the University Grants Committee procedure. In fact, the University Grants procedure, according to the information I have, is very different from that which has been practised by the Arts Council.
934
The University Grants Committee at least meet on the basis of coming into direct contact with all the various organisations concerned in the allocation of the grant, of finding out exactly what is required, what the programme is and how the money allocated by the Treasury can be best spent in the interests of the community as a whole. That practice is not being followed, so far as I can tell from the case submitted to me, in the case of the Arts Council. In fact, the board of the Trust has never, as a board, been in conference with the Arts Council. There have been the contacts made from time to time, apparently, between the former chairman, Sir Donald Wolfit, and the artistic director, Professor Gregg—I can remember the last name but forget his full name.
LORD LATHAM: Professor Procter-Gregg.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: But apparently the real views of the whole of the board have not been made known to all the members of the Arts Council. It has been left, more or less, to two or three individuals. The board of the Carl Rosa Opera Trust feel that they have a real grievance in this matter.
My Lords, there is something else which I should like to say on this matter. When the decision—the lamentable decision— was taken to cut altogether the financial support for the Carl Rosa Opera Trust, it was taken in circumstances which, from my point of view, were almost unbelievable. This process of endeavouring to get integration (as the Arts Council call it), during the last eighteen months has led, as many Members of your Lordships' House will recollect, to an extraordinary situation. The Sadler's Wells board—and I say this because the Arts Council make a great play about divisions and resignations from the Carl Rosa Opera Trust—were so divided upon the issue as to whether or not they could perform adequately the task of their productions at Sadler's Wells and maintain a touring season in the country which would take at least one half of the normal touring year, that, as a consequence, three members of the board resigned. It was that which eventually led to the breakaway. It was then assumed that the Carl Rosa Trust had some connection with that. In fact, it had nothing to do with it at all. It had

935
not agreed finally to the proposed integration. And yet, within a few weeks of that, the whole of the grant was cut off.
Moreover, I think this has to be said. If I am wrong, I shall no doubt be corrected, but I read between the lines, and my mind goes back to the time last year and this year when the whole future of Sadler's Wells was under discussion and was in a state of great dubiety; when the Arts Council were so moved by public opinion and by the results of meetings called by the mayors of the London boroughs which were affected, and other such meetings, that they had to do something more about it. Finally, they referred in their Report, I think, to the fact that they had done as much as they could. They felt it was better than an absolute closure. Even to-day, the people who move in the Sadler's Wells circle hardly know whether that means that their good work is to be fully supported in the future. In my opinion, that alone justifies all that has been said by previous speakers in the debate this afternoon on the need for having a long, through-term policy in any direct support of the arts in this country.
What happened then? In the ordinary way the Carl Rosa Opera Trust set about preparing their programme for the following season—the 1958–59 season. They had had great difficulties with the artistic director. Incidentally, I might say that the artistic director (to whom I have already referred) is greatly praised in this Report by the Arts Council for the improvements which have occurred, but they are improvements for which I can find no real support reflected in the results. In the full season during which he was the new artistic director and was in charge of the company, the box office receipts dropped by round about £19.000 as compared with those for the previous season, and he was unable to get rid of the normal deficit between box office receipts plus grant and current expenditure.
On July 9 of this year the Secretary of the Arts Council asked the Carl Rosa Opera Trust Company to submit their programme by July 18. There was no fuss, no hurry. no urgency—just the usual request to submit it. The Carl Rosa Opera Company Board went into the matter. They provided themselves with an agreement with a new and very wellknown
936
artistic director who had had great experience and success; the programme was drawn up; some expenses were entered into; and it was submitted on July 17. On July 23 the programme was rejected out-of-hand. It was rejected, apparently. on three main grounds. In the first place, it was suggested that it was rejected upon the ground that there would not be enough time to set the programme up for the touring season. My Lords, that does not bear any examination at all, because they had already entered into actual bookings of theatres, they had already engaged some of the artists required, and they had got to at least the stage of formal agreement with the new artistic director of the company. They could have gone straight forward.
In fact, the Arts Council, having to step in and fill the breach. had to set up what they called the 1958 Touring Opera Company; and because they did not want to let down the artists they had engaged or who had prospective employment for the 1958–59 season, the Carl Rosa Opera Trust handed over all the programme it had to the Arts Council. The Arts Council are using at least a part of the programme, and they are using at least a part of the engagements entered into by the Carl Rosa Opera Trust Company —whereas they had said that one of the main reasons why they had rejected their programme was because there would not be time to put it into operation. I must say that reports that have come to me show that in consequence, in some of the provincial towns there has been a great deal of consternation about the break in the touring season of the Carl Rosa Opera Trust Company.
Viscourrr ESHER: My Lords, the noble Viscount must not ignore the fact (though I do not think it is worth while going into it in your Lordships' House) that there were immense personal difficulties that took place in that company and that resignations were caused by those difficulties, which made it very difficult for the company to operate.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER or HILLSBOROUGH: I should be quite willing to go into any amount of detail on that matter with the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, because I have a lot of information about that, too. Certainly the Arts Council are very misleading in their

937
Report, when they talk about twelve resignations in a number of years. Many of them were quite fortuitious—through age or sickness—and hardly until this last year have there been any at all because of disagreement. In fact, Mr. Norman Allan and Mr. Cox, two of the five who resigned, have since said that they wished they had never resigned. There has also to be taken into account the fact that some of the resignations were certainly as a result of pressure brought upon them, as is instanced by the experience of Mr. Buesst, a member of the board who refused to give way to the pressure upon him al that time. At any rate, the grant was withdrawn and they were to get no more money at all.
They were also told that the other main reason was that there was a deficit of £15,000 accumulated over the overall programme for the former four years. I wonder how that deficit compares with the deficits of other subsidised bodies. If we look at the returns, I should say —and I noticed that the noble Earl. Lord Drogheda, took the point—that if his board could be in a position like that he would consider it marvellous. What is more, because of lack of a continuous through-policy in making these grants, every single art-producing body finds itself, at the end of the year, with commitments already made for the next season — commitments in respect of housing properties, preparing for new productions, and with salaries and permanent overheads to maintain; and they are compelled to overdraw on the bank. All these things are included in their deficits.
How was the Carl Rosa Opera Trust treated? Just about a day before the publication of their own decision in the Press, they were told about this. The time I have at my disposal goes so quickly that it is impossible for me to cover all the ground I wanted to do this afternoon. but I must say that I am convinced, after reading the case submitted —pages of it—to the Chancellor of the Exchequer by the chairman of the board of the Carl Rosa Opera Company, that a case for an inquiry certainly exists. The deficit last year was certainly affected by the drop in box office receipts under the direction of the artistic director whom the Arts Council kept on in connection with the stop-gap programme taking the
938
place of the Carl Rosa programme. I have received information from towns in the provinces that they greatly regret the proposal to end the Carl Rosa tours of the provinces.
I hope very much that in any case the Carl Rosa Opera Trust will be continued. I submit that the Government, because of the terms of the legal document by which the Government purchased the Carl Rosa Opera Company with public money, have a certain interest in the matter and must see that the purpose intended when the grant was made is carried through to the end. I only add that the work is being conducted with great difficulty at the present time. In spite of what the Arts Council say in their Report—that arrangements have been made to relieve any members of the board of the Trust of any personal liability for the deficit—at least until three or four days ago, no communication had been received. Those fully informed in the matter know well that for weeks and weeks after the stopping of the grant in July there was no move on the part of the Arts Council to meet the situation—not the slightest move—and that it was only after members of the board had insisted upon consultations and upon the matter being dealt with that, finally, about a month ago, after much delay, the promise was made that they would not have to meet the whole of their expenses for the voluntary work they had been doing.
My Lords, all this savours to me of something exceedingly peculiar. Why should the Arts Council and their bureaucratic employees and advisers take over a public trust of this kind, and then proceed to do their level best to kill it altogether?—though I hope that that is not the intention. I hope that something will be done by the Government to see that that does not happen, and to see that the Provinces, which have been so loyal to the Carl Rosa Opera Company and have enjoyed eighty years of service from this Company, have that service continued. Do not let them think for a moment that the service of a body like Sadler's Wells Opera Company No. 2 will satisfy the managers of provincial theatres. They want a body which is devoted to the Provinces during the whole of the touring season. I hope that when the noble Earl replies, he will be able to assure me that the Government will grant the inquiry

939
which has been so properly asked for by the board of the Carl Rosa Opera Trust; that they will see that the inquiry is of an independent character, and that its findings are reported to Parliament and the Press.
4.43 p.m.
ELORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, since I understand that, most regrettably, the noble Lord, Lord Blackford, is unable to take his part in this debate, it has been suggested that the few words I have to say should come now, and I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Huntingdon and to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, for their courtesy in allowing me to intervene at this stage.
In concentrating the attention which your Lordships have focused upon the Arts Council and their Report upon opera and drama, the noble Lords who have spoken have tended to overlook the splendid achievements collected in this Report in relation to painting, lithography, drawing and other visual arts. It is an excellent and inspiring record. Merely to look through the titles of the special exhibitions of pictures from abroad, from private collections and assembled from our own public collections, is to live again the joys which have been provided in the year under review. No less splendid is the record of the Arts Council in respect of the encouragement and assistance being given to the production and exhibition of special films dealing with the arts. I cannot think of any other country where there exists a body having the same purpose as the Arts Council with a record in these departments which can excel that of the Arts Council; and I rejoice to learn that the present chairman. Sir Kenneth Clark, has been appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to continue for another two years in the office in which he has so distinguished himself as one of the outstanding servants of the arts in Europe.
Turning to the theatre—and in this field I have served on the Board of the Old Vic for many years—I do not think that any criticisms we have of the relations of the State to the living theatre are focused in any way on the Arts Council. If there is anything which could be improved here I think it may be in the terms imposed upon the Arts Council by the
940
Government and the Treasury, in the method of the grant and in the manner of its administration. I think that these conditions arise, not from any but from the parsimony with which the whole question of State assistance for the arts is regarded. This has been most brilliantly set out in the memorable speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, which should be printed, published and delivered, with the Highway Code, to every single citizen. But it arises also from a misconception of function. I would beg the Government not to regard their patronage of the arts as a rescue operation. I would ask them to regard themselves as constructive partners, and not as reluctant relatives, coming along at the last moment to dig out a somewhat less than respectable colleague. It is constructive partnership that is wanted, and that is where it seems to me the proposals which Lord Bridges made in that lecture are so much to the point.
I beg the Government to embrace and adopt those proposals without further delay. If we had this quinquennial evaluation, and if we had this partnership based on a continuing understanding of the problems, we should not have this "rescue operation" state of mind. We should make these grants not on the basis of failure but on the basis of impending success. These annual payments in respect of deficits are a direct encouragement to improvidence. What we should do is to invest in success and award marks on which continuing grants are given, first for merit and performance, and secondly for solvency in the way it is performed. Then we could assess how much it was worth while to invest in this success in order to encourage a surge forward in its effort. I do not want to detain your Lordships for longer than is necessary, but I would urge the Government to alter forthwith their attitude and to adopt the proposals which Lord Bridges, with an unrivalled experience and a most enlightened outlook in the matter, has made, and to enter into partnership with those who have the best promise of giving a real return for the money invested.
4.53 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, I should like to support, briefly but I hope emphatically, the words spoken by my noble friend Lord Silkin at the beginning of this debate. I always

941
find this a difficult debate in which to speak, because everybody is on the same side, although unfortunately that does not seem to make much difference to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. I think that this Report of the Arts Council is an extremely valuable one, but really it only sets out in full the state of affairs which we all know too well, the very sorry state of affairs into which the arts have come in this country. One is apt to be cynical on the subject and to wonder whether the Government are not just driven to support only those measures which can catch votes for a possible coming Election.
Unfortunately, the arts have always been looked on as something which is not a "vote-catcher" and something in which the mass of the people are not interested. I wonder whether that is not a false view. The enormous increase in interest in the arts by people in this country over the last few years can be measured, by the sales of classical records of the gramophone companies, by the formation of new gramophone companies, the great demand for seats for any good production in our theatres or opera houses, and the increase in exhibition attendances, compared with former times. I think there is a growing æsthetic demand among the people which has not been recognised by those in authority. It seems to me, whether politically-wise or not, that to be as "stingy" as we in this country have been over the arts is both politically misguided and morally wrong.
I was delighted with the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, and I would join with the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, in wishing that it could be published and distributed, because to me it is always a matter of the greatest disgust and annoyance that, while we spend so willingly millions and millions of pounds on almost any project which comes up, when it comes to this most important project of helping the arts, to get a few hundred thousands is like squeezing the driest of lemons. I often wonder how the Treasury officials and the Ministers in charge of spending can justify this unbelievable "stinginess" when it comes to any support of the arts. I suppose that on materialistic grounds one could argue that, so long as people are well fed and housed, have reasonable
942
comfort and some light entertainment, and are able to work, that is all we want. But if that is the argument, surely we have come down to the worst form of totalitarian mentality. It is the same mentality which induced Goering to make his famous remark:
"When I hear the word 'culture,' I reach for my gun."
I doubt if any of your Lordships would subscribe to that theory. If there is cut out from our national life all the æsthetic qualities we have, it would indeed be a dreary place.
But that is not the argument that I want to put before the House to-day. I am satisfied that we should all agree that a country from which the arts were eliminated, or in which they played only so small a part in the national life as not to count, would be sad beyond words. But I wonder whether noble Lords realise how necessary they are, from a material and financial point of view, in regard to the prosperity of the country. In many ways they are one of our biggest money-makers. I wonder whether your Lordships realise how much all the things we use, the implements, the advertising designs, clothes, theatre designs and so on, are all originally the product of the artist. The original artist thinks out a new movement, a new form and a new way of expressing himself, and all the lesser designers copy him and take his ideas which are distributed through the whole trade. That is so whether it is dress design, design of cutlery, designs of machines, motor cars or anything else: they all originally come from the more original artists who have thought out new modes of expressing themselves. From that alone, if we wish to compete with our products in the world at large, can we get the best designs possible. That is one item.
Secondly, there is the tourist trade. The fact that we have good theatre, good opera and good concerts must attract to our shores a large proportion of foreigners, with their extremely useful foreign currency. But I think it is for our own sakes that we really wish to have some advantage from the arts, and this cannot be had on the cheap. As has been pointed out several times this afternoon (and I do not want to cover the ground again), many of the expressions of art are necessarily expensive. It is impossible to run a large symphony orchestra

943
on a shoestring, or to run good opera cheaply. If we are going to have the best, we must pay for it. That apparently is what the Government jib at doing.
There are, as is suggested in this Report, four sources of obtaining money—and money is the key to this whole problem, given the creative ability which this country has. The private patron has practically disappeared, and the only direct contribution we can expect on a large scale is the small contribution of the individual paying for his seat in the theatre, his entrance fee at an exhibition. his seat for a concert, and so forth. But if we are going to support the arts as we should wish, we must rely, as the Report points out, on industry, on the local authorities, on the new patron, the Television Authority, and, finally, and most important, on the Arts Council. As regards industry, it is a welcome development that some of the big industrial concerns are realising their responsibility in this respect, and I hope they will be encouraged. I wonder if Her Majesty's Government could not help to encourage them by devising same scheme of tax relief for money spent in this way. That is not a new idea: it is done in other countries, and I do not see why it should not be promoted here.
In regard to the local authorities, one would like to see a lot more done than is done; and here again I think Her Majesty's Government could take a lead and encourage schemes to help the authorities to spend more on the arts. In regard to the Television Authority, one welcomes the steps being taken, but these in no wise stop the responsibility of the body which can help the arts most, which is the Arts Council. I should like to join with other noble Lords in begging the Government not to be quite so parsimonious but to try to disgorge a little more money to help this body, which, though it may make mistakes, nevertheless does its best to help the arts which are in such a difficult position.
We have heard a great deal to-day about the opera, so I will not say much upon that question, though I should like to reinforce the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, about a National Theatre. I do not see why we cannot at least do something to initiate a scheme.
944
Even if it is impossible to build the theatre straight away, if some money could be allocated so that plans could be drawn up and building operations started, you would find the public willing to subscribe.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: They are all ready to start.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: If they are all ready—I do not know the position—why do they not start?
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: They are waiting for the Government.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: I implore Her Majesty's Government to try to do something about this much-needed institution of a National Theatre.
The other thing I should like to see carried out is the proposal in the Council Report of the divorce between money which is allocated to Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells. which is a vast amount and a necessary amount, and the money which the Arts Council have to distribute among all the other artistic needs—to encourage our sculptors, painters and actors, our concert artistes and our orchestras—because I think it would be found much easier for the Arts Council if a separate amount were given for these major bodies, and another amount which they could distribute as they like among the many demands which come to them every day. Otherwise, there is always a certain amount of niggling and difficulty. The other bodies complain that all the money is going to opera, and the opera complains that it must have more or it will have to shut down. That could be decided by making a division between the two payments—one a vote for the opera and ballet, and the other for the other arts generally. I believe that that would ease the position of the Arts Council.
I do not want to keep your Lordships much longer, because much has been said and we have all supported it. We all plead that something should be done to help, and at the moment the Arts Council is the only body which can help. So I once more add my voice to the plea to Her Majesty's Government to be less parsimonious, a little more generous, and to provide at least the £3 million which is badly needed—and, if possible, a little more—to help one of our most vital needs.
5.5 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I am a little afraid that when this debate has ended and the noble Earl has wound up in one of his persuasive speeches the Government will say to themselves: "Well, that is that. That is the end of it. The whole subject has gone with the wind until a Motion is put down next year." It is for that reason that I propose to revert to the substance of a Question which I put in your Lordships' House on November 11 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 212, col. 341], in which I asked whether the Government could
"state the amounts of public monies allocated to the Arts Council, the British Council, and public libraries … whether, in deciding on the allocations, a co-ordinated survey was made of the activities of the foregoing bodies, in order to ensure that the total sums available for distribution was allocated in the best interests of the nation as a whole.…."
I desire to emphasise this afternoon that in allocating these sums to the various bodies, quite apart from the public libraries, it is essential to know the facts upon which the allocations are made and the reasons for which these sums of money are allocated. I would refer to a leading article in The Times of October 9 of this year dealing with this particular question. The Times asked:
"How is the proper total national expenditure on the arts to be determined? It is no use saying the sky is the limit and hoping for a few low-lying clouds.… It is no use saying the answers are known. Very little is known.… A Royal Commission on the arts would not be a waste of time."
I should like to emphasise that, and to draw the attention of your Lordships to certain instances in which there would appear to be an overlapping on the part of the Arts Council and the British Council in respect of the use of monies voted by Parliament for their particular purposes.
In the Report of the Arts Council at page 58, I find this stated:
"Ballet Rambert. The principal event in the Ballet Rambert's year of activity was a visit to China. As the first English ballet company to visit that country it received an enthusiastic welcome at every performance during a tour lasting nine weeks."
Presumably the Ballet Rambert was either wholly or partly financed by the Arts Council. When I turn to the Report of the British Council at page 110, I find this stated under the heading "Art":
"(a) Drama; includes subsidies, guarantees or actual management charges for tours overseas
946
by British drama, opera and ballet companies and artists."
The total expended in 1957–58 for that purpose was
£20,955, but that excludes any of the expenditure on staff.
Now, my Lords, if that be so, and these two organisations, the Arts Council and the British Council, are both spending money voted by the taxpayer on sending a ballet company or ballet companies abroad, I suggest that there must be some overlapping, and that would be a very adequate matter for investigation by a committee or commission such as demanded in my Question of November 11 or advocated by The Times. Looking through the supplementary questions which followed on my Question of November 11, I find that the noble Earl, in answering my second supplementary question. said [Col. 342]:
"… although there may be a case for giving more to the Arts Council."
At a later stage, in reply to a supplementary question by my noble friend, Viscount Esher, he said, referring to the £1,100,000 allocated to the Arts Council [Col. 344]:
"I agree that there is a case for making it greater still."
With great respect to the noble Earl, I would ask, on what did he base those answers? He said that there may be a greater case, or there was a greater case. On what did he base those answers? Was it on information supplied by the Treasury? Are we to understand from those answers that larger grants will be given in the future? If that be so, we shall be delighted to hear it. But I suggest, coming back to my main point, that none of these questions can be answered unless some form of inquiry is set up which can conduct investigations into the monies expended by both the Arts Council and the British Council. For that procedure, as I suggest tonight, we have an excellent example from Canada. In Canada, the Massey Commission was set up by the Government to inquire into, among other things, the development of the arts in Canada. The result of the Massey Commission was the formation of a Canada Council, a body akin to a combination of our British and Arts Councils, and generously endowed with a capital fund.
That really is all I have to say, but I submit to the Government that there is a

947
very strong case in the interests of the taxpayer for setting up a Committee of Inquiry to report to Parliament on the cultural activities of the Arts Council and the British Council. I hope that the noble Earl tonight is not going to close his mind to that submission, but that he will say that the Government will give that request, which has been reiterated by other noble Lords. their most earnest consideration.
5.15 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I rise for a brief moment to make an additional appeal to Her Majesty's Government for further help for the arts in general. I want to make my appeal on a slightly different ground from that of my noble friend, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston. I believe that the arts are really an essential part of liberal education. They are not a luxury; they are not something outside people's lives. All of your Lordships, I am convinced, have, like myself, found that your enjoyment of life itself has been augmented and enlarged by some or other of the arts. It is noted in this Report that £16 million a year is spent upon public libraries. No one for one moment would doubt that public libraries are educational; but if this amount of money is a justified expenditure on public libraries, then I suggest that something more than £1¼ million is due to the arts other than literature. This is really not an extravagance; it is not a luxury expenditure. It is an expenditure on the enrichment of the lives of the people of this country.
I would draw your Lordships' attention—and I wonder whether I can have a reply from Her Majesty's Government on this point—to one particular statement in the Arts Council's Report; it is on page 22, the last sub-paragraph of the paragraph which runs over from the previous page. It reads as follows:
"Meanwhile the one theatre project for which a British Government accepted responsibility several years ago is still in the pigeonhole. and the handsome site on the South Bank donated by the L.C.C. for our National Theatre remains sterilised."
I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government could not tell us this afternoon that this is a project they will now put in hand immediately. I hope this promise can be given to us. It is a great many years since the foundation stone of the National Theatre was laid by King
948
George V, incidentally on an entirely different site from the one now available. Ever since that time, this project has been in the air. I hope that we may have a more encouraging reply on that matter this afternoon.
A number of years ago, it was remarked to me by the distinguished director of one of our most important national collections that no provincial museum could hope to augment its collection by any painting by any of the greater of the old masters. He pointed out that to buy a decent Rembrandt would inevitably cost at least £40,000 at that time, and your Lordships will have seen the prices which have been brought by other pictures in the London sale rooms quite recently. If we feel, as I feel and I know most of your Lordships feel, that this is something which is worth doing, then Her Majesty's Government must make up their minds to augment by a very considerable figure the money put at the disposal of the arts. It is no good pretending that this can be done adequately or properly on a shoestring; it cannot. We have been trying to do it on a shoestring and it is a shame to us all.
It is sometimes said that these things are, if not luxuries, at any rate the interest of only a limited number of our people. It is pointed out that the experimental theatre, the opera and so on, are not commercially profitable. But I would point out to your Lordships that, as I think my noble friend. Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, remarked, the sphere of influence of the arts is very much wider than their first and direct impact. There has recently been shown on television an extremely interesting play. That play was first produced at the Stratford-at-Bow theatre by the Theatre Workshop. It would never have seen a stage if it had not been produced there. It was not, so far as I am aware, a financial success. None the less, it has now been seen by millions of viewers. They have seen, perhaps for the first time, and apparently enjoyed, a play of a type, kind and quality which otherwise would never have been made available to them. This money is far more valuable to our people than its immediate and direct impact. I beg Her Majesty's Government to think generously and, above all, to realise that this is not a luxury but a necessity for which we are asking.
5.21 p.m
Lotto AUCKLAND: My Lords, it is most refreshing that we can come here this afternoon and hear so many expert views (though I certainly do not include mine in such a category) on such a subject as the arts. This is not a political matter, but in moving this Motion—and most ably he moved it—the noble Lord, Lord Silkin quoted from the pamphlet The Future Labour Offers You. This pamphlet accuses the Tory Government of making niggardly provision for the arts, but I think it is fair to say that this year the Government are contributing more towards the Arts Council than in any previous year of any previous Government since the war. Perhaps, on paper, £980,000 does not seem a large sum of money to devote to our arts, and in a country which has produced such great painters as Constable and Turner, such fine ballet dancers as Beryl Grey, such accomplished conductors of music as Sir Thomas Beecham and Sir Malcolm Sargent and such opera singers as Owen Brannigan, there is most definitely a case for keeping the arts well satisfied financially. But it is equally important to realise that we in this country are also financing enormous social services such as the National Health Service (which I think it is fair to say is the pride of the world) and an enormous road programme. These are essentials which have to be paid for out of public money. Financial aid for the arts is a most desirable proposition, but it cannot in any sense of the word be described as an absolute essential.
Having said that, may I emphasise the fact that I am a great lover of the arts, particularly music, and it is primarily about music that I should like to address your Lordships this afternoon. My only aspiration as to musical performances is that I sang in my school choir, but as a frequent attender of concerts I should like to make one or two observations. There is an old saying that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. I have been appalled, on occasions, to see the Royal Festival Hall and the Royal Albert Hall half empty for concerts of sterling quality. Earlier this year my wife and I went to a performance of the St. Matthew Passion at the Royal Albert Hall. To my mind this is one of the most lovely pieces of music ever written. The Royal Albert Hall was
950
three-quarters empty. The following week, the same orchestra, the London Symphony Orchestra, gave a performance of music by George Gershwin, a composer of undoubted ability and one whose music I admire. The Royal Albert Hall was full. True, it was a Sunday, but that contrast does rather reflect on the sense of values of the musical public of this country.
Among the items of Arts Council expenditure, perhaps the noble Earl who is to sum up this debate may be able to enlighten your Lordships' House as to the amount of publicity which the Arts Council gives to the various organisations which it supports. It is all very well spending money on financing music, opera and art, but all this is greatly negatived if publicity is not given. I. think it is fair to say also that local authorities could contribute more than they are doing now. I believe that Bournemouth has led the way, for that fine orchestra, the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra, has several times been threatened with dissolution. Largely, I think I am right in saying, through the efforts of local people, this orchestra has been saved.
My main reason for taking part in this debate is that I am a member of the London Symphony Orchestra Club. A great friend of mine, who is one of the principal violinists in that orchestra and who lives near our house, has several times stressed the fact that, whereas for financial reasons the London Symphony Orchestra and other orchestras are unable to make tours abroad, we in this country receive visits from orchestras from the Continent, sometimes from quite small towns. We have had the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra; we have had the Munich Orchestra and various American orchestras. Apart from the Philharmonia and the Hallé Orchestra, to a certain extent tours abroad by our orchestras are greatly restricted.
A great deal has been said about Covent Garden. The noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, in his most forceful and interesting maiden speech, spoke with expert knowledge on Covent Garden. I am bound to say that the last time I visited Covent Garden, which was admittedly nine years ago, the standard of production was somewhat disappointing. At the same time, I used to pay a number of visits to Sadler's Wells, where

951
opera was sung in English, which to many people is quite horrifying. I must confess that I personally prefer Italian opera sung in Italian; but sung in English well it can sound very appetising. Sadler's Wells has, or did have when I last visited it, among its company a number of Welsh singers.
I see from the publication which is being debated this afternoon, that the grant from the Arts Council to Wales for 1957–58 was £42,910, and to Scotland £82,176. Covent Garden alone receives four times the amount which the whole of Scotland receives. I have no particular axe to grind here, but in the Usher Hall Scotland has a very fine concert hall; and the Edinburgh Festival draws an enormous number of people. I am not saying for one moment that Covent Garden is over-financed by the Arts Council, but there seems to be a rather paltry comparison between the grants given for the whole of Scotland—which, after all, does encourage a number of tourists—and the whole of Wales, and the amount which Covent Garden receives. It gets the pick of the plums. So many of the singers and performers who come to Covent Garden, fine performers as they are, are performers, orchestras, conductors and so on, from other countries. I believe that your Lordships will be very interested to hear any proposals which the noble Earl may have for supplementing the grants from the Arts Council for Scotland and Wales.
The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, mentioned the diversity between the British Council and the Arts Council. and I am bound to say that some of the activities of the British Council seem to be rather extraordinary. We seem to send abroad all kinds of people. I seem to remember reading that a year or so back we sent ballet dancers to Uruguay. This may be very desirable, but we in this country have not limitless finances, and I feel that we must have a sense of proportion; and whilst the idea of exporting art—and by that I mean music and other forms of art—may be eminently desirable, I believe that expenditure within our own country must be concentrated upon far more, so that we can be in a position to send more of our well-known orchestras to countries of major importance.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? All I was doing was attempting to show that there might be overlapping in the activities of the Arts Council and the British Council, vis-à-vis the export of art abroad. That is all I had in mind.
Lora WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, the noble Lord should bear in mind that these foreign opportunities, which begin in a small way, needing help, often develop into very valuable revenue-earners.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, and the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, for their remarks upon that point, but bearing in mind that we are naturally limited to a budget, I feel that we have no alternative but to be rather selective about whom we send out. That is not always a very pleasant thing to have to face, but it is a necessary one.
I should like to support the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, in his mention of repertory theatres. Near where I live, at Leather-head, there is an excellent repertory company. I have never yet visited it, but friends of mine who have done so assure me of the high quality of its productions; and it must also be borne in mind that the finest West End actors and actresses who perform in this country and overseas emanate from our repertory theatres. We have had some very fine speeches this evening, and I hope that I have not given the impression that I am trying to be niggardly over the money spent. But, as I said earlier, bearing in mind the expenditure which we have on our social services, road services and similar things, expenditure on the Arts Council must, I think, be watched with reserve.
5.35 p.m.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I suppose I should give some reason for intervening in this debate, on the principle of stating one's interest in the matter. I want to take part in this debate because I was for five years the chairman of Grand Opera Productions Limited, which was the company operating Carl Rosa; and during my period of office we had a hard struggle and a hard battle against opposition directed from coteries in London, including, members of the Arts Council. I do not want to state any case in opposition to what has been said by

953
the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and others about the necessity for spending money upon art in more generous measure. I do not think we spend enough. I believe we are far too meagre. But that is not the same thing as pretending that opera depends solely upon the glitter of Covent Garden. Covent Garden is all glitter, but the Carl Rosa Opera Company was all guts—and required it during the battling of recent years. I am confining my remarks to opera because I know something of the recent history of these negotiations.
I remember reading as a youngster Tolstoy's What is Art?— and I recall a sentence in that work which impressed me very much. It was to the effect that art should come from the people, belong to the people and be made for the people. All the rest is worthless. That is extreme, of course, and I am not suggesting that there is not a good reason for the cultivation of the higher branches of operatic and other forms of art work in this country. But there is something in that, because, after all, the whole of the people of this country are taxed to provide the subsidies that have been mentioned, and they deserve better treatment than they are getting.
Scotland has been mentioned. Other towns, cities and counties in this country are starved of opera and other forms of art because there is a concentration, directed or influenced by a coterie of people who are rather dilettante in character and certainly are of the "precious-precious" variety instead of the robust variety. After all, the people of this country are entitled to what they like and have been trained in. I am not so much impressed with the argument that has been put forward by several speakers, including the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, to the effect that other countries in Europe spend much more than we do upon State opera and other ventures of that kind. That is perfectly true of Vienna, Hamburg, Paris, Milan, Rome and Naples, for example. But those are musical countries. The people are steeped in music. They have a history and prestige of music that we cannot claim to have. Our country is not a musical country and the comparison is really not worth while, especially in view of the fact that, because of their musical prestige, it pays those countries
954
to subsidise heavily their opera and other forms of art. Surely no one is going to suggest that so much concentration upon the glitter of Covent Garden is the only thing or the best thing that can be done for the general artistic elevation of the people of this country.
I am not at all convinced—I do not want to make charges, and I do not want to over-state the case—that Covent Garden is run economically. There must be some waste somewhere, and there is plenty of evidence of the kind of attitude that leads to waste in expenditure on artistic pursuits. Just fancy! Here is one Opera House, one theatre in the heart of London, a social centre more than anything else. It does not appeal to the people. I know that there is a comparatively cheap gallery, but that is all. Its presentations appeal as a social event; every production there is a great social event. That is all very well. I am not quarrelling with that. But the subsidy and the "gate", or the box office receipts, combined must run (I am open to correction by the noble Earl, who knows better than I do about the inside management of Covent Garden) to something like £500,000. No one is going to tell me or to give me a sense of conviction by saying that that kind of money is not enough to run Covent Garden or any theatre in this country.
I know, of course, that opera is expensive. Do I not? I should think I do! But we had an order from the Arts Council for a Festival opera, one of three, in 1951. We produced John Socman. We took that in our stride, so far as overheads were concerned, I admit. That was a new opera—not just a running one, but an entirely new one. It was produced for £3,000; and it was produced well. There was no glitter about it, but there was good music about it. There was an orchestra of seventy, at the modern price of orchestras, with one of the most efficient conductors in the country, or in the Provinces, at any rate. I thought that that production was a success from an artistic point of view; certainly not from a financial point of view. I make a comparison of that amount, £3,000, for one new opera done by Carl Rosa and more than £500,000 spent upon Covent Garden.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I feel that the noble Lord is not

955
making a very fair comparison. I am not quite clear what the figure of £500,000 is supposed to represent. If it is to represent our annual grant, all I can say is that I wish it were the true figure. So far as the "glitter" of Covent Garden is concerned, and the idea that every performance we have is a great social occasion, I wish it were true. In fact, we have an enormous number of cheap seats in the house, and I would say that it is a very popular house.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, I do not know wat the total would be, but my figure included the subsidy and the box office receipts, or what is popularly called the "gate". The two combined can hardly be less than close on £500,000. I do not think I am wrong.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, I am sorry to intervene again. The figure is a good deal more if one combines the "gate". The figure of the grant this year is £362,000, and the figure of takings very approximately doubles that.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, that is supporting what I say. I am not grumbling about that. I am not grumbling about subsidising Covent Garden. But I am grumbling about blanketing Carl Rosa which provides the true opera for the people of this country that made Covent Garden possible. These are some operas introduced by Carl Rosa into this country, and made popular particularly because they insisted upon singing in English: The Flying Dutchman; Nicolai's The Merry Wives of Windsor; Carmen; Mignon; Lohengrin; Aida; Tannhauser; Massenet's Manon; Romeo and Juliet, by Gounod; Cavalleria Rusticana; Verdi's Othello; The Prophet, by Meyerbeer; Pagliacci; The Damnation of Faust, by Berlioz; Hansel and Gretel; La Boheme; Tristan and Isolde, and Siegfried, and quite a host besides. Those are operas of Carl Rosa, and the people of this country knew nothing of them until Carl Rosa brought them here. They made all the musical glitter there is in this country in a popular sort of sense.
I know what the popular idea means. We cannot get anything like the blaze of Covent Garden with a touring company upon Carl Rosa lines. I know what we have had to contend with. We have had
956
to contend all along with what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would call the denigration of the coterie of Bow Street, long before these current affairs occurred. I met the Arts Council on the matter. We had to fight, with no money and rising costs, yet we kept the flag flying. I do not know that that has not done more for the musical tastes of this country than all that Covent Garden has done. Covent Garden, after all, whatever may be said about it, is only one theatre and presents "socialite" events in most cases. It is for the élite; it is not for the common people. I know what this idea means, because we always got from London the same kind of criticism from the critics.
I was present at the premiere of Berlioz's Benvenuto Cellini. It was a workmanlike production, very finely sung. The orchestra was good; it always has been good. I knew, as all who had to do with the thing at all knew, what the criticisms of the London critics influenced so much by Covent Garden would be. We had our finest conductor, Mr. Hammond, and the next morning there was the usual thing: he was "too fond of brass and tinkling cymbals. or at any rate of the drums—there was too much noise." There was that kind of criticism. It was too robust; too popular in fact—too much like the provincial productions that the provincial people wanted. I am inclined to think that Berlioz knew more about what was wanted for his musical effect than those gentlemen who write the musical criticisms for the Press; but that kind of thing was done over and over again every time the Carl Rosa came anywhere near London. In the provinces there is a demand for a more robust kind of production. Why not? It is what the people pay for. It is good: it is not bad; it is not inefficient. It is the kind of thing that certainly paid and enabled it to carry on for years and years until after the last war when the inflationary troubles occurred.
What is being done now by the new Trust or by the new stop-gap company? We have been told what they are doing. They are not doing things with anything like the popularity of Carl Rosa. People are regretting the absence of Carl Rosa. Why should Carl Rosa be left in the background like that? I do not think that anybody really knows what the precise

957
situation is. It would be very useful if, in this debate, the Minister could tell us (when he replies will do) what is going to happen to Carl Rosa. Are we going to lose the prestige of that company? With regard to its appeal to popular taste, and all the rest of it, I would say that taste is a very peculiar thing to define. Gounod's Faust was first introduced to London by Carl Rosa, and it was produced at one of the roughest music halls in London—the Canterbury, in Westminster Bridge Road—and to an audience of "shilling stalls and sixpenny pit," where the management told people to come and see their new carpet but not to spit on it. That was the type of people before whom it was produced—and they enjoyed it. They had it: they wanted it. These impressarios of public entertainment have a habit of misjudging popular taste and of misjudging the people. They have a habit of thinking that the lowest common denominator is really representative. It is not.
I will give your Lordships one particular illustration of that, if I may. When the Coliseum (I am away from opera at the moment) was first opened in London. in place of the old-fashioned, slightly slapstick sketch Stoll put on a small play by Barrie. The critics said: "That will never do. The people going to music halls will never stand for that." However, they did stand for it—and there was a sixpenny gallery in those days. One cart play down too low. People who pay money certainly expect to get some kind of entertainment. They will very often laugh and respond even to the most inane stuff, but they will also respond to something better. If anything has been done successfully for music on the Tolstoyan lines of "by and for the people," Carl Rosa, I claim, did it, and it is a shame that Carl Rosa should be blanketed in the way it has been.
I ask the Government to make some kind of investigation. A Royal Commission is out of the question, of course, but I suggest that some committee should be formed to deal with the whole question of the expenditure of the Arts Council and of Carl Rosa. I can understand the attitude of the Arts Council when they say that they know more about art than the Government does, and I am sufficient of a libertarian not to like too much interference from Governments and from bureaucrats; but, all the same, this
958
is public money, and there is no way in which we can really check the expenditure. A report is made for the public, I know, but one does not get a real check from that. We should know—and we could know with an effective committee of the kind that has been suggested, and of the kind which I urge—exactly what is happening in the whole business. It seems to me that there is a lot of undercurrent about this matter which is not particularly savoury. That is a personal judgment, and I hope I am wrong. At any rate, I could be proved wrong if the Government were to accede to the request of the noble Lords who have made speeches on the subject with regard to Carl Rosa and were to establish at once some kind of committee 'to investigate the exact position. But I should like to get from the Minister some account of what is proposed with regard to Carl Rosa. Is it to be left in the air? And, if so, why?
5.55 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to Lord Silkin for enabling us to have a debate of such exceptional interest, in which we have had the pleasure of listening to so many noble Lords who have been speaking on this subject with the highest authority. I should like, if I may, particularly to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, on his very fine maiden speech, and to hope that we shall often hear him in the future. One of the things which I remember as a very small child, nearly fifty years ago, is my grandmother, who was a native of Southern Ireland, telling us what a delightful man the late Lord Drogheda had been. That was the noble Earl's grandfather, who died, I think. about fifty years ago. Of course, the noble Earl's father was held for many years in very high affection by all your Lordships as Chairman of Committees in your Lordships' House.
As for the noble Earl himself, he appears to be a director of so many operas, theatres, and ballets, that one could perhaps almost describe him as an "art tycoon". In his admirable speech this afternoon he made a strong plea for the future security of Covent Garden Opera, which is so much worried by its deficits in spite of the fact, as the noble Earl candidly pointed out, that in the last three years the Government grants to

959
Covent Garden have increased from £250,000 to £360,000. But I can assure the noble Earl, as I think he knows, that the position of Covent Garden is being discussed at this time between the Arts Council, a representative of Covent Garden, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that the needs of Covent Garden will certainly be taken into account when my right honourable friend is deciding the amount of the grant which he can give to the Arts Council next year.
I think that the burden of every single speech which has been made in this debate has been to the effect that the subventions which are given by the British Government to the arts are not altogether munificent—and I do not propose to dispute that contention. Even if I did, it would be little use one man disputing it against so many. I have been accustomed all my life to hearing every British Government attacked on the ground that it was mean and niggardly; I have also been accustomed to hearing every Government attacked, very often by the same people and at almost the same time, on the ground that it was prodigal and extravagant.
We have heard comparisons made between expenditure on the arts and expenditure on a great many other things —on roads, on agriculture, on the Welfare State, and on education. But when we come to discuss these matters we do not always find that the people who are interested in them are at all satisfied with the amount of money which is being spent by the Government on them. We have had comparisons between our expenditure on arts and our expenditure on the pig subsidy or on the egg subsidy, but when we debate agriculture, as I think your Lordships did a day or two ago, it will be found that the farmers are not at all satisfied with the amount which we are spending on these things. Then, when we come to debate old-age pensions, which we are going to do next Wednesday, I shall be surprised if there is any universal agreement on the proposition that the present old-age pensions are sufficient.
Therefore, I prefer to accept the general and convenient assumption that in Great Britain we somehow manage every year to squander about £5,000 million in an extremely parsimonious manner. On the particular parsimony in regard to the arts
960
which we are discussing now, I would say a brief word about the principle on which grants are given to artistic objects in Great Britain, which is not quite the same as the principle on which they are given in the Western European countries which, as many noble Lords pointed out, are spending a great deal more on opera and, I have no doubt, on other forms of art than we are here.
Under the benevolent despotisms of the 18th century, in most of these Western European countries the rulers raised large sums of money in taxation which they spent, very wisely, on opera, music, drama and art of every kind. When these despotic Governments came to be overthrown by the revolutionary Liberal Governments of the 19th and 20th centuries, these new Governments did not reverse the established practice, to which people were accustomed, of subsidising music and drama to a large extent from State funds. So that most of these countries have old-established Ministries of Culture or Ministries of the Fine Arts, which have staffs of civil servants trained to judge how much money should be given to one object or another, and Ministers whose whole time is taken up with these questions. It is easier for a country with an autocratic tradition to do this than it is for one which has always had a Parliamentary Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked what would have happened if Shakespeare had not been financed, and I suppose the answer is that he would not have been able to afford to bequeath his second best bed to his wife. I do not think that the money used to finance him was found by Elizabethan Parliaments; it came from private sources. Certainly after the great fire of London, when Sir Christopher Wren produced a wonderful piece of town planning which would have made London the finest city in the world, if it had been carried out, it met with the parsimony of the Parliament of Charles II, which refused to vote the money to do it.
Until modern times the British Parliament has done very little about providing for the arts. In the 18th and 19th centuries the patrons of art were wealthy aristocrats who gave more money more capriciously than the Government would have been able to do, but on a sufficient scale. It may be remembered that when the theatre in Drury Lane was burned

961
down in 1809 little difficulty was experienced in raising the sum of £400,000 to restore it, and £400,000 meant a good deal more then than it does now. I am interested to see in this Report from the Arts Council which we are discussing that even as late as twenty years ago rich patrons still came first in the four classes of patronage which they mentioned —private, Government, municipal and industrial. Now private partonage comes fourth. Taxation has deprived the wealthier individuals of our community of their ability to finance the arts.
One result of this long dependence on private munificence has been that we have not any Ministry of Culture or Ministry of the Fine Arts in Great Britain and it is something that would take a long time to build up, because it needs civil servants as well as a Minister. What we have is the Ministry of Works, and here we have a trained staff who are accustomed to deciding which monuments ought to be preserved and allocating on their own responsibility any sums which Parliament may think fit to vote for that purpose, but we have not any Minister or any branch of the Civil Service which is capable of doing the same thing for music, opera, drama, the ballet or any of the other arts except architecture.
This Report is entitled A New Pattern of Patronage, and perhaps one of the most interesting parts of it is that part in which the secretary expresses the hope that industries, including I.T.V., may find themselves able to play the part in giving patronage to the arts which used to be played by private owners of great wealth. The examples given in the Report have already been quoted by noble Lords who have spoken. One point the Report makes which has not been mentioned is that nothing could be more undesirable than a unilateral system of patronage, in which a single body is sole distributor of subsidies, and it is pointed out that when spending public money a public body cannot take any risk whereas private dispensers of patronage could "subsidise adventure", as they call it.
It was mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Silkin and Lord Drogheda, that if gifts to the arts were freed entirely from taxation, as they are in America, there would be many more gifts. According
962
to the Report, they might multiply tenfold. Without going into great details, I would point out that by making a deed of covenant to any artistic body—to Covent Garden or Sadler's Wells or any similar opera or theatre—it is possible to escape taxation. I am afraid that under the 1946 Finance Act, which still governs our financial rules, a private individual could not be exempt from surtax. But in the case of a company which does not pay surtax, any gift under deed of covenant would be exempt. That means, of course, that they are able to give a great deal more to the arts for the same amount of money. My noble friend Lord Drogheda is probably aware that, as reported in The Times yesterday, a well known brewery firm has just given £45,000 to the Old Vic. in the form of a seven-year deed of covenant. This is exempt from taxation and this exemption has enabled their gift to be much larger than it would have been otherwise. In view of what the Report says about taxation, this should he publicised as much as possible, so that it may be appreciated that deeds of covenant of this kind to the arts are exempt from income tax.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, the problem with Co vent Garden is that we never know beyond one year what is to happen to us and it is very difficult to ask someone to enter into a seven-year deed of covenant when the Arts Council publish a Report which says that we may shortly demise.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I do not know what would happen to the seven-year deed of covenant in that event, but I should have thought that it was worth taking the risk. I do not see what risk would be involved to the donor in doing so. It could surely be transferred to some equally deserving object.
LORD LATHAM: I think the situation would be that you would be called upon to repay the relief obtained in the former years under the covenant which was terminated in the seven years.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No, because it is the recipient, and not the donor, who makes the application for relief and gets it.
LORD LATHAM: The recipient, yes.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: The recipient being Covent Garden.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: But the donor makes a certificate that he is going to pay over a period, and on that he can be proceeded against.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: If I were wealthy enough—and I wish I were—to make a deed of covenant to Covent Garden, I do not think I should be deterred by these melancholy possibilities from so doing. I think it is worth making sure that people are aware that this is possible, in view of the statement here to the effect that gifts might be increased ten times over if they were exempt from taxation.
If you exclude architecture, for which the Ministry of Works are responsible, until we can build up a Ministry of Culture or Ministry of Fine Arts the Government are not capable of deciding how public money voted by Parliament should be distributed between one kind of art and another, and that is why the Arts Council have been entrusted with the task of doing so without getting the approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for each individual item of expenditure. If you take all expenditure on the arts since the war, I am not representing that it is very large or generous, but it has gone up a great deal; that is, from under £1 million in 1945 and 1946 to about £7 million at the present time. That includes about £3 million on museums, about £1 million or more spent by the Ministry of Works on art galleries and £1,100,000 on the Arts Council, which is the section of that expenditure that we are particularly debating at this moment.
Your Lordships are fairly unanimous in thinking that it is not enough to spend £1,100,000 this year on the Arts Council. It is difficult to say what is enough. Until a few weeks ago I was Chairman of the Historic Buildings Council for Scotland, and I had the duty of recommending to the Minister how the sums voted by Parliament to help in the preservation of architectural treasures in that country should be distributed. If I had been asked as Chairman of the Council to say whether or not I thought the money voted by Parliament was sufficient, I should have replied that it was not sufficient, because, having regard to the amount of money
964
which we were voted and also having regard to the large number of good, deserving claims which we had to consider, it sometimes happens that a Historic Buildings Council has to refuse to recommend a grant of money in a case which on its own intrinsic merits is a good case. You cannot do everything. On the other hand, I should have been obliged to admit that since the Historic Buildings Fund was started in 1953 the grant had increased from £250,000 to £450,000 at a time of financial stringency, when economy cuts were continually being made in other directions; and I should also have been obliged to point out that the Historic Buildings Council had succeeded in doing a great deal of good and saving a great many historic houses which otherwise would have decayed.
The same can be said, I think, about the money voted to the Arts Council. In 1945 it was only £250,000; in 1952 it was only £575,000; last year it went up to £980,000, and it has gone up to £1,100,000 this year. I daresay that that is not enough, but in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, it has increased at a time of financial stringency when we have been trying to cut down expenditure and fight inflation. I think it is right to point out that the Arts Council have done a great deal of good. They have been able to establish Covent Garden as a permanent national theatre for opera, and opera of an international standard, which did not exist here before the war. And it is, I think, wrong to overlook what the Arts Council have been able to do for ballet. They have built up the former Sadler's Wells Ballet, and they have made possible the development and expansion of the Royal Ballet School at Richmond Park. They have prevented the collapse of Sadler's Wells, to the rescue of which the London County Council and I.T.V. have now come as well. They have financed touring opera and ballet and without their help there would have been little opera and ballet in the Provinces in the last five years. They have sustained the Old Vic, which I do not think would have survived without their help, and they have sustained half a dozen of the principal symphony orchestras in Britain, most of which, again, could not have survived without their help. I think it is fair to claim that, although we might like to do a great deal more than this, these are solid and substantial achievements, which have been

965
made possible by this steadily increasing grant.
Whilst your Lordships have in general supported the Arts Council and demanded that it should be given more money, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Amwell—although, if I understood the noble Viscount, I think he would approve in principle that more money should he given to the Arts Council; I want to represent his point of view fairly—feel that they have not expended the money they have been given in a proper manner, at least in respect of the Carl Rosa Opera Company, and therefore the noble Viscount thinks, and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, agreed with him, that there ought to be an independent inquiry.
I can sympathise with the noble Viscount's feelings on this subject, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Amwell. The Carl Rosa Opera Company have, as noble Lords have said, done more than anything else to bring opera into the Provinces over the last eighty-five years. They are a company to which many lovers of music have a great sentimental attachment. I think we all deeply regret the most unfortunate and bitter quarrel which appears to have taken place last summer between different persons on the Carl Rosa Trust. I am not going to enter into the artistic merits of this dispute, and I think it would be most undesirable if the Government were to do so; but since noble Lords have suggested that an independent inquiry ought to be held, I think we must consider what the Arts Council have done about it and see whether they have done anything which might disturb the confidence which Her Majesty's Government have in their ability to do the work which they have been set up to do.
The facts briefly are these. First, about a year ago the Carl Rosa Trust appointed Professor Procter Gregg as Artistic Director for a period of, I think, one year. The object of that appointment was to improve the quality of the opera which Carl Rosa were going to present. The majority of the people on the Trust did not approve of the methods which Professor Procter Gregg followed in doing this. As a result of the disputes which took place about it, the chairman and other members of the Trust resigned. The remaining members of the Trust then
966
asked Sir Eugene Goossens to organise the autumn tour, beginning on September 15. As the noble Viscount has said, the Arts Council decided that there was not time for this to be done efficiently, and what they did was to take what they described in their Report as the unusual and drastic step of giving the subvention of £35,000 to the seceders from the Carl Rosa Trust—that is, Professor Procter Gregg and the personnel, the musicians and performers, or eighty-seven of them, from the Carl Rosa Company who had decided to follow him.
LORD AMWELL: That has been represented in the Press as "ratting"—. that the company "ratted". That is not correct, and the company were allowed freedom. They were given more than freedom because of the imminence of possible unemployment. That was the only reason, and if the company had "ratted," Sir Donald Wolfit ratted, too; and that I do not believe of that gentleman.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I did not use the word "ratted" and I do not know what newspapers did. I am merely informing the House of the facts so far as I know them—that Sir Donald Wolfit resigned. That is a fact, and we need not use any tendentious terms about it. Also, eighty-seven members of the Carl Rosa staff followed Professor Procter Gregg. The tour, financed as it was by the Arts Council, began, as intended, on September 15.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I interrupt?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I was just going to say the tour began on September 15, and has been going on for some time. According to a large number of Press cuttings which I have here from Manchester, Birmingham, Bradford and Wolverhampton, it appears to have been entirely successful.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: If they were able to do that without any further delay, why was it not possible for the Carl Rosa Company, who submitted their proposals at the usual time before the date suggested by the Arts Council, with all their arrangements already properly drafted, and some actually completed, to go on? They have been treated shamefully. Everybody who

967
knows the facts knows it is so, and it is all against the pledge that the artistic Director, Professor Procter Gregg, made when he went to the job—that he would fulfil the obligation included in the agreement on the sale of the Companies to the Trust, that they would follow the traditions and policy, and that he would consult the board of the Trust before taking any undue steps in change of policy or in engaging and dismissing staff.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Whether they have been treated shamefully or whether anyone has broken undertakings I do not know, and I cannot say. What I think is that the noble Viscount has put his finger on the real point in the dispute. Whether, as the residue of the Carl Rosa Trust thought, they were able, under the chairmanship of Sir Eugene Goossens, to carry out an effective tour, or whether, as the Arts Council decided, they were not able to do so, is a matter of artistic opinion which I cannot express. One of them is obviously in error.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: And an inquiry?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No. The Government cannot express any opinion at all. I have examined carefully the accounts of the proceedings, of which the noble Viscount was aware, and my colleagues have also examined them, in order to find out whether there is any ground for thinking that the Arts Council have acted with any impropriety or any disingenuousness or any dishonesty, and I cannot find the slightest ground for any such suspicion. They may have made an error in artistic judgment in thinking that Professor Procter Gregg would be able to carry out a successful tour, whereas the remains of the Carl Rosa thought they would not be able to do so. That is a matter of artistic opinion, but it is not a question of disingenuousness or shameful action or dishonesty of any kind.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I imagine, from the noble Earl's remarks, that he must have seen the statement sent on behalf of the Trust by Mr. Charles Wilson to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which many more charges are brought than the ones I have related this afternoon, and which
968
puts down categorically that the conclusions of the Arts Council. as they are published, are simply not true. That is the statement. The chairman of that Trust is somebody upon whom I personally can rely absolutely. He is a fellow of Jesus College. He was in charge of one of the most important and confidential departments of the Admiralty under me right through the war. I trust him absolutely on this matter, and when he makes that statement I believe that he has substance for making it. In those circumstances, where public money is involved, an independent inquiry is overdue.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course, I am aware of the noble Viscount's views, and he will be the first to admit that he is making an ex parte statement in which I cannot join. I have seen a great deal more than the document to which he refers, and I have been pained by the unrestrained accusations hurled about in this controversy. What I am concerned with is whether there is any prima facie evidence which might lead us to think that the Arts Council have done anything improper or dishonest. I am bound to say that I can find no such evidence. If, in these circumstances, we were to institute an inquiry it would be equivalent to saying that we had no longer any confidence in the Arts Council. It would probably involve the resignation of the Arts Council. The fact is, that Her Majesty's Government have the fullest confidence in the Arts Council and in their ability to carry out the duties for which they have been set up.
The noble Lord, Lord Amwell, asked what is going to happen now. I do not know what is going to happen now, but in their Report the Arts Council say, having described the action which they have taken, that they propose to continue discussions with the present members of the Carl Rosa, and to consider further the Council's attitude towards a body which has for so long been acutely divided in matters of policy and method. As the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said when he quoted the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in 1952, the Government certainly have the greatest sympathy with Carl Rosa, and the greatest desire to see it continue. But I do not know whether it would be right to express that sympathy

969
by taking the dangerous and unwarranted course of intervening in a personal dispute between a number of artistes of whose merits the Government are not really best fitted to judge.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH: May I put it in this way? We have had from the noble Earl this afternoon some extracts from the Report showing which organisation here and there has been saved by the good work of the Arts Council. Do I understand, therefore, that the Government's attitude is that, because they have done that, they must be right in everything else, and that they will acquiesce in the attempted assassination of the present and future position of the Carl Rosa Opera Company?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am not accepting the premises of the noble Viscount. The Government have studiously refrained from intervening or forming any judgment on any dispute which concerns art, because I am sure my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the first to agree that he has neither the time nor the capacity to do a thing like that; nor has any Department in the Government. All we have to consider is whether the Arts Council have done anything unscrupulous or dishonest. It does not appear to us that there is any good evidence for the allegations which have been made in this most unfortunate quarrel. The Government have confidence in the Arts Council, and consider that it might be regarded as withdrawn if we were to institute an inquiry of this kind.
Several noble Lords, including Lord Silkin, Lord Esher and Lord Faringdon, have asked about the National Theatre. I am afraid that there is not much I can report in the way of progress about the National Theatre. As noble Lords know, in 1949 the Act authorised an expenditure of £1 million on a National Theatre. The trouble is that the expense now is estimated to be £2 million, and it is thought that the annual subsidy might be anything from £120,000 to £300,000. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has recently had correspondence with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and the noble Viscount, Lord Esher (who has apologised for not being able to remain until the end of this debate), and the Chancellor said:
970
"I am afraid that I cannot hold out any hope that we shall in the near future be able to make a beginning with expenditure of nearly £2 million on a building for the National Theatre. That is a big sum and a substantial subsidy would be required in addition… The Arts Council are making an inquiry into the housing of the arts which they undertook following the Report of the Queen's Hall Committee … I hope that the Report which the Arts Council are preparing will indicate priorities among the various projects for cultural buildings. That will give us an opportunity for considering the long term prospects of the National Theatre against the background of a number of competitive claims."
There are, of course, very many other things, and Covent Garden is one, which we hope, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can find more money, ought to be considered first. We should like first to have a report from the Arts Council on what they consider to be the right order of priorities before we can say any more about the long-term prospects of the National Theatre.
When I tell your Lordships that everything in this Report which we have been discussing will be carefully considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also, of course, everything your Lordships have said in this debate, I do not think that ought to be taken as a form of words for putting off your Lordships until next year, as the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, thought it might be. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has shown, by increasing these grants so often and so continuously during the last three or four years, when we have been going through a period of great financial stringency in the fight against inflation, that he is sympathetic and reasonable to the needs of the arts, and that even although we may not be able to get everything your Lordships may perhaps legitimately wish for, there is no reason to assume that we are not going to get any improvement at all. I think the arguments which have been used by so many of your Lordships in this debate are certainly worthy of being thoroughly considered, as they will, of course, be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope also that they will be considered by the general public and that they will be well reported for that purpose.
I agree with what is said in this Report, that public interest in the arts is growing. It is increasing, and we all welcome

971
it. But it is not always growing in a uniform way or equally in every part of the country or among every section of the people. Those of us who have been concerned with historic buildings councils have experienced both kinds of local authorities: some quite small and not very rich authorities who are prepared to increase their rates in order to save some beautiful building which is in their possession, and other authorities who may be better off who are not prepared to spend a penny on any artistic object. I noticed in the New Statesman of this week, in the "This England" column, a reference to Orpington Council, which refused to make a £50 grant to next year's Orpington Festival, and one councillor is quoted as saying "However good the cause we cannot go lashing out on culture." I think that is the attitude of a great many people. On the whole, however, I think that interest in the arts, both among local authorities and the public, is increasing, and that debates such as we have had to-day may encourage it.
I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Amwell, said about art being for the ordinary man, to be enjoyed, and I was a little perturbed by the remark of the noble Viscount, Lord Esher, that he supposed the Government regarded art only as a matter of enjoyment. It rather reminded me of Miss Anna Russell's famous imitation of the lady president of the Women's Federation for the Propagation of Music and Art, who said. "Our Federation goes in for art for its own sake, not expecting either reward or enjoyment." I think that there is a much wider appreciation now of the value of art than there used to be, among all sections of the public, and I hope that debates such as your Lordships have had this afternoon may help the public to realise that more permanent values in entertainment, music, drama and art of every kind were not designed merely for a few highbrows but for ordinary men and women of every kind.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I ask the noble Earl, before he concludes, whether he could tell us anything in reply to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Amwell: What is to be the future of the Carl Rosa Opera Company?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have given all the information I can about that by quoting from the Report.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I was going to hark back to that. They say that they will be getting into touch with the Carl Rosa Company, from July up till now, but they have not done so. They are not discussing the future of Carl Rosa with Carl Rosa at all. When is it going to happen?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I have given the facts about what has happened. It is a very regrettable and unfortunate story, but I do not think it is the fault of the Arts Council.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I think it is.
THE EARL. OF DUNDEE: It is certainly not the fault of the Government. That is where I disagree with the noble Viscount; and the Government cannot accept his view or the view of Mr. Charles Wilson that it is the fault of the Arts Council. What the Arts Council will be able to do to repair the situation we can only wait and see, and I can only quote what they have stated in their Report.
LORD AUCKLAND: Could the noble Earl be a little more specific about the future of the Edinburgh Festival, and the grants which the Arts Council are making? I believe that Scotland gets only £82,000 per annum in all, out of the total expenditure of some £980,000 on the whole of the Arts Council. Bearing in mind that the Edinburgh Festival attracts visitors from all parts of the world, just as Covent Garden does, can the noble Earl foresee any hope of a larger proportionate grant being given to this very important institution?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for calling attention to the fact that the proportion of the Arts Council's grant which goes to Scotland is not in accordance with the 11/80ths rule, in which case I think it would be a little higher. But that is precisely the kind of question which, in our view, the Government ought not to decide. The fact that there is evidence that a large number of objects need more money may be a good reason for giving more money to the Arts Council, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has consistently done year

973
after year. But it is not a good reason for the Government saying to the Council: "You shall give such-and-such a proportion of our grant to this or that object." If that were done, it would open the door to all kinds of lobbying from all kinds of interests, among Ministers who are not really capable of deciding the merits of the question.
ViscouNT ELIBANK: You might have civil war!
6.41 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, this is one of those occasions when the House discusses a matter of public interest on objective and impartial lines. There has been no element of Party politics in this debate, and I am therefore free to say to the noble Earl who has just spoken that, on the whole, I think he has made an agreeable, a reasonable and a sympathetic case; and I should like to thank him for it. I realise that- in these days one cannot expect to get everything that one would like in the way of money, but I am encouraged by what he said.
I did not for a moment expect him to be able to accept the propositions that were laid down by myself and other noble Lords—for instance, as to the suggestions of Lord Bridges. But if the noble Earl really means that those suggestions and others which have been put forward, particularly those relating to long-term grants and to the separation of grants and so on, will be seriously considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and if the corollary to that is that in due course we shall be told—possibly in answer to an Unstarred Question—the result of that consideration then I think that this debate will not have been without its value. But if it is a mere formality (and I do not assume it is), the kind of formality that a number of Ministers put forward to pacify people like myself, then I can promise him that he will be hearing more about it.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not want to mislead the noble Lord. I did not, I think, specifically refer to the Government's consideration of any of the proposals in Lord Bridges' most interesting Romanes Lecture, although I have no doubt that they will be considered. But one immediate consideration which does arise from them is that if a quinquennial
974
grant had been given to the Arts Council two or three years ago, even if it allowed for inflation, as is suggested, they would not now be getting so much as they are this year. Therefore, I am not sure that it would be in their interests to take a quinquennial rather than an annual grant.
LORD SILKIN: That may be the answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will give after proper consideration. I am merely on the point at this moment that I hope he will consider the suggestions which have been put forward by speakers in this House to-day. If he will, I accept that. I accept that that statement is being made in good faith, and I will ask that in due course we should be told the result of that investigation.
I must confess that the reply of the noble Earl on the subject of the National Theatre was disappointing, and I would say to him what he has just said to me in regard to the effects of inflation. If only this project had been carried out at the time when or soon after the one million pounds was voted, the cost would have been one million and not two million pounds. If it is deferred much longer it may well be three million in due course, and the longer it is delayed the more it is likely to cost. There again. I did not expect the noble Earl to be able to make any promise; but I hope he will include in the consideration which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to give to this matter a reconsideration of this question of the National Theatre, possibly in the light of the Report of the Arts Council, and that he will, in due course, let us know what he is doing.
This project has been outstanding for a long time. My noble friend Lord Latham and I remember how it started in 1942, with a visit to the London County Council by the late Bernard Shaw. Through his little organisation he had just bought a site in Kensington which many people thought was not large enough, and discussions arose as to whether or not the County Council would offer a larger site in exchange for the Kensington site. At any rate, out of that discussion and many others, in due course this considerable and most valuable site was offered by the London County Council. It is remaining empty. Obviously, a valuable site of that

975
sort cannot remain vacant indefinitely, and the time may come when consideration will have to be given as to whether the site is going to be used or not; and, if it is not to be used for a National Theatre, whether it should be used for some other purpose—which would be most regrettable.
Finally, my Lords, I am very sorry that the debate has to some extent been overshadowed by the difficulty of the Carl Rosa Company. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Earl has said. I should be the last to lend any colour to the idea that the Arts Council have been guilty of dishonesty or bad faith in any way over this matter. But there are strong feelings, and I do not agree with the noble Earl that the holding of an inquiry is necessarily on the basis that the Arts Council have been guilty of any kind of impropriety at all. If that were the assumption in holding an inquiry, then I should be dead against it. But I do not accept that there need be this assumption at all.
Nor should I agree in general to hold an inquiry whenever a particular beneficiary of the Arts Council is dissatisfied, such as in the case of the Edinburgh Festival. I think the Arts Council must be the judges. But this is a special case in which strong feelings have been aroused; and in view of the distinguished history of the Carl Rosa Company and the number of people who feel aggrieved by this and the strong feelings which have been aroused throughout the country, I feel that the matter ought not to rest where it is. I should have thought that in the interests of the Arts Council themselves some kind of an inquiry, which did not impute any bad faith of any kind to the Arts Council, would be desirable. I do not want to put it stronger than that, but I hope that further consideration may be given to this matter.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Surely the whole ground for the proposed inquiry
976
is that the Arts Council have been guilty of bad faith.
LORD SILKIN: No; I should not put it on that basis at all. After all, this is linked up with the future of the Carl Rosa Company. I do not suggest for one moment that the Arts Council are immune from the possibility of having made an error of judgment—none of us can be completely immune from that possibility; and even the Arts Council might have done that. I should not think that, whatever the decision of the inquiry, it should be regarded as any reflection on the Arts Council. An inquiry on that basis would, I believe, be well worth while, and it should be made clear in advance that nobody is suggesting that there is any prima facie case against the Arts Council which would justify the inquiry.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, then the inquiry would have to be confined to the purely hypothetical question, whether the present 1958 Touring Company, or Touring Opera, or the alternative suggested by the remains of the Trust, would have had a better result in the Provinces. How could an inquiry answer an hypothetical question like that?
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, if the noble Earl is now drafting the terms of reference of such an inquiry I shall be very happy to sit down and see if we can draft something; but I hope it will be a more profitable inquiry than one into a set of merely hypothetical circumstances. I leave the matter there, however, and I hope that the last word on this matter has not been said, because it would leave very great dissatisfaction in the minds of a large number of people. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes 69+before seven o'clock.