Sitting of 8 November 1961

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

  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Kuwait
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Defence what British troops are left in Kuwait;and what was the total cost of this operation.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The withdrawal of British forces from Kuwait has been completed. The extra cost falling on United Kingdom Defence Votes as a result of the operation is provisionally estimated at about £900,000. There were in addition some local costs which were met by the Kuwait Government.
    Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he is satisfied that British troops are available if the independence of Kuwait should be again threatened, and how much of this very satisfactory operation has been paid for by the Kuwait Government?
    Mr. Watkinson: As to the first part of the supplementary question, I would say that, of course, we intend to keep our obligations to the Ruler of Kuwait. As to the second part, the Kuwait Government were generous in paying a lot of the local costs, but I do not think that I can give an accurate figure.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Was it not stated earlier that the Kuwait Government were to pay the whole cost of this operation? Does that mean that £900,000 will now fall on the British taxpayer?
    Mr. Watkinson: I said in a previous Answer to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) that the cost of the operation would be about £1 million, and the revised figure, which is the nearest that we can get at the moment, is about £900,000.
    Mr. Paget: Cannot Kuwait really afford its own rescue?
    Mr. Watkinson: There may be some point in that, but, on the other hand, we did what we thought we should do to fulfil a treaty obligation. I do not think that one always sends in a bill for doing that.

    Armed Forces (Recruitment Overseas)
    Mr. Pagetasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the proposals to recruit outside these islands for the Armed Forces.
    Mr. Watkinson: Arrangements already exist under which recruits from overseas can, under certain conditions, join the Armed Forces. Special arrangements have been made for recruitment to the Army in Fiji, the Seychelles and in Jamaica.
    Mr. Paget: Why has this taken so long? We have been asking for this for the last seven or eight years. Why do we have to run into a very foreseeable recruiting crisis before we take what seems to some of us a rather obvious measure?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this a good thing to do, and we welcome these men. As to why this was not done before, I would say that this has been in preparation for some time and some of this recruiting has been going on for quite a long time.
    Mr. Wigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that these men can join any arm of the Service?
    Mr. Willis: The Black Watch?
    Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to put down a Question. I believe that they can, but if he wants a detailed answer, perhaps he will put down a Question.
    Mr. Kershaw: Will my right hon. Friend agree that there was little point in asking these people to join the Army while we still had conscription, and that it is only now that we have not conscription that their coming in is so valuable?
    Mr. Watkinson: There is much in what my hon. Friend says.

    Nuclear Tests
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Defence if he will undertake no more nuclear test explosions for at least twelve months.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have nothing to add to the full statement by the Prime Minister on this subject during the debate on the Address.
    Mr. Allaun: Would not the declaration of such a halt help towards the agreement which the Prime Minister said that he desired? Secondly, would not the Minister agree that there is a growing danger of more countries beginning to make the bomb, and how can the British Government ask others not to join the club if they continue to make and test the bomb?
    Mr. Watkinson: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described in detail the considerations which govern our policy in this field, and I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Mason: In view of our relations in this matter with the United States and the exchange of information, what useful purpose would a British series of tests serve now? Has the right hon. Gentleman's Department made any estimate of what would be gained of military value from 30 megaton and 50 megaton explosions?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is really a different question.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence to what extent he has studied the recent Russian megaton
    952
    bomb tests and the effect of megaton bombs upon the operation of Polaris submarines.
    Mr. Watkinson: The implications of these tests are, of course, being studied, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose any conclusions of a military character that we may draw.
    Mr. Hughes: But is the Minister aware of an article in the Economist on this question in which it was pointed out that the megaton bomb could affect a Polaris submarine and result in the cracking of its hull? Is it not time now that we realised that this Polaris strategy has also become obsolete?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is the hon. Member's view. It is not mine.
    Mr. Rankin: What is the right hon. Gentleman's view?

    United States Deputy Secretary for Defence (Conversation)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his recent consultations with the United States Deputy Secretary for Defence.
    Mr. M. Footasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on his recent conversations with Mr. Gilpatric, United States Deputy Secretary of Defence, regarding a common policy on the supply of nuclear weapons to the West German army.
    Mr. Watkinson: My meeting with the United States Deputy Secretary for Defence was one of the series of informal meetings between N.A.T.O. Ministers dealing with the defence field in which we exchange views on questions of common interest. On this occasion the main item of our conversation was interdependence in the weapons and equipment field.
    The question of the supply of nuclear weapons to the West German army did not arise.
    Mr. Rankin: In the course of his conversations with Mr. Gilpatric did the right hon. Gentleman tell him that Great Britain was bearing a disproportionately high share of the total burden of Western defence, as pointed out in the White Paper of 1957? If the right hon. Gentleman still believes that, why is he going

    953
    to call up those conscripts who are the youngest and the least able to resist conscription?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is quite a different question. Mr. Gilpatric. no doubt, had taken note of the recent statement by N.A.T.O. that this country's foreign exchange burden, as a result of our fulfilling our N.A.T.O. commitments, is a very heavy one indeed.
    Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman says that his conversation with Mr. Gilpatric was informal, but is he not aware that the week before conversations had taken place between Mr. Gilpatric and the West German Government and that announcements were made about agreements reached about the supply of nuclear weapons to the West German Government? The right hon. Gentleman says that this matter did not arise in the conversations, but does he not think it was his duty to raise such an important matter and to report to this House what proposals the Government agreed to about the supply of nuclear weapons to Germany? Does he not realise that the peace of the whole world may depend on this subject?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept at all the hon. Gentleman's view of what arrangements have been made between the American Government and the West German Government as necessarily the correct one. Anyway, my Answer was perfectly correct;that is to say, this matter was not discussed.

    N.A.T.O. (Aircraft)
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Minister of Defence whether there is a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirement for the development of a vertical take-off and landing fighter and/or strike aircraft;and whether such an aircraft would be equipped to deliver conventional, or tactical nuclear, weapons in the first instance.
    Mr. Watkinson: The N.A.T.O. authorities, and a number of N.A.T.O. countries, are considering the application of the vertical take-off and landing principle of future aircraft. The details of any such aircraft are classified N.A.T.O. information which I am not able to divulge.
    Mr. Strachey: But would not the Minister agree that the development of this type of aircraft is of critical importance for the supply of our forces in a conventional role, and that if we are going to take the doctrine of the pause seriously, then tactical aircraft of this type and others would become the most critical arm?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman at all on this. N.A.T.O. does need conventional backing in aircraft as in other things, but what I cannot say is the actual detailed specifications which N.A.T.O. is discussing. What I can say is that our own vertical take-off aircraft, the Hawker, I hope, is one of the ones N.A.T.O. will consider very seriously.
    Mr. Eden: Would my right hon. Friend, having mentioned the Hawker 1127, take into account the fact that this aircraft is flying now? Would it not be advantageous, not only to the British aircraft industry but also to the Royal Air Force, if a limited number at least of them could be supplied now to the Royal Air Force to give operational experience? Is it not possible that an improved version of the 1127 could well fit the bill for N.A.T.O., far better than any new and alternative aircraft?
    Mr. Watkinson: No. I think there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. As he knows, the West German Government have already joined us in the development of this aircraft. I take careful note of what he says about the support for this project which would arise from a reasonably early order from the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Chetwynd: As there is a general feeling that the claims of the British aircraft industry have been by-passed in relation to supplies to N.A.T.O., can the right hon. Gentleman push not only the claims of the Hawker aircraft but of Short's, too, on the question of V.T.O.L. aircraft?
    Mr. Watkinson: Certainly. I mentioned that aircraft only for the very reason that it is the first one flying, but the lift-engine type to which the hon. Gentleman refers is just as important and will be pushed just as hard.
    Mr. Stracheyasked the Minister of Defence whether Valiant aircraft allocated to the support of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces are equipped to deliver conventional weapons while Canberra aircraft allocated to the support of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in Europe are equipped to deliver tactical nuclear weapons, and while there is no North Atlantic Treaty Organisation requirement to equip them for any other role;and whether he is satisfied with this arrangement.
    Mr. Watkinson: All the Valiant and Canberra aircraft in the bomber force assigned to SA.C.E.U.R. can carry either nuclear or conventional weapons. Most of this force is held immediately available to use nuclear weapons as required by NA.T.O. but, as circumstances require, elements of it are equipped for conventional weapons. I am satisfied with this arrangement.
    Mr. Strachey: Does not this arrangement suggest that we are doing very little more than paying lip-service to the doctrine of the pause? After all, the Canberra aircraft is the immediate strike aircraft and, even if there is no requirement, would it not be possible to use this initially in a conventional role? Is that not a very serious situation and does it not show that the NA.T.O. doctrine has not been revised at all? Surely this is something which ought to be given very serious attention?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree, and perhaps I may just add that at the present moment there is an element of the Canberra force—not a very large one, but an element—which is in fact equipped for the conventional rôle.

    British Forces, Germany
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Defence to what extent the cost of maintaining British forces in Germany will increase during the coming year.
    Mr. Watkinson: By a little more than 10 per cent. on present plans.
    Mr. Lipton: Does that take into account the application which the right hon. Gentleman has made to the N.A.T.O. assistance board for a supplementary grant, and does not the fact of this application having been made show that we
    956
    have bitten off more than we can chew? Large bites without teeth seem to be a permanent feature of our defence policy.
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not think I follow the hon. Member's views of our defence policy. I would only say that after a fair and impartial examination NA.T.O. has accepted what is true, and that is, that we play our full part in the alliance and that it is a very heavy burden on our foreign exchange.
    Mr. Zilliacusasked the Minister of Defence if he will now withdraw British forces from Western Germany, in view of the refusal of Britain's allies to begin negotiations with a view to coming to a reasonable settlement of the Berlin crisis.
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept the implication in the second part of the hon. Member's Question. The answer to the first part is "No, Sir."
    Mr. Zilliacus: Is it not a fact that the West German Government refuse to accept any recognition of Eastern Germany or of the Polish frontier or any form of disengagement, or to change the status quo in West Berlin? Are we really to be dragged into war by allies who do not agree with us on how to make peace?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. In any case, that type of question should be put down to the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, not to me.

    Neutron Bomb
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence what plans Her Majesty's Government have for the manufacture of a neutron bomb.
    Mr. Watkinson: It would not be in the public interest to make any statement on plans for the manufacture of specific types of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Hughes: Has the Minister seen the report which came from Washington on 2nd November, that rays from the neutron bomb can penetrate through three feet of concrete? What is he going to do to strengthen 10, Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is quite another question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put it down.
    Mr. Warbey: Does what the right hon. Gentleman has just said apply also to preparations for the manufacture of chemical and bacteriological weapons?
    Mr. Speaker: That does not arise on this Question.
    Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Minister of Defence what proposals have been submitted to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by the United States Government concerning the testing of a large neutron bomb whose principal new contribution to nuclear strategy is its alleged capacity to kill people without damaging property.
    Mr. Watkinson: I have no knowledge of any such proposal.
    Mr. Silverman: Has not the right hon. Gentleman seen frequent and quite authoritative statements that the United States is preparing at this moment to test such a bomb? Does he not think it worth while to make some inquiry to see whether this is so? Does he realise that, if such a test were made, this would be represented in many parts of the world as the final triumph of capitalist priorities? Will he undertake that the United Kingdom would never undertake itself, or be associated, with genocidal mania of this kind? Will he inform the United States, or ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to do so, that we would not regard such a weapon as compatible with the maintenance of our alliance with any Power that tested or used it?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have no knowledge of all the allegations the hon. Gentleman is making, and our general position on tests was clearly set out by the Prime Minister the other day.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the terrifyingly unsatisfactory Answer given by the Defence Minister, who seems quite unable to appreciate the importance—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have had repeatedly to ask the House to confine notice to the traditional phraseology. We experience great difficulty in getting on with Questions, and I need the help of the House in these matters.
    Mr. Silverman: I apologise, Sir, if I was improperly disturbed by the Minister's callousness, but what I want
    958
    to do is to give notice to raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Strategic Mobility
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Minister of Defence what plans he has for increasing the strategic mobility of United Kingdom forces.
    Mr. Watkinson: This is one of the factors which is being examined in the preparation of next year's Defence White Paper.
    Mr. Mulley: Is the Minister of Defence not yet aware of the chronic shortage of suitable transport aircraft of all kinds, and, in particular, of the lack of suitable strategic air freighters for use now? Is that something about which he will do nothing while waiting for the Estimates next year?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that the hon. Member knows of the Government's decision to place an order for five new transport jet aircraft.

    N.A.T.O. Strategy
    Mr. Mulleyasked the Minister of Defence to what extent paragraph 12 of the White Paper on Defence, 1958, remains the basis of Her Majesty's Government's defence policy.
    Mr. Watkinson: The paragraph to which the hon. Member refers accurately describes N.A.T.O. strategy at the time the White Paper was written. Since then N.A.T.O. strategy has been under review but so far no changes have been agreed.
    Mr. Mulley: Does the Minister say that this is still the policy, or is it not? As I understand the statements of the President of the United States and of leading N.A.T.O. statesmen and generals, they cannot square the present N.A.T.O. policy and never could square it with the terms of this paragraph.
    Mr. Watkinson: That is quite a different matter. What I have said is that there has been, of course, a long and detailed discussion of N.A.T.O. policy to seek to bring it up to date with current strategic and technical considerations. We joined in that and I said in the

    959
    House the other day that, as I understand General Norstad's new plans which are not yet approved, they are very close to current British thinking.
    Mr. Strachey: The right hon. Gentleman has made a serious statement which must be interpreted as meaning that the old ultra-nuclear strategy is still in force. There has been discussion on it but no revision of it whatsoever. Surely this is the gravest possible statement. Cannot the right hon. Gentlemen tell us that the British Government are now pressing very hard indeed for a revision of this? Is he not aware that the strategy of paragraph 12 of the 1958 White Paper does not square at all with all the statements of President Kennedy and Ministers here and many other public statements? Surely it is high time that there was a revision of this strategy.
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree that discussions in N.A.T.O. ought to be concluded as quickly as possible, and we are certainly not holding them up.
    Mr. M. Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman thus confirm that the present strategy of N.A.T.O. is that in certain circumstances we should use the H-bomb first? Does he really mean to say that this is also one of the subjects which perhaps he did not discuss with Mr. Gilpatric when he was in this country? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the Government should do something about it instead of committing themselves to this absurd proposition?
    Mr. Watkinson: The Government have made plain on many occasions that we will never be the aggressors. That is perfectly clear to everybody. The Government have also made it perfectly plain, and I must make it so now, that the degree of retaliation to aggression is a matter which must be settled in the circumstances of the time, and we are not going to announce beforehand any particular degree of retaliation.

    N.A.T.O. (British Forces)
    Mr. Pagetasked the Minister of Defence what further redeployment of the air, sea and land forces of the Crown he is proposing in order to strengthen Great Britain's contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Watkinson: The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, from measures already announced, that a carefully prepared plan for reinforcing our N.A.T.O. forces is in hand. I have no statement to make at present about further redeployment.
    Mr. Paget: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "in hand"? The only thing that we could discover was in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday which seemed to indicate that it was weaker still.
    Mr. Watkinson: There has been a clear announcement of the various reinforcing measures that we are taking. For example, we have already sent our first guided missile regiment to Germany to reinforce B.A.O.R. It is being followed by two of our most modern anti-aircraft regiments and there are a good many other measures as well.
    Mr. Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the antiaircraft regiments that went to Germany were fully equipped with the most modern equipment?
    Mr. Watkinson: I think that in general they are as fully equipped as they could be.
    Mr. Wigg: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that both regiments were equipped with"Yellow Fever"?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is quite a different question and I have no intention of answering it off the cuff.

    Royal Air Force (Transport Aircraft)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Defence what consultations he had with the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary of State for Air before approval was given to the order for five Vickers VC 10 aircraft for the Royal Air Force Transport Force, having regard to the present limited ability of this Force to move heavy equipment for the Army over long distances.
    Mr. Watkinson: There were full consultations before the order was placed. The VC 10 is required primarily to transport men. The Belfast has been ordered to transport heavy equipment over long distances.
    Mr. Cronin: Has the right hon. Gentleman not sufficient authority to prevent air marshals from ordering luxury jet aircraft to transport themselves round the world when the desperate need of the transport force is for freight-carrying long-distance aircraft such as the Belfast and the Lockheed CI 30? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that freight-carrying aircraft can also carry passengers, though not in luxury?
    Mr. Watkinson: I agree with the hon. Member's last point. The VC 10 is not ordered to carry senior officers about but to carry a very large number of men very quickly, which is exactly in accordance with need.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the country requires both types of aircraft as soon as it can get them, and with particular emphasis on freight-carrying?
    Mr. Watkinson: I agree, but the VC 10 is ordered as a quick and massive transporter of large numbers of armed men quickly about the world.
    Mr. Mulley: Has the right hon. Gentleman not a sense of priority? While all additional transport aircraft are welcome, we are reaching the point when we can carry men but not arms. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his present policy will mean that the men will find that they have neither the weapons with which to fight nor the additional support and that their transport will move men only?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not agree. The Britannia is valuable as a long-haul heavy aircraft.
    Mr. Cronin: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it has far too small a cargo cross-section?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is why the Belfast is coming along to carry the heavy arms.

    Personnel (Hong Kong)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Defence what consideration he has given to reducing the number of Service personnel stationed in Hong Kong.
    Mr. Watkinson: As the House knows, the deployment of our forces overseas is at present under review as part of the re-examination of the defence programme.
    Mr. Cronin: Will the Minister bear In mind that Hong Kong is probably indefensible by any number of troops that employ conventional weapons against determined Chinese aggression, and that a large part of that very large garrison kept in Hong Kong could be used more profitably in defending Western Europe against Russian or East German aggression?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is the hon. Member's view, but we have no intention of scuttling out of any bases.
    Mr. Dance: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that any withdrawal of our troops from Hong Kong would have a very grave effect on the morale of our people out there? Would he not agree also that our friends in Australia and New Zealand would be very upset if that took place?
    Mr. Watkinson: The answer to the Hong Kong question is that there is a very serious internal security problem there, as the House knows, and we must make sure that we keep forces there to deal with that problem. I agree that we cannot hope to keep enough forces there to fight the whole Chinese Army.
    Mr. Mayhew: Apart from internal security, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these forces have an operational role, and if so, what it is?
    Mr. Watkinson: I am not going to say in the House exactly what role any forces have anywhere. I have given the general indication that we must certainly keep forces in Hong Kong to handle the internal security problem efficiently, and that is all I intend to say.
    Mr. Eden: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the maintenance of forces there is a most valuable guarantee of security and stability there? At the same time, while maintaining a constant force, would he give consideration to the possibility of requiring a shorter length of stay for most Service men in the territory?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will certainly examine that. I think that might be a good idea.
    Mr. Mason: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the primary purpose of troops in Hong Kong is solely for internal security and that there are far too many there merely for that purpose? What is the purpose of the surplus in Hong Kong?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have nothing to add to what I have said.
    Mr. Strachey: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist pressure from his hon. Friends to keep British forces in places for purely prestige reasons where there is no operational role for them and maintain only those forces for which there is a rational role for internal security?
    Mr. Watkinson: What I hope to do is —having taken the best military and political advice I can get—to take what I think are the right decisions.

  SCOTLAND

    University Students (Grants)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that substantial differences exist between grants to university students in England and Scotland respectively, and that these differences are to the disadvantage of Scottish students;and if he will take steps to rectify this and to improve the position and prospects of Scottish students in these respects.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John Maclay): It has not been found possible to eliminate entirely disparities in students' maintenance allowances over the whole of Great Britain until the completion of the full-scale review of students' expenditure at present being undertaken by the Standing Advisory Committee on Grants to Students. It is hoped that, as a result of this review, equality of treatment over the whole of Great Britain will be secured by the introduction of new rates in October, 1962.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the recommendations on this subject in Cmnd. 1051, and will he
    964
    reconsider them, in consultation with the heads of the Scottish universities, with a view to achieving better co-ordination, and more justice for Scottish students?
    Mr. Maclay: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate from my reply that we are moving in the direction he wants as fast as we reasonably can.
    Mr. Woodburn: In reconsidering this matter, will the Secretary of State be very careful to see that any change made does not reduce the number of Scottish students who are able to go to Scottish universities by not allowing the amount to be spread over the maximum number of students available?
    Mr. Maclay: That is a point I shall certainly have in mind.

    Mobile X-ray Units
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state to the latest convenient date the number of mobile X-ray units for the detection of disease in operation in Scotland; where they are located; and what steps he is taking to increase the number.
    Mr. Maclay:There are at present nine mobile X-ray units in Scotland. Four are in Glasgow, two in Edinburgh and one each in Aberdeen, Dundee and Motherwell. With the drop in the incidence of tuberculosis, there are limits to the effective use of these units, and the present number is adequate.
    Mr. Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State agree that the number and distribution of these mobile units does not accord with the present distribution of population in Scotland, and will he reconsider the whole matter on that basis?
    Mr. Maclay:I do not think that the distribution of population is necessarily the right way to dispose of the units. What we are trying to do now is to dispose of them where their need is still visible, and there are certain sections of the population on whom we want to keep a close watch through this method.
    Mr. Manuel: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether he has studied the position of the whole of

    965
    the West of Scotland being covered by the Glasgow units? We know that, in the past, there has been a high incidence of tuberculosis in the western and southern counties; is he satisfied that that cover is sufficient?
    Mr. Maclay: Yes, on present information I am satisfied.

    Sheriff Court, Dunoon (Prosecutions)
    Mr. W. Baxterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons appeared before the Sheriff of Argyll during the period January-September, 1961; what were the charges against them; how many were convicted; and what were the penalties imposed.
    Mr. Maclay:The hon. Member is, I understand, referring to cases taken in the Sheriff Court at Dunoon. I regret that detailed information of the kind which he desires is not readily available, but I am ready to discuss with him what it is practicable to obtain.

    Bonnybridge-Larbert Bypass
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he has in mind to speed up the flow of road traffic between Fife and Glasgow, particularly on the section from Larbert Cross to the new dual carriageway at Cumbernauld.
    Mr. Maclay:I hope to authorise a start on the Bonnybridge and Larbert bypass in about two years' time. The necessary trunk road Order has been made.
    Mr. Gourlay: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is a tremendous lack of urgency evident in his Answer? Does he not agree that the frustration created among car drivers who are compelled to do "the creep" behind the modern "desert caravans" of slow-moving lorries is one of the major factors in creating serious road accidents? Will he not, therefore, do something to get a speedier start made to this very necessary development?
    Mr. Maclay: I am aware, from very personal experience in recent weeks, of the problems on this section of road to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I am afraid that this must take its place
    966
    amongst the other priorities. We cannot do everything we should like to absolutely simultaneously.

    Apprentices (Day Release)
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the decision of Glasgow Corporation to ask contractors tendering for building work valued at £10,000 or over to supply details of their apprentices attending day-release classes so that it can be determined whether they are properly fulfilling their obligations for apprentice training;and if he will ask other local authorities and public bodies to do the same so as to encourage increased use of day-release facilities.
    Mr. Maclay: This is a suggestion which has been made to a Committee of the Scottish Technical Education Consultative Council, and I would prefer not to anticipate its report.
    Mr. Millan: Is not this a perfectly simple question? Is not this also a very effective if simple way of encouraging day release? Why should we have to wait for a report which, I understand, deals with other matters as well? Why cannot we have action on this matter now?
    Mr. Maclay: There are arguments on both sides in this matter. For example, there is some doubt whether a practice of this kind would, normally speaking, be consistent with the general rule that contracts should be awarded after open competition. It is not so simple as it appears at first sight.
    Mr. T. Fraser: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, agreed that day release is a good thing. Should he not, therefore, take every step to help it?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman knows that I do think that day release is a good thing but, as I have tried to point out, this matter is not quite as sample as it would appear at first sight. I thought it was simple until I studied it very carefully.

    Glen Nevis Hydro-Electric Scheme
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give the names of those objectors to the Glen

    967
    Nevis Hydro-Electric Scheme who represented to him that the public inquiry should be delayed until the publication of the Mackenzie Committee Report.
    Mr. Maclay: The National Trust for Scotland and, through it, nine amenity and recreational organisations— whose names I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Millan: Could the Secretary of State say why he accepted these representations? Is not the question of amenity a separate one from that of the economics of hydro-electric generation? Why could not the important question of amenity have been disposed of one way or the other, even though the final decision on the scheme could not have been taken until after the Mackenzie Committee had reported. Why must the decision be delayed?
    Mr. Maclay: Originally, I was under the impression that the amenity arguments could be treated on their own merits, but it was later made clear to me by some of the amenity organisations that their arguments could not be fully deployed without reference to the Report of the Mackenzie Committee, and in the light of the principles underlying the Franks Report. I came to the conclusion that the Glen Nevis inquiry must be delayed.
    Following is the list:

    The Co-operative Holidays Association.

    The Grampian Club.

    The Lomond Mountaineering Club.

    The Scottish Council for National Parks.

    The Scottish Mountaineering Club.

    The Association of Scottish Climbing Clubs.

    The Scottish Rights of Way Society.

    The Scottish Youth Hostels Association.

    The Youth Hostels Association (England and Wales).

    Mr. John MacLeodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the Glen Nevis Hydro-Electric Scheme is being delayed until after the Mackenzie Committee has reported.
    Mr. Maclay: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 23rd October.
    Mr. MacLeod: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is a very unsatisfactory
    968
    reply? The holding up of these hydroelectric schemes is preventing the development of the country's natural resources to deal with these problems of peak-load through the ever-increasing demand for electricity. Thermal stations can never replace that, apart from the wider issue of retarding the development of Highland economy.
    Mr. Maclay: My hon. Friend is entering highly technical arguments. I understand that the Board's proposal to bring forward the 120 megawatt oil-fired steam set at Dundee will met the Board's generating programme.
    Mr. Willis: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent the plans of the Hydro-Electricity Board for future development have been dislocated as a result of the halt in capital expenditure? What costs will this involve for the Board?
    Mr. Maclay: The arrangements to enable the Hydro-Electricity Board to proceed with the preparatory work on further schemes mentioned in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire, should obviate delay in proceeding with any further hydroelectric developments which may be approved after the Mackenzie Committee has reported. I cannot answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question without notice.
    Mr. MacLeod: When does my right hon. Friend expect the Mackenzie Committee to report?
    Mr. Maclay: I am informed that it may not be possible to report to me until the middle of next year.

    Hydro-Electric Capital Projects
    Mr. Woodburnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether all Scottish hydro-electric capital projects are to be held up until the Mackenzie Committee has completed its investigations; and when he expects its report.
    Mr. Maclay: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 23rd October.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is not the Secretary of State aware that this little body of brewery and distillery people who raised the original objections has really no

    969
    standing in Scotland sufficient to cause the hold-up of a scheme like this? Is he not aware that the Mackenzie Committee is being flooded out by a mass of material, all of which is already known to and understood by the right hon. Gentleman's own advisers; and that it has become a quite superfluous investigation, which is holding up the development of essential Scottish electricity supplies?
    Mr. Maclay: I cannot accept, for once, almost anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said. The representations that have led to the postponement of the Glen Nevis inquiry have come from the large number of amenity organisations which I have just described, and I just could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's implications in any part.

    Milk (Iodine Content)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will authorise the immediate distribution of dried milk for children since the concentration of iodine in milk in Scotland has now far exceeded an acceptable dose as defined by the Medical Research Council.
    Mr. Maclay: The recommended limit of 130 micro-microcuries per litre relates to the radiation dose that is acceptable in milk consumed over a period of a year. For shorter periods, I am advised by the Medical Research Council that proportionately higher doses are not dangerous, and that a situation giving rise to concern has not been approached anywhere in Scotland or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
    Miss Herbison: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the first report we were given here the dose was 190 in Scotland and in the second report, 178; and that the Medical Research Council has said that higher doses over a shorter period could cause damage? Can the right hon. Gentleman really assure us that these higher doses in Scotland, particularly for babies, are not already causing damage? Is he quite certain of that?
    Mr. Maclay: The figure of 178 micro-microcuries per litre of milk in Scot-
    970
    land, to which the hon. Lady refers, referred to a period of only three weeks and therefore represents a radiation dose which is very much less than that given by a level of 130 micro-microcuries per litre over a whole year, and I am assured that no harm need be feared from present levels of contamination observed in Scotland.
    Mr. Brewis: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that everything possible is being done to watch the level of iodine in milk, and to warn parents? Does not he agree that alarmist statements on this subject do very great harm to the entire Scottish dairy industry?
    Mr. Maclay: A very close watch is being kept on the position, and the Government will not hesitate to act if, on the advice of experts, any occasion for action should arise. I am glad of the chance to make the statement that at the moment I am advised that there is no danger.
    Mr. Grimond: What is the most northerly point at which testing for radiation is being carried out? A certain amount of anxiety has been caused by a statement that there has, for instance, been no testing in Shetland, which is believed to be an area in which comparatively high levels have been reached.
    Mr. Maclay: I should like notice of that question.
    Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this high figure for Scotland is not very reassuring, bearing in mind that it is the average? Would it not be better and more realistic to break the figures down into the various regions? This would give a truer picture of the varying levels in Scotland.
    Mr. Maclay: I must be advised by scientific experts on the best way to make a technical presentation of information which is difficult to present technically and accurately. I am informed that the averages normally used make full allowance for the variations there can be in different areas.

    Fall-out (Shelters)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the number of shelters in Scotland now available for protection against fall-out.
    Mr. Maclay: No shelters have been built at public expense specifically to give protection against fall-out, but about 14,000 last war shelters still exist in Scotland, which would give some degree of protection.
    Mr. Rankin: That is a terrible answer. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have seen the shelters he is talking about. They are in such a state in my division—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the time for questions, not for speeches.
    Mr. Rankin: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman's Answer provoked me. Is the Secretary of State aware that the Minister of Defence, who was recently with us, depends on the massive deterrent to make shelters unnecessary? Did not he hear the Minister declare that the massive deterrent is something which he is now thinking about again? Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that the Government's policy is to offer no protection whatever to the people of Scotland against the dangers of fall-out of which we have been hearing so much?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Member is trying to drag me into debate on the principles of defence policy. If he studies my Answer carefully, he will find that it answers the Question on the Order Paper.

    Law of Intestacy
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he proposes to introduce legislation to amend the law of intestacy.
    Mr. Maclay: As the hon. Member is aware, there was not time to introduce a Bill on succession in either of the last two Sessions of Parliament, and, in view of the claims of other Measures in the Government's programme, I can give no undertaking to do so during the current Session.
    Mr. MacPherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that it is still his intention to introduce this Bill, even at some far distant date?
    Mr. Maclay: I know that this matter has been under consideration for a considerable period, but it is not of the very highest urgency and it represents changes in very long-standing laws. I could not undertake at this moment to say when it would be possible to introduce it.
    Mr. T. Fraser: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that, two years ago, in the Gracious Speech, he promised this legislation? Will not he come clean with the House of Commons and tell us that he has shelved this legislation at the request of the Scottish Landowners' Federation?
    Mr. Maclay: Not at the request of anybody. There are difficulties, and this is a subject on which there are profound differences of view. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, time in the Scottish Grand Committee for Measures of this kind is not too plentiful at the moment.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, when I brought in a Bill on this subject last Session, the Government blocked it?
    Mr. Maclay: I am afraid that, offhand, I cannot remember any details of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill.

    Housing (Interest Charges)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what would be the total interest charges on a house costing £1,500 built in October, 1951, with money borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board; and what would be the corresponding figure for a house built today.
    Mr. Maclay: If the authority concerned raised a 60-year loan at Public Works Loan Board rates, the annual charge for the October, 1951, loan would be £54 4s., compared with £106 17s. for the same loan raised today.
    Mr. Hoy: In view of the intolerable burden that this places on local authorities, due to the high interest rate policy of the Government, when is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to do something about it instead of attempting to compel tenants of municipal houses to carry the burden, not of the houses, but

    973
    of the interest charges which must be paid back to the moneylender?
    Mr. Maclay: These matters were debated recently and will, no doubt, be debated again. It is not easy, in Question and Answer, to deal with matters of this kind.
    Mr, Hoy: That is not an answer. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even judging by the figures which he has given, in a year the interest rate on these houses has doubled for every year they have to be paid for? What policy has he for dealing with this problem instead of always compelling tenants to pay more?
    Mr. Maclay: The hon. Gentleman knows our subsidy policy very well. He is also aware that we do not believe that artificially low interest rates for one section of the people is the right way. We believe that there should be housing subsidies, and that these should be fully debated on the Floor of the House.

    Hospitals (Houses)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Treasury Valuer on the assessments of houses attached to hospitals.
    Mr. Maclay: As the Treasury Valuer is willing to consider any representations put to him by hospital authorities, there is no occasion for representations by me.
    Miss Herbison: Is it the case that in no instance has the Secretary of State or the Joint Under-Secretary of State made representations to the Treasury Valuer? The people concerned are intensely worried about the future amounts they will have to pay. Can the right hon. Gentleman say when they will be told whether or not a change is to be made in the assessments of these houses?
    Mr. Maclay: In answer to the first part of that supplementary question, to the best of my knowledge no individual representations have been made by myself or by my hon. Friend to the Treasury Valuer. If I am wrong in saying that, I will inform the hon. Lady. I could not say when the Treasury Valuer will be able to come to his conclusions on some of the cases put to him.
    Miss Herbison: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows whether the answer is "Yes" or "No". I asked a specific question: what representations has he made? Surely there should be no doubt in his mind about whether or not he has made representations.
    Mr. Maclay: I am sorry. I am afraid that I misunderstood the hon. Lady. My original answer was correct. I was not certain whether there was some other implication which I did not grasp from her original Question.

    Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow
    Mr. T. Fraserasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the general public discontent with his proposals for the Royal College of Science and Technology in Glasgow; and what steps he is taking to allay the discontent.
    Mr. McInnesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that his draft scheme for the management of the Royal College of Science and Technology, Glasgow, has created general discontent; and what action he proposes to take to have the matter reviewed.
    Mr. Maclay: No, Sir. Since the draft scheme was published on 19th September, only the Scottish Trades Union Congress has sent me any observations on it. If anybody has objections to the scheme, they should send them to me as soon as possible.
    Mr. Fraser: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable correspondence in Scottish newspapers, together with well-informed answers, from a large body of well-informed opinion in the country, which takes the view that, if we are to make a breakthrough in our educational techniques, particularly in science and technology, the time has come for him to recommend an improvement in the status of this college to that of university?
    Mr. Maclay: This matter is out-with the draft endowment scheme, which is without prejudice to further developments on the academic side, which are for the University Grants Committee in the first instance.

    Strathclyde Hospital, Motherwell (Out-patient Department)
    Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now give the date of commencement of building at Strathclyde Hospital, Motherwell, of the new out-patient clinic.
    Mr. Maclay: The Western Regional Hospital Board now proposes, that the new out-patient department should be provided as part of a new general hospital at Strathclyde Hospital. I have still to approve the siting of the new general hospital, and it is, therefore, too early yet to forecast when building work on the hospital or on the out-patient department will begin.
    Mr. Lawson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that the original starting date for this out-patient clinic was 1962? Does he also recall that he sent me a letter, dated no later than last November, stating that the plan had not been changed? Is he aware that in eight years the number of patients using this clinic has doubled, and that every specialist who has to use the buildings says that it is deplorable for that purpose? Will he ensure that the original starting date of 1962 is maintained?
    Mr. Maclay: I appreciate the hon. Member's concern, but this has been a most complex problem for a great variety of reasons. I think that the hon. Member will agree that if the final decision is that the main hospital should be on that site, it will obviously be right for the new out-patient department to form an integral part of the new hospital, as it will be a major user of the main diagnostic and other services of the hospital.
    Mr. Lawson: I was assured that there was no question but that the polyclinic, or out-patient clinic, would go there irrespective of the decision about the hospital. May I take it that there is no question of a change of opinion about whether the out-patient clinic is to be built?
    Mr. Maclay: There are two separate problems, depending on whether the hospital goes there. I will write firmly to the hon. Member giving the latest position on both points.

    Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954
    Mr. Malcolm MacPhersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the difference in severity which may result between a fine and the period of imprisonment imposed in default of payment, he will take steps to amend the periods of imprisonment laid down in Section 49 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954.
    Mr. Maclay: The periods of imprisonment laid down in Section 49 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1954, are maxima within which the sentencing court may decide what period should be imposed in default of payment of a fine in the circumstances of each case before it. I have no proposals for amending legislation at present.
    Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider some of the periods of imprisonment which have been imposed in the Dunoon area? For instance, is he aware that in a recent and not untypical case, when a fine of £15 was not paid, the imprisonment awarded was sixty days? Is not that, on the one hand, an open invitation to anyone seeking martyrdom and, on the other, an inequitable amount of imprisonment for anyone genuinely concerned with conscience?
    Mr. Maclay: It would not be proper for me to comment on decisions of any court of law. However, I understand that in some of the cases the court has exercised its discretion and has imposed various periods within the statutory maxima.

  TRANSPORT

    Piccadilly Area (One-way Working)
    Mr. Russellasked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to state his conclusions on the experimental one-way working carried out in the Piccadilly area.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Yes, Sir. I have reviewed this experiment and consulted both the Metropolitan Police and the local

    977
    authorities concerned. We are all agreed that it was valuable, and I propose to try a further experiment, with a number of improvements based on experience. It will start on 27th November and continue over the Christmas period. It should assist the heavy Christmas traffic. It will also help me, in deciding on longer-term arrangements for this area, to see how this scheme stands up to so severe a test.
    I am placing in the Library copies of a plan and a Press notice giving some further details of the new experiment.

    Visitors From Overseas (Driving Licences)
    Commander Keransasked the Minister of Transport why, under his regulations, a visitor's driving licence can be issued without it being ascertained whether the holder is proficient in driving by United Kingdom standards.
    Mr. Marples: A licence of this kind is only issued to a visitor from overseas arriving in this country without a foreign driving permit or international driving permit who is prepared to sign a declaration that he is authorised to drive in his own country.
    I have these arrangements at present under review.
    Commander Kerans: I am not quite clear about how in a recent case someone who arrived in this country was given a driving licence after only ten hours' experience of driving in this country, with the result that there was a fatal accident. Will my right hon. Friend look into the whole question of reciprocal agreements with other countries on this very important matter?
    Mr. Marples: I am looking into it, but it is obligatory on this country, under an agreement reached at the United Nations Conference on Road and Motor Transport, in 1949, to which we are a party, to provide such facilities. British visitors to other countries receive reciprocal advantages. In the case my hon. and gallant Friend mentions, which received great publicity, the girl in question knew that the declaration which she made in order to get a visitor's licence was false. However, I agree about the importance of agreements on the matter and I am looking into it.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a man who has obtained a driving licence in a foreign country, or in one of our Colonies, is permitted to drive here without passing a test in this country?
    Mr. Marples: Perhaps the hon. Member will give me details, when I will consider them.

    Goods Vehicles (Brakes)
    Commander Keransasked the Minister of Transport whether he will take steps to revise and increase the statutory requirements regarding tests of lorry brakes and similar vehicles.
    Mr. Marples: The law requires all vehicles to have brakes sufficient under the most adverse conditions to bring the vehicle to rest within a reasonable distance; I am at present reviewing these requirements to see whether any further strengthening is necessary. My officers have authority to examine goods vehicles at any time, and can therefore check brake efficiency as well as other factors affecting road safety.

  RAILWAYS

    Electrification, Kent
    Mr. J. Wellsasked the Minister of Transport what progress has been made with the electrification, under the capital development plan, of railway lines in Kent in the past year; and what improvements to railway fences were made at the same time.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay):The British Transport Commission tells me that by last month all railway lines in Kent had been electrified, with the exception of the lines from Tonbridge and Ashford to Hastings, and the Isle of Grain branch, which are not included in the scheme for electrification. The fencing has been brought up to the standards required by our Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways.
    Mr. Wells: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the news about electrification. Is he aware that the farming community and every parent in Kent is extremely perturbed about the state of the fencing? Does he know that his statement about

    979
    the fencing being brought up to standard is not in accordance with the experience of the National Farmers' Union? Further, is he aware that the fencing within half-a-mile of where there was a fatal accident earlier this year is still said to be in a deplorable state? Will my hon. Friend go into the matter more closely as soon as possible?
    Mr. Hay: I am informed that we have not recently received representations from the National Farmers' Union about the fencing of the electrified lines. As I said in my original Answer, the fencing adjoining the electrified lines in Kent has been brought up to the standard required by our Chief Inspecting Officer. However, if there is a particular case which my hon. Friend would like me to look into, I will certainly do so.
    Mr. Wells: Will my hon Friend look into not one case but a list of at least twenty which I have in my hand?
    Mr. Hay: I had better see the list.
    Mr. Popplewell: In view of the general concern about electrification as a whole, will the hon. Gentleman consider preparing a graph, or some other indication, showing the state of progress of electrification compared with the last reappraisal of the modernisation work of the railways?
    Mr. Hay: I will consider that, but I doubt whether progress in electrification lends itself to graphical presentation in the way in which the hon. Member suggests. However, I will look into it.

  ROADS

    Highway Construction and Maintenance (Grants)
    Sir B. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport what action has been taken by him, in accordance with the recommendations made by local government organisations, to set up a working party to examine the whole subject of grants for highway construction and maintenance, including their adequacy.
    Mr. Marples: In March of this year I set up a working party to consider certain proposals about highway grants which had been put to me by the local authority associations. The working party includes representatives of the associations.
    Sir B. Janner: When does the Minister expect the recommendations of the working party to be made? Will he seriously consider the points raised by the organisations concerned?
    Mr. Marples: I have given such serious consideration that we have set up this working party. The matters involved are of considerable complexity and detail. The present state of play is that a meeting has been held and the working party has agreed on its terms of reference, discussed several of the proposals, and agreed that the next step should be for the associations to prepare a memorandum on two of the items. We are now awaiting that memorandum from the associations.

  SHIPPING

    Nuclear Propulsion
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement about the proposed construction of a nuclear-powered merchant vessel: what is the earliest date on which such a vessel could be launched; and what would be the approximate cost.
    Mr. Marples: The tenders received by my Department from industry for a nuclear reactor suitable for installation in a merchant ship have been examined in detail by the Committee on the Application of Nuclear Power to Marine Purposes and also by its Technical Committee, and the Government have carefully considered the matter in the light of the advice received from these Committees.
    This advice shows that while it would certainly be technically feasible to build a nuclear-powered ship now, nuclear propulsion for marine purposes does not offer sufficient economic promise to justify building a merchant ship at the present time. The Government have, therefore, decided that the right course in present circumstances is to authorise a vigorous programme of research, aimed at a reactor system which is economically attractive to a wide range of shipping. The programme will be carried out by the Atomic Energy Authority in conjunction with industry.
    Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable body

    981
    of opinion which feels that little more progress can be made until a prototype is at sea? Will not the decision he has announced make Britain even more backward in this new research? Will he publish a White Paper setting forth the arguments for and against a prototype?
    Mr. Marples: I will consider the last suggestion of my hon. Friend, but at the moment no country in the world has a nuclear reactor which is economic as far as shipping is concerned. I am sure that the major break-through will be to the country which first finds that reactor.
    Mr. Strauss: It is very difficult for laymen to come to any judgment on these highly technical matters, but can the right hon. Gentleman say why there has been so much delay in coming to this decision? Is it not the fact that tenders were first sought about two years ago? Surely we could have had some decision about the value of the tenders long before now?
    Mr. Marples: As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is a matter of great complexity, and it is for that reason that the decision has been delayed.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not regrettable that in the present depressed state of the shipbuilding industry this decision has been arrived at, and is not this the very development which would put us once again in the forefront of world shipbuilding? In view of the failure of the Cunard order going to the North-East, is it not time that something like this was given in the North-East to take its place?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think that it will help shipping or shipbuilding in this country unless we can make it economically viable. If we start having marine propulsion which is not an economic proposition, I do not think that it will help us in our competition against countries abroad.
    Mr. Popplewell: In view of the long delay which has occurred, can the right hon. Gentleman say how long he expects it to be before some conclusion is arrived at? This continuing delay is very serious, and it appears that there is to be further delay, inevitable perhaps, but has the Minister any idea how long it will be?
    Mr. Marples: I am afraid that it is never possible in scientific research to say when a conclusion will be reached. These are primarily matters for my noble Friend the Minister for Science.

GHANA (VISIT OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement about the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Ghana.
I told the House on Monday that I thought it right that my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary should pay a second visit to Ghana. This he has done and he returned to this country this morning. My colleagues and I have now had from him a full appreciation of the position based on his personal inquiries on the spot.
As I told the House on Monday, Her Majesty's safety is and must be our first consideration. Of course, no Royal tour is without risk. Her Majesty knows this as well as any Member of the House. She has never been deterred in undertaking previous tours because of the personal risk to herself, which is inevitable, especially when great crowds are assembled. Happily, she has come triumphantly through these trials with the enhanced affection and admiration of all.
After considering carefully and anxiously all the information before us, collected and assessed by those best qualified to do so, the Government have reached the conclusion that the degree of risk attaching to this tour is no greater than that which has been present in many of her previous journeys.
There are those who will ask how this conclusion can be reconciled with the explosions which have taken place in Accra during the last few days. That was one of the questions which was in the forefront of my mind when I decided that it would be right for my right hon. Friend to visit Ghana again. He has given us his first-hand assessment of the significance of these incidents. While he was in Accra he took the opportunity to tour the Royal route in company with President Nkrumah and he saw for himself the unmistakable friendliness of

983
the crowds. We have also had throughout, as I have said, the expert advice, based on thorough investigation on the spot, of those in this country best qualified to do this sort of work. We have had the ready co-operation of the Ghanaian authorities.
I can assure the House that on the information and advice available to them the Government have formed the view that the explosions do not indicate any intention by those concerned to perpetrate acts of violence during the Queen's visit which would endanger Her Majesty's safety. We have, therefore, no reason to fear that this journey will involve any special and additional risk to Her Majesty's safety.
On the other hand, there can be no doubt the cancellation of this visit, so long promised and so eagerly awaited by the people of Ghana, would seriously impair the invaluable contribution made by Her Majesty's journeys towards the strengthening of the ties which bind together the many peoples of the Commonwealth.
Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, advised the Queen that she should proceed with her visit to Ghana. We are, of course, at once informing other Commonwealth Governments, with whom we have been in touch throughout.
May I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whole House, send Her Majesty our warmest good wishes for the success of her West African tour and a safe return.
Mr. Gaitskell: The decision as to what advice to offer Her Majesty in connection with her visit to Ghana is one which can be taken only by Her Majesty's Government, and all that the Opposition, and, indeed, the rest of the House, can do is to be sure that every possible inquiry has been made. It is, I think, perfectly clear from the Prime Minister's statement and the visit of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that this has been done, and in the circumstances all that remains for us to do is to join the Prime Minister in wishing Her Majesty a very happy and very successful tour.
Mr. Turton: Is it not peculiar that the Commonwealth Governments have not been asked to approve the decision,
984
which many people throughout the Commonwealth will regard as subjecting Her Majesty to unnecessary risks? Can the Prime Minister explain the procedure under which Her Majesty, as Head of the Commonwealth in this matter, has to accept the advice only of the Prime Minister of this country? May I, at the same time, join my right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman in wishing Her Majesty god-speed on her journey.
The Prime Minister: We have been in touch with all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I have sent them personal messages, and I think I can say that no Commonwealth Government has expressed a contrary view.
The purely constitutional question, which is somewhat involved, I set out last Tuesday. The House will remember that the original visit was to have taken place in 1959. At that time Ghana was a monarchical State and Her Majesty would constitutionally have been advised by the Ministers of that State. Ghana has since become a republic and, therefore, the responsibility was assumed by Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom in this case, as in the case of India and Pakistan, and that procedure has been followed, and, as far as I know, accepted by all Commonwealth Governments.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is the Prime Minister aware that even those of us who have been most anxious that the Queen should not go to Ghana are now foremost in wishing the best for her safety, and have always been convinced that the great majority of the people of Ghana would give her a most tumultuous welcome, the warmth of which could not be exceeded anywhere?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that what the House has said will give the greatest pleasure to the Queen. Of course, we have all been anxious, as the right hon. Gentleman properly said, and the risks have to be weighed as best we can. All the life of royalty and the tours of Her Majesty involve considerable risks. She accepts them proudly. I am sure that the House will give her the greatest sense of strength in her task.
Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all appreciate the responsibility that lies on his

985
shoulders for giving advice, and the responsibility similarly lying upon the shoulders of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations? Although criticisms may be voiced in this House about particular features of the Administration in Ghana, is it not now clear that, both in this House and in the British Press, very inaccurate statements have been made about the support of the people of Ghana for the Administration there? In view of those circumstances, is it not desirable that upon the occasion of the visit of the Queen it should be made clear that all the people of this country wish well to Ghana in her future and in her relationship to this country?
The Prime Minister: The first part of what the hon. Member has said raises questions not suitable for this occasion. Her Majesty is Queen and Head of the Commonwealth, and she serves as a symbol of unity and helps to create it. I am sure that the concluding sentence of the hon. Member, added to the other remarks which have been made, represents the views that we all share.
Sir S. Summers: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the background to the decision of the Government that he has just announced, expressed as he has expressed it, will go a very long way to allay the uncertainties and fears of many people in this country?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, and for his anxiety. I am sure that what he has said will be very helpful to us all.

TANGANYIKA INDEPENDENCE BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
3.43 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The task of moving this Second Reading is a very happy legacy from my predecessor, who was in charge of the Colonial Office at the time when the major decisions were taken. This is a very important moment, both in the history of East Africa and in the development of our relations with the peoples of that area. Tanganyika is the first East African territory to obtain independence within the Commonwealth, and it is also the largest of those territories.
This country's connection with Tanganyika has lasted only a little over forty years. I need not rehearse in any detail the circumstances in which we became responsible for the peoples of Tanganyika, and how Tanganyika was one of the first territories to be placed under the trusteeship system of the United Nations, but I am sure that it is right for me, in moving the Second Reading, to pay a tribute to the remarkable work done by servants of the Crown in this territory in the years during which this country has held responsibility.
It is a very fine chapter in our record of administration of overseas territories. It is also a cause of great satisfaction that so many British civil servants and advisers will continue to be available to the Government of Tanganyika after independence, through the signing of an agreement under the Overseas Services Aid Scheme.

987
At this stage, we should also pay tribute to those people outside this country who have worked for the welfare of Tanganyika, and particularly to the interest taken in the work of our administration by many other people from the United Nations, especially those who have made up visiting missions to Tanganyika and those who took an interest in the progress of the territory within the Trusteeship Council.
I should like to look briefly at the history of events that have led up to the moving of this Second Reading. There was the very successful conference in Dar-es-Salaam, in March of this year, at which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House presided, which paved the way for independence. Subsequently, in June, there was another conference in London, following which the date of independence was advanced from 28th December to 9th December, and when, at the same time, it was announced that Her Majesty the Queen would be represented at the independence ceremonies by His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh. This caused a great deal of pleasure to the peoples of Tanganyika.
The discussions in London which took place in June, which settled the final date of independence, were really on two main points. The first was about the future of the East Africa High Commission, and it is most encouraging that agreement was reached on the continuation of the extremely valuable work of that High Commission in these new circumstances, by the new organisation to be known as the East African Common Services Organisation. I am sure that it is essential that these territories should continue and expand this form of economic co-operation that has been of such value to the peoples who live there.
Also, we should note that the agreement that was reached this summer made possible the participation in the new organisation of the elected representatives of the people of these territories to a greater extent than was true under the East Africa High Commission, so that in taking steps to consolidate the advance made there on the economic side we are also, in a way, developing a possible basis for a wider and more general form of association between
988
these territories. It must be for the people of East Africa to decide the ultimate form in which they work together, but I am certain that the House would feel that the closer they can work together, both politically and economically, the better it will be for everyone in these countries and also for us, and anything that lays the groundwork or the foundation for that position we should welcome.
The other matters discussed at the meetings in the summer were the final details of independence and the question of financial aid after independence. As the House is aware, there was a good deal of discussion on the question of the financial settlement, but the details of the offer finally announced by my predecessor to the House on 4th August, described by Mr. Nyerere as completely satisfactory, recognise the responsibilities of this country and the proper claims of Tanganyika. I am glad that this settlement was reached.
That, briefly, is the background which led us to the point at which we have arrived today. Now we have the Bill which I am presenting. I must apologise for the haste with which we have to deal with the Bill. We do not want to hurry the House on these matters, but it is quite clear that if we are to meet the requirements of the independence date which has been generally agreed it is very important to pass the Bill in all its stages as quickly as possible. I am sure that all hon. Members would agree on that.
Hon. Members will have noticed that the Bill makes provision for Tanganyika to become independent within the Commonwealth. That is very important. The House is aware of the nature of the Commonwealth and the qualifications for membership, and there has been no meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers since the decision was taken to grant independence to Tanganyika.
As the House is aware the national Assembly passed a motion in June which asked us to legislate for Tanganyika's independence and requested the other Governments of the Commonwealth to join Britain in supporting Tanganyika's desire to become a member of the Commonwealth. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has heard from all the Prime Ministers, his colleagues, that their

989
Governments would be ready at the appropriate time to accept Tanganyika as a full member of the Commonwealth as from 9th December.
There is one other point, that is the question of the United Nations. As Tanganyika is a Trust Territory we have to seek the approval of the United Nations for the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement. In April of this year a resolution to this effect was introduced by Cyprus, the newest member of the Commonwealth and was supported unanimously by the General Assembly. There is to be a new resolution to amend the date from 28th December to 9th December. That is proceeding through the United Nations, having been adopted by the Fourth Committee. It is still to be considered by the General Assembly, but I do not think that there can be any question that it will be unanimously approved.
The present Bill follows in general the precedents of other territories achieving independence. It does not, of course, contain the independence constitution. That will appear in an Order in Council, at present in an advanced stage of preparation, of course with the fullest collaboration and consultation with the Tanganyika Government. The Order in Council itself cannot be made until the Act has received the Royal Assent, but it will be laid before the House as soon as it has been made.
Apart from one or two points of drafting, the Bill follows very closely the pattern of previous Bills. Clause I provides for the basic fact of independence by providing that Acts of this Parliament in future will not extend to Tanganyika. Clause 2 deals with the question of citizenship which is rather complicated and it is necessary to carry out our part of the processes determined by Acts to be passed by the Tanganyika Government in determining their own citizenship.
Under Clause 2, anyone who, under the Tanganyika citizenship law, becomes a citizen of Tanganyika will, by virtue of that citizenship also possess the status of a British subject and Commonwealth citizenship. The Clause also covers the withdrawal of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from people who become citizens of Tanganyika automatically, if they have no
990
substantial connection with the United Kingdom or its remaining dependencies, but preserves that citizenship in the case of persons who have such a connection. Also, persons who are at present British protected persons by virtue of their connection with Tanganyika will not lose their status as such until they acquire Tanganyikan citizenship. The House will find that these provisions follow closely similar provisions which were approved in the case of Nigeria and Sierra Leone.
Clause 3 and the Second Schedule deal with the modification of various United Kingdom enactments which are really consequential. In fact, they are very similar to what has been approved by the House in the past.
Clause 4 is a little different. It is a finance Clause and it is designed for two purposes. There is, first, the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation which the Tanganyika Government have decided to maintain in existence and to use as the major instrument of its agricultural policy. I am sure that we can give some assistance to them in this purpose. We therefore propose that we should relinquish all rights to any former Overseas Food Corporation assets in Tanganyika. Clause 4 contains provisions to that effect. It was also agreed during the discussions on finance to which I referred earlier, to continue the financial aid at present provided under the Act of 1957 until September, 1962, that is the end of the five-year period during which assistance up to a total of £500,000 can be given to the Corporation.
The other purpose of Clause 4 is connected with the East African Common Services Organisation, to which it has been possible to give financial assistance under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. By the Clause we are making the necessary arrangement to ensure that that aid can be continued under the new organisation which has been made necessary by reason of the independence of Tanganyika.
As I said, the principal purpose of the Bill, which, I am sure, will commend itself to the entire House, is to implement our promise that Tanganyika will achieve her independence on 9th December. It is really a machinery provision for carrying out an act of policy already

991
accepted and welcomed on both sides of the House. If I may, I should like, as I am sure is right on this occasion, to pay a tribute to the many people who have contributed to the extremely happy and satisfactory development in this part of East Africa.
There have been many people from Britain who have laboured in the service of Tanganyika to whom I referred earlier, but I should like to make special mention of Lord Twining, who was Governor from 1949 to 1958, and to Sir Richard Turnbull, the present Governor. I think it particularly satisfactory that the Prime Minister of Tanganyika, himself such an outstanding figure, has asked me to submit Sir Richard Turnbull's name to Her Majesty, when the Bill has received the Royal Assent, to be appointed as the first Governor-General. That is a form of continuity very much to be welcomed.
I have nothing else to say other than that I am sure the entire House wishes Tanganyika, this new nation, and its distinguished Prime Minister and distinguished Leader, Mr. Nyerere, every possible success and prosperity.
3.57 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: I rise with very great pleasure and pride on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends to offer our fullest support for the Second Reading and all the other stages of this Bill, which will bring independence to Tanganyika.
If I, as a Welshman, may be permitted to say so, there is something typically English in the way we do these things in the House of Commons. During the ten years since 1955 we have witnessed and taken part in what I think is one of the greatest events in history, the transformation of an Empire into a Commonwealth. At the end of the war, in 1945, there were over 600 million people in the British Empire living under colonial rule. Upon the passing of this Bill that figure will be down to 20 million, and I do not think it too much to hope that even people of my age may live to see the day when the whole Empire will have been transformed into a Commonwealth.
I certainly join in the good wishes to Tanganyika. As the Secretary of State
992
has said, in this Measure we are doing what we have done before so many times in recent years, which is to agree unanimously to the decision required so that a territory may become independent. But we have done something else as well. Tanganyika is one of those countries which came to us as a consequence of the First World War and the formation of the old League of Nations. It was, of course, German East Africa and became our Mandated Territory after the First World War. On the formation of the United Nations it became a Trust Territory. Today, we can say that that trust has been fulfilled. We have done our job and our duty. We have been faithful to our trust and now Tanganyika becomes independent.
I agree with the Secretary of State that Tanganyika is one of the best examples of the ordinary peaceful transition from dependence to independence. It is of real significance as we witness what is still left of the Empire on the way towards independence. When we have solved this problem there are two problems which remain. There is still the problem of what is to happen to the very small countries for whom independence in the full sense of the term can become almost meaningless. My hon. Friends and myself have given some thought to this problem and I should like the House to have a day for the discussion of how we envisage the future of very many small territories, scattered all over the world, which want to be independent. They want to enjoy equal status and to be independent.
That is one problem. The other is the problem of the multi-racial communities. I say to all peoples in East and Central Africa, "You could not do better than to emulate the example of Tanganyika. "Here is a country in which there has been close and continuous co-operation among the races, among Africans, Europeans and Asians. Their leaders have shown a very great example to all the others. If the leaders of these three main communities which we find in so many countries in East and Central Africa follow the example of the Africans, Europeans and Asians in Tanganyika, some day we shall have the pleasure of considering a Bill of this kind for them, also. This is an example to follow.

993
I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to the two Governors who have played a decisive part in recent years. Lord Twining—Sir Edward Twining as we knew him—and Sir Richard Turn-bull. I was very glad to hear that Sir Richard is to become the first Governor-General. I think that the Governors, the European and Asian leaders and everyone who knows Tanganyika would agree that this afternoon we ought to pay the greatest tribute of all to Julius Nyerere, who has shown such an outstanding example of leadership.
Perhaps the House will allow me to recall the first time that I met him. It was only seven years ago and that fact is significant. It was the last occasion on which I was in Tanganyika. The then Governor, Sir Edwin Twining, now Lord Twining, said to me, "I want you to meet a young man, a teacher, who has just entered politics. If I am not mistaken he is destined to play a vital role in the future of this country. "He added that, to be typically British, he had invited him to have a cup of tea with me. That was the first time I met him and from that first moment I was deeply impressed by his personality, his graciousness, his ability and integrity.
I have met Mr. Nyerere many times since and have followed his career with very great interest. Lord Twining was not mistaken. The young teacher whom I met seven years ago in Dar-es-Salaam, I shall Shortly be able to salute as the first Prime Minister of his nation. I am sure that we would all want to show to him our deep appreciation of his leadership and to offer him the very best wishes in taking office as Prime Minister of his country.
This is the end of one era and the beginning of another. While we have all been joining in felicitations we ought to give a moment to the realisation of the burden we are placing upon the people of Tanganyika. Think of the burden which this young Prime Minister, the Government and the people, will have to carry. Here is a vast country, four times the size of these islands, with a population of under 10 million and half the country is uninhabitable. It still has to be tamed and brought under cultivation when we have found the answer to the tsetse fly. I wish that we
994
could devote a tithe of the money which we are spending on trying to go to the moon to making life better for people on this earth. Think what can be done when we have conquered the tsetse fly and brought the whole of this vast territory with its unknown wealth into cultivation and made it open and ready for human habitation.
This is a tremendous burden. As has been said, it is a great revolution. We sometimes talk about this great revolution as the rise of nationalism, but it is a rise of expectation. They will expect a higher standard of life. They will expect their political independence to be clothed with rising standards. What a job they have before them, confronted as they are in Tanganyika with man's ancient enemies, poverty, hunger and disease, in some respects at their worst. I hope that we shall all think, and say that we think, in wishing them well in obtaining independence, that our interest in them will not cease from that day but will continue and increase.
It is our privilege and duty, and in our own interests, to see that these countries which come forth into nationhood and which we endow with our Parliamentary institutions and, I hope, with the spirit of our democracy, shall become truly founded on strong foundations so that they can prosper and succeed. I am very glad that the East African High Commission and the Colonial Development Corporation are to continue their work. I thought it very short-sighted policy to take away CD. and W. assistance from the countries which need it so badly. The least we could do would be to say that for a period of ten years we should continue to help them in these ways.
These countries, Tanganyika in particular, are confronted with this tremendous job of taming their countries and building up their standard of life. It is sad to think that almost on the eve of attaining independence they are corn-fronted with famine in some of their provinces. In three of the Central Provinces and some Provinces in Tanganyika remote from Dar-es-Salaam there is famine because for two years the rains have failed. There are close upon half a million people who have come near to starvation. From the evidence

995
so far available, starvation has only just been warded off.
We all join in paying tribute to the United States of America, which has sent generous gifts of food, maize and dried milk, and helped considerably in preventing what could have been a calamity on the eve of the celebration of independence. This, however, has placed a tremendous burden on the country merely in the task of distributing the food which has come from the United States of America to Dar-es-Salaam to the peoples who are in such desperate need. Distribution costs will amount to £¼million and other emergency work f¾million. The whole emergency will cost the Government of Tanganyika anything between £1 million and £2 million.
I make a plea to the Secretary of State and the Government in which I am sure all hon. Members on both sides of the House will join. Do not let us, at this moment of celebration, be mean and allow this poor country to carry this great burden by itself. We—representatives from every party in the House— have approached the Secretary of State on this matter. He was very kind to receive us at short notice and we placed the position before him. It is true that the financial arrangements were reasonably satisfactory. I am not saying that there was any kind of claim made, but this is more than a claim. Let us make it a fine gesture.
We generally send a tribute to an emergent country and it takes a tangible form. Let us send this tribute to Tanganyika. If this work is to cost Tanganyika £1 million in distribution and emergency work of all kinds, let it come out of funds made available partly by us as the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Are we to say to this small country that we cannot help? I hope that I carry the whole House with me in this. In reply to a Question by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) yesterday, the Secretary of State was good enough to say that he will consider the matter. We all hope that he will consider the representations we have made.
I hope that before we celebrate Tanganyika's independence day, on 9th December, the Colonial Secretary will say that the Government have again
996
considered this question and have decided, as a further token of our good will and good wishes, to make a substantial contribution towards the cost of this emergency.
Let us start them off in this way. We know that although starvation has been avoided the people who have lived through this misfortune will never be the same again. Anybody who knows anything about these things knows that an experience of this kind leaves its mark on the physique,, the vitality and the virility of the people. What we should be doing is to speed up the development of the social services, in particular, to wipe out the effects of this famine as quickly as possible. It would be wrong for the House simply to pass the Bill and to wish Tanganyika well without bringing to the notice of the country the grim facts which Tanganyika faces on the eve of independence.
I join the Secretary of State in saying to the Prime Minister, the Government and the people of Tanganyika,"We wish you well. We give our pledge that all that it is within our power to do to help you will be done freely, because it is a privilege to help you build the fine nation which you deserve in Tanganyika".
4.12 p.m.
Sir Roland Robinson: I rise briefly to support the Bill and to join hon. Members on both sides of the House in giving our good wishes to Tanganyika, so soon to be independent. All those hon. Members who have had the good fortune to visit that country like the country and like its people. There are few among new countries which have built up such a reservoir of good will here and throughout the free world among people who are interested in the future of the emerging territories.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that Tanganyika is a very fine example of the orderly way to independence. It has been an example in the past, and in my belief, with the leadership which it has today, it will continue to be an example in the future. Tanganyika has been a fortunate country in many ways. Perhaps one of the outstanding points is that its own people get on well with each other and that the country is free from

997
tribal jealousies and rivalries of the kind to be found in other countries.
Moreover, Tanganyika has a small and cosmopolitan European population who mix easily and who have set up no kind of colour bar at all. When I was last in Tanganyika I found that one of the most pleasing features which I found anywhere in Africa.
The third point is that since the end of the First World War Tanganyika has had a very devoted Civil Service, the members of which in a way were also very cosmopolitan, because when we took over the administration from the Germans the civil servants were recruited from all over the Colonies, and they brought with them a wealth of varied experience. It is right to express the hope at this time that those who have done so much to serve Tanganyika will have a happy future and will be properly looked after by our own Government and by all who are in a position to give them some help.
If we look at the history of our administration in Tanganyika we find that we have been fortunate to have so many distinguished men of good will who have helped. I go as far back as the very distinguished Colonial Governor, Sir Donald Cameron. It is not often realised that Sir Philip Mitchell, before he went on to Kenya, rendered great service to Tanganyika, or that it was the late Sir Charles Dundas, who, as a district officer, was the man to provide the inspiration to get going the great coffee industry in the Moshi area.
On the private side, Sir William Lead gave leadership and was for nearly fifteen years the leader of the unofficial members of the Legislative Assembly. At the same time, he was one of the great pioneers of the sisal industry. Men like that have played a great part with their energy, industry and good will in helping the people of Tanganyika. Lord Twining was Governor for an unprecedented period of nearly nine years and did a wonderful job.
Tanganyika is particularly fortunate in being served at the moment by Sir Richard Turnbull as Governor, and to have leadership on the African side from Mr. Julius Nyerere. All of those who know him believe that he is one of the great African statesmen and we
998
have the greatest confidence in any country led by a man like that. The right hon. Member for Llanelly referred to the financial question. It is good that at this time there is a man with such keen financial acumen as Sir Ernest Vaisey to handle the financial affairs.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the famine and of the need to help Tanganyika at this stage, and I think that he will have the ready response from both sides of the House. It is one of the most important things for this country that we should remember that we have a duty to help the newly emerging countries in the early days of their independence. Following the Tanganyika famine, in my opinion such help is more than ever necessary at this time. I do not suggest to the Government exactly how it should be done. The point is that we believe that help should be given and the help will be thrice blessed if it is given quickly.
Tanganyika must have a good future, because there have been years of preparation from devoted men of great capacity. In my opinion, it is now in good hands. In the course of time no doubt there will be great temptations offered to the leadership out there, with conferences all over the world, but it seems to me that in these new countries the real opportunity for greatness lies at home. There is a great challenge in Tanganyika. The leader who improves the lot of his people will earn the gratitude of generations to come. I believe that that is the way to greatness. Apart from Tanganyika itself, there are wider challenges. Mr. Nyerere has also given a lead on the subject of East African Federation. There are such opportunities to achieve something big, and it would be well at this stage to say that in his efforts in that direction he has the good will of this House.
Tanganyika has a background of friendliness and toleration. Its capital is Dar es Salaam. Dares Salaam is the Arabic name for"haven of peace". It was the haven of peace to which the Arab dhows from the Persian Gulf brought their cargoes of dates, rice and Eastern rugs in exchange for the mangrove poles from the Rufigi Delta. I express the hope that in the political world Tanganyika will remain a haven of peace. I join hon. Members from

999
both sides of the House in wishing that great country well in the new life which lies before it.
4.19 p.m.
Mr. John Dugdale: I should like to join with other Members both in welcoming the Bill and in paying tribute to the many people to whom tribute has already been paid today, particularly to our administrators. I want especially to pay a tribute to Lord Twining, in spite of the fact that at one time we played a game of billiard fives together and he knocked me right across the floor.
I want to remind the House that this is a remarkable achievement. Only eleven years ago, when I was in Tanganyika, the situation was very different. In spite of what the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) said about the situation today—and he was quite correct about that—eleven years ago there definitely was a colour bar and there were all kinds of difficulties in the way of Africans and Europeans meeting, as I myself experienced.
Today, not only is there no colour bar and not only are there happy relationships between Africans and Europeans, but Africans are in charge of the Government and will soon have a majority party in a Parliament which includes all races. This is a remarkable achievement. I remember that it was only about eleven years ago that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) made it possible for Africans to serve on the bench as justices of the peace. Today, they are in a majority on the Legislative Council!
All this has been done without any bitterness, without any Mau Mau, without any discriminatory laws, and without any of the troubles which we have experienced in other parts of East and Central Africa. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly may have mentioned him, but there is one person to whom I should like to pay very great tribute—not only Mr. Nyerere, but the present Leader of the House of Commons. If it had not been for what he has done, the outcome might not have been nearly so rapid and happy as it has been. I also think that the manner in which Mr. Nyerere has conducted him-
1000
self and his nation in such a short time to independence is a remarkable example to all people throughout the rest of the Commonwealth.
I want to add a few remarks to what my right hon. Friend said about the help that we can give Tanganyika now. It is not a happy thought that at the moment of independence Tanganyika should be faced with a famine—a famine which is still going on now and which will apparently reach its peak in February, 1962, at which time 500,000 people will be receiving emergency feeding rations. This is a terrible thought. I doubt whether anyone in this Chamber can visualise it. I certainly cannot. I admit that I have never been in a famine country. It is appalling to think that this should be going on at this moment when we are sitting here well-fed, comfortable and away from this grievous trouble.
What are Her Majesty's Government doing? I know that there is a delegation here now and that the right hon. Gentleman will make up his mind later about what he will do. However, it is interesting to consider what has already been done. The Oxford Committee for Famine Relief, which is a private and not a Government organisation, has given £30,000 for seed. This is what a private organisation can do. As my right hon. Friend said, the United States Government have given large quantities of maize, which only needs to be distributed. The costs of distribution are immense and the Tanganyika Government do not want to have to face these costs.
May I crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I read a letter which I think has great importance? It is a letter which should be put on record, from the Prime Minister of Tanganyika to Mr. Betts, who has recently been out to Tanganyika representing the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief. Mr. Nyerere writes:
"It is our teeling that the seriousness of this situation is not adequately known in Britain or elsewhere. In fact, in one Province alone almost 300,000 people are on famine relief and the situation is likely to deteriorate still further before the new crop can be harvested next year.
My Government did appeal to Her Majesty's Government in Britain for assistance towards the cost of distributing the maize which was generously supplied free at Tanganyika port by the American Government, but our

1001
request was turned down, 1 can only believe because the full seriousness of the situation was not realised. The cost of the emergency food distribution alone is now estimated at £250,000. The additional cost of emergency works designed to maintain the principle of self-help and to provide a minimum income for those in want will be at least a further £750,000. These are charges which we have to meet as a first priority and even with this expenditure we are well aware that there is a serious risk of great malnutrition in the affected areas.
Obviously, we must spend this money to stop our people from starving, but I am sure you will understand the serious strain this puts upon our resources. The Government revenue this year will only be about £21 million and extra expenditure of this magnitude must inevitably therefore seriously disrupt our development programme, which itself is already too small."
I have troubled the House with this letter, because it is a serious one, written by a man whom we all admire, who is the Prime Minister of a country which is about to become independent. I hope that the Secretary of State will give this matter further consideration and will be able to announce later that we can give some help of the kind Mr. Nyerere would like us to give.
After all, we have given help to other places. Why is it, for instance, that Kenya can have help? Why can Kenya have far more help than Tanganyika? Why is it, for example, that Swaziland can have 46s. a head, plus a loan of 40s. a head, while the total amount given to Tanganyika in settlement under the Bill, if we exclude retirement pensions paid to civil servants, is 6s. per head per year for three years, plus a loan of 3s. per head per year. This is not a very large sum of money. I am subject to correction; I may be wrong, but I understand that is the total if the amount given by way of retirement pensions to civil servants is excluded. It is not a very large sum compared with the sums given to Swaziland and other countries.
The fact that Tanganyika has had such a peaceful accession to independence should weigh with us and make us want to give more rather than less help. Other countries have had a less peaceful route to independence, but they have received more money. I hope that Tanganyika will be rewarded for her peacefulness by being given the money she needs to help her people in their time of distress.
Having said that, like others I welcome the Bill. I welcome also the tre-
1002
mendous tribute it pays to our colonial administration that we should manage to have a country coming to independence in such a happy state of mind, without bitterness, and with respect, indeed love, for the British people.
4.28 p.m.
Mr. Henry Clark: Hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the Bill, because it sets the seal on probably the speediest and quietest move that any country has ever made from the colonial state to independence.
While 1 heartily welcome the Bill and I do not want to strike a discordant note, I cannot help having mixed feelings on the subject. It is inevitable that on nearly all questions concerning Africa today we have feelings on two entirely different levels. We must consider the problem of Africa in the world as it is today and then, despite ourselves and despite any logic, we must consider the problems in a spirit of unpractical nostalgia, thinking of what we would like to have seen happen.
The fact that Tanganyika has come to her independence so speedily and easily is in itself some tribute to our trusteeship of the country, which was honestly and well carried out. I am exceedingly proud of the small part that I played in it.
But a feeling which is experienced by anyone who has worked at any job and then left it is that we could have done a great deal more. We could have done hundreds of things if only we had had a little more time. I cannot help feeling regret that Tanganyika has not been able to move towards independence at a slightly slower pace, as that great country Nigeria was able to in the 1950s. However, we know that that sort of thing is not possible in the 1960s.
While I am speaking of our administration and of our having, I believe, carried it out well, I should like to say that the civil servants whom we sent out to Tanganyika are being looked after well. I spent some weeks in Tanganyika this summer and saw the staff associations. Even they had very few complaints to make, which is a remarkable thing for a staff association.

1003
But there are Government servants who have worked very well for us who are not covered by any staff association. They are people who cannot go to their homes in some other country, but will remain in Tanganyika. I speak particularly of the chiefs and the native authorities, not the great chiefs of whom one immediately thinks—such as Fundikira, Humbi, Adam Sapi, Mwami Theresa Ntare, Ambuje Mataka—but the smaller men, the jumbes and liwalis. They are people who, inevitably, during the last five years, have had a stigma as being stooges and supporters of the Government. But I believe that when the history of Tanganyika is written it will be seen that they not only served Her Majesty's Government well, but also served Tanganyika very well indeed.
I am afraid that many of these people, whom I know and like so much, will in the years to come find themselves thrust out, find themselves exceedingly poor, and find that all that they knew before and all that they looked forward to in the past has been taken from them. I feel that the best interests of those people should be represented to Mr. Nyerere and his Government by Her Majesty's Government and that every possible step should be taken to ensure that the servants of the British Government who will remain in Tanganyika are looked after and cared for and are not thrust away as being just stooges of colonialism. There are hundreds of them all over Tanganyika, and I do not think that we shall have done right by Tanganyika if we do not remember them on this occasion.
There is one other problem relating to Tanganyika in which I believe Her Majesty's Government can be of some assistance. This concerns Tanganyika's most awkward neighbour. I say this with the authority of many important people in Tanganyika behind it. I refer to Portuguese East Africa—Mozambique. We have heard a great deal about Angola because it happens to be more in the news. I feel that in Africa today Portuguese East Africa is a much greater menace than Angola.
Angola is, by various circumstances, almost isolated from other countries, but Portuguese East Africa lies in the very heart of all those countries of Africa
1004
where we British feel that we may have served Africa a little. It borders Nyasa-land, Swaziland and Tanganyika. If we had an eruption in Portuguese East Africa as we had in Angola, a great deal would be done to destroy the good will which has been created between the races which live in Africa.
The Portuguese are extremely fond on occasions of referring to themselves as our oldest allies. I am never very clear how this works out historically, but if that phrase means anything I feel that we must use every influence that we have with the Portuguese Government to make them see the light. I do not want to bring a party issue into this, but I have never for a moment supported the suggestions put forward from the other side of the House for various moves against Portugal when she was having an extremely difficult time in Portugal It is never a very good time to nudge somebody in the back when he is having a fight.
However, I feel that now peace has returned to Angola, and now the time is ripe for reform, we should use every influence we have with the Portuguese Government to ensure that reforms are introduced before the bomb goes off in Portuguese East Africa. If the Portuguese Government go on in their present course, and the minor reforms last August are almost worthless, the bomb will go off In Portuguese East Africa, and much of the good work that we have done in Africa will be destroyed.
I add my support to the plea made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) for a gift to be made to Tanganyika on her independence to assist her in her famine problem. It has been the policy within the Colonial Empire for a very long time that each country should look after its own disasters as far as it is able, but when a disaster reaches the level of being extraordinary it can then look to this country for assistance.
We can all think easily of Colonies which have had extraordinary disasters. We had Mauritius with its hurricanes. Recently, we have had the British Honduras disaster. Those are dramatic, and they reach the headlines at once. Tanganyika's famine is just as disastrous and just as extraordinary as Mauritius's cyclone or British Honduras's hurricane

1005
"Hattie", but it has come much more slowly. The rains failed for two years, and we have a possibility of about one in five of failure of the rains again next year. We must not base all our calculations on the arrival of good rains next January. The famine came only five years after the last disastrous famine in the Central Province of Tanganyika— at a time when the local treasuries had used up all their financial resources and when the people were already to some extent emaciated—permanently emaciated, as we have heard—by the previous famine.
We must not forget our duties as a colonial Power. I have never thought 'that"colonial"in the sense of our standing with Tanganyika was a dirty word. We have responsibilities right up to 9th December of this year, and I feel that if we are to live up to them we must give Tanganyika some assistance, because if we do not, the development plan, which we subscribed to early in August, will very probably be sabtotaged.
Perhaps one of the happiest facets of Tanganyika's becoming fully independent is that the ablest and most moderate statesman Africa has yet produced will be launched on the counsels of the world. I think that one can pay special tribute to Mr. Nyerere, because nobody anywhere in Africa has had the opportunity to cash in on the cult of personality more than he has and resisted the temptation.
When I was in Dares Salaam, in August, the question was being discussed of a medal for the school children during the independence celebration. There was continually from the Prime Minister's office a flat "No; Mr. Nyerere's head is not to appear on the medal. "Eventually, a British civil servant went to Mr. Nyerere and said, "You know perfectly well—if you do not, I am assuring you of it now —that every man, woman and child of every race in Tanganyika wants your head to appear on the independence medal. Will you agree to it?"
I believe that Mr. Nyerere has now agreed to it, but it was under very severe protest, and I do not think that we shall be seeing his head upon the stamps and coins of Tanganyika. Nor do I think that we shall have a statue of Mr. Nyerere ready for blowing up for some time yet in Dar es Salaam.
1006
Like other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the Bill and wish the people of Tanganyika the very best of good fortune in the years ahead.
4.40 p.m.
Mr. John Taylor: Thus quietly, thus unobtrusively and thus un-dramatically we perform an act this afternoon to give legislative effect to the creation of a new nation. This is a very great important event. The 9th of December will see the birth of a new country— a day of massive importance to Tanganyika and its 10 million people, who, for the first time in history, are being welded together into one great independent State reaching from the fastnesses of Kilimanjaro to the shores of Lake Nyasa and from the borders of the Congo to the Indian Ocean.
The birth of a nation is an event of world importance at any time, but the birth of this particular nation is of very special importance at this time in this place and in the Continent of Africa. It will be a free nation following the path of political democracy and that alone is a heart-warming thing in this day and age. It will be a non-racial nation and that is setting a great example to the other emergent African nations.
It is the declared policy of its Prime Minister, Mr. Julius Nyerere, whom I regard as the greatest African of them all, to create a country where Africans, Asians and Europeans can live and work together in harmony. If I can remember his actual words on this theme, he said:
"It does not matter what is the colour of a man's skin or the shape of his nose. It is what the man is that matters to us."
We are fortunate that Tanganyika is blessed to have a man of his calibre and his philosophy leading his countrymen into its first year of nationhood.
Further to what my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members have said about the advisability—the almost moral obligation we have—to help Tanganyika immediately and urgently in its present disaster, I wonder what it would have cost Britain had there not been a man of the calibre of Mr. Nyerere in charge? It may have cost us many millions of pounds in keeping insurrection within bounds.

1007
We have seen Tanganyika's progress to independence rapidly and peacefully with the negotiations conducted in amity and this has been due, in great measure, not only to those distinguished Europeans and Britons who have been mentioned this afternoon, particularly by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson), but also in equally great measure to the genius and leadership of Mr. Julius Nyerere.
Mr. Nyerere and his able corps of Ministers certainly have many problems, especially that of establishing an element of industrial activity into Tanganyika's economy. The immediate problem is the recovery from the devastating drought and famine of this year. Although the country faces these massive problems, I believe that it will be free from the problems of internal conflict which have so pitifully affected progress in Central Africa.
Politically, Tanganyika will be a united nation. I had the great personal pleasure last year of meeting and addressing the hon. Members of the Legislative Council—the Parliament of Tanganyika—and in all too brief a visit I made many friends of three races and a dozen creeds. I had the privilege of attending the opening of Parliament there, just over a year ago—'the Parliament which had the duty of preparing for complete independence.
It was a satisfying and moving experience to see the hon. Members conducting their Parliamentary business on the procedural model of this Mother of Parliaments. Most of them were newly-elected hon. Members with no previous experience of Parliamentary or even local government administration. It was satisfying because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharpies), the Fourth Clerk at the Table and myself had been lecturing to the hon. Members of the Tanganyika Parliament for two weeks in an endeavour to acquaint them with all our well-tried methods, to inform them of our many mistakes so that they might avoid them, and of our methods of procedure and practice.
Accordingly, with every hon. Member of this House, I extend my good wishes to the new nation, wishing it good fortune, success and peaceful progress to
1008
real and lasting prosperity. I salute the new nation of Tanganyika. Long may it flourish.
4.46 p.m.
Miss Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devon-port): When I first went to Tanganyika, in 1951, I thought that it would be interesting to find out something about the country. I discovered that the name "Tanganyika" means "Mixing place". It is well named, because I suppose that of all the African States this is the one in which people mix extremely easily and freely.
I also took the opportunity of reading Livingstone's "Voyages", because it is interesting to realise that probably our grandparents knew Livingstone and were thrilled with his voyages. I can assure hon. Members that his name is very much alive today, especially in the area of Tabora. I thought that I would mention this because we owe a great deal to the explorations of Livingstone, his influence in the stopping of slavery, and it shows what tremendous progress has been made in such a short time since this man made his original voyages.
I must pay tribute to Julius Nyerere, for he is the most modest and least self-seeking politician I have ever met. I also pay tribute not only to Lord Twining, but to Lady Twining, who was a doctor in her own right, and did a tremendous amount of work, especially on behalf of women throughout Tanganyika. I also had the pleasure of attending the National Assembly—and here I think that we must be grateful to Mr. Speaker Abdul Karimjee, who is presiding over the Parliament there in a most expert manner. When one considers that although he comes from a very old Asian family, and is not an African, it is all the more credit to the people of this country. It shows how well people can mix, considering that he is in this position and is so well respected.
Since the early days of the Legislative Council I am glad to see that the right of women has been recognised, to take part in Parliamentary affairs. I believe that the last election resulted in the National Assembly having seven women representing all races. In this, I pay tribute to the Tanganyika Council of Women, which, through its women's clubs and organisations throughout the country,

1009
has done a lot to train women. One of the failings in so many African countries is that women are left educationally behind the men and have not been able to play an equal part. This has had many poor results because if a woman cannot share the same interests a man may go elsewhere, perhaps to undesirable clubs and meetings, which may not be beneficial for the family.
We should also remember Mr. Williamson and the fact that he has given great prosperity to Tanganyika after a great many years of privation and service in the discovery of the diamond mines. In this context, I must mention Mr. Chopra, who had sufficient faith in him to help him financially and who, I gather, has retired to Switzerland.
No mention has been made in this debate so far of the trade unions of Tanganyika. They have been fortunate in having 39 trade unions there, with over 65,000 members, and I hope that these will grow to strength. They have been formed on the right lines and they work as trade unions should do, instead of as occurs in so many countries where they have become rather like secret societies. I wish them good luck in their work in the future.
One of the interesting things about Tanganyika is the success of community development. Of all African territories that I have had the opportunity of visiting, community development is more understood in Tanganyika than in any other. One must give credit to Mr. Kawawa for this. He has done much, through the formation of community centres, for the training of people, particularly in adult education, and I hope that whatever happens there will be sufficient money to enable this work to be carried on.
Voluntary work in Tanganyika has been outstanding. I went there on behalf of the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind. At Tabora, there is the best scheme for training blind Africans—what is known as a Shamba scheme—in any country in Africa. The Government are so interested in this training that they have taken over this centre as a training centre of their own, and I commend that as the way things should be done. Organisation should be started by voluntary bodies in the
1010
United Kingdom and then taken over by the Government.
At the recent conference at Arusha I was interested to find that under the guidance of Mr. Fundikira, who is the chief of Tabora, and has been an agricultural officer, there was set up a committee concerned with the necessary preservation of wild life. This will be beneficial to Tanganyika and to the future of the tourist trade. I gather that the Prime Minister himself is interested in this scheme.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government will not neglect to help the small but very enthusiastic navy. When I went there in 1957 there was only one ship, H.M.S. "Rosalind", but now there are two or three. The navy provides very good training, and I hope that it will get help from Her Majesty's Government in the future.
One of the things that have helped Tanganyika so much has been the lack of tribal tension. People live completely different lives there. I have had an opportunity of visiting Lindi, in the south, seeing the problems of people from Portuguese East Africa coming over to Lindi, trying to get work and being settled on the land, and then going north to Bukoba and seeing the different way in which people live there. When they meet they manage to do so without the tribal tensions that one finds in so many other countries.
I should like also to comment on the fact that there is freedom of worship. This is particularly very important, particularly as there are a great many church schools which have given considerable aid in the education of the population, and, we hope, will continue to do so.
I also want to mention the police. The police in Tanganyika have rendered outstanding service to their country. Only a short time ago, when 400 cattle were stolen from the Masai, the way in which the police acted and stopped a possible riot between the Masai and the Sukama was wonderful. This was watched by a member of the Fifth United Nations Mission, who expressed his admiration. When one remembers that from time to time there has been difficulty in Dares Salaam with the unemployed, one realises that one of the

1011
strongest hopes for the future is that there is such a loyal police force there.
The co-operative societies, particularly the coffee co-operatives, have done a great deal to help the prosperity of the country. I hope that we shall still be able to advise them and have more people from Tanganyika trained in this technique in this country because I believe that the co-operative system is beneficial to Tanganyika.
Finally, I should like to refer to the famine and to consider how we can help. When one comes of age or, as in this case, obtains independence, it is usual to make certain presents. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that we might persuade the Commonwealth to make some presents to Tanganyika on this occasion. I do not necessarily mean money presents or loans of money, so much as actual gifts.
I suggest that Canada might give wheat, New Zealand milk products, Australia meat, wheat or both, Malaya rice and Nigeria red palm oil. I feel that if gifts from the Commonwealth countries could be made immediately so that they are available on Independence Day, 9th December, it would be of great help to the country and would also be a concrete means of expressing our good wishes for the future.
With those few words I should like to add my good wishes to the people of this country which, I hope, will grow in prosperity and will enjoy a happy and lasting independence.
4.56 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Skeffington: As one who, like the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devon-port (Miss Vickers), has had an opportunity of visiting the territory on several occasions, I should like to express my pleasure and satisfaction that Tanganyika has reached this important stage in its constitutional development to full nationhood.
The Secretary of State, in introducing the Bill, apart from saying that this is now the largest territory left to achieve independence—it is, after all, only a little smaller than Nigeria—made the point that it was the first East African country to achieve independence. He might have said also that it is one of the few coun-
1012
tries that have reached this stage so astonishingly quickly without an intervening period of unrest and violence and without the chief characters emerging from hiding or from gaol. This is a distinction to which we cannot always point in the history of African development.
I believe that this fortunate state of affairs is due to three circumstances. I should like, first, to emphasise that the attention given to this very backward territory by the Labour Government of 1945–50 was undoubtedly one of the decisive factors which have made this present constitutional development possible. The Overseas Food Corporation Scheme, with which my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) was so much more closely connected than I am, and who has so much more knowledge, placed this territory on the map.
I am glad to quote, in support of this contention, the words of the former Governor of Tanganyika, Lord Twining, who said to me that groundnuts put Tanganyika on the map. So much party propaganda was made about that scheme that I think this fact ought to be registered. The scheme was not only responsible for introducing capital on a scale hitherto undreamed of by Tanganyika, but it also introduced skilled personnel some of whom stayed in the territory afterwards and have helped in its development.
The scheme had various difficulties. There was then, as now, a shortage of rain. This happens sometimes in Africa, although some hon. Members at the time seemed to think that this was a peculiar circumstance devised by the incompetence of the Labour Government. But there were other difficulties at the time. The scheme may have been pushed through too quickly, but we were then facing what appeared then to be a desperate shortage of fats throughout the world, and I think that the Government were wise to take the decisions that they did.
All I can say is that I felt great pleasure when, a few years ago, I stood by the new deep-water harbour at Mikindani built under the scheme, a place which previously, I think, had only two claims to fame, one, that it was the scene of the romantic novel The Blue

1013
Lagoon;the other, that it was the place where Livingstone left Africa. A few years ago, I was able to stand there and see this great deep-water harbour, with ships of up to 10,000 tons taking away the produce of the territory, of the forests, for instance, which, previously, were quite unexploited because there was no means of carrying the timber away. Food crops come rolling down the 120 miles of new railway line from Nachingwa, where, in the year I was there, 1957, more than £250,000 worth of agricultural produce was raised from an area which hitherto was semi-desert.
These are great achievements, and I am glad to think that the attention given to the territory by the Labour Government has produced those results. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House today are glad of the continuing success of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation which took over the three schemes in Tanganyika of the Overseas Food Corporation. Of course, the original scheme not only introduced capital and personnel and built harbours, roads and railways, but, of course, it created schools and hospitals, all of which have been of tremendous benefit. I believe that it was one of the most important historical acts in this part of Africa.
The second factor which has been of importance in development has been the visiting missions from the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. Territorial Governments were not always pleased with what the missions said, whom they saw, and how they reported, and, to be quite frank, I think that the missions sometimes were not altogether fair. This was true of the visiting mission of 1954. Generally speaking, however, I think that, by concentrating the attention of experts and observers from all over the world on the territory, the missions kept administrators on their toes, gave opportunities for people to make appeals if they felt they were being unfairly treated, and, in the result, whether intended or not I do not know, many developments took place during the past ten years which might well not have taken place but for the kind of very close investigation given to the territory by the United Nations.
The results of those two factors, the work of the visiting missions and the
1014
development schemes of 1945-50 were, of course, in striking contrast to what happened in the territory between the wars. Tanganyika was then a backward territory. Its future was uncertain. The best overseas civil servants preferred not to go there because they did not know what would happen. There were then even some hon. Members of this House—I do not think there are any now—who advocated that the territory should go back to Germany. I am certain that the two big changes since the war to which I have referred helped a great deal to bring the country to the position it now occupies.
The third circumstance which, undoubtedly, has led to advance in Tanganyika is the character and personality of the leader of the African people in Tanganyika, Julius Nyerere. There have already been references to this and it would be superfluous if I were to add anything except to say that I believe that he is a man of great vision and great imagination, a man who has always had a very clear conception of the sort of State he wanted and believed was possible in the territory—an independent State within the Commonwealth based on the model of our British parliamentary democracy. I believe that that vision is capable of being realised. Mr. Nyerere has shown that himself in the actions he has taken, and I believe that Tanganyika and the Commonwealth are fortunate in having such a personality.
As hon. Members have said, it is a great pity that our celebrations at this time should be put in the shadow by the famine which has affected Tanganyika, particularly the Central Province. It is very unfortunate that at this particular time the new Government should have to face a crisis of such magnitude. I understand that, according to the report of the special investigator sent by the Oxford Famine Relief Committee, already 300,000 persons are existing on emergency rations. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who spoke earlier in the debate, said Chat it was likely that, by February, half a million people would be involved. My own information is that, perhaps, by December there will be half a million people on emergency rations.

1015
The situation is very serious indeed. I am informed that the rations just about keep a person alive, but not much more. There will have to be further help. One cannot look forward to any natural automatic easing of the situation. Again, there has been a lack of rain over a long period which has been responsible for the reduction in crops. I understand that the other factor is a nasty parasite called the army worm. The name may be rather a comical one, but the effect of the parasite is very unfortunate. These two factors together have brought about a catastrophic fall in the quantity of the crops and also, I understand, cattle have been affected. According to the information which I have and information which was given* to the Oxford Committee, about 500,000 cattle are likely to die before the end of the year. This will mean a permanent reduction in the resources of a very considerable part of the territory, with very damaging consequences in future years.
The Tanganyika Government have already set up a fund of £150,000 to help in the distribution of maize, some of which has been given by the United States, but it is certain that more help is required. I was a little surprised that the Secretary of State, in introducing the Bill, did not refer to this matter at all. I take it that we shall hear something shortly from the Under-Secretary.
The last time that we discussed Tanganyika, we had to criticise the Government because they had just announced certain cuts in their financial provisions. There has been an improvement since then, but we must really press, as hon. Members have done, for help to be given to Tanganyika now in what is a disaster of the first magnitude. Failure to give adequate help might put in jeopardy all the progress so far registered in Tanganyika. African citizens, like anyone else, are bound to judge by results, and, if there is a prolonged period of starvation and misery, this could lead to all sorts of unfortunate consequences, which I need not elaborate to the House.
I express great joy and appreciation that there are in this State none of the racial problems commonly associated with other African territories. From the very first, not only Julius Nyerere but the Tanganyika African National Union
1016
have looked, and have asked their members to look, upon all who live, work and wish to remain in Tanganyika not as Europeans, Africans, Asians, or Arabs, but as Tanganyikans. This is the happiest augury for the future. It is based on solid achievement in the past. Julius Nyerere himself was the leader of all the races in opposition and he is now head of a Government of all the races, which gives us great hope for the future.
I hope that all the Europeans who are able to stay on in Tanganyika in the public services will do so. Obviously, Tanganyika must push ahead with the promotion of Africans to positions of responsibility. I was glad to read that, in the period ended June, 1961, the number of Africans in important positions was increased from 300 to over 600, a considerable advance, and I am sure that the House is glad to note that the first provincial African education officer has been appointed in Tanga Province. We wish him well, and we hope that this appointment will be succeeded by many others.
Nevertheless, the Prime Minister himself has said—and everyone who knows the territory realises this—that for some years to come Tanganyika will require all the help and advice that skilled personnel in all the services can give. I hope that people will stay on. I believe that there is a future for them in this territory, a future probably brighter than anywhere else. The territorial Government are determined to treat them as well as they possibly can in the circumstances.
I echo what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) about the co-operative movement. The co-operative movement in Tanganyika is responsible for one-fifth of the country's exports. It represents a way of life which Africans understand and appreciate because they can take part in it and feel that they are not being exploited. Not only do we have in the co-operative movement established people of long experience in the producer societies, but there are many new successful co-operative developments taking place today. I know that it is the intention of the territorial Government to improve methods of production wherever they can.

1017
I should like to say how glad I am that this country, in such a short time, has reached independence and to join hon. Members in wishing the people and Government of Tanganyika all success in the future.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Hayes and Har-lington (Mr. Skeffington) and other hon. Members have welcomed the Bill. Indeed, some hon. Members have waxed lyrical about it and about the future of Tanganyika. I fear that I propose to strike a more discordant note, because I am overwhelmingly impressed by the immense risk in the gamble that we are taking on the intelligence, industry and ability of one man, Mr. Julius Nyerere. If he succeeds in this gamble, I am sure that Tanganyika can play a useful part in the Commonwealth. But if he blunders, then millions of people for whom we are now responsible may well slip back into the quiet but not very serene life that they once knew, unhampered by Western civilisation.
In approaching independence, Tanganyika is in saome respects helped by its own weaknesses. We have heard many tributes to the energy and ability of the British civil servants who have done their duty in the Territory. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark) is included in that number. It cannot be said that in the past Tanganyika has been an over-administered Territory, nor that the central administration has reached a very high level of sophistication. Therefore, Tanganyika is not faced with the problem of administrative disruption which may very well hamper Kenya when independence comes to that country in the not too distant future, because the superstructure of administration can no longer be supported.
Then there is the question of the economy. We have heard evidence this afternoon, and I have seen it recently with my own eyes, of the calamities that can happen when the economy is disrupted by drought. I have recently been in the Northern Province of Tanganyika. I join with others in hoping that we can make a generous gesture and bear the cost of the distribution of the food that has been so generously contributed by the American Government. It is a fact
1018
that when calamity comes the Tanganyika economy which is weak, cannot stand the strain which is put upon it.
On the other hand, there are certain advantages to a country when it is approaching the threshold of independence in having a suspect type of economy. In Kenya, which is also on the threshold of independence and where there has been much more development in the European and African parts of the economy, there is, I believe, a very grave danger of economic collapse. The experts on economic affairs in Kenya tell me that they expect that, on achieving independence, the Kenyan economy will sink back to the level of the Tanganyika economy, which is about two-thirds of the level in Kenya. I do not think that the Tanganyikan economy can collapse because it is too close to the ground. Therefore, this threat, which is very real in other parts of East Africa, is not present in Tanganyika to the same extent.
Perhaps the greatest advantage that Tanganyika has in moving towards independence so quickly is shown by the fact that Jomo Kenyatta has recently been addressing a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in this Palace of Westminster. The affairs of Kenya have been torn by tribal dissension. In Tanganyika, through no virtue of its own but by the chance of nature, this chaotic tribal confrontation does not happen. It seems that, with a minimum of good judgment and good luck, tribal conflict there can be avoided.
In Tanganyika there is no heritage of racial bitterness of the sort that has done so much damage in Kenya. Whereas there are a number of members of Jomo Kenyatta's K.A.N.U. party whose political thinking even at this moment goes no further than a study of the entrails of goats, there is in Mr. Nyerere's party a genuine effort to build more than a facade of multi-racial co-operation.
Against this, there is the question of education. Professor Arthur Lewis, who is by no means a reactionary, has estimated that if a society is to contain within itself the power to progress and to grow, 10 per cent. of the members of every generation must have a secondary education. Eighteen months

1019
ago I was talking in Dar es Salaam to the Director of Education of Tanganyika. The statistics were frightening, and they showed how far Tanganyika is from the achievement of 10 per cent, of any generation of her people, let alone every generation, with a secondary education. It is this gap between the educational poverty of the country and the minimum standard laid down by Professor Lewis which can only be offset by Mr. Nyerere's great talents. Perhaps it will come off, perhaps it will not.
We all know that this Bill has been framed by the present Leader of the House. I do not believe that these are bridge players' odds. I have a nasty suspicion that, in our desire to liquidate as quickly as we can the remaining British territorial possessions in East Africa, the true interests of the people concerned have taken second place.
There is one other reason why I do not give this Bill a very warm welcome. It is that I regret that the period of time between the granting of full internal self-government and complete independence has been so short. In other parts of the Commonwealth, in Ghana and in the West Indies, this period has covered years. Now it is to be compressed into a matter of months. This may be all right in Tanganyika itself, but Tanganyika is setting a precedent for the rest of East Africa. It has already set the precedent for Uganda and, undoubtedly, will set the precedent for Kenya itself.
I am convinced that in those other territories, where there is much greater tribal friction and a very real danger of tribal civil war, an extended period of full internal self-government is absolutely essential if we are to avoid catastrophe. Because the Tanganyikan precedent is entirely in the opposite direction I am extremely sad.
While there is much to welcome in the Bill, I believe that it makes slightly more possible the outbreak of real violence in Uganda and makes infinitely more possible the outbreak of real chaos in Kenya.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. John Stonehouse: Less than a hundred years ago British public opinion was electrified by the
1020
terrible reports of the slave trade in Tanganyika. At that time that country was being depopulated at the rate of tens of thousands a year by the slave traders who had gone into the interior from Dares Salaam and who were using Zanzibar as their headquarters. It was partly as a result of this House setting up a Select Committee in 1871 to investigate the slave trade that the British public began to take an interest in doing something constructive for that part of the world.
Now, less than a hundred years afterwards, we in this House welcome, with, perhaps, just one exception—the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) —the independence of this vast territory which had its very heart, its very soul and its very body torn out for something like four hundred years from the 15th century to the middle of the 19th century. We and the rest of the world have a debt to repay to Tanganyika for the damage done.
It is really remarkable that, despite that background, Tanganyika has in the last few years been able to make such exceptional progress. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) in paying tribute to the Labour Administration and to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) during that Administration. I also wish to pay tribute to Conservative Colonial Secretaries who have been realistically facing up to the facts as far as Tanganyika is concerned and who have helped her to reach the stage at which she has arrived today.
As I listened to most of the speeches made this afternoon by hon. Members opposite, I was struck by the fact that almost all of them appear to have been converted to Labour Party ideas. We heard tributes paid to the trade unions, to the co-operative societies and to Mr. Julius Nyerere, that great Socialist who leads a great Socialist party in the Tanganyika African National Union. It is a very fine thing indeed that Conservative hon. Members have the courage and the honesty to admit that these ideals have played such a great part in the development of Tanganyika.

1021
What a contrast this is with the situation that has existed for many years in Kenya where a Conservative Government encouraged a white minority of only some 70,000 odd to entertain ideas of domination of the territory. What a contrast it is to the situation now existing in the Rhodesias where, even now, the Conservative Government are encouraging a tiny white minority representing less than 4 per cent. of the total population to have ideas of overwhelming political control.
Let the Conservative Party really learn from the lessons of Tanganyika. Do not let us have any humbug in the speeches congratulating her on independence. Let them realise that it is the political experiment of one man, one vote, the ideal of complete non-racial equality, which has brought about this remarkable situation there. If we had had a situation of fancy franchises delaying constitutional advance—which we have had in Kenya, and particularly in Northern Rhodesia —this situation in Tanganyika would not have been reached today. It is because—and I pay tribute to them—Conservative Ministers have had the courage to take a leap forward and allow real progress towards non-racial democracy that we have reached this situation.
I remember only a few years ago hon. Members opposite pouring cold water and scorn on the idea of one man, one vote. Political democracy in Tanganyika, as in other countries, is a catalyst which can help overcome the terrible effects of degradation and backwardness. I think that this in Tanganyika will enable this great nation to go ahead united.
If there had been delay, as it was suggested by the hon. Member for Beckenham there should have been, it is quite likely that this great experiment would not have succeeded. Suspicions would have been raised, doubts would have been cast and enmities taken up which would have taken a much longer time to eradicate than to build up. Of course, the Prime Minister of Tanganyika is a remarkable man. He is one of the outstanding men of this generation. But he has had a remarkable party with which to work. The Socialist Tanganyika African National Union is really a remarkable organisation. It was created only in 1954, and yet within seven years it
1022
is taking over the government of an independent nation which will play its full part within the Commonwealth.
I pay tribute not only to Mr. Nyerere but also to some of his lieutenants. For instance, there is Mr. Oscar Kambona, a man who could have gone into a career and made a lot of money. He spent many years going to the villages, to the hinterland, spreading the gospel of political advance when it was not a popular thing to do. Let us remember that at that time some of the colonial civil servants were doing their best to undermine the development of T.A.N.U. because they were suspicious of any organisation and suspicious of men like Kambona, who put the interests of his country before himself. There were men like Paul Bomani, a co-operator who, in face of official obstruction, developed that great Victoria federation of co-operatives, that great co-operators' organisation which has transformed what was a backward area into a prosperous part of Tanganyika and which in one year has produoed 200,000 bales of cotton. It is an enterprise which is almost completely owned by its own members who, through Socialist co-operative methods, are learning the best way to develop their country. Then there are the older examples, such as the Bukoba Co-operative Union, led by a man who is now one of the prominent Ministers in Mr. Nyerere's Administration. Also the K.N.C.U. around the mountain of Kilimanjaro is one of the oldest examples of cooperative success. It is only through such methods of co-operative development that the whole people of Tanganyika can be drawn together now in this great task of building up the standards of 10 million people who have been denied opportunities in the past.
What can we do to help them? It is not good enough just to say nice things about Tanganyika on reaching its independence. I support entirely what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly and other hon. Members have said about the need to provide assistance during this terrible period of famine. Let us, however, remember that this is not a short-term problem. The problem of starvation and malnutrition is always facing a country like Tanganyika with limited resources which have not been developed by any means to the full.

1023
Therefore, even after we have given aid to meet the famine, I hope that we will be imaginative enough to work out with the new Government of the independent Tanganyika a scheme for large-scale economic assistance spread over the next seven years. I would put the amount required for this at no less than £250 million. The country needs a vast amount spent on the development of railways, roads, communications and hydro-electric and irrigation schemes. The great Rufiji scheme, for instance, could be developed if sufficient money was available. Then, there are the industrial developments that go with the building up of the agricultural base of the economy. It is only by developing Tanganyika, by investing such large sums of money, that the rest of the world can pay the debt that we owe to Tanganyika for the terrible evils done to it through 400 or 500 years of the slave trade. I hope that co-operative techniques can be, as, I believe, they will be, a great part of that development.
I echo the hopes of the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Miss Vickers) that during these years ahead there will be close contact between the organisations in Tanganyika like the co-operatives and the trade unions and our own co-operative and trade union organisations, because a very great deal can be obtained for both sides by such friendly contact. I echo the good wishes which have been expressed and wish the Government and people of Tanganyika all great progress that they deserve in the future.
5.33 p.m.
Mr. Julian Snow (Lichfield and Tam-worth): I gather from listening to the debate and looking round that I am one of three hon. Members of this House who have actually worked in Tanganyika as opposed to paying sporadic visits. That does not give me any particular right, however, to speak about Tanganyika with a great fund of knowledge. My recollections go back a little further than those of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford (Sir L. Plummer), who will shortly, I trust, catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, for the ex tremely important contribution which he can make to the debate.
1024
When I first went to Tanganyika, it was under the Governorship of Sir Donald Cameron, to whom reference has already been made this afternoon by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson). Sir Donald himself was a pupil of Lugard. I remember that during the 1929–30 period, he was starting the institution of the indirect rule principle, which, I believe, laid the foundation for the relatively racially and tribally uninhibited atmosphere which has always existed in Tanganyika. In those years, which were not so very long after the Great War, memories were still fairly clear about the German occupation of the country. I remember the more simple-minded settler elements there talking with some nostalgia about the often brutal and often simple rule by the Germans—rule by the Kiboko, I think, they used to call it—the Rhino hide whip.
There was hostility to the general political and social attitude of Sir Donald. One remembers thankfully that his policy succeeded in suppressing that hostility and in achieving the atmosphere which I remember in that territory. The House will bear with me if I appear to be a little bit anecdotal, but I believe that today we are considering the final stage of a political situation which had its origin in the great statesmanship of Sir Donald in those days. I felt that I should say that, because I had a great affection for his personal kindness to me when I was a young man and the recollection of what he taught me in those days.
Other names have been omitted from the debate this afternoon. Reference was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to natural tribulations such as the tsetse fly. I remember Swinnerton, at Shin-yanga, hastening to get back to that area for the tsetse season. Nobody who has ever experienced the tsetse would want to get back to subject himself to the attentions of that fly.
It was in Tanganyika and in Dares Salaam in 1930 that the first African was ever brought into consultation by the Legislative Council. His name, I believe, was Martin Kayamba. I do not know what has happened to him now.
To bring myself more up to date, there are two matters which, possibly, the

1025
Minister might remember in his further communications with Mr. Nyerere. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly talked at great length, as other hon. Members have subsequently done, about the economic troubles which face Tanganyika, such as the famine. Tanganyika—under-capitalised, under-populated and a vast area—will have this sort of trouble for a long time. There is seasonal disruption of the road services. There is almost automatic seasonal disruption of the railway system, involving large capital cost. I do not feel particularly shy about introducing a controversial note, but I remember that when the Gold Coast was beginning to achieve independence and developing into Ghana, we had from the Conservative benches demands that all colonial development and welfare financial aid should be stopped because independence was being given. I hope not only that we consider the current famine problems of Tanganyika, but that we will bear in mind that inevitably this poorer country will have need of financial aid. It is something to which we must look forward.
Tributes have been paid validly this afternoon to the lack of inter-racial difficulties. It is within the knowledge of the House that the wholesale and retail distribution trade of Tanganyika is almost exclusively in the hands of Indians. Unless Mr. Nyerere is extremely careful, that could develop into a problem. I hope that agencies which are at the disposal of the Government will be used to try to attract Tanganyikans to this country or to other countries of Europe to learn business, commerce and the requirements of distribution, so that they can have a greater hand in the problems of the village and the small townships, which now are largely in the hands of the Indians.
So that my words cannot be misconstrued, may I say this. I, for one, pay the greatest possible tribute to the Indian community in Tanganyika. They went into scruffy, dirty, little, remote corners of the country at a time when nobody else would go and they fulfilled a most useful function. They have been honourable citizens of the territory. Many have fled from India to avoid caste restrictions. They went into a new territory where there were no comforts
1026
and where their own civilisation was completely missing, yet they stuck it out over the decades and have achieved a distribution of goods which is truly remarkable.
It is difficult to find something new to say at this point of the debate about welcoming this step. I was sorry that I detected in speeches from the Conservative benches the old traditional Conservative feeling that we are going too fast. What we are doing today is a great tribute. We are providing an example of speedy reconciliation with our own colonial social and political attitudes and the legitimate desires of people to rule themselves as they want. I am delighted to be able to participate in this debate.
5.40 p.m.
Sir Leslie Plummer: I want to take this opportunity of adding my voice to the general welcome that has been given on both sides of the House to this Bill. It is a rare occasion when both sides are united in welcoming a Measure of any kind. It is a rare occasion when both sides are praising one particular member of the Government, in short, the Leader of the House. It is a rare occasion when we have only one Cassandra-like speech, such as the mean and ungenerous speech that we heard from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), who, I regret to say, is not in his place at the moment. I hope that it will not go out from this House that his speech represented the informed and overwhelming opinion of this House of Commons.
One of the dangers that we are in is that of creating, as it were, the cult of personality. I think that we stand in great danger if we say,"This is going to be all right in the long run because the Prime Minister of Tanganyika is an outstanding man."I believe, with my hon. Friend the Member for Wednes-bury (Mr. Stonehouse), that the Prime Minister has been extremely fortunate in having behind him a united party of determined men who have given him the support he needs, and did need. The Prime Minister of Tanganyika, Mr. Nyerere, will, I hope, continue to get the support of all hon. and right hon. Members of this House because he will need it. We have to be prepared to help him

1027
and to lift him up if and when he stumbles. I think that it is likely that he will stumble for reasons which are not his fault. When I read the stories and first got information of the famine now threatening the Central Province of Tanganyika, I said to myself, "My golly, this is where I came in".
In 1948, when I first went to Tanganyika to take over the groundnut scheme on behalf of the Overseas Food Corporation, as its Chairman, I was taken to the Bomas and shown the famine storage silos which had been built and which were then full, for the reason that there had been famine in the late 1940s and it was the determination of the Government that not again would starvation hit the Central Province but that there would be adequate grain stocks.
One of the problems had been that in the Southern Province in Tanganyika, the area around Nachingwa, which is the natural granary for the Central Province, was unable to send food up because the roads were in such a shocking condition. I think that I have already told the House that I discovered at one time that in those days the bridges across the rivers were taken in by the Public Works Department at flood tide because they might be swept away. So the bridges that were built so that people could cross the rivers were not there when they were needed and the food could not be brought up.
It was said that this situation would not occur again, but now it has occurred. Why? It is not Mr. Nyerere's fault;it is our fault. We have a harbour at Mikindani which, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, is able to take ships up to 10,000 tons, and which was built by the Overseas Food Corporation. There are roads in Tanganyika which clearly did not exist before the Overseas Food Corporation took over. There are railways in Tanganyika which did not exist before the Overseas Food Corporation came into existence;yet we have this trouble. We have this famine facing 500,000 people or more. It is an example of the hazardous nature of agriculture in Tanganyika which will not be solved by a change of Government or by a change of Prime Minister. We have to
1028
say to Mr. Nyerere, "We are standing behind you over these next formative years to see to it that if you do have these calamities we will help you."
I have sat on the stoep of a mud house in the Central province of Tanganyika watching the rain clouds blow overhead and seeing for the second summer in succession a terrible drought gripping the land. One hon. Member referred to the fact that next year there was a one in five chance that there would be a drought again. I think that this is likely to be true. We cannot rely on the rainfall in the Central Province of Tanganyika, but we can rely on it to a greater extent in the Southern Province. What Mr. Nyerere needs and the people of Tanganyika need is a gigantic influx of capital to build even more railways and roads and even more storage places to enable the risk of famine through drought to be avoided.
I hope that the Government will not say, simply because Tanganyika has achieved its independence,"We wash our hands of Tanganyika."We the people of Great Britain owe a great debt of gratitude to the people of Tanganyika. It was through the low standard of living on which so many of them have existed in the past, and their wretched conditions, that we enjoy our standard of life. I do not think that we can evade our responsibility for what has happened in the past simply by praising Mr. Nyerere now and just welcoming this Bill.
I send my particular good wishes to the men and women who are working in the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation, the body that has taken over the enterprise that was left from the Overseas Food Corporation. I know many of those men and women. I worked with them in the heat, the dust and the wind devils in the generally rigorous conditions of Tanganyika. I remember how they were being assailed by comedians in all parts of this country as being incompetents. These were the engineers and fitters who were working under dreadful conditions to keep the machines going. I remember how soma of the agriculturists were often criticised and the stories told of them that they did not know the difference between fertilisers and cement. I knew that, all the time these fellows were being held up as laughing stocks and criticised, any

1029
criticism would have been better directed against me, because as the Chairman of the Overseas Food Corporation I was, as long as I was Chairman, entirely responsible for everything that happened under that scheme. What I resented above all was these men, who came out of their comfortable homes at the call of the nation to do a rigorous and terribly difficult job, being treated as if they were a pack of layabouts or fools; they were neither. They were hard-working people, and many of them stayed in Tanganyika working for the Tanganyika Corporation and adding to the wealth of the country in the way that they always hoped that they would be able to add to the wealth of that country.
It is to those men and women in particular that I would say, "I hope that your experiences in the last twelve or thirteen years and the efforts which you have made, your devotion to the country, your understanding of the people of the country, will bring the reward which we all seek"—a happy, contented, vigorous and prosperous Tanganyika.
5.50 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Every one of us for a few minutes wishes to join in giving expression to good will to Tanganyika on this occasion, whether we happen, by reason of our careers, to have been taken to work in the country, whether we have visited it just casually, whether, like my right hon. Friends the Members for Llanelly (Mr. J.Griffiths) and Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), we have been honourably connected with it from afar, whether we have been episodically connected with it, but extremely honourably, like my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), or whether, like myself, we have never been to the country at all. Everyone wishes to take his instrument and contribute to the chamber music in rendering a Siegfried idyll from this land to that other land far away, where this event is about to take place.
This has been, as so many hon. Members have said already, the achievement of independence by real statesmanship. It has led really to the almost monolithic party control of Tanganyika, not because there has been suppression of opposition, but because, for the best of reasons, they have achieved unity of opinion. But I
1030
do not think any of us would be unaware of the difficulties which this situation may lead to in the future. I know that it will pose problems. Can democracy survive in these circumstances? Can the rule of law flourish under a monolithic party?
A lot of people are led to assert that our Parliamentary democracy is incapable of export to Africa. I know that many Europeans, even now, are unable to make this system work, and that we ourselves have taken centuries to allow it to evolve to its present condition. I submit to the House that if democracy means that we want to see an exact replica of the Westminster system in some distant country, then there may be something in this criticism;but if, on the other hand, we mean by democracy that it is association with and participation in the government, then, in my submission, in this sense there is a very real chance of this tender part of democracy flourishing even in far-off, distant African lands.
Democracy in this sense, in my submission, is not something foreign to Africa. We hear far too often of chiefs who are looked upon as autocrats and utterly undemocratic people in their ideas, but I have seen something, not in Tanganyika but in other parts of Africa, of the way chieftaincy can work —and in very much separated parts of Africa, right in the south and right on the west;where the chief who presides over his council has to mouth the decision come to by that council, even if it is not his own, and how each one of the members of that council is, in his own right, a chief in some smaller territorial area where he has to do precisely the same thing, just as we, too, mouth what our constituents say, within certain limits which are well known to all Members of this House.
Each one of those members of those councils in the smaller territorial areas is himself a chief in a yet smaller area, so that he, too, has to take into account what his constituents say and to express their views, though they may not be his own, and carry those views on to the higher councils, to the very top council, and to the king or whoever the authority may be. So that democracy in that sense of participation in the government is by no means a strange thing to Africa. Discussion and persuasion have played their part in that democracy since long

1031
before the dawn of history in Africa, and can still continue so to do.
It is perfectly possible that tyranny may be found even under democratic forms of government, and it is equally true that we may find freedom in those African forms of democracy. So that I do not feel that we necessarily ought to be too apprehensive about the tendency in Tanganyika or elsewhere in Africa to form one-party States. We should not be unduly upset by that in itself. There is a great deal else to be looked at before we can say whether or not democracy has a real chance to flourish there, because we can have tyranny flourishing under complete forms of democracy, as I have just said, tyranny which may be by big business or by bribery—whatever form it may take.
In spite of the fears which we may have with regard to this particular tendency in Tanganyika, everybody has paid tribute not only to Julius Nyerere but to his lieutenants who have so ably led their country to its present state, and we can join, in spite of possible fears which we may have, in wishing the Tanganyikans on their independence the very best of good fortune, expressing the hope that the roots of democracy may strike deep in their country so that the rule of law, that hallmark of the worthwhile civilisation, may be established there for lasting good.
5.57 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: Because of my own association with Tanganyika in days gone by I, too, should like to join in the general chorus of congratulations and good wishes to the territory.
I well remember that when I was trying to persuade the British settlers in Tanganyika that the system of trusteeship would be, in the long run, of some value to them in the national life they were hoping to create, there was some considerable hesitation as to whether this system should be made to apply. It was felt that the territory should not come under the trusteeship system at all, but should be considered purely as a British territory, in much the same way as the Union of South Africa has treated South-West Africa as virtually an appendage of its own national life.
1032
I tried at that time to persuade those who made their representations that we would administer the territory in accordance with the highest standards of British colonial administration, and it is a pleasing thing that, under some degree of supervision of the Trusteeship Council, the country has progressed in the way it has and produced very remarkable results and attained its independence.
There is an extraordinary history of administrators, of those who have given much of their life to the territory. I was very pleased to hear the tribute to Dundas and his work in the coffee area. He certainly helped to create what is probably the largest African co-operative society in the whole of that vast continent. Likewise, I think there was created under private enterprise a model establishment in the Williamson Diamond Mining Company. It is a very pleasing development that the Tanganyikan Government now have a very considerable interest in that company, and that for all practical purposes the mine is virtually a nationalised industry, in association with the Diamond Corporation of South Africa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dept-ford (Sir L. Plummer) has referred to the groundnuts scheme, which made an enormous contribution to Tanganyika. It was imperative that some experiment should be made to discover whether sub-marginal land could be brought into cultivation to produce foodstuffs for the people. There was a considerable loss in the experiment, nevertheless it made some prominent contributions to the life of the territory. The roads, bridges, schools, hospitals and some of the agricultural work, particularly the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation, have all left their mark on the life of the territory. To that extent the House ought not so frequently to wipe out the contribution which the groundnuts scheme made.
I would hope that the future of Tanganyika is much brighter than it appears at the moment. There is considerable wealth in the territory. Considerable capital expenditure may be involved in the exploitation of some of it, but there is no doubt that there is still great possibility in such exploitation to the advantage of the territory.
***
1033
I should like to appeal particularly to the Secretary of State about financial arrangements when territories reach their independence. The days following independence are usually days of considerable difficulty in the construction of a great deal of the national life and the creation of national unity, the building up of a sense of national purpose, and the securing of an economic basis on which that national purpose can be sustained. It is, therefore, all the more important that we ourselves should not wash our hands completely of liabilities and obligations into which we have entered.
I urge the Government to review their general attitude towards the attainment of independence and to abandon the pedantic view that independence involves no practical support in terms of grants or loans from this country. It always seemed to me to be a tragedy that colonial development and welfare funds should not be able to contribute certain of its benefits to a territory because that territory had passed the borderline to an independent status. The same applies to the operation of the Colonial Development Corporation.
We have not made adequate provision subsequent to independence for those territories which have been in our trust and which we have nurtured over a period. Because they have wished to attain political independence we have thrust them back into considerable difficulty. Even some of the moral obligations that we entered into have been neglected because we have failed to provide the financial wherewithal to sustain the future development that these territories require. They have not the resources nor can they, in the course of development work, obtain the resources so essential for their ultimate well-being.
I would like to express my very good wishes for the future of this territory. It may be that the Tanganyikans will be prepared for some diminution of their own sovereignty by their association in what was formerly called the High Commission of East Africa. I had a great deal to do with the inauguration of the High Commission and with persuading the people of East Africa to 'adopt this extraordinary conception, which the Governors of East Africa at that time had worked out. We successfully tried to persuade the people to see that cer-
1034
tain common services of the war period should be perpetuated in the days of peace.
Although we may be critical of the structure of the High Commission as it has existed right up to now, nevertheless it was the only kind of structure possible with the political development at that time. Now that the political development of each of the three territories has been moving towards democratic forms, it is right and proper that the Government, as they are doing, should consent to complete revision of the High Commission machinery in order that it might serve better the democratic needs of the three territories. I hope, therefore, that this transformation will come about soon in order that the three territories which are reaching their independence may now co-operate along the lines which they think are to the best interests of their own ultimate well-being.
I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this Bill so speedily. I hope that the future for Tanganyika is bright. I hope that the pleas made about the famine which has struck the territory will be adequately and handsomely met by the Government. I extend my very best wishes to the Tanganyika Government. I hope that the country will flourish and that the well-being of its people will be sustained.
6.7 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) for missing the beginning of his speech but I am afraid that my absence was unavoidable. I join with him and other hon. Members on both sides of the House in offering congratulations to the Prime Minister of Tanganyika personally and to his great country.
The Bill is yet another vindication of British colonialism. It is a credit to both Tanganyika and this country. It should be pointed out that we took over that country in 1919 and in the following year we established an Executive Council and in 1926 a Legislative Council. That is fairly rapid development. It stands comparison with any other colonial system in Africa. After the Second World War, Africans participated in that Legislature. They are now taking over the complete

1035
government of the country and we wish them well. During the time that Tanganyika has evolved in the normal democratic way of British colonialism the countries of Eastern Europe, Hungary, Poland and the Baltic States, have had a very different history under the advance of Soviet imperialism.
We in the House consider of certain criteria when we decide what should be required of a country which is about to enter into independence and become a sovereign State in the Commonwealth. These criteria were first suggested by Sir John Macpherson, but have often been discussed in the House. One criterion is that the country should have a national Government acceptable to the people, with a common loyalty and an ability to live harmoniously together as one nation. Tanganyika has that, largely thanks to the leadership of Julius Nyerere.
Great tribute has been paid by the House to that outstanding man. His Christian outlook, his modesty and his sense of humour are quite outstanding among the leaders of that great continent. He will be attacked and he will find it difficult as Prime Minister of an independent country to stand up for the rights of the minorities, but those who know him know that he will shoulder that burden and will fight for the rights of all minority races for the future of Tanganyika depends upon the unity of all her peoples and races.
The second criterion is the true development of education to produce a reasonably informed electorate as well as a national leadership. I have already referred to Mr. Nyerere's leadership. It is, perhaps, a good thing to remember that he was a school teacher. I would therefore pay tribute to the wonderful work done by the Christian missions in establishing and encouraging education in Tanganyika. I hope that as the country goes on to independence, the Christian missions will be able to continue their work of educating the people to take their rightful place in their own country.
The third criterion is that of economic self-reliance, with a reasonable standard of living and an expanding economy. As the financial settlement between this country and Tanganyika has already been referred to, I shall not
1036
detain the House on that subject, but I would add my plea to that of hon. Members who have asked for generosity in helping Tanganyika in this time of drought and difficulty. I understand that the crisis point will be reached in January next, when about half a million people will have to be fed. In addition, about 50 per cent. of the animal stock may die from lack of water. That is a great catstrophe in a country that has already enough difficulties to face, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be as generous as possible in helping Tanganyika financially in these difficult days.
The last criterion is that the country should have an efficient and, if necessary, an imported Civil Service. When I went to Tanganyika about eighteen months ago I was told that those in authority expected that about 30 per cent. of the expatriate British civil servants would stay on after independence. When I made another visit earlier this year I was told that about 70 per cent. would stay. That shows the confidence of the expatriates in Julius Nyerere. Another reason for their confidence is the Act passed by this House by which we undertook the inducement pay of expatriate civil servants.
I want to put two points about the Civil Service to my right hon. Friend. The first is about locally-recruited civil servants. I understand that people recruited as local officers normally need to have two years' residence in the country. A number of these officers were men who had retired from the British Army and who, having served in East Africa, had the required two years' residence. When they signed their contracts they were not really clear—I suppose that they ought to have been—about the disparity in pay and conditions between established or designated officers and local officers.
This disparity became even greater after the Fleming Report, and it may well be that, because of our recent legislative help, it will be more expensive for the Government of Tanganyika to keep on a European or Asian local civil servant than to maintain the services of an expatriate civil servant from this country. I therefore hope that the Government will study the problem of these local civil servants very carefully.

1037
Many of them would like to stay on and become Tanganyikan citizens, but a number would wish to leave the country and return home to Britain. They are unable to do so until they finish their contract, which may still have two or three years to run. They have very little saved because, as I have said, their pay is well tinder that of the established civil servants;many cannot afford the journey home. That being so, I hope that these men, who have served us and Tanganyika so well—and who are now, in fact, training others to take over their work—will be given generous treatment.
The other problem relates to those members of the High Commission, particularly on the railways, who are serving in Tanganyika. My right hon. Friend has received representations to the effect that they undertook to serve the British Government in the Colonial Dependencies, but will now have to serve an independent nation of the Commonwealth, a fact that was not included in their contract. They have been told that they must give six months' notice of termination of employment. I suggest that it might be better to allow them to exercise their own right of choice. Personally, I have far too much faith in Tanganyika, and in its Prime Minister, to think that there would be an exodus of these civil servants from the railways and other undertakings if this right of choice were given.
However, when considering this problem we must recognise that a man serving in one of the big towns such as Dares Salaam can if he is unhappy have access to those in authority and to the British representatives, but many of these men serve right up country in the bush, and, when they read in their local paper something to the effect of the quotation I am about to make, they are bound to wonder about their future. The quotation is from the Daily Nation of September of this year. It is the report of a speech made by the deputy general secretary of the Tanganyika Railway African Union, and it reads:
"Warned Mr. Katungutu: ' Our efforts are exhausted. Our members are frustrated, very impatient and are likely to get out of hand after independence'."
This report continues:
"Unless Africans controlled the majority of responsible posts, there could be no peace in the industry after uhuru."
1038
That kind of speech makes these men worry as to their security. There is a danger in making six months' notice compulsory that many of them will say, "We cannot take the risk. If we have to wait six months after giving notice we had better give it now. "I ask my right hon. Friend to consider this matter very carefully before Tanganyika finally becomes independent.
I apologise for raising what is, perhaps, a slightly controversial matter, but we in this House have a duty to these civil servants. I believe that their fears are groundless, because I am sure that Tanganyika has a great future as a sovereign member of the Commonwealth of Nations, and I know that all hon. Members wish her well.
6.17 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I think that the whole House will agree that this afternoon we have had a debate which, for its informativeness and for the warmth of its good wishes to Tanganyika, has been up to our highest traditions;and that the message going out from here will be a welcoming one to Tanganyika and others of our friends overseas. A great variety of points have been raised, and a great variety of experience has been revealed by, among others, the hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer), the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark), who have served for considerable periods in this part of the world.
Nearly every hon. Member has referred to the famine conditions, which are serious in the Northern Province and especially so, perhaps, in the Central Province. As the House will know, the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was among others who led a deputation asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look into this matter. My right hon. Friend will, of course, look into it further, but it would be only fair to say that any hope of Her Majesty's Government being able immediately to offer anything in the way of funds is not very good; in fact, it is rather remote.
We are now coping with many difficulties elsewhere, and we have just made

1039
quite a large settlement with Tanganyika. The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) and other hon. Members referred to similar situations in grant-aided territories, and in these territories, for the very reason that they are grant-aided, we shall, naturally, meet our obligations.
Mr. J. Griffiths: I would point out that the Secretary of State, who received us very kindly, promised to consider our representations, and it was further stated yesterday that those representations were still under consideration. I hope that we do not have to take it now that the Under-Secretary's statement does not mean that his right hon. Friend will flatly turn down those representations.
Mr. Fraser: I think that what I said was proper. I do not want to raise any false hopes that this will be an easy thing to do—perhaps that is the best way to put it. Negotiations are going on, but I must make the position quite clear to the House, because it is only fair to do so—
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: Until Tanganyika gets its independence it is a United Nations Trusteeship Territory. Would it not be possible, therefore, to propose that, while it is a United Nations Trusteeship Territory, the United Nations, through one of its funds, should make a contribution to this urgent need?
Mr. Fraser: That is a point I should like to look at with my legal advisers, but it should be made clear that the problem is one of distribution. With great generosity, the United States has made the food available. The problem is not so much, therefore, one of shortage of food, but one of distribution. I want to make this point clear, because the idea may go out that there is a total shortage of food.
Various points have been raised by hon. Members. One which stands out clearly is that the assistance of Her Majesty's Government will continue to go to Tanganyika after independence. The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) raised that matter in its widest application. It is fair to point out, however, that independence does mean independence. With independence, a new relationship must be established,
1040
and to continue with CD. and W. and other funds which are of a colonial nature would be incorrect and would not be welcome.
We have not found the final answer, but Mr. Nyerere has expressed his acceptance of our help as being, if not generous, satisfactory, and on a very considerable scale. There are certain things that we can continue to do. First, there is the importance, as hon. Members have pointed out, of the continuation of the co-operation of our Overseas Service in helping Tanganyikans to go forward with the training of their own people in the successful Africanisation or localisation of their Civil Service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) pointed out some of the technical difficulties involved here, and I hope to deal with these matters in correspondence with him. There are 2,200 expatriates in Tanganyika, and so far only about 20 per cent. have shown that they intend to leave.
Beyond this, there is the important factor of technical aid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Cooperation was here during the debate because, in this subject, his Department can be of very considerable assistance to Tanganyika after independence.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) talked of the need for future assistance on certain specific objectives, which, I believe, could be met by my right hon. Friend's Department. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth talked about the need of training in merchanting and what are to us comparatively simple methods of trading, and so on. Again, my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation could be of assistance.
Tribute has been paid on both sides to the part played by our colonial servants, from the Governors down to those in the humbler posts. They have made possible the bringing forward of Tanganyika to independence which will finally be attained on 9th December.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and others have doubts about the wisdom of the course which we have pursued in Tanganyika. I am convinced that it was the right course. There must be something of a gamble in these questions, but I am

1041
convinced that, with Mr. Nyerere, with his Ministers and friends and advisers, with Sir Richard Turnbull and Sir Ernest Vaisey and others, Tanganyika will succeed. To say, however, that by achieving independence all answers will be found is equally untrue.
It would be only appropriate to quote the words of Mr. Nyerere himself at the Dares Salaam conference. He said that independence brought new challenges and difficulties, and went on:
"There is nothing soft, nothing easy ahead of us. We Tanganyikans cannot pat ourselves on our nine million backs and think to ourselves that all is over; since we will make nothing of Tanganyika and will set no example to the world unless it be by renewed efforts and hard work of ourselves and of kindness to others."
In that spirit I am sure that the House will accept the Bill and wish the people of Tanganyika well in the times that lie ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
Committee Tomorrow.

TANGANYIKA INDEPENDENCE BILL

  TANGANYIKA INDEPENDENCE [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified]
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 {Money Committees).
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to make provision for, and in connection with, the attainment by Tanganyika of fully responsible status within the Commonwealth, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums that may be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1959, as may result from applying the provisions of section two of that Act as to the making of loans to an authority established for two or more colonies to the making of loans to an organisation estabished for the purpose of providing or administering services common to, or relating to matters of common interest to, Tanganyika and one or more territories which are colonies within the meaning of that Act. —[Sir E. Boyle.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
6.27 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I have it in Command from the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Bernard Braine): The object of the Bill is to confer upon Her Majesty the power to amend or revoke by Order in Council any part of the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia and to grant a new Constitution. The House has already had two opportunities of discussing the circumstances leading up to the proposals for a new Constitution for Southern Rhodesia.
First, we debated the Report of the Constitutional Conference on 23rd March and then the detailed proposals were set out in two White Papers, on which we had a lively and informed debate on 22nd June. The arguments for and against the proposals were very fully aired. While hon. Members will not expect me, I hope, to repeat all the arguments I used on that occasion, it may be helpful if I recapitulate briefly the events leading up to the new constitutional proposals, and describe what those proposals are, before proceeding to explain the Bill itself.
It was in 1959 that Sir Edgar Whitehead suggested to Her Majesty's Government that the time was ripe for a review of the Constitution under which Southern Rhodesia had been governed since 1923. That Constitution gave Southern Rhodesia a considerable measure of responsible self-government in her internal affairs, subject to certain powers being reserved to Her Majesty's Government here. This has meant that

1043
the Southern Rhodesian Legislature cannot legislate on a specific range of subjects without the Act in each case being reserved for signification of Her Majesty's pleasure.
There is no doubt that Southern Rhodesia has achieved considerable progress under this Constitution. But, equally the conditions under which it was granted, almost forty years ago, have changed out of recognition and are changing still. The African population has grown enormously in numbers, in education and in political awareness, and a new class of African master farmers and business men has emerged. The European population, too, has increased in numbers and also in experience of modern methods of government and in understanding of the demands which a multi-racial society must make upon them. The Europeans know that when Africa is changing around them they, too, must change.
Thus it was inevitable that a point would be reached when Africans would claim a growing share in the government of their country and when the Europeans would feel that their industry, energy, initiative and savings had created an efficient State and a flourishing economy and that the responsibilities which still remained vested in Britain should be transferred to Southern Rhodesia.
Following Sir Edgar's approach, there were long and detailed discussions between our two Governments, culminating in the Constitutional Conference held in Salisbury last February and presided over by my right hon. Friend. All the interested parties, African, European, Asian and Coloured, were represented. The Report of the Conference was contained in a White Paper, Cmnd. 1291, of February, 1961, and it was debated on 23rd March.
I will not go through the Report in detail because the recommendations of that Conference were subsequently embodied in White Papers, along with the measures which have been subsequently agreed and which were left over from the Conference, especially on the subject of land. They were published in the White Papers, Cmnd. 1399 and Cmnd. 1400, which were fully debated in the House and approved by
1044
a majority on 22nd June. The next step was faithfully to embody the proposals contained in the White Papers in a draft Constitution and, I am glad to say, work on this is almost complete.
Everyone is agreed on the necessity for constitutional change in Southern Rhodesia, but I must make it plain that we would never have agreed to give up our reserved powers unless we were certain that they could be replaced by adequate safeguards. My right hon. Friend has demonstrated more than once that the reserved powers are negative in character and have never been used and that we should not imagine that by their use we could promote a constructive, forward-looking, liberal policy unless the people of Southern Rhodesia themselves wanted that. Indeed, we are convinced that the safeguards which we propose should be written into the Constitution will be more effective than the present reserved powers.
As agreed at the Constitutional Conference, these new safeguards will consist of a comprehensive Declaration of Rights and a Constitutional Council. The job of the Consitutional Council is to examine all legislation passed into force after the new Constitution comes into operation, the Council having the power to delay proposed legislation which it considers inconsistent with the Declaration of Rights. Whether any law is declared inconsistent with the Declaration of Rights by the Constitutional Council or not, the law can be declared invalid by the courts. Arrangements will be made for an inalienable right of appeal to the Privy Council.
I know that it is sometimes argued that by their very existence, even if they were never invoked, the reserved powers served a useful purpose and might have prevented legislation from being passed which Governments here in Britain might have felt bound to disallow. There may be something in that argument, but I am sure that hon. Members will agree that powers which have never been used, and which are known to have been difficult to use, are a far less effective deterrent than the existence of courts to which the common man can look for the defence of his rights. One of the most impressive things which emerged from the Constitutional Conference was the

1045
high regard of the African representatives there for the courts and the judges of Southern Rhodesia. The idea that the Declaration of Rights should be enforceable by the courts strongly appealed to them.
In the course of our debate on 22nd June, some hon. Members expressed concern that the Declaration of Rights was not to be made retrospective so that all discriminatory legislation on the Statute Book on the day that the Constitution came into force would be swept away. But that point was agreed by the Constitutional Conference. In coming to a balanced judgment, one must take account of the changes which have been coming to Southern Rhodesia—changes which very few of us, either there or here, would have expected a few years ago—in particular the readiness of Europeans to accept that discrimination must go if one nation, firmly rooted in justice and sharing common loyalties, is to be created in this part of Africa.
This readiness is already finding practical expression. As my right hon. Friend said in the House on 19th March, the Southern Rhodesian Government have already undertaken a systematic review of their Statute Book and have already removed from it a number of Acts of a discriminatory nature, while other discriminatory legislation has been amended.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is it not a disturbing fact that some of the most oppressive and Draconian legislation was introduced in 1960? Is not that rather discouraging when one considers the future which may be in store?
Mr. Braine: I do not think that that is discouraging. Some discriminatory legislation has already gone, while other discriminatory legislation is being amended. The whole atmosphere in Southern Rhodesia, particularly in the last few months, has changed in a way which very few people would have thought possible only a relatively short time ago. It is fair to make the point that it would not serve the immediate interests of Africans to be indiscriminate in the removal of discrimination, if I may put it that way. If the Declaration of Rights were applied retrospectively, there might be called in doubt a number of Statutes which are,
1046
in fact, advantageous to Africans, or designed for the protection of Africans at this stage of development.
I think that all hon. Members will agree that the test is whether discrimination, where it occurs, is unfair. Our view is that it is far better to approach the task of ending discrimination in an orderly manner than to invite the chaos which would arise from sweeping away all discriminatory legislation and putting into a state of uncertainty a number of laws until their consistency or otherwise with the Declaration of Rights had been pronounced upon by the courts.
The other two features of the Constitution to which 1 wish to refer are the arrangements for representation and the franchise, and for amendment to the Constitution. Under the existing 1923 Constitution, power to make laws regarding the qualifications of voters rests with the Legislative Assembly. The composition of the Assembly is a matter upon which the Legislature can make laws, although Bills for that purpose are required to be reserved for signification of Her Majesty's pleasure.
In the new Constitution provision will be made for certain minimum qualifications for the franchise, and these qualifications cannot be raised, in the sense that they will limit opportunities for registration of voters, so as to decrease the number of voters, without invoking a very powerful new safeguard —a referendum at which the four principal racial groups will have their votes separately counted and which will be declared to have failed unless each group's votes show a majority in favour of the proposal.
On the other hand, a change in the qualifications which would have the effect of giving the vote to more people —an improving change of that kind— will be within the power of the Legislature and it will not be in the power of any one race to hold it up, provided it secures a two-thirds majority in the Assembly.
The effect of these new arrangements for the franchise and the composition of the Assembly should be to give Africans a minimum of 15 seats, perhaps more, in a House of 65 at the first General Election, and no doubt an increasing number after that. They will also give

1047
to a great many more Africans than at present the opportunity to register as voters and to exercise an influence on the election of candidates to fill the remaining seats.
This is a considerable advance on the present position where there are no Africans in the Assembly at all. It provides an opportunity for an increasing number of Africans to make their voices heard, and rightly so, in the running of their country's affairs, but it does so in a way which ensures that each race has to take some account of the views, the interests, and the feelings of the others.
This is the point I want to emphasise. Whatever may be the final racial composition of the Assembly after the first General Election, these franchise proposals are framed expressly to ensure the return of those who put the interests of their country rather than their race first. The system of cross-voting and devaluation which was described in detail in the White Papers means that each candidate has to pay regard to the interests of both racial groups.
Mr. Michael Foot: Moss Side.
Mr. Braine: I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago, but if he is questioning the arrangements, perhaps I had better repeat them.
The system of cross-voting and devaluation described in the White Papers ensures that candidates in both "A" roll constituencies and "B" roll electoral districts have to pay regard to the interests of both racial groups if they are to secure election. It is this, more than anything else, which will determine the outlook and behaviour of the new Legislature.
As to amendment of the new Constitution, Southern Rhodesia will be free to do this without reference to Britain, with the exception of amendments which affect the position of the Sovereign and the Governor, and the right of the British Government to safeguard the position regarding international obligations and undertakings given by the Southern Rhodesia Government in respect of loans under the Colonial Stock Acts.
As agreed at the Constitutional Conference, with the exception of certain basic clauses, the Legislative Assembly
1048
will be able to amend any other section of the Constitution by a two-thirds majority of its total membership.
Where the basic clauses are concerned —and they relate to the Declaration of Rights, the Constitutional Council, appeals to the Privy Council, alteration to the franchise, safeguards on the subject of land, the security of Civil Service pensions, and amendment of the Constitution itself—it will be necessary, in addition to securing the two-thirds majority of the Assembly, to obtain the agreement of a majority of each of the four principal racial communities. The Constitutional Conference thought that that was an adequate safeguard, and we do too.
Alternatively, if it so decides by a two-thirds majority, the Legislative Assembly may, instead of referring the issue to a referendum, seek the approval of the British Government for the constitutional changes they desire, but the British Government of the day will be at liberty to decide whether they consider it would be more appropriate to refer the matter to a referendum of the four racial communities.
I come now to the Bill itself. Perhaps I should first explain why a Bill is necessary. The present Constitution of Southern Rhodesia was granted in 1923 by Letters Patent made in exercise of the Royal Prerogative. I understand that it is an established constitutional principle that once the Crown has conferred by Letters Patent responsible government on a dependent territory, it is considered to have parted with its prerogative right to legislate in regard to those matters which under the Letters Patent are placed within the competence of the local legislature.
In the present Southern Rhodesia Constitution, the Crown reserved to itself full power by the prerogative to revoke, alter, or amend, only twelve of the sixty-four Sections of the Constitution. The remaining Sections can be amended only by the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia.
To introduce the new Constitution, therefore, it would have been possible for the Crown to have amended those twelve sections and for the Southern Rhodesia Legislature to have amended the remainder of the Constitution.

1049
Although it is intended to retain the substance of a good deal of what was in the original Constitution, it would not be practicable to introduce the far-reaching changes which we and Southern Rhodesians desire by way of further amendments to the existing Constitutional documents. The Government of Southern Rhodesia have therefore requested that the new Constitution should be contained as a whole in a new document, and we have agreed. This can be made possible only by an Act of Parliament, for the reasons I have explained.
Clause 1 (1) of the Bill therefore confers on Her Majesty the power to grant a new Constitution by Order in Council. Hon. Members may have noticed that specific provision is made for the Order to confer on the Southern Rhodesia Legislature power to make laws having extraterritorial effect. This is necessary and desirable because the present lack of extra-territorial application of Southern Rhodesia's legislation makes for a certain amount of administrative difficulty. One example which springs to mind is that at present there is no power to punish in Southern Rhodesia a person belonging to that country who happens, whilst outside the country, to perjure himself in an affidavit used in Southern Rhodesia. This is clearly an unsatisfactory state of affairs, and the Bill will enable a change to be made in this and similar anomalous situations.
Clause 1 (2) makes it possible for the Order in Council containing the new Constitution to specify how that Constitution can be amended or revoked in the future. Thus it will provide for the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia to have full power to amend all Sections of the Constitution except those which refer to the constitutional functions of the Queen and the Governor. These Sections can be amended only by Order in Council. The effect of the subsection is to make it quite clear that in future the new Constitution will be amendable only by these two methods.
If after a new Constitution were granted it was desired to amend it in a way not authorised by the Order in Council, a further Act of our Parliament would be necessary. There would, of course, be no question of the British Government asking Parliament to legislate in a situa-
1050
tion like that without the agreement of the Southern Rhodesia Government. That follows a convention clearly set out in the introduction to the White Paper, Cmnd. 1399, which the House debated in June
Clause 1 (3) takes us back to the case where, after the new Constitution has been granted by Order in Council, it is desired to alter by means of an amending Order in Council any of the Sections reserved specifically to the Queen under that Constitution. The subsection provides that such an amending Order shall be a Statutory Instrument within the meaning of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. That means that it will have to be laid in Parliament before coming into operation, and it will have to be properly printed and numbered.
Clause 1 (4) provides for the laying before Parliament, after being made, of the Order in Council containing the Constitution and any other instrument made subsequently under the authority of that Order. This will place these Orders in Council on precisely the same footing as those made under the British Settlement Acts and the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, under which the Crown is empowered to legislate generally for our overseas dependencies.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Does this mean that the Order in Council must be made by affirmative Resolution in the House, or is it subject to the negative procedure?
Mr. Braine: I am glad that the hon. Member has made that point, because it enables me to explain the matter. It is not the custom for Orders in Council which are constitutional instruments to be debatable. The normal custom—and it was followed in this case—is to lay the proposals before the House in the form of White Papers, which are debatable. It is always within the competence of Parliament to put down a Motion.
Mr. Silverman: Does that mean that unless a Motion is put down and the Government find time for it to be debated, once the Bill is enacted any changes made by the Government by Order in Council are not subject to scrutiny or debate, or a vote of the House? Is that right?
Mr. Braine: Broadly speaking, it is— and it is right that it should be so. I

1051
believe that this is the third occasion on which we have debated this matter. The Constitution which will be promulgated in the Order in Council will follow faithfully the proposals set out in the White Paper which the House has already had the opportunity of examining and debating. We cannot go on endlessly debating a Constitution which has been agreed with the territory concerned.
My right hon. Friend proposes to advise Her Majesty to grant, by Order in Council under the Bill, once enacted, a Constitution which will follow the White Papers in every detail. It will include a few minor points for which provision has to be made, which were not mentioned in the White Papers, since these, of necessity, were expressed in layman's language. This is merely to obtain the necessary legal precision. The important Declaration of Rights, however, will be incorporated in its entirety, although there may be a few insignificant drafting amendments. Once the Bill becomes law the Order in Council will be made here without delay. The way will then be clear for the Southern Rhodesian Government to take the necessary steps, as set out in the introduction to the White Paper, Cmnd 1400, to bring the new Constitution into force.
In commending the Bill to the House, may I say that the Constitution represents a great forward step for the people of Southern Rhodesia. The essence of the matter is that while both the franchise and representation are widened to give Africans greater opportunities than they have had before, the alteration is made in this case in a way which lays stress on the importance of all races in that country recognising their interdependence, at the same time ensuring responsibility in the direction of their Government. I hope, therefore, that nothing is said in the course of this debate which will discourage Africans from registering as electors, under the new Constitution, and so exercising the opportunities which are undoubtedly theirs if they choose to grasp them.
6.55 p.m.
Sir Frank Soskice: 1 beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House cannot assent to a Bill which is intended to implement constitutional proposals
1052
which fail to provide for the African people of Southern Rhodesia either adequate safeguards against discrimination or adequate representation in the legislature."
Hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House have weighed carefully the proposals set out in Cmnd. 1400 to see whether they afford the whole population of Southern Rhodesia safeguards which are adequate to replace the very substantial reserve powers at present vested in Her Majesty. Weighing the two, we have come to the conclusion that those safeguards are by no means adequate. We have not come lightly to that conclusion, and we approach the debate with the anxiety that anything we say in the course of it will not aggravate the already difficult position in Southern Rhodesia. But we feel it is our duty, having become thoroughly convinced that the proposals are not adequate, to voice our reasons in this Chamber, so that they may be known and so that the answer may be given by the Secretary of State tonight, if there is an answer.
As the Joint Under-Secretary has already said, this is not the first occasion on which these proposals have come before the House for debate. The report of the conference was first discussed, and then the Government laid the two White Papers, Cmnd. 1399 and Cmnd. 1400, to which reference was made by the hon. Gentleman in his opening speech. Those two White Papers were also the subject of discussion. The Minister traced briefly what happened since the constitutional conference took place, but he did not mention that a referendum on the proposals was held in July of this year, and that the referendum produced a 2–1 vote in favour of the proposals. The point I want to make on that vote is that about 40,000 votes were cast for and 20,000 against, that is to say, a total of over 60,000. But the National Democratic Party also held its own referendum, decisively rejecting the proposals. On any view, that cannot be regarded as a satisfactory situation. Although the proposals were approved, the Africans in their own referendum decisively rejected them, and yet in the referendum approving the proposals only 6,000 Africans were qualified to vote.
I make that introductory point because I want later to submit that the new A

1053
and B roll proposals embodied in the Constitution, although undoubtedly an improvement on the existing situation—15 votes being anchored to the B roll— are by no means adequate to meet the need. There is a very long way to go. I want to go back to that later. I greatlv hope that in criticising the proposals now under consideration we shall not be thought to be anti-European. That taunt has been thrown across the Floor of the House before and it is utterly unmerited. It is elementary and obvious that it is in the interests of the European population no less, perhaps even more, than in the interest of the African population that there should be a peaceful situation, in Southern Rhodesia which could lead to a lasting, a fruitful and a real cooperation between the races.
If these proposals leave Southern Rhodesia in a situation in which the vast majority of the population, about 3 million Africans, are not content, then that is a situation which augurs ill not only for the Africans but even for the Europeans. Therefore, in criticising the proposals we do so in a genuine desire to try to point the way to something which will lead to the really desirable situation which hon. Members of both sides of the House desire to see.
I say "on both sides of the House" and I include particularly the Secretary of State, because he obviously did his best, in the course of difficult negotiations, to try to get a satisfactory result. In criticising, I do not criticise his endeavours but the result which he has produced. In my view, and in the view of hon. Members on this side of the House, that situation does not measure up to the minimum requirements which were indispensable. After all, those minimum requirements should create a situation in which the Law and Order Maintenance Act, which led to the resignation of the Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia, should not be necessary;a situation in which Detention Ordinance should not be necessary;in which the Vagrancy Act should not be necessary;in which the Monckton Commission should not think it appropriate to say, speaking of federation and with particular reference to Southern Rhodesia, that it was racial discrimination which was making the further passage of federation a difficult one;and, as I say, making
1054
particular reference to Southern Rhodesia.
That is a situation which I am quite sure the Secretary of State deplores as much as anybody else but which exists undoubtedly and which these proposals, in the submission I make to the House, will certainly not go anywhere near the necessary lengths to improve. We are bound to criticise these proposals because as the Minister has already said this is our last opportunity. They are only proposals. We have not the text of the Constitution before us. The Order in Council will not be subject to any parliamentary procedure. The proposals will be embodied in the context of an Order in Council which we shall not have an opportunity to discuss in this House. The only language which we have which will form part of the Order in Council is that contained in appendices 1 and 2 to Cmnd. 1400 which contain proposals for the suffrage, and in Appendix 2, the proposed Declaration of Rights.
I understand from the Minister that even that language is to be subject perhaps to some slight changes. We do not know what the changes are or whether we should regard them as slight. They may be of importance because a great deal can turn on a phrase used or a particular expression embodied in the text of a Constitution. So here we have our last opportunity to voice our criticism.
In approaching this debate I start from the position of the Government and and I will say why in a moment. The present situation is that the United Kingdom Parliament has substantial powers of reserving Measures so far as discrimination is concerned. I should like to read out the relevant part of Section 28 of the Southern Rhodesia Constitution which vests in the Parliament of the United Kingdom the most effective powers of preventing discrimination against any section of the population of Southern Rhodesia. There has to be reserved for the Crown any law
"whereby natives may be discriminated against or made liable to any conditions, disabilities or restrictions to which persons of European descent are not also subjected or made liable."
It could not go further than that. That is about as comprehensive and drastic as any language could be. It is that language which we are asked to agree should be forgone. It is that power

1055
which is to be lost to the United Kingdom Parliament, as I think for ever, and it is only one of many powers which enables the United Kingdom Parliament in the terms of the 1923 Constitution to control the legislation of the Southern Rhodesian Parliament.
It is said, the Minister has repeated it again, that that power has never been exercised, and that is perfectly true. But it has equally been pointed out in reply to that contention that its very existence has been of great importance in modifying policies in Southern Rhodesia. It has always been there and any Southern Rhodesia Legislature has known that there is a control which in case of need could be exercised over legislation passed by the Southern Rhodesia Legislature.
I would add this further comment to what has been said by the Minister. We are now faced with a new Africa. The pace has quickened. It has not been exercised in the past but we now have a situation in which African countries are, one after the other, gaining their independence. We welcomed one to independence this afternoon. Even in those countries which have not gained their independence substantial advance has been made, particularly in the matter of franchise, over the franchise proposals contained in the White Paper which we are discussing.
It is, as I say, in those circumstances that I start from the position which the Secretary of State earlier took as his test. We start from the situation that it was Sir Edgar Whitehead himself who, in 1959, proposed to the Government of the United Kingdom that the Government should cede their reserve power. If the initiative had not come from the Southern Rhodesia Government, nothing would have been done about the ceding of these powers. It was the original proposal made by the Southern Rhodesia Government which has brought the whole thing before this House.
The test that was then propounded was stated by the Minister of State in May, 1960, to this House when he said that the attitude of the United Kingdom Government to the initiative of Sir Edgar Whitehead was that
1056
"their ability to accept a scheme which would reduce or withdraw the powers vested in the Secretary of State in relation to the Southern Rhodesia Constitution would depend on whether arrangements could be devised and agreed by both Governments which would provide effective alternative safeguards, particularly in respect of discriminatory legislation and land rights, and in respect of amendment of the Constitution."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 9th May, 1960, Vol. 623, c. 31.]
The Government's attitude, which I adopt for the purpose of this argument, was that they would not cede their reserve powers unless effective alternative safeguards particularly with regard to discrimination were substituted for those ceded reserve powers;and the question raised in this debate is whether effective adequate alternative safeguards have been found and are to be seen in the proposals. The answer which I would give to that question, and I believe right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House would give, is an unhesitating negative.
May I make the comment that when these reserve powers are ceded, they are ceded once and for all. No doubt theoretically, but only theoretically, this House and this Parliament could, by legislation at Westminster, overset any Southern Rhodesia Constitution. Theoretically, this Parliament could annul the Statute of Westminster. Everyone knows that the likelihood of that being done is nil, and so it is perfectly clear that when these powers contained in the existing Constitution are ceded, as the Government intend, the Southern Rhodesian people are being told, in effect, that they will never be taken up again by the United Kingdom Government. They are ceded once and for all, just as much as in the case of the Commonwealth countries the Statute of Westminster ceded to them their sovereignty. That is really the situation which we have to face.
What is offered to the people of Southern Rhodesia in place of those powers? There are, substantially, two arrangements. One is the Constitutional Council and the other the Declaration of Rights. I should like to examine each in turn to see whether I can support the proposal I advanced that they do not constitute adequate alternative safeguards.
Let us take the Constitutional Council first. It has been pointed out in debate

1057
before—and accepted by Ministers, as it must be, because it is plain on the terms of the proposals that it is the case—that the functions of the Constitutional Council are purely advisory. It has no real compulsive power at all. All that it can do is to report to the Speaker, who must lay a report before the Legislative Assembly if, in its view, a measure appears to be discriminatory. But the Legislative Assembly can quite easily overcome the report's effect either by nevertheless affirming the measure by a two-thirds majority or, six months later, affirming it by a simple majority. With regard to existing legislation on the Statute Book, the Constitutional Council can undoubtedly report on it, but if it does so all that happens is that its report is laid before the Legislative Assembly, which may completely disregard it. So it is purely advisory in character and it cannot even give any effective advice, to the limited extent that its advice is in any event effective, in the case of existing legislation.
The third qualification is that it cannot, for some reason or other, tender any advice with regard to money Bills.
In an earlier debate, that position was put to the Secretary of State. It was pointed out that such a Constitutional Council—which could do no more than advise and whose report it was easy to override and which the Legislature could, by a simple two-thirds majority, override—created little in the way of a safeguard. The Secretary of State's answer was that it was thought undesirable to create a sort of alternative to the courts of law in Southern Rhodesia and, therefore, he accepted that the Constitutional Council should be only advisory. He went on to say, and I cite his own language, because it is important for an evaluation of these safeguards:
"The real safeguard which we are providing for the observation of human rights is contained not here …"
not in the Constitutional Council, he meant
"… but in paragraph 7 …"
He was speaking of the Report of the Southern Rhodesia Constitutional Conference, Cmnd. 1291, which says any law
"… passed after the enactment of the new Constitution, which contravened the pro-
1058
visions of the Declaration of Rights, should be invalid."
I can understand the position the Secretary of State is taking. He is saying that the Constitutional Council is really little more than an opinion-forming agency which will focus opinion on discriminatory measures. But its opinion can be disregarded. It would be useful if it focussed opinion on discriminatory measures and its opinions could be followed by effective action by those discriminated against.
But through the new franchise proposals which we are discussing, only fifteen seats will be anchored to the B roll and, therefore, by a two-thirds majority—which cannot be hindered by the presence of the fifteen African National Democratic seats—the Legislative Assembly can get its way. So the value of the Constitutional Council as an opinion-forming body is a very qualified value.
The Secretary of State's main reliance is on the Declaration of Rights. He is, in effect, saying in justification of these proposals: "The Constitutional Council has a useful function in the way of forming public opinion of a very limited character, but the real lynch pin on which I pin my faith in the value of these new proposals is the Declaration of Rights." The Secretary of State points out that under the law any measure which conflicts with the provisions of the Declaration of Rights will be an invalid measure.
It is obvious that to support such a view of these proposals one must be able to pin one's complete faith in the provisions contained in the Declaration of Rights. If that Declaration was really stringent in its language I would accept that the Secretary of State's answer would go a long distance. But when one examines the Declaration of Rights—the text of which is to be found at Appendix 2 of the proposals in Cmnd. 1400— I put it to the House that it is so qualified in its terms and has such enormous exceptions to its operation that it is rather threadbare as a protection to those in danger of being discriminated against.
The text is to be found on page 39 of Appendix 2 and contains a definition of what is to be considered a discriminatory measure. May I first, having pointed to the provision which says that

1059
no written law shall contain any discriminatory provision, invite the House to consider what is not regarded as discriminatory. I hope that I will not cite too much dreary legal language, but the following is not to be regarded as discriminatory:
"… any law … to the extent that the law in question makes provision …"
that persons of a particular description, and so on, are
"… subjected to a condition, restriction or disability to which persons of another such description are not made subject, …" which, having regard to such of the following matters as are relevant in the circumstances of the case, that is to say"
and then follow four sub-paragraphs describing the matters in question—the subsection then continues
"which is reasonably justifiable either in the interests of Southern Rhodesia as a whole or in order to secure the protection …"
of particular people. It becomes important to see what those matters are, for they are as wide as they could be. Subparagraph (a)reads
"… the nature of the condition, restriction, disability, privilege or advantage as the case may be;"
Sub-paragraph (b)refers to.
".… any special circumstances appertaining to persons of that or any other description;"
sub-paragraph (c) to
".… the stage of social or economic development for the time being reached by the various descriptions of persons affected;"
and sub-paragraph (d)to
".… the state for the time being of the economy of Southern Rhodesia."
What does all that come to? It means that if those who seek to support a law which is said to be discriminatory can say, for example, that if one looks at the nature of the restriction and can show that the restriction is reasonably justifiable in the interests of Southern Rhodesia as a whole, the measure is not discriminatory. I put it to the House that that drives a coach and horses right through the anti-discrimination provisions. As I say, if one can say that the interests of Southern Rhodesia require that one should impose this, that or the other restriction on certain groups of people, and if one can show that the type of restriction is reasonably justifiable in the interests of Southern Rhodesia—the Legislature, being the
1060
arbiter, in effect, as to what is in the interests of Southern Rhodesia—the measure is not discriminatory according to this definition. That is only a threadbare protection. What remains as discriminatory whittles down to very little indeed. I submit that the idea that this is going to protect the African population of Southern Rhodesia is very nearly illusory. I hope I do not exaggerate my language. I have considered it carefully.
I am aware that there is a proviso to that paragraph that I have just read out, but, without going into the minutiae of it, I think that, on reading it, it becomes apparent that it is only a limited proviso and will not do much to redress the wrong to which I have been pointing.
I have another criticism of it. Who are the people to judge whether, for example, because of the social developments of particular groups of people, it is reasonably justifiable in the interests of Southern Rhodesia that a particular disability should be imposed upon them? They are to be the judges. The right hon. Gentleman claims credit for the fact that the judges have to decide that. I criticise that strongly as meaning that judges are, in effect, being dragged into the sphere of politics. Whether a particular restriction, for example in view of the economic situation in Southern Rhodesia, is in the interests of Southern Rhodesia is a matter of political judgment.
It is utterly undesirable that judges should be expected to form judgments upon matters of that sort. How are they to do it? Are they to have Ministers of the Southern Rhodesian Government coming before them as witnesses to say what, in their opinion, is in the interest of Southern Rhodesia and what sort of restrictions are justifiable as measured by the interests of Southern Rhodesia, or are they to form an opinion upon that matter drawing upon their own experience and bringing their own personal judgment into the matter?
I submit that it is utterly undesirable that the judiciary should be brought into the political arena and have placed upon them the function of forming what really must be in many cases purely political judgments. I am aware that in our own judicial system sometimes

1061
judges have to decide by reference to what, in their view, is the public interest, but those cases are limited in number and it has been said on many occasions that it is unfair to put that sort of burden upon judges.
My second criticism of the Declaration of Rights is that it does not apply to existing legislation, as the Secretary of State has said. It does not apply, for example, to the Land Apportionment Act, to the Vagrancy Act, to the Detention Order, or to the Law and Order Maintenance Act. All those are outside its scope. They can go on being used, so one apprehends, despite all the protection which has been embodied in the scope of these proposals.
I want to make a further criticism which I really put in the form of a question with regard to this Declaration of Rights. The wording is:
"ߪ a provision shall be regarded as discriminatory if by or as an inevitable consequence of that provision persons of a particular description by race, tribe, colour or creed are prejudiced"
by being subjected to a disability.
I took the opportunity of acquainting the Minister that I proposed to ask the question which I shall now put and which I hoped would be answered because it seemed to be one of importance. I thought it was a matter of importance that no misleading impressions should go out from this House, and the hon. Gentleman undertook to look at the point.
The point that I raise is this. Does that mean that no Measure is discriminatory in the sense of this definition unless it actually names a particular race or tribe—that it is not discriminatory, for example, unless it says "Africans shall not be allowed to go into a cinema", or whatever the prohibtion may be? Is it necessary that the word "Africans" shall be used. The wording is
"persons of a particular description by race, tribe, colour or creed."
If that is what it means, it is really extremely limited in effect.
If we look at the various Acts to which I referred, the Vagrancy Act, for example, so far as I am aware, that does not mention Africans. Even if that were an enactment passed in the future, it would not be discriminatory within the
1062
meaning of this definition. I hope that we shall have an answer to that point.
I suggest that the effect of the definition, if it is to have any real force, ought to be to make discriminatory any act which has the result, whether particular people are named by race or not, of affecting them adversely and unfairly in comparison with persons of other races. That is the way in which a number of these anti-discrimination provisions are worded, for example in the Constitution of Ceylon.
The Joint Under-Secretary justified the text of this Declaration of Rights by saying that it was broadly based on the text of the Sierra Leone and the Nigerian Constitutions. I have compared those two, and, without wearying the House by going through a detailed comparison, I would say that they do not conform, as I read them, to the text which has been chosen for the purpose of this provision. I ask the Government, what do they mean? I hope that they mean this Measure to be understood in the more extended sense and not the very limited and not very useful sense. If they mean it to be understood in the more extensive sense, I press upon them that language should be selected which makes it abundantly plain that it is the extended sense that is intended, namely, that a Measure is discriminatory whether or not it names a particular race or creed, if, in fact, its result is to subject a race or creed to some disability to which others are not subjected.
I pass to the question of the franchise. I agree that it is much better that there should be 15 national democratic seats than none;15 is 15 more than nil, and to that extent it is an improvement. I quite recognise that the entrenched provisions, as they are called, of this Constitution cannot be amended except, as the Minister has said, by a two-thirds majority and a referendum. But many of the provisions of this Constitution are not entrenched. The entrenched ones are only a small minority.
Under the terms of the new constitutional proposal, with the A and the B rolls with the 15 African seats as they no doubt will be, the Constitution could be amended easily by a two-thirds majority being obtained despite a full complement of 15 African votes in the opposite direction. The

1063
very fact that there is a B roll created, which presumably involves that if the B roll were universal in scope it would nearly always produce African members, is surely a sufficient condemnation of staying there. That is a situation which cannot be allowed to go on. There must be further progress as quickly as possible to something in the nature of universal suffrage. In a population of about 230,000 non-Africans as against nearly 3 million Africans, 15 is, in the long run, at any rate, not a proper proportion to 50 non-African seats.
I should like to put this question. If these proposals are adopted, if the reserve powers which the Government still possess are relinquished and if the matter is really left to the 50 members in the Legislature of Southern Rhodesia, whilst I accept and do not wish to run away from the fact that there has been substantial improvement in various directions in Southern Rhodesia in the way of a more equitable social system, nevertheless, if the matter is left in that way is there much prospect of the franchise being enlarged?
I should like to know what Ministers think. It may be that they will say they think there is a prospect, in which case I shall rejoice to hear it and wait to see if their anticipations turn out to be justified or not. But I very much fear there is little prospect indeed and that the result of the Government of the United Kingdom releasing their reserve powers, and by implication releasing for ever the responsibilities which go with the possession of those reserve powers, will simply mean that the pace of progress in Southern Rhodesia will be slowed down and the exasperation of the African population will be built up. I hope that I am wrong about that, but it seems to me that, although the Minister has by patient endeavour managed to obtain this degree of concession, the concession does not go anything like far enough.
Concentrating my argument upon those two aspects of the proposals, the anti-discrimination provisions and the franchise provisions, I think that it can be said, without looking at the rest, that it is perfectly apparent that the constitutional proposals now before the House are inadequate and are not a proper
1064
substitute for the present reserved powers which the Government possess.
7.30 p.m.
Sir Lionel Heald: It is tempting to reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) in detail and at length, but the time available for this debate is limited and I know that several of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite wish to speak. I have in mind also that this is really a replay. We had this argument out on 22nd June and the two points made then were the same points which have been made today, first, that the safeguards are insufficient, and, second, that the franchise is insufficient, and those points were rejected on that occasion by the House. The matter was gone into. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will reply in due course, as he has been asked to do by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and it would not be right for me to duplicate the discussion. I should not like to say whether the arguments have been put better today than they were last time. The fact is that they were put last time and we went into them.
On the matter of the safeguards, it was explained on the last occasion that we were dealing here not with a Protectorate but with a virtually self-governing Colony which has been such since 1923 and, in those circumstances, the use of reserved powers is almost unheard of. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself torpedoed somewhat his own argument about it when he said, "Theoretically, one can repeal the Statute of Westminster, or act contrary to it, but, of course, one never does". The same applies to the reserved powers, and, as was said on the previous occasion, there are to be very much better safeguards in the Council and in the Bill of Rights than are provided by the remnants of the reserved powers. I shall pursue that question no further, and I certainly shall not spend time upon the franchise.
It ought to be said that very little justice has been done by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to Southern Rhodesia. The present position ought to be pointed out. The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Monckton Commission, of which I was

1065
a member, and he referred to our attitude towards discrimination. We strongly criticised Southern Rhodesia, but it is right and proper now to recognise what has followed the criticism— I do not say that it has been the result of it—and point out that the position today is strikingly different. No one would think, after listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who paid no more than a few moments' lip-service to it, that there has been a considerable change.
The Monckton Commission in its Report, Chapter 11, paragraph 221, said:
"… the maintenance of the colour bar and the prevalence of discrimination in Southern Rhodesia has turned the Africans of the Northern territories, and many of those within Southern Rhodesia itself, against the Europeans who control it. It follows that no new form of association is likely to succeed unless Southern Rhodesia is willing to make drastic t changes in its racial policies."
Later, the Commission said:
"We strongly urge, therefore, that, if it is the genuine desire of the Europeans of Southern Rhodesia to preserve an association with their neighbours in the north, they should remove as quickly as possible from their laws and practices all instances of unfair racial discrimination."
The main matters on which we insisted in the following paragraphs were the Pass laws, the public services and the Southern Rhodesia Land Apportionment Act. We suggested, also, albeit with due care because of the special position of Southern Rhodesia, that there should be a Bill of Rights and a Council, preferably in each territory.
What has actually happened in the last year? It is right that we, and certainly someone who was associated with that criticism in the Monckton Report, should be fair and accurate about the facts. First, the Indaba took place, the so-called national convention, at which the chiefs and representatives of the whole population met and arrived at some remarkable results. Sir Edgar Whitehead said on that occasion that what had happened that day would have been inconceivable three years before. As from a date earlier this year, all posts in the Civil Service have been open to Africans. The Pass Laws, to which I have just referred, have virtually been abolished. The Land Apportionment Act has been amended in a very important particular, allowing Africans
1066
to hold land in the European townships. The cinema laws have been very largely repealed and many cinemas are now open to Africans.
There was, of course, a great change in the whole atmosphere after the referendum because the strike organised by the N.P.D. did not come to anything. There has been a general improvement in the atmosphere in every direction.
On 5th October, there was the Annual Congress of the Southern Rhodesia United Federal Party. I stress that it was the Southern Rhodesia United Federal Party because the attitude of the U.F.P. in another place is rather different. It is interesting to note that, in a newspaper which, I am sure, will be accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman as a reliable authority, the Guardian,it was reported that there were 103 African delegates at this congress representing 25 per cent. of the whole, and they were largely instrumental in getting several very progressive resolutions adopted. The African delegates said that the highest priority should be given to the repeal of the Land Apportionment Act and its replacement by legislation better designed to cope with present conditions. That is only one example.
Sir Edgar Whitehead in his speech at the end of the Congress said that something of that kind was essential and that Southern Rhodesia's present methods were much too slow. The idea of white supremacy was, he said, as dead as the dodo, and he added, according to the report in the Guardian,
"If you want someone to continue to operate that policy, you will have to get another Prime Minister".
We can go back to things which happened a year or two years ago, but, surely, we ought to appreciate what has happened when we find Sir Edgar Whitehead, in particular, talking in that way and his party behaving in that way. I should have thought that we ought to approach the matter in a spirit rather different from that adopted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who—I say it in no unfriendly way, as I am sure he knows—approached it from a rather legal point of view.
We have spent half a day celebrating the fact that we are able to remove our apron strings from a country and to let

1067
it be independent and, we hope, a part of the Commonwealth. As I have said, Southern Rhodesia's virtual independence dates from 1923, but, of course, its existence goes much further back than that. Should not we encourage this Colony to have a constitution of its own to work?
As to the question of the reserved powers, can it really be healthy to have the opportunity of having wrangles here all the time about what should be done there if there is machinery, and, as I see it, much more effective machinery, that can be used at the other end?
I emphasise that we have some evidence that there is the possibility of building a multi-racial State in Southern Rhodesia. There is nowhere else at present where such a thing is showing any chance of coming to fruition. If the attitude which has been adopted today continues to be adopted, it is very unlikely that there ever will be. I therefore suggest that we should give the Constitution a fair chance. No good is done by saying that it is too late, that this is a death bed repentance, and so on. Let us try to look forward. On a day when we are discussing the future of the Commonwealth, let us continue to be logical throughout.
7.42 p.m.
Mr. Donald Wade: I am as anxious as the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) that a genuine multi-racial society shall evolve in Southern Rhodesia. This Bill is the last stage in a process which is intended to provide for the grant of a new Constitution in that territory. It will involve the giving up of reserved powers. I think that it is clear that it is the last stage, since we have already been told that the Order in Council under Clause 1 (4) will not be debatable.
Although these reserved powers have not been exercised for many years, I think that we must examine very carefully legislation which is designed to abandon them. As long as they exist, we here in the British Parliament have the right to be consulted on constitutional changes. We have a say in future constitutional proposals. That is the signifi-
1068
cance of the existence of these reserved powers. I said that we had the "right" to be consulted. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate if I had used the word "duty", because surely the principle of trusteeship still applies to this territory, as it does to Nyasaland. Certainly, the Africans do not see any reason for making a distinction between Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Southern Rhodesia. It is in the light of that, and recognising the duty which falls on us that we must consider the new Constitution. I hope that in considering it I shall not be too legalistic.
If the proposed Constitution were just a step towards greater equality of treatment as between the whites and the blacks in Southern Rhodesia, I would say that these proposals have much to commend them. They are a step in the right direction, and I do not think that I can be fairer than that. But is it just a first stage? Are we satisfied that the development of this Constitution will continue towards a genuine multi-racial society?
I think that we must consider the importance of the number of seats in the Legislature. The Africans will, in effect, be entitled to 15 out of 65 seats. That means that we are handing over our share in the responsibility for the future constitutional development—we are giving up our reserve powers—at a time when the Africans will have less than two-thirds of the seats. There is, therefore, no assurance that progress will take place on the lines that we would wish to see.
I do not propose to detain the House with a number of quotations, but I will, if I may, burden the House with one. It is from the Africa Digest of October, 1961. It refers to some observations of Mr. Garfield Todd. It states:
"Writing in the Liberal News of 26th July, Mr. Garfield Todd asked: "What yardstick does Britain use when determining who is ready for self-government? In Central Africa today almost all Blacks and at least some Whites are frustrated, despairing or dangerously angry because of what Britain is doing, or is permitting to be done in our part of Africa. Why has Britain done this thing, is a question I constantly hear from African leaders and African followers. Why does she act in one way in Tanganyika and in a different manner in the Rhodesias?'"
A little later Mr. Todd says:
"They"—

1069
that is, the Africans—
"point to Sir Edgar Whitehead's assurance to the Whites that this Constitution"—
that is, the Constitution we are discussing—
"will be the final concession to Africans and that the White Government will never give a franchise to Africans in Southern Rhodesia comparable to the one already granted in Nyasaland, where over 100,000 Africans will soon go to the polls."
I should like to know whether we can be told that that reported speech by Sir Edgar Whitehead is correct. If we cannot have such an assurance, are we right in giving up these reserve powers at a time when the African representation is to be limited to 15 seats? It is clear that the Africans will be unable by themselves to prevent the Assembly from over-riding objections by the Constitutional Council to discriminatory laws. That is the fundamental objection which we are entitled, and I think bound, to debate this evening.
That is the background to the points that I wish to raise about the proposed constitutional changes. I should like to refer to the detailed proposals in Command 1400. I hope that I shall not be thought to be too legalistic. First, I turn to Chapter VII headed "Amendment of the Constitution", which begins on page 24. In Clause 77 there are the specially entrenched provisions, which include the entrenched clauses
"relating to the Declaration of Rights, Appeals to the Privy Council, the Constitutional Council, the Judiciary …."
Clause 75 (3) reads:
"Any Constitutional Bill which repeals or amends the specially entrenched sections of the Constitution … will require not only the two-thirds vote referred to above, but will either have to be approved in a referendum by a majority of those voting in each of the four principal racial groups in the Colony, or the Bill will have to be reserved by the Governor for the Queen's Assent."
The Clause then refers to this latter procedure. It concludes by stating that
"Such an Address may be moved only by a Minister after signification to the Assembly that Her Majesty has consented to the moving thereof."
There appears to be this alternative procedure. Who will advise Her Majesty in those circumstances? Presumably, it will not be the British Prime Minister. I assume that it will be the
1070
Prime Minister of the Southern Rhodesian Government and that, therefore, this assent by the Queen will not be a matter in which the British Government are in any way concerned. That is my first question.
I am wholly in favour of the idea of a Declaration of Rights. I would like to see a Declaration of Human Rights incorporated in every Constitution throughout the Commonwealth. The general idea is one that should be welcome. I have, however, one or two queries to raise. On page 41 of the White Paper, Clause 14 states that
"Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of any of the provisions of sections 1 to 12 of this Declaration—
(a)if the law in question was in force immediately before the appointed day and has continued in force at all times since that day."
I do not need to go over the ground which has already been covered. In effect, that means that discriminatory laws which are in existence today will not be affected by this Declaration of Rights. We are bound to express concern about that. I quite understand (hat it might be impracticable to remove at once all laws that may be deemed to be discriminatory, but in considering the value of this Declaration of Rights we must recognise that it in no way overrules existing laws.
In Clause 11 of the Declaration of Rights, we have the problem of interpreting the words, at the end of subsection (2),
"wholly or mainly attributable to the description by race, tribe, colour or creed of the persons concerned."
If that means that a provision is discriminatory only if it refers specifically to race, tribe, colour or creed, obviously it will not cover all legislation of a discriminatory nature. For example, financial legislation and taxation may, in effect, be discriminatory.
That brings me to subsection (3, a)of subsection 11, which refers directly to money Bills. The subsection states that
"Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to any law to the extent that it relates to any of the following matters".
The first is:
"any matter such as is mentioned in any of paragraphs (a)to (e)of the definition of a Money Bill".

1071
I do not want to suggest that this loophole will be used deliberately to maintain discriminatory legislation, but if, for example, a poll tax were to be imposed, it would be extremely discriminatory and would be outside the ambit of the words
"mainly attributable to the description by race, tribe, colour or creed".
On the subject of money Bills, when one turns to the functions of the Constitutional Council, on pages 16 and 17 of the White Paper, we see that money Bills will be exempted from submission to the Constitutional Council. First, therefore, the Council is only advisory and, secondly, it will not be entitled to consider money Bills, which, alas, could well be discriminatory. We are bound, therefore, to express some concern.
Things may not work out as I have suggested—I hope not—but it is our duty to consider whether the safeguards are adequate. I remember very well the debates that took place when the Bill authorising the creation of the Central African Federation was discussed in the House. Lord Chandos, as he now is, who was then Colonial Secretary, showed irritation at the way in which hon. Members on this side doubted the wisdom of the Government in forcing that Federation through against the wishes of the African people and expressed fears about the future.
I do not know what he was thinking, but at one time Lord Chandos appeared to me to be saying to himself, "How stupid these people are in not accepting the word of the Government."As it has proved, however, many of the doubts which we then expressed were well founded and many of our fears were justified. It is with that recollection of past experience, as well as concern for the future of Southern Rhodesia, that I feel unable to support the Bill.
7.58 p.m.
Mr. Stephen Hastings (Mid-Bedfordshire): I am glad of the chance to say a few brief words in this debate, first because I have had the good fortune to spend some weeks during the Recess in the Federation and in Southern Rhodesia, and secondly, because I was out there as a child—indeed, I was nearly born a Southern Rhodesian—and my father was a Member of Parliament for Lomagundi in Southern Rhodesia.
1072
So that I have been brought up to some extent in a Rhodesian atmosphere and have taken a great interest in the progress of the country.
I do not accuse the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) of being legalistic, but I think that he spoke of the letter of the Constitution rather than of the siprit. I wish briefly to deal with the spirit of it. I am no constitutional lawyer, but in my short time out there recently I got some feeling of the spirit that is behind non-racialism.
The success of the Constitution clearly depends on race relations, which, to my mind, means understanding first and foremost. To take up two points made very ably by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), there are clear proofs of the good will and of the efforts that are being made by the United Federal Party, in particular, and by the Europeans in Southern Rhodesia—the white Southern Rhodesians—to make non-racialism a living thing.
The two real achievements in this line recently have been, first, the referendum which was won after a considerable electoral struggle. I spoke recently to a number of people who are involved out there. A good many of them were bitterly disappointed at the reception their victory, as they believed it to be, was given in this country. There was a certain amount of sneering at the result as being less than it might have been. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) mentioned figures of two to one, and this is true. Nevertheless, it was a great effort and a great beginning, and it was for them a victory, and we on our side should acknowledge their achievement.
The second real achievement is the United Federal Party Congress, which took place only a few weeks ago. at which they took this, for them, tremendous step forward of resolving almost unanimously and with a one-third African representation at the Congress that if they are returned at the next election, they will do away with all forms of segregation.
That is what they must do, and they realise it. If, however, we wish to help, what we need to do is to understand the difficulties which those who fee! in this way are up against in southern

1073
Rhodesia. It is only fair to reflect that the pioneer column Chat first arrived came up from South Africa, from the Rand, that Southern Rhodesia has always looked to South Africa and that one-third of the European population there are of Afrikaner extraction, and there is therefore, naturally enough, a pull in that direction.
It takes long for people who are accustomed to attitudes which everyone in this House condemns—'the racialist attitudes in South Africa—to alter their minds. A considerable effort has to be put in to bring this about. This has been a tradition in Southern Rhodesia and until comparatively recently it has changed slowly. In recent years, however, the change has accelerated. Southern Rhodesians have completely altered their South African ideas about racialism and, this is something which we should recognise in the results of the U.F.P. Congress.
I should like to say a word about the attitude of mind also of the Africans, because this debate turns to some extent on speed—the speed of constitutional advance.
We should perhaps spend a little more time than we do in trying to understand what precisely is the attitude of mind of the African. It is not easy to interpret. I had the opportunity of talking to a number of Africans on this subject, and Europeans as well, who have made a close study of it. I hope that my African friends will not condemn me for making this little psychological exercise. It is very relevant.
For three hundred centuries the African in Central Africa has slumbered in the folds of animism and spiritism. His physical lot most certainly was a miserable one and has improved vastly since the arrival of the European. But he had standards. They were perfectly clear. He had one great standby and this was what one might describe as a compulsory conformism in the tribe which served to condemn ambition and penalise personal success as an evil thing. This was a great protection to him. Since the arrival of the Europeans, there has been imposed on this a thrusting belief in ambition, couched in varying degrees and versions of Christianity. This is a tremendous psychological change and something very difficult for him to
1074
reconcile—only seventy years since we arrived and 300 centuries before.
Surely if we are to help him we must try to understand what he must be going through in trying to readjust and accept in its entirety the Western ethic which is completely opposed to what he believed before. The contradiction which this imposes on him may well cause— and this is entirely understandable—the African to put ambition before Christianity and politics before education.
It is a fact today—and this I believe to be true, for I was told it on very good authority by a number of people—that in his bewilderment, and many of the ordinary Africans in Southern Rhodesia are bewildered at this moment, he is turning back to the age-old spiritism he held to before.
I am putting this before the House in order to stress the need for understanding between African and European. This is another vital reason for it.
I spoke to a number of people, European and African, recently on the varying degrees and interpretations of non-racialism that are debated. I had a tremendously strong impression of the enthusiasm that there is behind this movement on both sides. Perhaps it is still a tender plant. Certainly it is still in its early days, but there is no question about the genuine feeling among those who believe in it and who are determined to build a non-racial State.
Perhaps it is a happy thing that this concept should come to be along the Zambezi River, along what might become, if things went wrong, the black-white frontier in Africa. I have a horrible spectre in my mind of what could result from the crystallisation of that position, and the only way to avoid it is through the success of non-racialism.
This Constitution represents an advance. Do not let us make it more difficult in this House, in this debate or in the country as a whole by heaping criticism upon it. Let us rather try to understand the difficulties that still exist and thus help those who very genuinely believe in it and believe that they can build a future for Southern Rhodesia as fine as that for any other country in Africa.
8.7 p.m.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: The House will have listened with very great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). We on this side of the House certainly are not opposed to the basic ideas which he has expressed of wishing for a speeding up of the creation of a non-racial State. What is troubling us is that the pace of advancement is so slow, and has been so slow, that the prospects of non-racialism coming into existence are being nipped in the bud.
What has led us to oppose the present Measure is that we feel that so little recognition is given in the proposed measures to the insurgent demand of Africans for advancement both social and political that they are likely to and in danger of rejecting these proposals wholeheartedly because they do not go anywhere nearly far enough. We hope that the Africans will give this Measure a trial run, if I may put it in that way, but we recognise that the proposals themselves that we are considering are based, despite some advancement, on a formula which leaves effective power and privilege still in the hands of Europeans. It is because these measures do that that we are opposing the Bill tonight.
There has been some criticism of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) for the excessive legalism of his speech. I confess that I find that a strange criticism, because, after all, this is a very important occasion for the House of Commons, for the people of this country, and for the people of Southern Rhodesia. For we are, by these measures, to abdicate our power of control over what goes on in Southern Rhodesia.
This Bill introduces a curious constitutional hybrid. If these measures take effect Southern Rhodesia will be a Colony which will be more than a Colony, but something less than an independent sovereign State. We, the British people, the British Government, will still be answerable internationally for what goes on in Southern Rhodesia;we shall be called to account before, for instance, the bar of the United Nations if things take a course in Southern Rhodesia which, for example, may do
1076
violence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We shall remain answerable before the bar of world opinion for what goes on in Southern Rhodesia after these measures are introduced, if they are to be introduced. Therefore, it is a vital duty for us to see that the Government who are to have this power, which may well result in our being placed in the international pillory, are likely, by reason of their composition, to be nondiscriminatory and fair, and we have a duty to see that the basic rights of the African people are safeguarded before we say goodbye to powers which exist, which could have been exercised in the past, and whose very existence did, we think, have a restraining effect.
In connection with the international implications of the proposed measures, there are one or two matters about which I should like to ask for information from the Minister. Paragraph 36 (1) of the Detailed Provisions deals with two classes of laws in respect of which there will still remain in the United Kingdom a power of disallowance. The first is this. There will be power of disallowance where the Act passed is
"inconsistent with any international obligations imposed on the Queen in relation to Southern Rhodesia".
Does that mean that there will be power of disallowance where any Southern Rhodesian Act which may be passed may be inconsistent not only with present international obligations resting upon Her Majesty's Government, but any future international obligations which the Government may accept and undertake?
Suppose, for instance, that the Government in this country entered into an international convention and ratified such convention to bring into force and give effect to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There are many of us who have been pressing for this kind of gesture to be made by this Government. Suppose we became a party to such a convention as that. Can we bind Southern Rhodesia by such a measure as that?
Again, this is not a matter merely of theoretical importance. It is a matter of practical moment at present because of the obligations of the British Government under the Charter of the United

1077
Nations. Article 25 of the Charter states that
"the members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out a decision of the Security Council in accordance with the present Charter."
There is a duty under the Charter to lend military aid to carry out decisions of the Security Council.
It may well be—I am not sure that such a resolution does not already exist —that the Security Council might, for instance, resolve that steps should be taken to stop facilities for foreign mercenaries entering Katanga. Does the passing of this proposed legislation mean that the British Government's commitment to such obligations would extend to Southern Rhodesia, or could Southern Rhodesia simply ignore them and act as she thought fit? If there were disregard of such an international obligation of that kind entered into by the British Government, what powers would remain in the British Government to take steps to carry out their international obligations?
Quite apart from that matter, which is, I think, of some political importance to this country, I should like to echo the serious criticisms which have been made by my right hon. and learned Friend about the human rights provision of this Constitution. I confess that one of the feelings which I have had in the debates which we have had on the Southern Rhodesian Constitution has been a feeling of futility, because although the House of Commons is parting with very important powers we have not the least power to amend any details of the proposed Constitution, and, as my right hon. and learned Friend has said, we are not sure even now what the precise and detailed provisions of the Constitution will be.
So we are going through a somewhat hallow Parliamentary drill. We are uttering words, and, alas, words of criticism, which have been expressed on this side of the House, which, as yet, have resulted in no practical steps by way of remedy of anything which is proposed. However, as I understand from the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary of State, there is still room for some adjustment, some alteration, in the Constitution—he has placed it in terms of detail, but it may well be that a detailed amendment may make all the difference
1078
—so that one is encouraged to continue these criticisms in the hope that at the eleventh hour there may be a strengthening of these human rights clauses, so that we may feel sure that we are receiving an adequate quid pro quo for the surrender of the powers of the British House of Commons.
Mr. Braine: I would not wish the hon. and learned Gentleman to misunderstand what I said. I went out of my way to say that the Declaration of Rights in regard to the new Constitution will be promulgated in its entirety. He will know that for purposes of legal precision a few drafting amendments might be necessary, but I assure him—I would like to remove all doubt from his mind—that the Declaration of Rights will be incorporated in the new Constitution in its entirety. The House is, therefore, well aware of what it is discussing. It has had the White Paper before it.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: I understand that the broad lines and the major aspects of the declaration will be embodied in the proposed Southern Rhodesian legislation—
Mr. Braine: It will be embodied in the Order in Council.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: It will be embodied in the Order in Council, but whether there will be consultation in the drafting of the terms of the Order in Council between the Government and the Southern Rhodesian Government's representatives I do not know. I would hope there would be, and I would hope that, when the question of drafting amendments is considered, the serious criticisms made by my right hon. and learned Friend will be considered, because, as he pointed out, the provision in paragraph 11 (4) of the Declaration of Rights really drives a coach and four throughout all the safeguarding words of paragraph 11 (1):
"No written law shall contain any discriminatory provision."
Mr. S. Silverman: Can my hon. and learned Friend enlighten me on one point, which I do not understand? I am looking at the paragraph which, on first reading, appears to me to mean that the Order in Council which contains the provisions that have been discussed in the last few minutes of my hon. and

1079
learned Friend's speech can be subsequently changed by another Order in Council, which, although it has to be placed before the House of Commons, cannot in any way be dealt with by the House. Is that right or wrong?
Mr. Elwyn Jones: I think that is what was indicated by the Under Secretary when he opened the debate and I fear that that is the position. Perhaps my hon. Friend, with his customary genius for probing, will return to the matter when the Secretary of State concludes the debate.
Mr. Silverman: It will be too late. then.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: One never knows. At any rate, let us see whether something can be done between now and the embodying of the Declaration in the Order in Council.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport said, the provisions of this Declaration contain reservations which I confess I have not been able to find paralleled in either the Nigerian Declaration of Human Rights or the Sierra Leone Declaration of Human Rights. When we are criticised for legalism in this matter, these are legal rights which we are going to tell the Africans are an adequate safeguard for them and we shall be guilty of humbug if we put a mass of words in a Declaration which have no effective results at all.
To return to Section 11, Subsection (1) says:
"No written law shall contain any discriminatory provision."
But subsection (4) adds that that subsection
"shall not apply to any law to the extent that it relates to any of the following matters, that is to say ….
to the extent that it makes provision whereby persons of a particular description are subjected to any condition, restriction or disability which … having regard to such of the following matters as are relevant in the circumstances of the case … is reasonably justifiable either in the interests of Southern Rhodesia as a whole …"
One of the grounds which apparently justify the continuance or introduction of restrictions or disabilities, the
1080
"matters that are deemed to be relevant", are

(a)"the nature of the … restriction …."

(b)"any special circumstances appertaining to persons of that or any other description;"

(c)"the stage of social or economic development for the time being reached by the various descriptions of persons affected …"

(d)"the state for the time being of the economy of Southern Rhodesia".

All this seems to say that if a section of the Southern Rhodesia population have reached a lower stage of social or economic development than others it would be proper to exercise against them restrictions or disabilities. I cannot imagine anything giving a clearer scope for discrimination than that.
However, there is a proviso, and it may be that the Minister can make more out of it than I can. I confess that it gives me no reassurance. It is in the terms:
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply to the extent that the law in question results in the laws with respect to the matter in question affording greater difference of treatment of different descriptions of persons than immediately before the date of the making of the law in question."
As I understand it, it simply means that one cannot discriminate more than one is discriminating already, which does not seem to me an effective measure of antidiscrimination. I hope that we shall have much greater reassurance about that.
I confess that I find far more reassuring the kind of words one finds in other Constitutions, like that of Ceylon, to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport has already referred, namely, that these Declarations of Rights should quite plainly forbid discriminatory legislation which should be defined as legislation which has the result of discriminating against the different races in the population. What troubles me is that, as far as I can judge the matter, not only does this Declaration of Rights not deal with the Measures on the Southern Rhodesian Statute Book at the moment, which we on this side of the House regard as repressive, indeed positively Draconian as I said earlier, and which were introduced only in the course of 1960, but that if this Declaration of Rights had been in existence then I doubt whether those Draconian Measures would have been caught by its provisions.

1081
Although much has been said about the improved outlook in Southern Rhodesia, which we readily recognise, nevertheless it was in 1960 that there were passed two Measures, the Vagrancy Act, on the one hand, and the Law and Order (Maintenance) Act on the other, which seemed to us on this side of the House to be a most serious defiance of what ought to be embodied in any Charter of Human Rights. For instance, the Vagrancy Act defines a vagrant in Section 2 as:
"any person who is unable to show that he is living by honest means and has a settled way of honest living."
I resist the temptation of indicating what difficulties some hon. Members might confront under that definition.
Mr. Charles Pannell: That applies only to Southern Rhodesia, not here.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: One finds a reference similarly to vagrants in the Declaration of Rights itself, which declares in Section 2 (2):
"No law shall authorise any person to be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases, that is to say … if he is, or is reasonably suspected to be … addicted to … alcohol, or a vagrant …"
This is a confusing provision in so far as some apparently honest citizens normally regarded as worthy of freedom might be affected.
The Vagrancy Act, having defined a vagrant in that broad way, goes on, in Section 3, to say:
"A police officer may arrest without warrant any person who appears to be a vagrant and shall take such person before a magistrate within forty-eight hours of his arrest."
That person can be held for three years and sent out to work in the fields or mines. I doubt whether a Declaration of Rights would hit that Section;I fear that it would not.
Even more disturbing is the notorious Law and Order (Maintenance) Act, which led the Chief Justice of Southern Rhodesia to resign. Not long ago, in the Library, I read with astonishment Section 51 of that Act. I found it difficult to believe when I read it. It states:
"Whenever any person is convicted by a court of an offence for which a minimum sentence is prescribed by this Act and such sentence is imposed by that court, the court shall submit a report on the proceedings in
1082
the case to the Minister for transmission to the Governor."
That, of course, is an indication of the freedom and independence of the bench;the bench is required to explain why it gave the minimum sentence—to show cause;a most remarkable piece of legislation.
When one reads that Act and sees the fierce penalties passed for offences defined in the most broad, most dangerously broad terms, and one sees that a declaration of human rights which makes it improbable either that such legislation will be reviewed or, what is more serious, improbable that it will be interfered with, it is not surprising that we feel anxiety. It is true that, theoretically, the Constitutional Council can review legislation already in existence, but the Council's powers are purely advisory;it has no veto power at all.
I make no apology for venturing some lawyers' observations on this matter. We have a duty, as a House of Commons, not to part with reserved powers which were retained for this House for the very reason that in this territory of Southern Rhodesia there was this disparity in position and power between the European and the non-European. I hope that even at this late hour the Government may, by whatever means may still be open to them, reopen this matter, have a second thought upon it, and really give the Africans some hope for faith in the future. That, I fear, is what they lack at the moment.
If, for instance, there could be some indication that the Africans would have good cause to hope for further constitutional advancement it would be a help, but there have been quotations from one of the leaders of the Government party which certainly give one no confidence that there is such a hope. Is this to be a once-for-all constitutional change? Is there really, in practice, reason to hope that this will be the beginning of the road to a real representative democracy in Southern Rhodesia? This is the critical question.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: Running through the speeches of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice)—

1083
and, in some respects, through the speech of the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones)—has been an impression that the historical development of this territory has been comparable to that of other territories in Africa. Indeed, the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West went so far as to ask why this sort of thing should happen here when something else has happened in Nyasaland. I hope that I am not misinterpreting what he said. If I am, I will gladly give way to him.
Mr. Wade: I said that the general principle of trusteeship must surely apply to Southern Rhodesia as well as to Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, and that the Africans found it very difficult to understand why a distinction should be made in the treatment of Africans in the Northern Territories and in Southern Rhodesia.
Mr. Gower: I accept that as another point the hon. Gentleman made, but his first case was that the development of this territory from its earliest inception as a settled community has been comparable to the development of other territories. That has not been the case. We may regret that Rhodesia was originally developed by a company rather than settled as a Colony, but it is a fact. We may regret the fact, or may wish that it were otherwise, that Southern Rhodesia in 1923 had a constitution which rapidly made it a sort of self-governing Colony. We may not be pleased about that, but it is a fact that we must recognise. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West and also—and I say this with diffidence—the right hon. and learned Member for Newport were stretching the comparison very far indeed.
The other point made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West was that in Southern Rhodesia we are in the same position, or in a similar position, as trustees in these other territories. Of course we would be if we enjoyed the same power in Southern Rhodesia. But the fact is that, since 1923, most of the powers of trustees have been carried out in Southern Rhodesia not by us but by the Government of Southern Rhodesia.
1084
Then we come to the legal position, which has been pressed and rightly examined by successive speakers from the benches opposite. The last three who spoke from there are lawyers. They have rightly looked at the legal position. That position, if one examines the Act of 1923, would establish greater control here than is the fact. But in our law— and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South will accept this—both in the relationship of constituent territories in the Commonwealth and internally in this country, the conventions of the Constitution are sometimes as important as statutory law. In the light of these conventions it is inconceivable—and I believe that that was the word used by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport—that we should, in practice, control these matters in Southern Rhodesia today if we made no change.
The alternative to the Bill is the old position — the position Which has obtained for so many years, under which this territory has been virtually and for every practical purpose a self-governing Colony. It is not a true alternative, as has been represented. I say with respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the alternative to the Government's proposals, or to better proposals, cannot be obtained from the old position. A very serious position would ensue if the House accepted the Amendment. The future of the Africans in the territory would be worsened. We should have virtually no say and there would be virtually no safeguards.
Whatever the inadequacies we may discover or descry in these proposals, the Opposition's alternative would be far weaker, because we should be left with the position where we were dealing with a territory over which we had no control at all except through a word in an old statute which has not been practised for two generations.
Mr. Richard Marsh: The hon. Member's reasoning on this point is rather strange. Is he suggesting that if one does not use reserve powers for a period of time it becomes a constitutional convention that reserve powers no longer exist?
Mr. Gower: Yes. I am afraid that is the case.
Hon. Members: Nonsense.
Mr. Gower: It is not nonsense. That is how the law of nations develops. It may be regrettable, but that is how so many of our Dominions gradually acquired enlarged powers. They did so not by the passing of Acts in this House but by practice over many years.
Mr. S. Silverman: If the hon. Member's doctrine were true, we would be destroying the constitution of this House, which has a great many reserve powers. The House has exercised them, and ought to exercise them, only on the rarest occasions. Is the hon. Member saying that if we do not exercise these powers for long enough we lose them?
Mr. Gower: We are dealing with other countries. For example, in theory, just before the passing of the Statute of Westminster, we could have controlled the actions of the Canadian or Australian Governments.
Mr. Silverman: I am talking not about them but about us.
Mr. Gower: I am talking about us, and this is the matter at issue. In theory, immediately prior to the passing of the Statute of Westminster we could have controlled the actions of the Australian, New Zealand or Canadian Government, but in practice that would have been not merely inconceivable but impracticable.
Mr. Silverman: We are not talking about what is inconceivable or impracticable but a quite different proposition which the hon. Member advances, which is that if there are reserve powers which it has been impracticable to exercise, or which have not been exercised for long enough, they are lost. If that were true, then, in the instance of Canada, which the hon. Member himself gave, there would never have been any need to pass the Statute of Westminster, for the reserve powers would have disappeared.
Mr. Gower: In practice, there was no need for the Statute of Westminster.
Mr. Silverman: Then why pass it?
Mr. Gower: It merely put into formal shape what was a fact, and the hon.
1086
Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is too good a lawyer not to know that it was a fact. I would have assumed that his knowledge of the law was sufficient for him to comprehend this fairly straightforward proposition. If we have a power which we can exercise over another territory and, for various reasons, we do not exercise it for a couple of generations, it is my thesis that we have ourselves created a convention by which that territory is that much more self-governing. In effect, the territory of Southern Rhodesia has been self-governing ever since 1923.
By the Government's proposals we are now to have a limitation of the powers of the Southern Rhodesian Government, a limitation which did not exist or has not existed for many years. It is a limitation in whose creation the Southern Rhodesia Government is voluntarily cooperating. Alongside that, we have the signs of liberalisation in Southern Rhodesia in the last twelve months, and there are many hopeful signs about this Territory.
While I understand the apprehension of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West about the future of Africans in Southern Rhodesia, it is certainly not the worst part of Africa for an African to live in today. Nor am I referring to Colonies. I am referring to some territories which have become wholly-independent. In Southern Rhodesia the African has a good hope of enlarged opportunity, not only constitutionally but in an improving standard of life to go with it and all that we understand by an ordered society and the general prevalence of what we understand by the rule of law.
If all that is taken alongside the practice which has obtained for many years, then it would be a serious matter if the Opposition Amendment were accepted, for it would place the African in a position far worse than that which he would have if the Bill were passed. For that reason, I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Jack Jones: So far the debate has been primarily conducted by men of legal ability, with the usual arguments about the validity of the Bill

1087
and its legal effects. I want to consider it from the humanitarian point of view, speaking as a Socialist and trade unionist and wanting for the African exactly the same privileges as those which I have aspired to obtain for myself. The question is how soon the African can have what we have in this country, and whether the timing is right.
This is a vast problem. On the one hand, there are those who advocate complete self-determination by the Africans for Africa, and, on the other, those who argue that the time is not yet ripe for that. There is a case to be made on both counts. There is the African who says, "Get out Europeans. Go back home", but if the European came home and took out of Africa the medical and technical skill and the "know-how" which is at present available in that vast country, the Africans would be very much worse off than if the Europeans stayed there.
Today there have been celebrations marking the granting of the freedom of self-determination to Tanganyika. When I have discussed the problem of the Rhodesias with some of my colleagues, they have said that we gave India freedom, and we all know what happened immediately after that. There was a blood-letting which, please God, will not happen in the Rhodesias.
This is a vast country, with a potential wealth unknown to man. I have been privileged to go there as an ordinary fellow who knows something about iron ore and things of that kind. If there is one part of the world where a huge part of the natural potential is waiting to be exploited, or should I say used properly, it is this part of Africa. I say that the potential is waiting to be used properly, because at the moment the wealth of the country is being exploited. There are vast reserves of iron and copper ore which could be used in the interests of both Europeans and Africans.
This Bill provides for a Constitution which gives the Africans fifteen seats in the Legislature. If I were an African discussing this matter, I would ask myself what I ought to do. Ought I to agree to a Bill which enables me and my fellow-Africans to elect to the Legislature fifteen members who could in time prove that they were fitted to carry out
1088
the job of good government and prove that they were worthy of the support both of Europeans and of Africans to carry out Government procedure as it should be carried out?
Then there is the diehard European, and there are plenty of them living in affluent circumstances in Rhodesia. They live in the Copper Belt and say to themselves, "We have had a good time out of this. The Africans have been working like stink for low wages and we ought to try to keep the status quo and keep this country working under the present system which gives us the opportunity of exploiting and dominating the Africans as we have been doing for many years."
There are the two points of view. There are the Africans who overnight want what it has taken us centuries to get—and we are still quarrelling about the fact that we have not got where we want to be—and there are the extremist Africans who go around Nyasaland in particular making all sorts of fantastic promises to get people to go to the polls and vote them into power. Extraordinary promises have been made in that part of Africa.
Mr. Marsh: And in England.
Mr. Jones: Yes.
Mr. C. Pannell: That is not peculiar to Africa. Hon. Gentlemen opposite also go round making extraordinary promises. One does not need a coloured skin to be taken in by promises.
Mr. Jones: I agree that this stats of affairs is not peculiar to Africans. Since the last Budget, and during the last fortnight, we have had evidence of the effects of exploitation and of the adroit, skilful way in which people use power. I do not need my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) to tell me about that. I have been watching the position since I left school, and that was a long time ago, but we are tonight discussing the Constitution of Southern Rhodesia.
How can the Government bring in a Bill which will not appease but satisfy both Europeans and Africans so that they will work together and come to an amicable arrangement to achieve what they both want? That is the task of the Government, and it is a big one.

1089
The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) spoke about the improvement in multi-racial relationships. I agree that there has been an improvement in the last twelve months, but what puzzles me is why this improvement did not begin twenty or thirty years ago. It is all very well starting to improve relations once the pressure is put on, but why have they waited until the average African has said to himself, "The more pressure we put on, the quicker the Government will move"? The Government are saying, in return, "We are giving you what we believe is enough for you for the time being."
The question is whether this is to be regarded as the last word in respect of the Africans' opportunity for self-determination. Hon. Members opposite have said that Sir Edgar Whitehead has said that this is it. There is nothing that any Whitehead or redhead, or even fathead, in this or any other country has a right to say in this respect. Fortunately, Governments have the habit of constantly changing throughout the world, and the world itself is always changing. Tanganyika, today, is an example.
The Joint Under-Secretary will have an opportunity of telling me whether I am correct in this. I hope that he will tell us that this is merely a first stage and that there is a definite intention to bring about what is wanted by everybody who believes in democracy.
Mr. Marsh: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the important point in this argument is whether or not this House is prepared to relinquish its reserved powers despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of the people concerned, far from wanting independence, do not want to be cut off from us?
Mr. Jones: That is the issue before us. Does anybody out there want the Government to take away the power they have to see that the right thing is done eventually? A great onus is placed on the people out there. I can only look at the problem as I see it. Some people take the view that it should be a case of one man, one vote, and that everybody is entitled to a vote. Others may argue that some people, very unfortunately, are not in a position to be able to understand the use of a vote.
1090
I have come across many educated Africans. There are thousands of highly educated and responsible African citizens in Africa, but there are tens of thousands of Africans who have not yet learned to use writing paper. At long last they are being given limited opportunities to go to school. Schools have generally been provided by companies which have done very well oat of Africa, particularly in the Copper Belt. But there are still tens of thousands of Africans living in the bush who have not yet been taught the use of toilet paper, never mind a ballot paper. There are poor, unfortunate people who have never had any opportunities, and who have a very primitive type of education. They have their own way of living, which at least brings about results. They live for themselves, as best they can.
I could say a lot about the multi-racial question. Progress is being made. We have African trade unions as well as white trade unions. But this is a lot of nonsense. Why should not every person who wishes to discuss with his employer the right pay for the right job be allowed to belong to one and the same union? The one place where the multi-racial question has been settled is on the Rhodesian railways. Sir Roy Welensky, himself an ex-railwayman, has encouraged the railway union to do a good job.
I do not want to go into details, but it is clear that hotels are also becoming multi-racial, at long last. What amazes me—and it would amuse me if the context were not so serious—is that if we visit one of the finest universities in the world we can see our coloured brothers and sisters sitting with their white colleagues eating their meals, sleeping in the same dormitories and being taught in the same class-rooms, but not being allowed to go to the local cinema with them. That is a lot of humbug which should have been chucked into the dustbin years and years ago. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House and the world, and Africa in particular, that this Bill is designed as a first step on the road to opportunity for those who want to bring about as soon as possible what Tanganyika has been given today.
Mr. Braine: Before the hon. Member resumes his seat, may I say that it is quite astonishing to consider the extent to which some hon. Members have not bothered to study the White Papers. There is no limit to the rolls. In fact, the very kind of economic and educational advance about which the hon. Gentleman has been speaking will enable an increasing number of Africans to go on to the rolls in the future. I hope that this will remove some of the misconceptions in the mind of the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Jones: We want to be absolutely certain that increasing numbers of Africans will, as soon as possible, obtain the right to govern their own country in their own way, which will, I hope, be as satisfactory as the way in which this country will be governed if we had a Socialist Government.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: The real argument in this debate has been about safeguards for the future of the African people in Southern Rhodesia, the argument being advanced by those who believe that the existing reserved powers which have never been used since 1923 are of more value than a new Constitution which introduces a Constitutional Council and a Declaration of Rights.
I am glad that the hon Member for Rotherham (Mr. Jack Jones) got away from these rather legalistic arguments to discuss the economic and social developments in the country, because that is what really matters. I think that if the right spirit is there the legal difficulties can be sorted out. I believe that the spirit is there and, with other hon. Members, I was much encouraged by the results of the referendum.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) pointed to the very rapid development in race relations and the advance of the African peoples which has occurred during the last few years in Southern Rhodesia. They have been accelerated during the last few months. The hon. Member for Rotherham referred to cinemas. I understand that now there is a law on the stocks, if I may use that expression, which will abolish any form
1092
of racial discrimination in cinemas, restaurants, or anywhere else, thus following the example of Northern Rhodesia. That shows that the Government of Southern Rhodesia have the right spirit. It also shows that they have the support of the majority of Europeans in that country. The real reason why this was not done earlier is that Sir Edgar Whitehead and the United Federal Party are like us politicians and depend on the votes of the electorate.
Mr. Marsh: Would the hon. Gentleman feel as happy about the future of the Africans if he knew there was a possibility of the success of the Dominion Party under Mr. Harper?
Mr. Wall: Quite honestly, I should not. But there is no chance of that now. The Constitution makes every candidate responsible both to the black and to the white electorate on both rolls. I should think that that would effectively rule out the success of many candidates of the Dominion Party. If the feelings which have been expressed —and which I share with the hon. Member to some degree—about the Dominion Party are true I do not think that its candidates will get many African votes, which would weigh strongly against them wherever they stand.
I wish to refer to a paper which I am sure a number of hon. Members have received from the N.D.P. There contains a resolution which, I understand, was passed at the annual conference of the National Democratic Party which took place on the 19th to the 22nd of October. The delegates at that conference unanimously passed a resolution condemning taking part in the forthcoming election under the new Constitution. They further resolved to fight relentlessly to achieve democracy and majority rule for the people of Southern Rhodesia.
I think that we can understand their aspirations and their desire for majority rule and one man, one vote. But I hope that the views expressed in this paper will not be put into effect by the more responsible leaders in the N.D.P. Surely the right way is to fight for what they consider are their rights, by registering first and then by exercising their vote. They may feel that 15 seats as against 50 seats for the Europeans is a poor

1093
percentage. But it is a good start, and Sir Edgar Whitehead has gone on record as saying that in his view Africans may well have a majority in that Parliament in about fifteen years' time.
It was not long ago that we were discussing the new Constitution for Kenya— the Lancaster House Conference of 1960 —and it was then expected that Kenya would gain its independence in eight or more years' time. Now many of us are talking about that country becoming independent in the next year or two. Accordingly, when it is being said that it will take fifteen years for Southern Rhodesia to have an African majority, it may turn out to be considerably less.
So I feel that the African people—if they hold the views of the N.D.P., and many of them do—will exercise their constitutional rights in a reasonable way and through the ballot box. As soon as this Constitution has been put into effect the weight of the African vote will have great effect in many constituencies in Southern Rhodesia In other words, I hope that they will fight with constitutional methods.
I hope, also, that they will hear about the debate we had on the independence of Tanganyika and will draw a lesson from that. Tanganyika has achieved independence faster than most of us had thought possible. This was because of good leadership, good race relations and a sensible economic policy. I hope that Tanganyika will become the leader of a new and greater Federation with the whole of East Africa which might, at a later date, be extended to Central Africa as well.
I hope that when this new Constitution is put into effect Sir Edgar and his Government will give consideration to repealing some of the legislation which has been referred to today. It was introduced in an emergency and I believe that the Government of a country have the right to introduce the legislation they consider necessary in an emergency. But race relations are said to be much improved and, if this is true, there is good case for looking at this legislation carefully in the hope that it will be possible to modify or withdraw it.
I hope that Mr. Nyandoro and Mr. Robert Chickerema—a personal friend of mine—who have been in detention for
1094
over two years without trial, will be liberated in the near future and will be able to play their democratic parts in building up a non-racial society in Southern Rhodesia.
Hon. Members should recognise that whatever criticisms we make of Southern Rhodesia and its Government we must all agree that that Government is proceeding in exactly the opposite direction to the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Anyone who goes to Southern Rhodesia from Britain, and who is not used to multi-racial societies, may feel bothered about some of the matters we have been discussing. But anyone who is routed to Southern Rhodesia from the North, that is, via the Cape, will immediately sense the difference in the atmosphere the moment he crosses that frontier.
Southern Rhodesia is the only country where we can hope for a truly non-racial society. It is highly developed and industrialised, with a great future, and l am sure that, just as we all wished Tanganyika god-speed when we passed the Second Reading of the Tanganyika Independence Bill, so we wish Southern Rhodesia and all races in that country god-speed in what virtually amounts to independence.
9.3 p.m.
Mr. H. A. Marquand: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) very naturally referred to Tanganyika. We have all had that country very much in mind today, since we discussed Tanganyika earlier. I hope that all hon. Members agree that when we make constitutional changes—and it lies in our power still to make them in Africa—it is only prudent to derive what lessons we can from what has happened elsewhere in Africa.
As we look around Africa and consider how far African nations have been able to advance towards self-Government while maintaining political stability and avoiding any of the infringements of constitutional propriety and the rest of it, we find that many of them have done so reasonably well and that there has been reasonable success. Countries like Senegal, Tunisia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria—and, of course Tanganyika, whose independence we welcomed

1095
this afternoon—are all outstanding examples of how it is possible for African countries to advance, despite the low level of economic development which exists in certain parts. These nations have been able to establish stable government, toleration among the races and, as a result, a concentration upon economic development. They are going ahead well, and we are pleased when we go there and see what they are doing, or read about their activities. Yet elsewhere in Africa, in Katanga, Algeria and the Rhodesias, we find tension and strife.
What lesson can we derive from these examples? Surely the lesson is that where the minorities seek to maintain special privileges created in a past era their future is endangered by mounting hostility coming from emergent Africa. Where they have not sought to maintain special privileges by special constitutional safeguards and instruments, where they have recognised that the best safeguard of all is the good will of the majority, we find this comparatively peaceful movement forward to self-government and economic development. Surely this is the lesson of contemporary Africa, that the non-racial approach and the common roll are the best constitutional instruments for successful independence.
In Southern Rhodesia we are being asked to endorse a form of constitution which stops timidly short of the non-racial approach, which savours still of an expression which I thought it was a little significant that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) should use, the multi-racial approach. I am referring to the non-racial approach. In its time multi-racialism was, no doubt, a reasonable enough conception, the idea of giving a balance, a parity between two races, or a balance between three races in certain circumstances;but, as time has gone on, all experience seems to me to have proved that that was a mistake, and the most successful countries in Africa today are those which have got away from it—a country like Tanganyika which has got Europeans, considerable numbers of Asians and Africans, where, having made no attempt for some years past at any multi-racial
1096
balance but having agreed to go all in together, they now have a Government, as we know, under an African Prime Minister, which contains prominent European Ministers and very efficient Asian Ministers.
Tanganyika is going forward with unusually good prospects of success, provided that she can get reasonable economic aid from the richer countries. What has happened in Southern Rhodesia—let us face it—has caused so much dismay that it gravely imperils what we all want—peaceful co-operation by all the races in constitutional and economic development. I think it was most unfortunate that when this Constitution was put before the Southern Rhodesian Legislature on 21st June it was defended by Sir Edgar Whitehead in words which I feel, in spite of all that has happened since, one ought to read to the House.
I am quoting from the official journal of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland which is sent periodically to all hon. Members interested in these subjects.
"The Prime Minister, Sir Edgar Whitehead, said that if the proposals were not endorsed at the coming referendum he was certain that that opportunity would never come again, not even in six months' time. Sir Edgar told members that the proposals were regarded overseas as ' major concessions' and as ' exceedingly conservative'."
Later, he said—I quote from the same document—that
"he was perfectly satisfied that if the reserve Clauses in the present Constitution were allowed to remain for a further period of years, they would develop from being a nuisance into a menace."
and he spoke about the desirability of getting what he called negotiated independence.
In another of these publications, on 14th July, 1961, we read that Sir Roy Welensky, the Prime Minister of the Federation itself, told a radio audience on 30th June that
"it was a plain fact that the new Constitution will make Southern Rhodesia virtually completely independent within the framework of the Federation, free to legislate as it wishes without reference to the British Government, and free from the possibility of legislation being imposed upon it by Britain."
The tone and the temper in which these constitutional changes were put before the Legislature of Southern

1097
Rhodesia and before the general public of Southern Rhodesia and the Federation were such as to arouse suspicion in the minds of African people. They feared that this was to be permanent and that there would be no change of any kind to which they could reasonably look forward, and that they would henceforth be entirely in the hands of the Southern Rhodesia white settler Government without any protection from the United Kingdom. Their suspicions of the motives behind the Constitution began to grow. We know that in the earlier stages their misgivings were nothing like so strong. The way this was sold to the white electorate was, in my view, one of the precipitants of the present awkward and difficult situation in Southern Rhodesia.
After the constitutional proposals had been put forward in that way to the white electorate of Southern Rhodesia, the situation grew steadily worse. The referendum took place on 26th July. In the Newsletter published by Rhodesia House here in London, we read on 28th July that troops of the Federal Army and police moved into certain African townships and other areas throughout Southern Rhodesia on 19th July, a week before the Referendum. The excuse for this was that the National Democratic Party had announced that demonstrations would take place from the 23rd to the 26th July, of a type—this was said openly and publicly—which would be legally and politically acceptable in any democratic country. The National Democratic Party was met by the use of the Federal army and police and local armed forces. When the leaders of the National Democratic Party wished, during the referendum, to put their case to electors and to the people of Southern Rhodesia generally, they were told that they could hold no meetings of more than 12 persons. There was a ban on meetings in the reserves and that ban was maintained.
This was the atmosphere in which the Constitution was put to the two races in Southern Rhodesia. The result of the attitude of the Southern Rhodesian attitude of the Southern Rhodesia Government and the Federal Government was that the most pro-Federation Africans in the whole of Africa became as strongly anti-Federation as any, and they remain full of suspicion about the new Constitution.
1098
We have been reminded—we welcome it—that since the Constitution was approved by the Legislature and by the referendum, speeches of a different sort have begun to be made and that improvements have been carried through the Legislature. We know, and we welcome, that the Land Apportionment Act has been amended. Although, in my opinion, it still could do with a good deal more amendment, the purchase area has been increased. We know also that the Immorality Act has been repealed. There has been the court decision that the swimming baths at Salisbury are open to all and should not be closed in a discriminatory manner. We know many other similar encouraging facts, some of which have been given by hon. Members in the debate, and I need not attempt to repeat them. To quote again from the Newsletter,we know that Sir Edgar Whitehead, when he opened the United Federal Party Congress in Salisbury on 5th October, said:
"The maintenance of straightforward white supremacy was as dead as the dodo. It was essential that there should be no artificial barriers between the races. We must regard each other as Rhodesians and build up a greater prosperity."
I welcome these statements wholeheartedly. I only wish that this sort of thing had been said much earlier and that there had not been this absurd cultivation of the Dominion Party and this attempt to sell the Constitution to the white electorate of Southern Rhodesia as a permanent brake on African advancement and a permanent barrier to the removal of racial discrimination.
Despite whatever improvement there has been in the speeches of Southern Rhodesian leaders—and I welcome it— the fact remains that what the House of Commons is asked to do tonight is to approve the Constitution. We cannot get away from that fact. Whatever comfort we may draw from this or that improvement in what was certainly a very bad situation, we must address our minds tonight to the question—Is this a satisfactory Constitution? The House well knows already the defects of that Constitution.
I had it in mind to say something about those defects, but, in the interests of not taking up too much time, I can abandon that because my right hon.

1099
and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) riddled the Constitution with criticism. Using his immense legal knowledge and great experience in constitutional matters in many parts of the world, he examined the Constitution in a way that no one else could have done, and no reasonable hearer could have been left in any doubt that this Constitution just will not do.
Since I had previously said something about this matter in an earlier debate, I particularly welcomed the thorough way in which my right hon. and learned Friend criticised not merely the safeguards but the Declaration of Rights itself. After the thorough and careful examination which we have conducted in two successive debates, I do not see how any fair-minded person can be left in doubt that the only sure guarantee for non-discrimination and successful African constitutional advance lies in the franchise. Everything depends on that.
The more we analyse the constitutional proposals, the more we come back to this. The recommendations of the Constitutional Council can be set aside by certificates of urgency or by outright repeal by the Legislature by a two-thirds majority at once or by a simple majority after six months. The only effective safeguard which Africans can have under this Declaration of Human Rights and these provisions for a Constitutional Council lies in a sufficient number of representatives in the House to block that kind of attack on the Constitution.
It was a remarkable thing, I thought, that the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, whose speech immediately followed that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport, did not attempt to reply in any way to the criticisms of my right hon. and learned Friend. I feel sure that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought that he had a satisfactory legal argument to put against what my right hon. and learned Friend said he would have used it. All that the right hon. and learned Gentleman could do was to draw our attention to these welcome phrases, which I quoted earlier, coming from Sir Edgar Whitehead and others, these welcome improvements in social behaviour.
What the right hon. and learned Gentleman was asking us to do was to welcome a thoroughly had Constitution
1100
because some people have made nice speeches and have begun to make appropriate social and racial gestures. This is simply not good enough. As a House of Commons, we cannot, and ought not to, accept a Constitution which we find to be full of defects simply because there appears to be somewhere a slight ray of hope on the horizon that the white majority in the Southern Rhodesian Parliament might be a little more wise than it appeared to be when the Constitution was put over.
Who can be sure that after the Constitution is approved by this House, there might not be a reversal to the previous attitude? That attitude lasted for a very long time. I say again that the only firm foundation for racial harmony can be acceptance by the majority of the people —the 2½million Africans of the country —of its justice and of its fair play. This is the hope for racial harmony and for continued existence and prosperity of white people and Asians as well as Africans in Southern Rhodesia. It is because we want this that we should like to see in the Constitution a far more emphatic guarantee of an adequate African representation here and now in the Legislature. If we had that, the rest of the Constitution might be accepted, because as time passed it could be improved. Without that, we have no guarantee whatever that it will be improved.
The Africans, therefore, cannot be expected to accept this new Constitution as satisfactory because they have no effective means of changing it. We cannot ask them, as the wind of change blows furiously down through Africa, to wait for the sweet by and by. Everywhere else they see rapid advance. They see everywhere else that it is possible for the races to live in harmony and that it is possible for white men and Africans to accept as their best safeguard the good will of the majority. They cannot understand—I do not blame them;I do not understand either—why this proved experiment cannot be tried in Southern Rhodesia.
After our last debate, I appealed for second thoughts. I asked the Government whether they would not think again about it, even though I knew that they were heavily committed already to the Southern Rhodesian leaders. I asked the

1101
Prime Minister whether he would meet the African leaders, whom I and many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have seen. They themselves made an appeal and said, "Could we as a last resort, since we are still the protected subjects of Her Majesty, approach Her Majesty's principal Minister, as it were, as a second court of appeal?"
The Prime Minister said that he would consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The only result from that was that when they came to London, the African leaders, Mr. Nkomo and others, saw the Duke of Devonshire. They might have mistaken somebody with such a title for a tribal chief, but he was no more than the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Of course, he did not carry the authority, prestige or power to do much about this.
I am not criticising the noble Duke for anything he did there—I am certain that he did his best and was, as usual, extremely courteous to his visitors—but they went away from that conversation with him with the impression that because Southern Rhodesia is becoming an increasingly industrialised country, because large numbers of United Kingdom firms have interests there and because of these interests of the United Kingdom and of powerful financial groups and companies in the Rhodesias generally, it was felt that Africans could not be trusted with the same extension of political power that they have in the less developed parts of Africa. That is the impression that they were left with.
They had, as I say, attempted to conduct their appeals to their own people in an atmosphere of armed force, prohibited from entering the reserves, unable to address satisfactory meetings of any size, with many of their leading members still lying in detention under detention orders. They were full of suspicion and fear and nobody met them. Nobody tried to explain to them, if it could be explained, why those fears were unjustified. Nobody gave them reassurance. They went away from this final interview—this last effort that they made by coming specially to this country—with the Joint Under-Secretary of State, the noble Duke, utterly despondent, feeling that there was no hope.
1102
Now they have sent to us, as the hon. Member for Haltemprice has already quoted, this message which we all received today, in which they explain in detail why they still feel completely distrustful of the present constitutional proposals. They say at the end of this memorandum:
"We know that it would have been easier for us to win the 15 seats apportioned to the 3 million Africans. Our Party would then be helping the Government of Whitehead to preserve white domination and, it is easy to imagine, the N.D.P. would then not be threatened with being banned, and its leaders would become ' respectable'. We reject this easy way and choose the way of strife that lies ahead. By rejecting the constitution we lay ourselves open to arrest, but this path will lead us to the desired end quicker than helping Whitehead to maintain white supremacy".
Frankly, I regret their decision not to contest the election. On this side of the House more than one of us has privately given them advice to contest the seats and use their position in Parliament as we use ours, as a platform from which to proclaim their views. They have decided otherwise. I am doubtful whether what I am saying now will be able to influence them any longer.
It has been a long, tragic story. From the beginning of the launching of this move there has been far too much effort to convince the extreme reactionery section of white opinion in Southern Rhodesia that the constitutional change was acceptable by selling it to them as independence as complete self-government for the white settlers and a ban on African advance.
There has been far too little effort to seek out and explain to African leaders. There has been a terrible failure to permit these moderately minded, sensible, well-educated men to get among their people and explain what it is they want to do. Some part of that failure, I think, rests upon the shoulders of Her Majesty's Government. Most of it rests elsewhere, I know, in Southern Rhodesia, but I wish there could have been a more careful and patient effort to get in touch with them, to keep in touch with them, and to explain to them what the situation was, and perhaps to bring in at the end one of the great Commonwealth Leaders who might have taken part in discussions of this kind with them and changed the situation. There would have had to be

1103
a change on both sides if it were to succeed.
But it has not. It has failed to get full African co-operation. It is a tragedy. I hope it will not prove to be a long-term tragedy. I hope that when this Constitution is approved by this House —as, of course, we know it will be tonight, though we shall vote against it because we regard it as unsatisfactory— somehow or another light may emerge later on.
I would appeal to Africans to accept any olive branch which may still be offered to them and not to feel that this is the only way for them to achieve what they need, not to follow the road of Cyprus and other countries in the Commonwealth which have been able to achieve the independence of which they were thoroughly justified only by resorting to violence. I hope that will not happen. I hope that in some way, even when the Constitution is passed, the Africans may be assured that it can and will be amended, and soon.
But as it is, the Constitution is a bad Constitution. We cannot accept it, and we shall register our opinion of it in the Division Lobby tonight.
9.31 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I fully share the desire of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) to see all sections of the population in Southern Rhodesia playing their full part in its political and economic progress; and I regret, with him, that there should be a substantial section of African opinion which is at present minded not to play its part in the political development under the new Constitution.
But I will revert to that point a little later. There are a number of questions which were put to me and a number of criticisms which were raised, and I should like to deal with as many of them as I can in winding up this debate.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), as he always does, spoke with great clarity and precision, and he asked me—and the same question was put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade)— an
1104
important question about the interpretation which will be put upon the term "racial discrimination" in applying the new Constitution. He asked specifically whether racial discrimination in the letter of a law which may in future be passed meant that the law would apply specially prejudicial or favourable clauses and conditions to races named in the law.
I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the absolute assurance that the Constitution is not intended to have that effect. The intention is that discrimination shall be interpreted as the consequence of the law, the effect of the law. If the natural consequence of the law, even though it does not mention a particular race, is to prejudice or to favour a particular race as distinct from other races, then, even though it does not mention that race in the law, that will be regarded as discriminatory.
My advice is that the section of the Declaration of Rights as now worded has that legal interpretation, but in view of the legal experience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman I propose to have it looked at again, to make sure that the intention is, in fact, reflected in the wording.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West also asked me a question about paragraph 75 (3) of the Detailed Provisions of the Constitution. As the House will remember, we issued two White Papers, one in more popular terms, a summary, and one giving more detailed provisions. He asked whether the Crown would act on the advice of the Government of Southern Rhodesia, or on the advice of the Government of the United Kingdom when considering whether to approve an amendment to the Constitution, or whether to require an amendment to be referred to a referendum of the racial communities in Southern Rhodesia.
This should be read in conjunction with paragraph 54 of the Summary, which is perhaps in more readable language, and there is also a reference to it in the Report of the Constitutional Conference last January. Both these make it quite clear that the discretion in this matter will rest with the Government of the United Kingdom and not with the Government of Southern Rhodesia; and that it will be on the

1105
advice of the Government of the United Kingdom that the Crown will act on matters of this kind. I think that that meets the hon. Member's point.
I was asked about money Bills, and several hon. Members criticised the fact that money Bills are excluded from the provisions of the Declaration of Rights in respect of discrimination. The main reason for it is a very simple one and a practical one. We had long discussions about this. I was in favour of including everything in the first place, but I was convinced that it was not a practicable proposition.
In a country where there are very wide differences in the standard of living and incomes of the population and those differences are, by and large, reflected in or coincide with the racial differences, it is almost impossible to frame any taxation which will not be in practice discriminatory against Europeans. Anything in the way of Income Tax or Surtax is almost bound to be so. To follow up the right hon. Gentleman's desire that the discrimination should not only apply where the race is mentioned, but where the natural consequences are to prejudice a racial community, any law of that kind—taxing people according to income, which is the natural procedure nowadays—would inevitably be thrown out by any constitutional council or court of law if the discriminatory provision had covered it. I hope that that is a sufficient answer to that question.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport spoke a good deal about the reserved powers. He said that the British Government possesses, in his own words, "powerful and effective reserve powers which it is giving up without obtaining adequate and alternative safeguards. "The right hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that these powers have never been used, but he said that the fact that they existed had a restraining influence and had the effect of preventing the passage of discriminatory legislation which otherwise would get on to the Statute Book.
I do not say that there may not have been cases where that has happened. All I can say is that that hardly ties up very well with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's complaint that in I960 discriminating legislation of what
1106
he described as the most Draconian kind was passed. Therefore, the deterrent effect of these powers cannot have been very great. As I have explained, these powers have proved most ineffective and both Labour and Conservative Governments have found them, in practice, virtually impossible to use. Some of the most keenly discriminating legislation on the Statute Book of Southern Rhodesia, including the original land apportionment law, and one of the most hated native pass laws, were passed with the approval of a Labour Government.
I am not criticising the party opposite —I make that quite clear. I only quote these examples to support my contention that, in practice the reserved powers have proved unusable, and that the safeguards provided under the new Constitution will be infinitely more effective. Otherwise, I say it frankly, I would not have looked at this, because I recognise my responsibility to see to it that the interests of the African population now, and of the European population at some future date, shall be properly safeguarded.
Criticism was made of the Constitutional Council. We are, of course, now going over the same ground that we have been over in two or three previous debates—everyone recognises that—and the answers are much the same as those given on the previous occasions. The criticism was that the powers of the Constitutional Council are purely advisory. I accept that they are purely advisory; but it is very powerful advice.
Much thought was given to this. Again, I say to the House that I originally started with the idea that there should be some kind of veto on laws by the Constitutional Council, but I was convinced to the contrary by others. No one took a stronger view on this than the African representatives at our constitutional conference, including the members of the National Democratic Party—in fact, I would say more by them than by some of the others, because they included a prominent lawyer.
Those who opposed the idea of a veto by the Constitutional Council did so on the very good grounds that it is a bad thing to duplicate the jurisdiction of the

1107
courts. In the Declaration of Rights we lay down that any law that is racially discriminatory is void, and can be tested by an action in the courts. If, in addition to that, we have another body which can also veto a law, we really begin to get into a most frightful confusion. The Constitutional Council can veto it, but if it has not done so, someone may take it to the courts. We then have two bodies doing the same job. I must say that I was convinced by that argument.
Reference was made—and I do not wish to avoid any difficulties—to what might be called escape clauses. Any one who studies any Declaration of Rights, whether it is the Charter of the United Nations, or of Nigeria, or India, or Ceylon, or Sierre Leone or wherever it may be, will find that it has been quite unavoidable and inevitable to put in certain escape clauses, particularly in regard to conditions of emergency.
After all, we in this country, when there is a threatened railway strike or something like that, have to declare a state of emergency, and ask this House to give us powers to do all sorts of very arbitrary things which run right contrary to the normal provisions of any Declaration of Rights. The Government of a country must, in certain circumstances, take whatever measures are necessary for national defence, or for feeding the population or for maintaining order, and it would be quite intolerable for a Government not to be able to discharge what is their main and basic function.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport complained that the courts were being asked to perform a political job in assessing whether or not a particular law was discriminatory, and in deciding whether these various qualifying clauses applied or did not apply. Of course, any discussion of a case in a court of law which involves human rights is almost bound to have some kind of political tinge about it, for it will probably involve such things as free speech and freedom of movement. There is almost bound to be some political aspect. This matter was very fully considered. It did not escape our notice, and we came to the conclusion that, if an outside body was to be put over the Legislature—and it is a very serious thing to give an out-
1108
side body power to veto what the elected representatives of the people decide— then it would not be appropriate that it should be an unelected and unprofessional body. It seemed to us that, in the last resort, the matter must, if it was a matter of law, be left to the courts to decide.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am sorry to revert to the point which the right hon. Gentleman has just passed, but is he aware that the "escape clauses", as he described them, to which objection is taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport and myself, are set out in Section 11 (4) of the Detailed Provisions, and that we were not complaining in terms of the "escape clauses" in Section 13, which relates to periods of emergency. It is, therefore, no answer to say that one has to deal with the continuation of emergency with special powers and special reservations.
Mr. Sandys: One of those Sections to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred concerns the economic side of Southern Rhodesia. If one suddenly said that all discrimination was to disappear, one would be faced with fearful problems—in European schools, for example. Would one cut off money overnight for these schools and say that everything must be equalised and levelled down instantly? That would be the effect.
One must recognise that there are deep cleavages between the conditions which exist in the African areas and those which exist in the European areas. I am not lagging behind any hon. Member in wanting to see an integrated Southern Rhodesian population, all working together for the common good without distinction of race or colour, but it is unrealistic to imagine that one can overnight sweep away all these differences. There must, therefore, in what is essentially a transitional period, be ways which will allow the courts to interpret these things in a practical and reasonable way.
Several hon. Members said that there must be further progress. They were thinking in particular of the political side. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East referred in particular to the importance of the franchise. I was asked whether there was much prospect of the franchise being widened

1109
under this new Constitution. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport expressed the view that there was not much prospect. He is usually so clear and logical in argument, but in this Case he said that by giving up the reserve powers the pace of African political progress would be slowed down.
If he would think about it, however, he would see that these powers are powers of veto. By no stretch of the imagination could they be used to widen the franchise or to give increased representation to the Africans in the Legislature. If it was thought that a new law gave insufficient advance, it could only be vetoed, in which case things would remain as they were.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West said that Mr. Garfield Todd had criticised the new Constitution and had said that it did not represent a sufficient political advance. It may be that Mr. Garfield Todd takes that view, but, in fairness to others, it should be remembered that the present franchise which has produced not a single African in the Legislature, was the work of Mr. Garfield Todd. It is always easy when one does not have responsibility to be very free and easy in what one suggests might be done by others.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport and others complained that the reserve powers of the British Government were being ceded once and for all —those were his words. In theory, he said, they could be taken back, but in practice the possibility of the Parliament at Westminster upsetting a constitution once given was nil. That is broadly true. Once this Parliament has given a constitution which represents an advance towards self-government to any territory in Her Majesty's Dominions, in practice it is not possible to go backwards and to withdraw those powers.
However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) pointed out, that completely torpedoes the right hon. and learned Gentleman's whole complaint that while this Constitution was a step in the right direction, it did not go far enough. He and his hon. Friends propose to vote against it tonight because it does not go far enough, but everybody recognises that it goes a very long way further than anything thought possible as short a time as a year ago.
1110
The fact that hon. Members opposite will vote against the Constitution tonight implies that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, if they wanted, could have put forward a Constitution to provide a wider franchise and bigger representation for Africans in the Legislature. That is not the fact. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made it clear that, having nearly 40 years ago given a constitution, which is virtually self-government at home in Southern Rhodesia, subject only to certain veto powers, it would be constitutionally improper and impracticable for us, without the consent of Southern Rhodesia, to impose upon it a new constitution with a much wider representation to Africans, if we thought that that was right and desirable.
The outstanding feature of the new Constitution is that it provides far-reaching advances for the Africans with the full consent of the Europeans. It is an historic and almost unique event that an overseas territory of this kind, with the overwhelming consent of the Europeans, should give a big political advance to the Africans. The extent of the advance was approved by a large majority of the existing electorate. When there is an electorate, it cannot just be brushed aside. Things cannot be decided by an unofficial referendum organised by some outside party. Reference was made to the N.D.P.'s independent referendum, but when there is an electorate set up under a constitution, some attention must be paid to it. It was remarkable that the electorate approved this new Constitution by a large majority. That is a measure of the practical spirit of co-operation between the races which is daily becoming more apparent.
Mr. Marquand: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question he posed earlier? I was eagerly awaiting the answer to his question, what was the hope of further enfranchisement under this Constitution?
Mr. Sandys: I will answer it now. I am going to allow myself to slip over the hour, if that is permissible. It is a great pleasure sometimes to be able to speak without having to look at the clock.
This new Constitution will provide a quarter, or probably rather more than

1111
a quarter, of African seats in the new Legislative Assembly. That is virtually the certain result. There will be about fifteen, and probably another three, making a maximum of eighteen seats at the first election. I think that most people would agree with that.
The European parties have been fairly evenly divided. We talk about fifteen or seventeen African seats and so many European seats, but I cannot believe that that is how the thing will work. The United Federal Party, which is the majority party today, is going to put up a number of African candidates. I cannot believe that during the period ahead any Government in Southern Rhodesia will be able to carry through their policies effectively and maintain a reasonable majority while ignoring the African members of the Assembly. Of course they will need their support.
No doubt the African members will support them against other parties on taxation, road transport, and all sorts of other matters which have nothing to do with race, and from time to time will ask, "What about us? If you want votes in the predominantly African constituencies, you have to do something about the Africans, and they are asking for an enlargement of the franchise."
I believe that it is far better to get progress and a widening of the franchise for the Africans by the exercise of political pressures through the ordinary Parliamentary system and procedures, and the necessity to gain votes, and the necessity to maintain a majority in Parliament, than by having periodical conferences in Lancaster House and by

Division No. 3.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Aitken, W. T.

Bryan, Paul

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Allason, James

Buck, Antony

Critchley, Julian

Atkins, Humphrey

Bullard, Denys

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

Barlow, Sir John

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Crowder, F. P.

Batsford, Brian

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

Cunningham, Knox

Bell, Ronald

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Currie, G. B. H.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Bidgood, John C.

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Doughty, Charles

Bishop, F. P.

Channon, H. P. G.

Drayson, G. B.

Black, Sir Cyril

Chataway, Christopher

du Cann, Edward

Bossom, Clive

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Duncan, Sir James

Bourne-Arton, A.

Clark, William (Nottingham, S)

Eden, John

Box, Donald

Cleaver, Leonard

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Cooper, A. E.

Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Braine, Bernard

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Errington, Sir Eric

Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

Costain, A. P.

Fair, John

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Coulson, J. M.

Fell, Anthony

the British Government arranging it all over their heads.
I should like to say something about this question of discriminatory laws, because the general trend of discussion has been rather that any discriminatory law must necessarily be bad for the Africans and ought to be abolished right away. All discriminatory laws are not necessarily unfair, and many of them are specifically designed to protect the interests of the Africans.
Mr. Kona, the President of the Southern Rhodesia African Farmers' Union, said in a speech the other day that the repeal of the Land Apportionment Act—about which we have heard so much—unless accompanied by some new protective measures would be even more disastrous to Africans than its continued implementation; and I believe that there are a number of laws designed for the protection of Africans which it would be disastrous to remove.
A good deal has been said during the debate about the National Democratic Party, and the fact that it is not taking part in the election under the new Constitution—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. lain Macleod.]
The House divided: Ayes 223. Noes 159.

Finlay, Graeme

Litchfield, Capt. John

Russell, Ronald

Fisher, Nigel

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)

St. Clair, M.

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Longden, Gilbert

Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

Loveys, Walter H.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Sharples, Richard

Gammans, Lady

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Shaw, M.

Gibson-Watt, David

McAdden, Stephen

Shepherd, William

Glover, Sir Douglas

MacArthur, Ian

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Skeet, T. H. H.

Goodhart, Philip

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

Smith, Dudley (Br'mf'd & Chiswick)

Goodhew, Victor

McMaster, Stanley R.

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. H.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Green, Alan

Maddan, Martin

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Gresham Cooke, R.

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Stoddart-Soott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Grimston, Sir Robert

Marshall, Douglas

Storey, Sir Samuel

Gurden, Harold

Marten, Neil

Studholme, Sir Henry

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Mawby, Ray

Talbot, John E.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Tapsell, Peter

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maydort, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Taylor, W.J. (Bradford, N.)

Harvey, Sr Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Mills, Stratton

Temple, John M.

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Montgomery, Fergus

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Hastings, Stephen

More, Jaeper (Ludlow)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Morrison, John

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hendry, Forbes

Noble, Michael

Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Nugent, Sir Richard

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Hiley, Joseph

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Turner, Colin

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hobson, John

Osbom, John (Hallam)

Vane, W. M. F.

Hocking, Philip N.

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Holland, Philip

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Hollingworth, John

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Walder, David

Hopkins, Alan

Peef, John

Walker, Peter

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Percival, Ian

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Wall, Patrick

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pilldington, Sir Richard

Webster, David

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pitman, Sir James

Wells, John (Maidstone)

James, David

Pott, Percivall

Whitelaw, William

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Prior, J. M. L.

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Pym, Francis

Wise, A. R.

Kershaw, Anthony

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Wolridge-Gordon, Patrick

Kimball, Marcus

Ramsden, James

Woodhouse, C. M.

Kitson, Timothy

Rawlinson, Peter

Woodnutt, Mark

Lambton, Viscount

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Woollam, John

Langford-Holt, J.

Rees, Hugh

Worsley, Marcus

Leather, E. H. C.

Renton, David

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Leavey, J. A.

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Ridsdale, Julian

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rippon, Geoffrey

Mr. Edward Wakefield and

Lindsay, Martin

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Mr. Chichester-Clark.

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Roots, William

NOES

Ainsley, William

Diamond, John

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Donnelly, Desmond

Hayman, F. H.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Driberg, Tom

Healey, Denis

Awbery, Stan

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis)

Bacon, Miss Alice

Edelman, Maurice

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Baird, John

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Bence, Cyril

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Hilton, A. V.

Benson, Sir George

Evans, Albert

Holman, Percy

Blackburn, F.

Finch, Harold

Houghton, Douglas

Blyton, William

Fitch, Alan

Hoy, James H.

Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Bowles, Frank

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Hunter, A. E.

Boyden, James

Galpern, Sir Myer

Hynd, H. (Acorington)

Brock way, A. Fenner

Ginsburg, David

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, c.)

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Janner, Sir Barnett

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Gourlay, Harry

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Greenwood, Anthony

Jeger, George

Chetwynd, George

Grey, Charles

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Cliffe, Michael

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

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

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Grimond, J.

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Kelley, Richard

Delargy, Hugh

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Kenyon, Clifford

1114

1115

Key, Rt. Hon. G. W.

Owen, Will

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

King, Dr. Horace

Padley, w. E.

Sorensen, R. W.

Lawson, George

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Pargiter, G. A.

Spriggs, Leslie

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Parker, John

Steele, Thomas

Lipton, Marcus

Pavitt, Laurence

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Peart, Frederick

Stonehouse, John

MacColl, James

pentland, Norman

Stones, William

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Prentice, R. E.

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Thornton, Ernest

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Probert, Arthur

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Wade, Donald

Mapp, Charles

Randall, Harry

Wainwright, Edwin

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Rankin, John

Warbey, William

Marsh, Richard

Redhead, E. C.

Weitzman, David

Mason, Roy

Reid, William

White, Mrs. Eirene

Mendelson, J. J.

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Whitlock, William

Millan, Bruce

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Willey, Frederick

Milne, Edward J.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Mitchison, G. R.

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Moody, A. S.

Ross, William

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Morris, John

Short, Edward

Winterbottom, R. E.

Moyle, Arthur

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Mulley, Frederick

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Woof, Robert

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Sherrington, Arthur

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Oliver, G. H.

Slater, Mrs Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Oram, A. E.

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Oswald, Thomas

Small, William

Mr. Charles A. Howell and

Mr. McCann.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION) BILL
Question again proposed,That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.
Mr. Sandys: I was just saying that a number of hon. Members have referred at some length to the opposition of the National Democratic Party and I thought that I would say a word about this.
It is true, of course, that the N.D.P., which at first supported the new Constitution, afterwards repudiated it. It is also true that it is probably the largest all-African party in Southern Rhodesia. But it should not be assumed that the views which it expresses are necessarily those of the majority of the African inhabitants of Southern Rhodesia.
Large sections of the population in the tribal areas are not attached to any political party. The two multi-racial parties—the United Federal Party and the Central African Party—both enjoy appreciable African support. It was significant at the last Congress of the United Federal Party in Southern Rhodesia that nearly one-third of the delegates were African, and there is no doubt that the very liberal attitude of the United Federal Party is attracting increasing African support into its ranks.
Sir Edgar Whitehead the other day published figures which are extremely remarkable and which showed that the
1116
membership of his party in Harari had risen from 40 to 500 since the announcement of the new Constitution last February. That is particularly striking for the reason that Harari, which is a purely African town, was one of the largest centres of opposition to the Government only a year ago.
I am not seeking to minimise the importance of the N.D.P. I have always listened to its views with great sympathy and I am anxious to keep in touch with it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East referred to the fact that my Under-Secretary received a deputation from that party on a certain occasion. That was because I was out of the country. Had I been here I would have received them myself.
I believe, however, that we should not minimise the importance of the other parties in Southern Rhodesia which are making an appeal to both races. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East expressed regret at the decision of the N.D.P. to boycott the elections. I agree with him, and I sincerely hope that between now and the elections all parties will decide to put up candidates, which is surely in the best interests of Southern Rhodesia and its future development. The political parties, whatever their differences, should seek to achieve their aims through democratic political channels.

1117
This is the aim and purpose of the new Constitution. It has been framed in that spirit and will be implemented in that way, and I therefore appeal to all citizens of Southern Rhodesia of all races to accept the new Constitution in
this spirit and to make the most of the widening opportunities for progress and co-operation which it opens up for them.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 156.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Woodnutt, Mark

Wise, A. R.

Woollam, John

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Worsley, Marcus

Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Noble

Woodhouse, C. M.

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

NOES

Ainsley, William

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Pargiter, G. A.

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Parker, John

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hilton, A. V.

Pavitt, Laurence

Awbery, Stan

Holman, Percy

Peart, Frederick

Bacon, Miss Alice

Houghton, Douglas

Pentland, Norman

Baird, John

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Bence, Cyril

Hoy, James H.

Prentice, R. E.

Benson, Sir George

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Blackburn, F.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Probert, Arthur

Blyton, William

Hunter, A. E.

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Randall, Harry

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Janner, Sir Barnett

Rankin, John

Bowles, Frank

Jay, Rt. Hon, Douglas

Redhead, E. C.

Boyden, James

Jeger, George

Reid, William

Brockway, A. Fenner

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Chetwynd, George

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)

Cliffe, Michael

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Ross, William

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Kelley, Richard

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Silverman, Sydney (Netson)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

King, Dr. Horace

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Delargy, Hugh

Lawson, George

Small, William

Diamond, John

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

Donnelly, Desmond

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N,)

Sorensen, R. W.

Driberg, Tom

Lipton, Marcus

Soskice, Rt. Hon, Sir Frank

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

Mabon, Dr. j. Dickson

Spriggs, Leslie

Edelman, Maurice

McCann, John

Steele, Thomas

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

MacColl, James

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Edwards, Waiter (Stepney)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Stonehouse, John

Evans, Albert

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Stones, William

Finch, Harold

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Taylor, John (West Lothian)

Fitch, Alan

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Foot, Miehael (Ebbw Vale)

Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Thornton, Ernest

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

Mapp, Charles

Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H, A,

Wade, Donald

Galpern, Sir Myer

Marsh, Richard

Wainwright, Edwin

Ginsburg, David

Mendelson, J.J.

Warbey, William

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Millan, Bruce

Weitzman, David

Gourlay, Harry

Milne, Edward J.

White, Mrs. Eirene

Greenwood, Anthony

Mitchison, G. R.

Whitlock, William

Grey, Charles

Moody, A. S.

Willey, Frederick

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

Morris, John

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Griffiths, w. (Exchange)

Moyle, Arthur

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Grimond, J.

Mulley, Frederick

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Winterbottom, R. E.

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oliver, G. H.

Woodbum, Rt. Hon. A.

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Oram, A. E.

Woof, Robert

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Oswald, Thomas

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Hayman, F. H,

Owen, Will

Healey, Denis

Padley, W. E.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, w.)

Mr. Irving and Mr. Short.

Bill read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
Committee Tomorrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]
Committee Tomorrow.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE [MONEY]
[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
[Major Sir WILLIAM ANSTRUTHER-GRAY in the Chair]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 {Money Committees).
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to continue certain expiring laws, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such expenses as may be occasioned by the continuance until the thirty-first day of

1121
March, nineteen hundred and sixty-three, of the Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, and Part II of the Licensing Act, 1953, being expenses which under any Act are to be provided out of such moneys.—[Sir E. Boyle.]
Resolution to be reported.
Report to be received Tomorrow.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
Select Committee appointed to examine the Reports and Accounts of the Nationalised Industries established by Statute whose controlling Boards are appointed by Ministers of the Crown and whose annual receipts are not wholly or
1122
mainly derived from moneys provided by Parliament or advanced from the Exchequer:
Mr. Austen Albu, Sir John Barlow, Mr. William Blyton, Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Mr. Alan Fitch, Mr. Arthur Holt, Sir Donald Kaberry, Colonel Lancaster, Sir Richard Nugent, Mr. John Peyton, Mr. Ernest Popplewell, Mr. Thomas Steele, and Dame Irene Ward:
Power to send for persons, papers and records:
Power to report from time to time:
Five to be the Quorum.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

GENOCIDE CONVENTION
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. E. Wakefield.]
10.27 p.m.
Sir Barnett Janner: I am raising the matter of the Convention on Genocide again because of the deep concern felt that a decision on this important problem should not continue to be deferred indefinitely.
The United Nations Association and a vast number of other organisations connected with the United Nations promoting the highest humanitarian ideals, including the Board of Deputies of British Jews, which is the representative body of British Jewry, are shocked that Her Majesty's Government have not yet acceded to the Convention. Well might they be, as the Convention is designed to crush the intentional destruction of national, racial or religious ethnic groups.
This crime of genocide was defined some years ago by Dr. Raphael Lemkin, the whole of whose family was exterminated by the Nazis in Nazi Germany, as one which was deliberately planned as a State policy and carried out with every resource of science and complete absence of humanity.
"Neither animals nor uneducated savages,"
said W. J. Dignaum, Australia's representative to the General Assembly in 1948,
"would deliberately plan with the fiendish and cold-blooded cruelty which accompanies modern examples of genocide. Hardened soldiers, accustomed to the callousness and brutalities of war, were overwhelmed when they witnessed for the first time the physical deterioration of some of those victims still living after this crime had been perpetrated against them."
"Genocide has been committed through the ages,"
said Begum Ikramullah of Pakistan at the Assembly session in 1948:
"While it has always shocked the conscience of mankind, nothing has been done to punish the crime. The discoveries of science have put such weapons in the hands of men that genocide today can be swift and terrible indeed. Therefore, such a convention became imperative and its acceptance should not be delayed."
1124
And I underline, "should not be delayed". It is, however, eleven years since, in reply to a Question by me, the Under-Secretary of State at that time said:
"The question is still under examination. No decision has yet been reached since there are a great many legal difficulties still to be solved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1950;Vol.472, c. 1545.]
When as recently as 23rd October, 1961, I asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he had yet decided to accede to the Convention he still could not give me an affirmative reply, and did not even indicate when a decision would be reached.
I am well aware that adherence to the Convention may require the introduction of legislation and that there are various problems involved, but these problems have not prevented 65 countries from ratifying or acceding to the Convention to date, as the Lord Privy Seal himself informed us on 23rd October last. More States have supported this Convention than any other United Nations convention. Among the States are several of our fellow members of the Commonwealth and many of our West European and Scandinavian friends with legal and democratic ideas similar to our own. If they have found it possible to come in, why are we holding back? Surely if the systems of law which prevail in those countries, particularly in the countries in our own Commonwealth, can be arranged in such a way as to enable the Convention to be accepted, there cannot be any reason at all why we should not do the same.
We have been told that the right of political system may be impinged upon. We have no wish to do such a thing. The intention is not to refuse asylum to genuine political or other refugees or to persons fleeing from genocide, but to take action against those responsible for genocide. It is not intended that our doors should be closed to victims of oppression, but to provide a means at last for international action to be taken against persons guilty of mass murder and oppression.
I know, of course, that the Lord Privy Seal and the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to this debate realise and understand the enormity of the crime with which we are dealing, but I point out to them that under existing laws a person

1125
against whom a prima facie case of guilt for certain crimes, some of them comparatively minor, can be established may be extradited. A man accused of one murder may be hunted by Interpol and police forces all over the world, but a person guilty of mass murder and genocide can go free. Is this logical? Is this justice? Of course it is not. This is a serious anomaly in our law which must be put right.
Reference has been made to the problem of Article VII of the Convention, which states:
"Genocide and the other acts enumerated in Article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition."
But it further states that
"The Contracting Parties pledge themselves in such cases to grant extradition in accordance with their laws and treaties in force."
Therefore, the granting of extradition is to be "in accordance with their laws and treaties in force" so that, in accordance with existing practice, with regard to requests for extradition, British courts would have the power in any instance to ensure that a proper case for extradition had been presented. Moreover, according to the Convention, persons charged with genocide are not necessarily to be tried in the territory in which the act was committed. Article VI provides for trial by such
"international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction with respect to those Contracting Parties which shall have accepted such jurisdiction."
Further, an additional safeguard was introduced, at the request of the British representatives themselves during the very lengthy and careful drafting procedure on the Convention, by the provision of Article IX, which states:
"Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application, or fulfilment for the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in Article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute."
Action against acts punishable under the Convention might in certain circumstances not entail extradition or trial by an international court but could and should be dealt with by the courts of this country.
The purpose of the Convention is not merely the negative one of punishing
1126
persons guilty of genocide but the positive one of deterring persons from attempting to carry out or incite to the commission of genocide. Article III includes among the punishable acts
"conspiracy to commit genocide; direct and public incitement to commit genocide".
It is the prevention of such horrible activities which is the main objective of the Convention.
We have been told that such activities are inconceivable in this country. Who thought that they were conceivable in Germany before the Hitlerite movement became all-powerful? Many people are forgetful or unaware of the enormities practised by the Hitler regime. They were so terrible and the number of innocent men, women and children so great that many decent persons are psychologically unable to appreciate their horror and subsequently repress all knowledge of them in an attempt to ignore dreadful realities.
It is paradoxical that it is often the most humane among us who are unable to understand the hatreds that can arise in abnormal persons and the great danger that in certain circumstances, as we have seen, that ordinary human beings can be infected with these obsessive hatreds by vile and scurrilous propaganda. We are justly proud of the right of freedom of speech in this country, but freedom has its attendant dangers. Under the existing law, a false statement vilifying not identifiable individuals but groups or classes of persons distinguishable by race, colour or creed, cannot form the subject of civil proceedings for libel or slander. And even if such statements amount to the crime of seditious libel they can be prosecuted in our courts only in the most flagrant cases.
I have seen journals and other publications circulating freely in this country today which advocate in terms similar to those of the Nazi gutter Press hatred of Jews and coloured persons. Some of them are published by Hungarians resident in this country—people to whom we gave asylum and for whom I, among very many others, made an appeal to the House and the country that they should be admitted—and are spread both here and abroad, the most noxious poison propaganda against a law-abiding section of British citizens.

1127
I maintain that such publications are public incitements to commit genocide, and as such, although not punishable under existing law, would be punishable under the Genocide Convention. One of these publications which I have seen goes as far as to advocate support for the blood libel which has been proved time after time to be false and a pernicious attack on Jewish people and utterly unjustified and scandalous. But under the law as it stands at present we are not in a position to do anything about it.
There is another point which I should like to make. Many of us are deeply offended by the granting of training facilities for German forces in this country. If it had been possible for me to be present at the time of the last debate on this I should certainly have stated my complete opposition to that, as the House is well aware. I later asked a Question in the House as to what could be done if one of the German officers happened to have been a Nazi and could be proved to have participated in crimes of this nature. I was told that we could not stop any of the German soldiers from being admitted.
At present we have no means of ensuring that among these forces there may not be individuals who were violent Nazis or members of the S.S. and who perpetrated the massacres of innocent human beings. Not having adhered to the Genocide Convention, we cannot take steps against such a member of the German forces in this country whose very presence here would be a danger and a defilement. That a very careful watch must be kept on possible dangers in Germany today is shown by the astonishing agreement just repotted— either today or yesterday—to have been reached by the two parts of the new German Government to improve the status of former Nazis and members of the S.S.
No one can say that the spirit which led to genocide is entirely dead in the country in which it took such a terrible form so recently when such a neo-Nazi policy can emerge. There are in various countries throughout the world, as the hon. Gentleman will undoubtedly know, people who are utilising moneys which have been taken from the victims in order
1128
to encourage the spreading of neo-Nazism and this racial hatred around the world.
I appeal once again that all steps be taken without further delay for the accession of Her Majesty's Government to this all-important Convention. It is not the difficulties of adherence but the advantages thereof which should be the deciding factor. As I have already indicated, these difficulties have been overcome by many of our Commonwealth, West European and Scandinavian friends. Almost eleven years have elapsed since the Convention came into force. A further year must not be allowed to pass by.
Our continued absence from among the supporters of the Convention is a cause of serious misinterpretation and disillusionment among those who look to this country to give moral leadership to the world. This year we are commemorating the centenary of that great Norwegian, Nansen, who achieved the impossible as an explorer and in the international succour of refugees. May I make this appeal to the Joint Under-Secretary of State? It would be a fitting gesture on the part of Her Majesty's Government to mark this centenary by action to prevent the human misery which Nansen abhorred through a measure which has been proved possible—accession to the Genocide Convention.
10.45 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): The hon. Member has raised this subject in the House, both in Questions and in debate, on many occasions. The depth of his feelings in this matter is not only wholly understandable to us but also appreciated by us. We certainly admire his persistence. Of course, we all view genocide with the greatest repugnance and horror. We accept the view that it constitutes an international crime of the most evil and odious character, and we are anxious to play our full part in its suppression.
The purpose of the Convention on Genocide is to outlaw genocide internationally. With that purpose we are in complete agreement. That is why we voted for the Convention in 1948. But when we did so, we had no illusions about the complicated problems that

1129
might face us if we acceded in full to the Convention—problems such as the difficulties which might arise regarding changes in our domestic law and our position on the long established and traditional right exercised by this country to grant political asylum to persons charged with political offences. We made our position clear on these things at the United Nations before we voted for the Convention.
All this is past history, but the difficulties we anticipated then were found to be real. When the hon. Member raised this subject on the Motion for the Adjournment as recently as 5th June, my predecessor, now the Minister of State, gave him an assurance that the whole question of whether or not the Government were able to resolve these difficulties and become a party to the Convention was being examined afresh. I would like to repeat that assurance, and to tell him that this is being done and that, although the difficulties are not easy to resolve, progress has been made.
I do not quarrel with the hon. Member when he says that it is a long time since the Convention was signed, but I am sure that he will agree that the important thing in the long run is to do what is right in this matter. We have every hope that a decision will soon be reached.
The hon. Member is a lawyer. He appreciates that these difficulties exist. He naturally feels that they should be overcome, and thinks that they can be overcome. I hope he is right. This is That we are examining.
During the debate on 5th June, he made the point that no question of international law should be raised if, in acceding to the Convention, we were to make a reservation which would safeguard the United Kingdom's position on the question of political asylum. With respect to him, this is not how we see the problem. I agree that the International Court of Justice, by a vote of seven to five, in 1951, advised that reservations can be made to the Convention provided they are compatible with its purpose. This, in theory, leaves it open to the Government to accede to the Convention with the type of reservation which I think he had in mind at the time. But making a reservation is not
1130
necessarily the last step in the story. An objection by another State to the reservation might result in the Convention not being in force between the United Kingdom and the objecting State.
We come back, therefore, to the kernel of the difficulty confronting us. How can we accede to the Convention without reservations and at the same time give effect to its broad provisions as part of the criminal law of this country without derogating from the traditional right to give asylum to political refugees seeking it here? This latter point is particularly important in connection with Article VII of the Convention, referred to by the hon. Member. The dilemma must be resolved before we can take a decision to become party to the Convention, because, as we have frequently said, the Government cannot undertake international obligations unless our law enables them to be honoured.
It may help to illustrate some of the difficulties which face us in framing the necessary legislation if I read out in full, as the hon. Gentleman did not, the definition of genocide in Article II of the Convention. It is defined as
"… any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b)Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c)Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e)Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

The hon. Member will appreciate that some at least of these crimes are defined with considerably less precision than is the practice in the definition of criminal offences in Acts of Parliament.
A further requirement in the Convention, which the hon. Member mentioned, is that its signatories are required by Article III to make punishable, not only genocide itself, but also conspiracy to commit genocide and complicity in genocide; and "complicity" is, of course, a very vague term in law. The difficulties in giving effect to such requirements as these in our criminal law are very real, and will be all too apparent to the House.

1131
Again, with specific reference to Article VII, to which the hon. Member referred, this presents a more serious question of principle in so far as it affects this country's right to grant asylum. Examples were given to the House by my hon. Friend in the previous debate on the subject on 5th June. A number of possible situations were postulated where the surrender of a fugitive on the ground of having committed genocide was demanded under the terms of the Convention, and where we might well take the view that the offence in question was political. We might, however, be obliged to comply with the request for extradition if a prima facie case of crime within the very wide terms of the Convention were made out.
It might, on one view of Article VII, be held that it would not be open to the courts, or the Home Secretary, to refuse extradition on the grounds that the offence was one of a political character, even if those demanding extradition did so for obvious political reasons. If this is the correct interpretation of the requirements of the Convention—and it is this aspect to which we are now giving careful study—the House will, I am sure, agree that we should exercise great care.
We should be chary of taking any step which might deprive an accused person of the right in any circumstances to claim the protection of the Extradition Acts against surrender for a political crime where he was charged with an offence coming within the very wide definition of genocide in the Convention. I need hardly add that there would, of course, be no question of granting asylum to anyone who committed genocide in the sense that we have come to know that crime as a result of the appalling deeds of the last war.
These are an indication of the complex issues to be resolved. Again, I will not join issue with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we seem to be taking a very long time to make up our minds. But this should not be construed as a mere process of procrastination. I can assure him, on the contrary, that we are doing our very best to reach a speedy conclusion.
Perhaps I may comment on one or two of the hon. Member's remarks about the effect of our acceding to the Convention.
1132
It has been urged that by our becoming a party we would change the situation in this country. I assure the House that, although genocide as such may not be punishable under our law, most of the offences dealt with in the Convention are already criminal offences under our criminal law and that it is in the power of the courts in this country to bring to trial and punish persons who may commit such offences.
I am sure that the hon. Member will accept that the difficulties which I have mentioned are not just mere quibbling. They are matters which cause deep concern and, for the reasons I have outlined, they compel us to take every care before coming to a decision. The hon. Member mentioned the many countries —some 65—who have become party to the Convention. We are urged that because of this it is time that the name of the United Kingdom was included. But I must emphasise that it is United Kingdom practice to ensure that, when becoming party to a convention, British law is brought into line with the provisions of the convention. I accept that the hon. Member has been very patient in this matter, but I ask him to be patient for a little longer.
I repeat that we are doing our best to press ahead on this matter. I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Member has presented his case this evening and I can assure him, as did my hon. Friend some weeks ago, that we have all the points he has so eloquently urged very much in mind. The House will be informed as soon as we reach a decision and, if that decision is that we should accede to the Convention, the necessary legislation will be brought in as soon as the legislative programme permits.
Sir B, Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to say that the Government will consult members of the Commonwealth who have acceded to the Convention and whose laws and outlooks are similar to our own? As a lawyer, I understand the position as he has presented it and I accept the difficulties, but I should have thought that they could have been resolved after eleven years.
On the question of extradition, there is an international court referred to which can try these matters without

1133
having to send a person back to his country after he has sought asylum here because of his political convictions.
Mr. Thomas: I am sorry, but there is no such international court. The hon. Gentleman will realise that setting up an international penal court is an extremely difficult exercise. Extreme difficulty has been found by those who have been attempting to do so. Until there is an international court, the ques-
1134
tion of asylum is extremely important. That is the situation at the moment. On the subject of consultation, I can assure the hon. Member that those who advise us at the Foreign Office will go into every possible matter in assessing the legal difficulties with which we are faced.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Eleven o'clock.

MINSTRY OF DEFENCY
  British Forces, Germany
  British Forces, Germany
SCOTLAND
  Belshill Maternity Hospital
  Belshill Maternity Hospital
  Glasgow Northern Hospitals (Rent Increases)
  Glasgow Northern Hospitals (Rent Increases)
  Senior Secondary Schools (University Entrance Certificates)
  Senior Secondary Schools (University Entrance Certificates)
  Valuation Appeal Committees
  Valuation Appeal Committees
  Cerebral Palsy and Spastic Disease
  Cerebral Palsy and Spastic Disease
  Road Schemes (Aberdeen)
  Road Schemes (Aberdeen)
  Fishing Industry
  Fishing Industry
ROADS
  One-Way Street Schemes, London
  One-Way Street Schemes, London
  Junction, Ilford (Accidents)
  Junction, Ilford (Accidents)
  Road Safety
  Road Safety
  Clayton Road, Neweastle-under-Lyme
  Clayton Road, Neweastle-under-Lyme
  40 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  40 m.p.h. Speed Limit
  A.207 (Accidents)
  A.207 (Accidents)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Highway and Traffic Engineers (Training Courses)
  Highway and Traffic Engineers (Training Courses)
SHIPPING
  Continental Shipyards (Minister's Visit)
  Continental Shipyards (Minister's Visit)
  Shipyards (Home Orders)
  Shipyards (Home Orders)
  Continental Coastal Trade
  Continental Coastal Trade
TRANSPORT
  Severn River Board (Transport Commission Contributions)
  Severn River Board (Transport Commission Contributions)
RAILWAYS
  Branch Lines, Scotland
  Branch Lines, Scotland
SOUTH VIETNAM
  United States Troops
  United States Troops
  Police Mission, Saigon
  Police Mission, Saigon
UNITED NATIONS
  Economics
  Economics
  Secretary-General (Appointment)
  Secretary-General (Appointment)
  Disarmament
  Disarmament
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  ANGOLA
  ANGOLA
  BERLIN
  BERLIN
  CONGO
  CONGO
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  SUDAN (EX-CIVIL SERVANTS)
  SUDAN (EX-CIVIL SERVANTS)
EMPLOYMENT
  Factory Inspectors
  Factory Inspectors
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Technical Scientific Register
  Technical Scientific Register
  Labour Attaches
  Labour Attaches
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
  Disabled Persons, Glasgow
  Disabled Persons, Glasgow
BRITISH ARMY
  British Army of the Rhine
  British Army of the Rhine
  Recruiting (Dependent Territories)
  Recruiting (Dependent Territories)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
  Aircrew
  Aircrew
  Short Take-off Aircraft
  Short Take-off Aircraft
  Cluntoe Airfield
  Cluntoe Airfield
SCIENCE
  Radioactivity
  Radioactivity
EDUCATION
  Commonwealth Education Conference
  Commonwealth Education Conference
NATIONAL FINANCE
  War Loan
  War Loan
  Export Incentives
  Export Incentives
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Rampton and Moss Side Hospital Patients
  Rampton and Moss Side Hospital Patients
HOSPITALS
  Rampton and Moss Side Hospital Patients
  Rampton and Moss Side Hospital Patients
HOUSING
  Building Rate
  Building Rate
  Land
  Land
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  South Downs
  South Downs
  Royal Commission on Local Government
  Royal Commission on Local Government
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Huddersfield Hospital Network (Charges)
  Huddersfield Hospital Network (Charges)
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling
  Subscriber Trunk Dialling
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  West Bromwich Office (Staff)
  West Bromwich Office (Staff)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Japanese Binoculars
  Japanese Binoculars

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely
The Lord McGowan—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK
Frederick Donald, Lord Archbishop of York—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES
2.40 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the improvements in workmen's compensation, and family and industrial injury allowances, as foreshadowed in the gracious Speech, will be matched by improvements in the Royal Warrants and other instruments governing war pensions and allowances, and whether this matter is under consideration.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, now that my noble friend has had the opportunity to study the Bill which the Minister of Pensions has just introduced in another place, he will see that the main changes proposed therein in respect of industrial injuries and workmen's compensation relate to matters which have no parallel in the War Pensions scheme. One or two small proposals follow, in respect of industrial injuries, existing features of the War Pensions scheme.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, nevertheless I can hardly believe that Her Majesty's Government would
346
introduce Bills which did not have in mind some improvement. May I ask that any such improvement be matched in the War Pensions field?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I think that is done. It is mainly the other way round—this Bill follows what has already been done in the War Pensions scheme; but there are one or two small matters of a minor nature which will be matched and which I am told can be done without any amendment to the Royal Warrant.

CUBA: SENTENCE ON MR. GEDDES
2.45 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to the Cuban Government concerning the sentence of thirty years' imprisonment recently passed on a British subject, Mr. Robert Morton Geddes.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, both the Foreign Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal have made representations to the Cuban authorities about the case of Mr. Geddes. Mr. Geddes was sentenced at a mass trial held on September 22 by a revolutionary tribunal. Of the group of seventy accused of activities described as endangering the security of the State, five were sentenced to death and shot before dawn, most of the remainder receiving 20 or 30 years' imprisonment. Similar revolutionary tribunals are operating daily in Cuba at the present time. They are, however, constituted according to Cuban law. Her Majesty's Government have not concealed from the Cuban Government their views on these proceedings.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, my information is that this is a young British businessman with an American wife who never played any part in politics. I should like to ask my noble friend three questions: first of all, whether Mr. Geddes had the benefit of independent legal advice of any kind; secondly, whether Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that within the type of

347
jurisprudence which we have come to understand exists in Cuba he had a fair trial; and thirdly, whether they will take steps to get some mitigation of this savage sentence. After all, 30 years is a long time in the life of a young man of 28.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, if I may answer the last question first, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has, I think, done all he can in the matter of making representations, and the Embassy also will, of course, continue to do all they can for his welfare so long as he remains in custody. With regard to the question of legal representation, he was given an independent defence counsel in the same way as the other prisoners. To what extent such advice is independent may, of course, be a matter of opinion. With regard to the trial, which was my noble friend's other question, I understand that the evidence consisted mainly of statements by the police that Mr. Geddes was guilty; but I think your Lordships are quite familiar with the difference between Communist justice and justice.

BRITISH PROPERTY IN CUBA
2.48 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the value of British agricultural and industrial properties, including oil installations and public utilities, taken over by the present Cuban Government, what compensation has been offered to the owners and how much has been paid.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the main British asset in Cuba is the United Kingdom interest, amounting to 40 per cent., in the Shell de Cuba Oil Company, which had invested 47 million dollars altogether in Cuba. The property of this company including its refinery has been "intervened", which means that the State takes over the administration of its affairs without expropriation. No compensation has been either offered or paid
348
for the consequent loss to the company. No other British industrial property has been taken over, but a chain of ironmongers' shops, valued at approximately £220,000, belonging to a British subject, has recently been expropriated. Three British-owned agricultural properties have been taken over under the Agrarian Reform Law. Representations have been made by Her Majesty's Embassy in all these cases and the restoration of the property has been demanded.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to press those representations with a view to the restoration of the property or to the payment of compensation. But I should like to ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government will not consult with the United States Government and the Canadian Government to concert some form of economic action in the face of the depredations of this neo-Communistic dictatorship which they now have in Cuba.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will certainly consider that.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, is the noble Earl not worried about this tendency of some countries, including small countries, to go in for confiscation without compensation? Can nothing be done in the United Nations to secure justice against small, as well as big, nations? And why are we going on buying enormous quantities of cigars and other imports from Cuba? Is it not time that we stopped our imports from Cuba, in view of the fact that they have stolen our people's property?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, following on the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will my noble friend look into the astronomical sums of money which British investors have lost in the last twenty years in many countries owing to this form of expropriation, while successive British Governments have taken no action to redress the situation, either by raising the question at the Uniter Nations or by taking action on their own? Will he look into the whole question?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my noble friend will, I am sure, give me particulars of any other cases which he has in mind. I do not think it would be quite fair to say that Her Majesty's Government have taken no action or made no effort to redress matters.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he can tell us how much of this oil is coming to Britain?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Not without notice, my Lords.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, as my noble friend has asked me to give him examples, I would ask whether he will consider the case of Abadan and a number of South American railways which have been expropriated and which belonged to British capital?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think any of us are likely to forget these things.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, must we not bear in mind that expropriation, however disagreeable in thought to us and in fact to those affected, is a matter of domestic law and action? It is not a matter of international law, I think, and therefore could hardly be a casus belli, and we should be cautious how we approach this matter. We might have to dig up a lot of history going back to the days before the First World War.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my noble friend is entirely right in saying that it is a domestic matter and therefore could not be a casus belli. On the other hand, it is, of course, morally unjust.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend convinced that this is quite outside the province of international law?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I did not say it was outside international law; I said it was a domestic matter which might impinge on international law. But I think that my noble friend Lord Fraser of Lonsdale was correct in saying that it was not a casus belli.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.53 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement at some suitable moment after 3.30 on the proposed visit of Her Majesty The Queen to Ghana.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Craigton, who is absent in Scotland on Government business, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to make provision in Scotland for the grant by licensing courts of new forms of certificate for the sale by retail of exciseable liquor; to amend the law in Scotland regarding the sale and supply of exciseable liquor and regarding licensed premises and clubs; to prescribe the hours during which premises in Scotland licensed for the sale and supply of exciseable liquor for consumption off the premises may remain open for the serving of customers with such liquor; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

RIVAL IDEOLOGIES
2.55 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD LORD BIRDWOOD rose to move to resolve, That this House notes with concern the division of great areas of the world by rival ideologies. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should perhaps begin by assuring your Lordships that I do not intend to press this Resolution to the point of asking the House to divide on it—that is, of course, subject to the approval of the House. I think it would be useful if I stated immediately the purpose I had in mind in raising this debate this afternoon. I hope your Lordships will agree that the tremendous burden of armaments which we have to endure today is the result, and not the cause, of our differences with the Soviet Union.

351
It is quite true that armaments, once they are built up, in themselves create tension: but in this vicious circle of cause and effect chasing each other around, trace the story back to its source and one encounters always a fundamental divergence both of principle and of system as between ourselves and the Communists, which may be said to have given rise to this whole dilemma of weapons and missiles, with all their fears and their frustrations.
If I may put the matter in another way, we in the West and our adversaries in the East could take all our weapons and our bombs far out to sea and drop them to the bottom of the deepest ocean, but we should not have removed the chance of war. Most certainly we should have postponed the evil day—and, if we could follow that up with on-site international inspection and control of manufacture, it might be said that we could enjoy some years of physical peace with physical security. But so long as the ideological issue remained unresolved, as I see it, one by one the tensions would return; with them would come the armaments, and one day, perhaps, even though it may start with only sticks and stones, we should be back at the point from which we started.
I have sometimes wondered whether, at any of the international conferences, Summit or otherwise, any Western leader has ever thought of leaning across the table and saying to his opposite number, "You know, the trouble really all begins from the fact that you are Communists and we are not. And so where do we go from here?" It is with the purpose of, perhaps, having some idea of the answer to that question that I thought it would be useful to have this debate this afternoon. In doing so I believe that we shall come up against certain harsh and very challenging facts of international life which, in my view, are not too well understood.
Before I come to the heart of the problem I want to make certain points quite clear. First of all, I would ask your Lordships to accept that this is no witch-hunt. I am one who believed that McCarthyism, in so far as the defence of the Free World was concerned, was a disaster. I look upon myself as an eclectic in international affairs—that is, choosing the best and discarding the
352
worst from all systems. That is how I believe progress is achieved. Secondly, I would stress that this is no attack upon Her Majesty's Government. It is out in the countryside, as I see it, that these matters are not as clearly understood as they should be. Nor am I saying that everything inside a Communist country is wrong, or that some of the results in themselves are not enviable. Indeed, so far as the standard of material life in Soviet Russia is concerned, I accept that it is bound to rise to those promised heights of washing machines and paid holidays that Mr. Khrushchev presented to the Twenty-second Communist Congress meeting in Moscow about a fortnight ago. After all, if unlimited power is placed in the hands of a few very efficient men (and those men most certainly would not hold down their jobs unless they were efficient) the surprise, to my mind, would be if it were otherwise. As I see it, organised materialism is just as able to succeed as materialism under a loose kind of laissez-faire system.
Next, I think I should say something about any qualification I may have for initiating this debate. I have not been to Soviet Russia, and I doubt now if I ever shall go. So far as the Russian as an individual is concerned, I accept completely that he is a warmhearted, generous, simple and sincere individual, perhaps more so than most. That being so, I would insist that it is not the individual that we have to face, but the system by which he is controlled. Although I have not been to Soviet Russia, I have had one experience that perhaps has been more useful: I have been to a Communist country and stayed there and travelled around with a party of 250 British Communists. That gave me an insight into the Communist method and the Communist purpose which I personally can never forget.
The last point I want to make is to meet immediately the argument that we should put our own house in order before we attempt to throw stones at others. If we were really to wait for Utopia in Britain we should have to wait a very song time indeed. The whole of my argument is based on the assumption that we cannot afford to wait for that time. It would be fatal to underestimate the seriousness of our own position. Nobody

353
can view the situation to-day with complacency. There is crime, juvenile delinquency, hooliganism, prostitution off the streets but in the basements; the use and misuse of wealth, as witness the racket that goes on in property speculation alongside the news of 3,000 people homeless in London; moral neutrality, which I am told is preached as a matter of policy in some of the schools; and always the urge to grab for what one can get out of the system, without any desire to put anything back, which of course means to neglect completely the welfare of the country.
But always I see one hope, which is that under freedom there are always sufficient people around who recognise these conditions. Unlike the Communists, who are quite incapable of admitting any penalties whatsoever in their system, we can still count on a conscience where our own frailties are concerned. In a national emergency we can, and do, rise to the occasion. The trouble is that very few people would recognise our present situation as an emergency; and it is my belief that until we do so we shall remain in grave danger. I will return to deal with this a little more before I finish.
Meanwhile I should like to come a little closer to the problem as posed by our rival ideologies. I do not want to inflict on the House a homily on Communism, but I must remind your Lordships of the bare bones of a creed which is as deeply rooted in the minds of its high priests as are any of those beliefs which are sometimes expressed in your Lordships' House, shall we say, when we debate the affairs of the Church. As I understand it, Marx held that all social evolution was a matter of exact science. Dialectical materialism insists that there is a foolproof scientific explanation of history; that human relationships are governed by certain immutable laws which ensure that the human race moves through predictable stages inevitably to International Communism. But this does not mean that the Communist can sit back and allow history to do the job for him. On the contrary, the more he is convinced of final victory, the more urgent is it for him to hasten the process. The case I present is based on the assumption that the writ of Marx still runs.
To those who believe that these principles are no longer valid I confess I
354
have nothing further to say, except that all the evidence of modern Communist leadership to-day is against them. But for those who would agree that these principles remain unchanged, then the practical interpretation of Marx is simple. It means that when Mr. Khrushchev slips into his speeches, as he so frequently does, those asides about the inevitability of a Communist victory without a war, then we must know that everywhere the whole great machine, whether the components are political or economic, or, alas! even cultural, is geared and directed with a deadly sense of long-term planning towards the attainment of that one end.
If, therefore, one accepts that this grand design to absorb us is in fact a reality and not a myth, the question which one may well ask is this: what is the meaning of the term "peaceful co-existence?" The Communists have provided us very clearly with the answer. It is set out with clarity in a document which is now over a year old but one to which we should, in my belief, return over and over again: the Declaration of the Eighty-One Communist Parties meeting in Moscow last November. I should like to quote briefly from page nineteen. We should remember that in this language, of course, the terms "Socialism" and "Communism" are, for their own good purposes, interchangeable. It states:
"Peaceful co-existence of States does not imply renunciation of the class struggle … the co-existence of States with different social systems is a form of class struggle between socialism and capitalism".
And the theme is rammed home:
"Peaceful co-existence of countries with different social systems does not mean conciliation of the socialist and bourgeois ideologies. On the contrary, it implies the intensification of the struggle of the working class, of all communist parties, for the triumph of socialist ideas."
Once again, surely, the interpretation is quite simple. When we speak of peaceful co-existence, we mean exactly what we say, no more and no less. But when the Communist speaks of peaceful co-existence he in fact means the cold war; and it is exactly that same cold war of which he 'accuses us when we make any move to resist our whole social system and our way of life being brought down and undermined. These, my Lords, are the harsh facts of which I spoke at the

355
beginning, and I think the next time we are asked to raise our glasses, as we shall be, and drink a toast to peaceful co-existence, we might recall these facts.
My Lords, I want to follow this analysis only one stage further, and turn from the goal to the method of its achievement. With Marx it was quite clear that there was to be no nonsense about ethics. Movements of normal social Christian content were just to be neither tolerated nor trusted. The whole matter was to be treated as one of cold political science. So long as the means of production are in the hands of the few, nothing can happen. But equal distribution of wealth, which is the reward of production, can come about only if the means of production are held in common ownership. The capitalist stands in the way, and he must therefore be removed. But since the capitalist in one country works in with the capitalist in another country, the only way to overcome that great trade union of capitalism is by workers everywhere uniting across frontiers. Workers of the world unite! Many of your Lordships will have known these formulæ off by heart.
The fact is that we do not realise the inner meaning of all this in so far as our own rights are daily affected. It meant, for example, about six months ago that just that one man with only a few comrades at his elbow was able to lose us £10 million worth of goods overnight in the Port of London. It means, if I read my paper aright, that again one man can threaten to bring the wheels of industry to a standstill by calling off the men in the great nationalised power industry. And he would be a bold man who would say that the Communist hand was not behind the trouble recently in the great Rootes industry.
It was left to Lenin to demonstrate that if Marxism was not only to survive but to spread its wings it could be only through the establishment of a hard core of dedicated disciples prepared to hack their way to power as a minority. Others have borrowed the technique of the minority, Hitler among them. But it has been the Communist who has been his own best advocate: Czechoslovakia in 1948, Hungary in 1945 and again in 1956, and East Germany in 1949; and each time it is a minority that wins through.
Once this great pattern of moulding and controlling 'history is understood, then so many of the day-to-day facets of the international scene fit into their allotted place, such as the attempt to condition the world into the acceptance of the Troika technique, whether it be at the United Nations or anywhere else, the exploding of a 50-megaton bomb, the existence and recognition of Eastern Germany, that is to say two Germanies, with the implication—and this is the important point—of complete parity as between the freely elected government of 55 million people and the imposed government of some 17 million people. People Who have been used to winning power from a minority are not going to be very worried by a position of parity in this country, where we see such moves as fomenting protests at the training of German troops on British soil, their association with the nuclear disarmament campaign and, above all, as I see it, the penetration of British industry.
Some of the international situations may present a facade of sweet reason, appealing to our sense of justice. We are tempted in the name of relaxing tension to yield a point here and a point there; we are tempted to accept what is called the logic of facts. This has been described as the "salame sausage process": one by one the slices of the sausage are asked for and yielded, and suddenly one wakes up one day to discover that the whole sausage has disappeared. I would beg that no situation, national or international, ever be judged in isolation as the slice of the sausage. Whether it be the case of the Communist secretary-general of the Miners' Union, demanding that the presence of foreign missile bases in this country be discussed at the meeting of the T.U.C. Council, or whether it be the Soviet delegation away in New York accusing us of sabotaging peaceful coexistence because we want to see items such as Hungary and Tibet on the Agenda, let our leaders know, and behind them let the people know, that these are all but variations on the same theme.
Perhaps this is the moment to take note of where the private trader stands in all this. Here I admit that I am up against

357
the official policy of Her Majesty's Government, and, indeed, I find myself in disagreement with many good friends both in and out of Parliament. I am not saying it is a sin to trade behind the Iron Curtain. For example, I feel that the more trade we can achieve with Poland, the better. But if it is accepted that the Communist knows no frontiers, then I ask: where is the sense in building up your trade at the delivery end of the pipeline with Communist countries when all the time there are men who derive their inspiration from Moscow sabotaging production inside your factory?
Let us have this quite clear in our minds. The trader does not trade for the good of the soul of the man on the other side. He trades for his profit; and if 'his profit was not there he would not trade. This is a perfectly normal concept of trade within a system of free enterprise, but on the other side they do not trade within a system of free enterprise. For them all trade is subjected to the political object and has its allotted rôle in the plan. The trouble is that it seems quite impossible for the Western trader, brought up traditionally to regard trade as a perfectly normal professional matter for making a living, to recognise his negotiations with the Office on the other side as other than the normal negotiation of his daily experience. Frankly, I have been rather dismayed by the manner in which men in authority concerned with trade behind the Iron Curtain write off the political and ideological implications of their negotiations just as if they did not exist.
But apart from the morality of the matter, there are, as I see it, perfectly good practical considerations. The Russians are very good imitators. It is not difficult to place a few popular small contracts even for a prototype machine, thereby for £15,000 buying about £200 million worth of knowledge. It is not difficult to place contracts in France, Germany and Great Britain for cars with diesel engines, pick out the best features of each, and then in a year or so, from Czechoslovakia or Russia, undersell us in our own traditional markets wherever they may be in the world with data which we ourselves have conveniently supplied. When one recalls that in the Soviet Union labour
358
can be pushed around like so many million pawns on a vast chess board, with never the fear of a strike or of questions from a public which is unaware of the sacrifice which it has to make, it will be seen that penetrating a Western market is not difficult to achieve. I would assume that this is what is meant by the term "the economic war". It seems to me odd that many of those who fully recognise the validity of the term are going out of their way to strengthen the hands of those who regard us finally as their economic target.
I would make one qualification—namely, that if it be true that the Russians are to-day becoming aware of quality in contrast to quantity, and are becoming aware of the value of consumer goods, then I can see a mutual advantage in the trade exchanged in an expanding Communist consumer goods market. Here, to me, the governing factor would seem to be whether the Russian ever knows the origin of the goods he receives. Does he know now, for example, that much of the equipment for the new Congress Hall in the Kremlin was supplied by West European firms? If he does not know where the goods come from, it is obvious he will attribute everything received to the benevolence of the system. It is for such reasons that I do not accept the view that merely through the abounding good will and understanding which flow from trade somehow or other the leopard changes his spots.
My Lords, may I now say one word of my own impressions about the balance sheet of all this? On the Communist side we see an abhorrence of something they call "the cult of personality", even though in the same breath the present inflation of Mr. Khrushchev would seem to be just that. We see a rigid classless equality imposed on all men which permits of no qualification, the State claiming to possess the individual and the fruit of his labour. Elections to test the will of the people are withheld until it is quite certain that they will accept the system in all its aspects 100 to nil. All the resolutions passed a fortnight ago at Moscow were passed unanimously. Politics impinge on the life of the people as a matter of course. Finally, my Lords, we see an explanation of the universe and its meaning

359
sought in terms of man on earth and the degree to which he can master and control his environment, a process which knows no end to man's material and scientific achievements. Human sacrifice is as nothing when weighed against the fruits of collective planned endeavour.
Then, in complete contrast, in this world we know I think we see the free citizen rather enjoying the cult of the individual, believing that the individual should only surrender and the State only demand sufficient of his personal liberty as is necessary for the conduct of public affairs. Where exactly do we stand on equality? Frankly, I do not quite know the answer. Equality of opportunity?—yes, most certainly. But I state only my own view when I maintain that the attempt to keep up an imposed equality is retrogressive rather than progressive. I believe that the late Lord Acton spent many years writing a book on equality, which was never finished, and he came to the conclusion that complete equality and complete liberty were incompatible.
But to complete this balance sheet, of course we accept the test of the will of the people exercised through elections. We accept the verdict of 51 over 49. Paradoxically, I believe we judge the success of a political system by the degree to which it does not impinge upon our lives. Finally, in some vague conviction, we seek an explanation of the universe in terms which have nothing whatever to do with man or the exaltation of man, but which derives from something which we call God and which cannot now, and perhaps never will, be explained in terms of man's own will and man's power. I believe that we can trace this refusal of a mysterious or spiritual unknown by the Communists, with its equal emphasis on the omnipotence of man, in all that they say and do, certainly in transacting their own business. When one notices the appalling mess and confusion adult men can get themselves into, and the only remedy appears to be to round on the aged Voroshilov or Molotov, it is explained when suddenly one realises that finally these epople can only look inwards at themselves.
Further than that, on the Communist side of the balance sheet, when travelling around in a Communist country I noticed certain features of life which I envied.
360
I noticed an exemplary attitude towards public duty, a high civic sense, apparently no prostitution on the streets, and no litter on the streets either. But always one was confronted with the terrible price to pay. In Russia itself I would say that these conditions are accepted because people have been so conditioned as to be unconscious of the price. In any case, what happens inside Soviet Russia I believe to be now entirely their own affair and no one is going to deny them their promised Utopia in terms of material welfare. But I think that in the satellites it is quite different. In the satellites, they are still aware of the penalty. If your Lordships can imagine the cold fear which descends on the innocent citizen when quite suddenly in a crowd he realises that, unless he does not shout the slogans of either abuse or applause when all the others do, he and his family are marked men, then your Lordships can have some idea of the nature of that price.
Many thousands have found that price too high to pay and, evading the policeman's knock, have found their way over to the West in the belief that they will discover a brave new world. As I have said, some of them have tasted disillusion. But because of that disillusion and because of our own failures, never let us abandon the faith that we over here have something to offer which is unobtainable on the other side. Some of your Lordships may remember that there is a moment towards the end of Ionesco's play Rhinoceros, when Daisy, the little friend of Berenger, the clerk, suddenly realises that she has to give up mental struggle and allow herself to be turned, with all the others, into one more roaring rhinoceros. She turns to Berenger and says:
"We must move with the times, mustn't we?"
There is infinite meaning in those words. We, as I see it, are in danger of just moving with the times. Whether it be in consideration of our own condition or whether it be a failure to recognise the enemy in our midst, too many of us seem to have become mere acceptors.
In this context, I was told once that I should be unpopular if I mentioned inside this House the movement known as Moral Rearmament. I think that your Lordships will agree that it will

361
be a sad day when we say things only because we think that they are going to be popular in this House, and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, in so far as Moral Rearmament moves against the times and holds that it is not sufficient merely to fight Communism but that Communism has to be answered by the presentation of something nobler and bigger, they are entirely right. They, and with them the others in the social services, the W.V.S. and the Salvation Army, in my belief, all deserve both our gratitude and our respect, because they are fighting this battle on a different dimension from that of our normal experience.
Yet to fight Communism at all, we have first to be convinced that it is there. We must know and recognise its nature. I ask: is there that recognition? Is 'there not too much of what has been described as "smug anti-anti-Communism"? Sometimes it seems hardly respectable to display indignation. We have to be roused by the dropping of a 50-megaton bomb. I am told that no large employer of labour to-day dare declare himself as anti-Communist. If that is true it seems to me that we have reached a fairly low ebb in our affairs. It may be that democracy moves in cycles and we have to tighten or relax controls over our own freedom according to the curve of the graph. This I hope was in the Prime Minister's mind when about six months ago, in reference to the Blake case, he said:
"We have this freedom which we are determined to defend and we have to see whether in its defence we shall have to make greater sacrifices of traditional concepts."
Certainly there is need for those sacrifices if we are to achieve real unity, whether it be national or international, with our Allies. The ability to disagree, in which as democrats we take pride, is not admired by our enemies. Indeed, when they see anti-American or anti-German articles in the Press, they merely regard us as convenient fools, because we are throwing away the one concept of which they are afraid—namely, a unity of purpose which must be as much moral as it is material.
For myself, if I were told that, as a start towards the Prime Minister's "sacrifices of traditional concepts", we were forming a national Coalition Government to-morrow, I could only welcome the decision. Less than that, I
362
would ask Her 'Majesty's Government: are they really satisfied that they know the methods of the Communists in this country? Do they really know what goes on in the docks and in the motor industry? Because, if they do, I am quite certain that the public do not and I feel that the public should know. Are they satisfied that they have sufficient legislative powers? Is there not scope for some form of inquiry into all this, with wide terms of reference and recommendation? I confess that I do not know what form it might take. I only feel that this is a question which must be asked on this occasion.
I have drawn attention to our own drifting condition, and I have made my views of an alien system clear. This double approach permits me finally to present my own view of the future. It is not realistic to speak of a way out. There is no short cut in this problem, but I think one can suggest the pursuit of an idea which at least leads down the right road. I am taking the case of Eastern Europe merely as an illustration, because what happens in Eastern Europe could also apply elsewhere. In Eastern Europe we do not seek the reinstatement necessarily of former régimes; we seek only the right of men and women to choose the Government under which they shall live.
But long before we reach that point there is one condition which must apply and, indeed, without which no choice for Eastern Europe could ever be free. I am referring to the removal of the physical barrier between East and West. The noble Earl, Lord Avon, in this House recently, spoke of the "cruel wall" in Berlin. That wall extends thousands of miles north to the Baltic and south to the Black Sea, effectively putting about 100 million people into a vast human cage. I sometimes wonder whether those individuals who, on their lawful occasions, fly high over it, with abounding admirable good will for Moscow or Prague in their hearts and official patronage to ease the way, ever give that barrier a thought as they pass over it, still less reflect on. what it represents. For it is the symbol, not only of the separation of man from man, not only of the imprisonment of the mind by refusing it access to another world, but of sheer primitive cruelty such as, for example, would prevent two lovers from marrying each other,

363
except, of course, on terms of political surrender.
I would ask that, in framing future policy, always in the background there should be the search for the mere freedom of men and women and ideas, for news and newspapers to cross frontiers; for this, I believe, is the key one day to a reconciliation of two rival systems. This will require immense patience. It will also demand that, in all international negotiation, the existence of this barrier in all its forms be brought far more into prominence, with the technique of hard bargaining and reciprocity in conference, and outside conference a far more positive kind of publicity. To-day we recognise a thing called "organised international opinion" as a force, whether it be at the United Nations or anywhere else; and in so far as presenting the world with the visible evidence of this particular crime which has been with us for fifteen years, we have really done nothing. Few African countries and few Asian countries are yet aware of its existence. Coming nearer home, those who so admirably demonstrate sincerity in the name of self-preservation about bombs which have not yet dropped, seem to be devoid of a conscience where physical suffering on Europe's doorstep is concerned.
In pursuit of this goal of mere freedom of men to move, do not let us ever abandon an attitude or a policy merely because it appears at the moment unattainable. If we really want a just end to this particular corner of history and are prepared to work for it, one day it is my conviction that it will come. The search for a relaxation of tension in itself is not a goal; still less is peaceful co-existence according to the Soviet formula. The peace we are seeking is the peace which has been described as "the peace which passeth understanding." It would be far better to live on in a tension that can be endured than to slip down smooth slopes of political expediency, and find that with the disappearance of tension the will to win the only true peace had disappeared with it. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That this House notes with concern the division of great areas of the world by rival ideologies.—(Lord Birdwood.)

THE QUEEN'S VISIT TO GHANA
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat to your Lordships a statement which is now being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the House of Commons. The statement is as follows:
"I told the House on Monday that I thought it right that my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary should pay a second visit to Ghana. This he has done and he returned to this country this morning. My colleagues and I have now had from him a full appreciation of the position based on his personal inquiries on the spot.
"As I told the House on Monday, Her Majesty's safety is and must be our first consideration. Of course, no Royal tour is without risk. Her Majesty knows this as well as any Member of the House. She has never been deterred in undertaking previous tours because of the personal risk to herself which is inevitable, especially when great crowds are assembled. Happily she has come triumphantly through these trials with the enhanced affection and admiration of all. After considering carefully and anxiously all the information before us, collected and assessed by those best qualified to do so, the Government have reached the conclusion that the degree of risk attaching to this tour is no greater than that which has been present in many of her previous journeys.
"There are those who will ask how this conclusion can be reconciled with the explosions which have taken place in Accra during the last few days. That was one of the questions which was in the forefront of my mind when I decided that it would be right for my right honourable friend to visit Ghana again. He has given us his first-hand assessment of the significance of these incidents. While he was in Accra he took the opportunity to tour the Royal route in company with President Nkrumah and he saw for himself the unmistakable friendliness of the crowds. We have also had

365
throughout, as I have said, the expert advice, based on thorough investigation on the spot, of those in this country best qualified to do this sort of work. We have had the ready cooperation of the Ghanaian authorities.
"I can assure the House that on the information and advice available to them the Government have formed the view that these explosions do not indicate any intention by those concerned to perpetrate acts of violence during the Queen's visit which would endanger Her Majesty's safety. We have, therefore, no reason to fear that this journey will involve any special and additional risk to Her Majesty's safety.
"On the other hand, there can be no doubt the cancellation of this visit, so long promised and so eagerly awaited by the people of Ghana, would seriously impair the invaluable contribution made by Her Majesty's journeys towards the strengthening of the ties which bind together the many peoples of the Commonwealth.
"Her Majesty's Government have therefore advised the Queen that she should proceed with her visit to Ghana. We are, of course, at once informing other Commonwealth Governments, with whom we have been in touch throughout.
"May I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whole House, send Her Majesty our warmest good wishes for the success of her West African tour and a safe return."
In concluding the statement, I feel sure that your Lordships would wish me to re-echo this wish on my own behalf and on behalf of this House.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving to us this afternoon the statement on this very important matter. Of course, we as an Opposition recognise that on such an occasion the Government's decision depends entirely on the knowledge which is available to them and the manner in which they have examined the facts in detail, and we accept the decision in that sense. It is clear, not only from one of the paragraphs in the statement but from our long experience, that a visit of the Head of the
366
Commonwealth, such as this, is always one of very great advantage to the individual country of the Commonwealth and to the Commonwealth as a whole; and we are very grateful for the effects which have been created by visits in the past. Therefore I do not wish to say any more except that we associate ourselves wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed in the last paragraph of the statement, in which the noble Viscount has asked this House to agree—and we certainly do agree—to sending those wishes to Her Majesty.
LORD REA: My Lords, as it is perfectly obvious that we are not going to take any steps to decide whether this tour should go on or not, I will only add to what has already been said that in every quarter we wish this trip the very best success. We are sure the Government have taken every step to see that all possible precautions have been taken. We wish Her Majesty great success on this tour and a safe return.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, might I ask the noble Viscount, the leader of the House, without, of course, in any way disassociating myself from what has been said, whether there will be an opportunity—no doubt it would be for the Leader of the Opposition to seek it—to discuss at some future date, well after Her Majesty has made what I hope will be her safe return, certain constitutional issues, some of them of a novel character, which obviously arise from this visit and to which it would be most improper to refer on this occasion? I will instance only this point: that I understand Her Majesty is going to visit not only Ghana but also Liberia, which is outside the Commonwealth. The question arises whether, if an invitation were sent to Her Majesty from one of the Iron Curtain countries, or even Russia herself, Her Majesty's Government would accept it on her behalf. It raises very important questions and I think we should debate it at some future time.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, obviously I would not seek to prevent noble Lords from putting down for debate any subject which might interest them, but I must say that, by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, Her Majesty is at liberty to pay State visits

367
outside the Commonwealth and she has done so in recent times. I cannot conceive that her visit to Liberia would be a political precedent for a visit to a country behind the Iron Curtain, although that matter could be considered when it arose.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, my name, or at least my Office, was referred to by the noble Earl, so perhaps I might say to him that I should like to consider the question very carefully before putting any such Motion on the Paper within a reasonable time from now. I think the one thing with which we are associated together, completely and unanimously, this afternoon, is on sending our good wishes to Her Majesty.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I add to what my noble friend and Leader has said how glad I am that the Government have been able to advise Her Majesty to go to Ghana, because I know the decision will give immense satisfaction to the people of Ghana. I should like to assure your Lordships that Her Majesty will receive the most warmhearted welcome any visitor has ever received.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, perhaps I ought to say this, and I hope I am right in doing so. Of course the Queen, as a Constitutional Monarch, takes the advice of Her Ministers, but I should like to say—and I accept full responsibility as a member of the Government for the advice which has been given and which has been taken—that Her Majesty will be very glad to go.

RIVAL IDEOLOGIES
Debate resumed.
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, this is not the kind of subject which any of us, even the Minister who I am so glad has received a new honour in recent times, or the former Foreign Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, or any other speaker, can discuss fully in the course of a speech, be it short or long; but certainly no one is better qualified by years of study and dedication to deal with these great issues than the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood,
368
and he has placed us in his debt by raising the subject and by his contribution to it. I do not want to enter into controversy with him on any point, and I certainly do not on his reference to moral rearmament, as we know the sincerity of the noble Lord's feelings on matters of this kind; indeed, we know the sincerity of the Moral Rearmament people, though I myself, like most other noble Lords, owe religious allegiance in different quarters.
I feel that this afternoon we should try to avoid internal controversy, but there was just one point where I may have misunderstood the noble Lord, and, if so, he must correct me. He said somewhere near the end of his speech that he regarded any attempt to maintain a certain degree of equality as retrogressive. What he may have meant by that I am not sure. I do not know whether he was talking about dictatorships only, but certainly we must make it plain that on this side of the House we take great pride in having been, I suppose, the main instrument of the much greater measure of equality that now exists in this country than existed hitherto; and I should like to say that we do not think that that process is completed yet.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for allowing me to intervene. All I meant really was this: that the attempt to impose and maintain equality seems to me to deprive a man who has a contribution to make to the life of his country and who would advance over the heads of those around him of that opportunity; and it deprives him of the opportunity of handing on the fruits of his own experience for the benefit of those who are left behind.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I do not propose to pursue that line of controversy this afternoon, except to repeat that the Labour Party believes that there ought to be much more equality in the country than there is at the present moment.
This is not, as I see it, just another debate on foreign affairs, valuable though those debates are. So far as our immediate foreign policy is concerned—I mean our policy for dealing with the crisis that hangs over us—I can only reaffirm the support we have

369
offered a good many times from this Bench for the general lines which are being followed by Her Majesty's Government, although we may differ on particular points of procedure and of negotiation. On that plane of argument, the overriding duty of the Western nations is clearly to band themselves together against the military threat of Soviet Communism. We are all seeking—I believe the Government are seeking, as we are—to make the United Nations a far more effective instrument than hitherto. I must add that some of us, at any rate, believe that the Government could exert themselves much more urgently than they have shown any signs of doing, towards the construction of an international police force and towards a movement for the formation of world government; but those matters are more readily dealt with in a general debate on foreign affairs, and I refer to them only in case there should be some misunderstanding.
But I wonder what can be added in the terms of this special Motion to-day. An objection is often raised against the vision of world government. It is often said, and there is some force in this, that the Communists will sabotage any progress towards it, so that it is rather a waste of time discussing it. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, has just said, they might dominate it. I do not accept that as an insuperable difficulty, but I agree that the chance of obtaining world government and making it a democratic affair would be greatly increased if we, in the West, could discover a modicum of goodwill in Russia and China towards ourselves. I take leave to neglect the vast question of China, except to say in passing, as has been said so often before, that while the Chinese Government have behaved abominably in many directions in recent times, we ourselves are seriously at fault in so far as we are not securing their entry into the United Nations. That is said simply in passing.
I am primarily concerned with this central question which comes into our minds, which must come into the minds of all of us after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood. He dealt with it, but each of us, no doubt, has his own additional thoughts. The noble Lord said that the rival ideologies at the
370
present time seem unable to find a meeting point; and that is indubitably true. I proceed to ask whether any meeting point is conceivable even in theory. I do not mean a meeting point of unhappy and antagonistic collaboration, but a meeting point of sympathy and good will. Or is this whole idea of a meeting point between ourselves and the Communists just an illusion? Certainly if it were just an illusion it would be, a very dangerous one.
I ask therefore what is there, if there is anything, intrinsically at the root of the Soviet philosophy which separates it from ourselves. I dismiss the idea that the main trouble, or the most fundamental trouble, is Russian nationalism or Russian imperialism. I do not dispute for a moment the presence of those factors in the Communist impulse and the threat they represent to the world. But in the first place I deny, as I think perhaps would most Members of the House—certainly all those on these Benches—that the Russians as a people are worse than anybody else. I deny that the Russians are worse than the Germans or the Chinese or the British, or the Irish for that matter, or anybody at all. So, I deny that the Russians are worse than anybody else as a people. And in the second place, if this Russian nationalism or Russian imperialism were all that world Communism amounted to, it is true it might with the help of the Red Army hold down Eastern Europe, but it could not have infected a vast country like China and it could hold out few if any attractions to the people of Africa and Asia generally.
It may be said that the ineluctable clash is between the Communist dictatorship and British and Western democracy, and certainly a great contrast is presented there. If it were not for this dictatorship, if we could imagine their turning into a democracy to-morrow, the threat of annihilating war might be diminished. But while dictatorship may be felt to be of the essence of Communism as we know it, in the sense that Communism depends on dictatorship for its continuance and for some of its material achievements, nevertheless those who are attracted to Communism are not attracted primarily by the dictatorship any more than they are by the fact of Russian nationalism or imperialism. I

371
am talking primarily there of the people outside Russia. Those who are attracted to Communism regard the dictatorship as the price which may have to be paid, but it is certainly not the ideal for which they make these sacrifices.
For the ideal they look to Karl Marx, and whatever methods can be attributed to Marx (and I shall have something to say about his methods, agreeing very largely with what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood) it must be admitted that dictatorship was far from being the ultimate vision of Karl Marx. Marx and Engels looked forward to a state of affairs in which the State was going to wither away and to a State in which each would contribute according to his ability and receive according to his needs. So that the Marxist ideal or vision certainly could not be said to be that of dictatorship.
I submit, therefore, that if we are trying to find out how far our ultimate ideals can be squared with those of the Communists, neither their Russian nationalism nor their present dictatorship presents insuperable barriers, though of course those two things are a terrible threat to world peace at the moment. Is it, then—and here I broach a more delicate topic—their atheism as against our Christianity which creates an unbridgeable gulf. I am prepared to argue, and I suppose most Christians would, that a State which not only rejects belief in God but positively denounces religion, and not infrequently persecutes it, a State which is not only atheist but anti-God, is bound to bear evil fruits, and if it is huge and strong like Russia it is certain to constitute a terrible danger to the world apart from an affliction to its own people.
We, on the other hand, are a Christian country, at any rate in our official beliefs. The vast majority of people in this country would, if asked, describe themselves as Christians. I myself could apply only that test. If one is to find out whether somebody is a Christian, I think the only way to settle it is to ask the person whether or not he is one. At any rate, the vast majority of people in this country, if asked, would say they were Christians. As recently as 1944 an act of worship was made compulsory in all our schools, and recently the en-
372
couragement of religious education has been quite marked. So that it seems to be generally accepted as a way of bringing up our children. The political Parties attend divine service before the Party conferences, and no public man in my lifetime has felt it judicious to proclaim atheism in public. So I think we may call ourselves Christians, at any rate in our official beliefs.
Nevertheless, in the intellectual as distinct from the public life of the country, if I may be allowed to draw such an invidious distinction, we cannot deny the existence of a high proportion of people who call themselves humanists, which in the negative sense means that they do not believe in a personal God or personal immortality. A brilliant humanist says:
"We ask no longer what is pleasing to God, but what is good for man."
That antithesis is not, of course, accepted by Christians, but at any rate the humanists are concerned only with welfare in this life, and most of those humanists undoubtedly would describe themselves quite sincerely as democratic humanists and are therefore far removed from Communism.
The question naturally arises, if collaboration and friendship are possible in a country like ours between Christians and Humanists, why not then between Christian countries and Communist countries? At any rate, that is a thought, a point, on which we might pause for more than a moment. It brings us on to ask this question: What, if any, is the fundamental difference between the Humanist and Marxist philosophy? On this subject it is interesting to read the views, for example, of Professor Ginsburg, and other views of the same kind which can be studied in the same place: I am thinking of his contribution to Sir Julian Huxley's new symposium called The Humanist Frame. I quote Professor Ginsburg, who says:
"As far as theory is concerned it would not be difficult to show that Marxist views of the ends of life or of the principles of social justice do not differ markedly from those of humanist rationalism. Nominally both aim at a form of life in which the free development of each is the condition of the free development of all. The difference lies in the acceptance (by the Marxists) of a dual morality"—
in other words a double morality—
"a really human morality, as Engels calls it, which can only be operative when class antagonisms have been overcome and an interim

373
morality applicable to the period of the revolutionary struggle and of war à outrance."
That ends the quotation from Professor Ginsburgh. But of course we have been living in the period, and it seems likely that we shall go on living in the period, of interim morality, which is very different from humanist morality. Personally I would put it rather differently, though it does not affect the argument. I would say that Marxism is a social code of great, if sinister, significance, but that it is a social code without any ethics at all. The noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, said that Marxism has no nonsense about ethics—that is his way of putting it. But I would say that you cannot find any ethics in Marx—which may be putting the same thing in another way. But the lack of a moral philosophy is the one great vacuum in an otherwise complete, if erroneous, system. That is my way of putting it.
But taking Professor Ginsburgh's account and taking his argument, it still follows that in the foreseeable future—the future that even the youngest of us is unlikely to enjoy—in this prolonged period, Marxism is a code without morals or scruples. That is what follows from his argument, and I think most of us would say that it was a code, whatever its ultimate purpose, which is intrinsically evil. We must agree, further, that what has made Marx the most influential thinker, I suppose, since St. Paul, though perhaps the most deleterious writer who ever lived, and has affected so many people's minds in the reading of Marx, is not his ultimate aim, which is not different from that of a great many other people and is expressed in very general terms, but is this revolutionary code, which includes a programme and a way of life dying a prolonged revolutionary period. Many gifted minds and intellectuals of various kinds, and many millions of oppressed people who have never read Marx but obtained it secondhand, certainly have responded to the extraordinary skill with which he combines an account of human history with a brilliantly worked out prophecy—the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, referred to this—which seems to convey the assurance that the proletarians will triumph, and which professes an irresistible demonstration to that effect.
Though it does not convince most of us, at any rate those who serve under
374
the Marx banner are sustained by great hope. They are convinced of victory; but they are convinced, at the same time, that victory can be achieved only if all ordinary moral standards are abandoned—that is really the relevant point for our purpose—or are at any rate completely subordinated to the class war. During these many years of interim morals, as between that outlook, which is what we have to contend with, and ours in this country, there would appear to be no point of contact in principle. That makes things sound pretty hopeless; but perhaps putting it that way rather exaggerates the gloom of the actual prospect, though it may be thought to be grim enough.
There is so much good in all of us human beings—so much, if one may say so, of the Divine—that, however horrible our theoretical system, we do not readily behave towards one another like beasts in the jungle. There is a great element of hatred in Marxism, along with nobler elements, and if one asks why a system so filled with hatred has made so many converts among perfectly decent human beings one can say that there has been plenty of injustice to hate. Nothing, of course, entitles us to hate our fellow men, whether as individuals or as classes or as nations, and therefore Marxism is full of evil by any standards we can understand here. But if one asked how one can make sure that in the end a system so repugnant to human nature is voluntarily rejected by mankind everywhere, it seems to me that there can be only one answer, and the answer is by getting rid of the injustices which gave it its chance originally.
My Lords, have those injustices ceased to exist to-day? I do not want to pursue the argument that I embarked upon with the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, but certainly we on this side, while agreeing that those injustices have been much reduced in our own country, certainly cannot say that they have been abolished. I am anxious to move with the House towards an agreed conclusion. But when we look around the world as a whole and see the enormous differences—the staggering and shocking differences—between the standards of life of the richer and of the poorer

375
countries, differences which are increasing rather than diminishing at the present time, can we deny that the world as a whole presents much the same kind of injustice and neglect which the Western countries presented when Karl Marx was working out his theory in the nineteenth century?
To sum up, Communism has much in common with Fascism and Nazism. There is the dictatorship, the utter disregard for every interest but its own and a complete callousness towards human suffering in proceeding to its goal. But unlike Nazism, which was a purely parochial mania, Communism is, on paper at least, a universal creed with at any rate some degree of universal appeal. I decline to dignify it by the name of religion. But let us describe it as a corrupted ideology which, in the end, can be defeated only by men and women who give effect to a truly religious ideology, a pure ideology, and do so not only in words but in deeds.
On the plane of diplomacy and strategy it is our bounden duty in this House to resist Communism, if necessary by force, and to try to build up a system of what many of us call world government. But I do not believe that we shall ever remove the Marxist hatreds which have established themselves so firmly in the hearts of so many millions of human beings until we invade the world, as never before, with an offensive of love and a passion for justice in action.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, to whom we have all listened with the greatest pleasure, because he, I think, represents the universal view in the House, rather a delicate question? We have heard what he has said about the ideology, if that be the correct term, of Marxism and of Russia. Does he not agree that the unfortunate attitude which seems to have been adopted in recent months—what I can only call competitive abuse—between certain Western leaders and Mr. Khrushchev does more harm than good, and that it is better to proceed on the lines that the noble Earl has laid down?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I find that one of the most difficult questions I have ever had put to me, because it is certainly difficult for me, with proper
376
modesty, to disagree with the last part of the question, which is suggesting that what I am laying down is better than what others have laid down. I agree with that part of it. But about competitive abuse I do not know. I really do not know whom the noble Earl has in mind. If he can produce examples and can put them later, perhaps I should be able to say. But I agree that, from whichever source it comes, we have heard Communism denounced in this House. I do not use the word "abuse" with reference to that. I agree with all of the noble Earl's question that I understand, and it may well be that if I had understood it all I should agree with it all. Certainly, until we have shown ourselves in practice ready for the sacrifice involved in remedying this great injustice in the world, we must be cautious in proclaiming that, as Christians, we are so infinitely superior to the Communists and that all the blame for the tragic situation of the world must rest on Communist shoulders—though, Heaven knows! a considerable weight must rest there.
The Communists—or, at any rate, the better Communists—live roughly in accordance with their standards, deplorable though those standards are. They possess certain temporary advantages that accrue in controversy to the Party of threats and violence. I am convinced, however, that the uncommitted nations will finally make the choice in our favour, and that the Communists themselves will ultimately be won over, when we fully honour our own Christian standards, not only in our great policy decisions but in our daily lives. I believe that that will happen when we do honour those standards—then, but not till then.
4.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT BARRINGTON: My Lords, in venturing to address your Lordships' House for the first time—and, as many of your Lordships will probably wish when you have heard me, for the last time—I should like to begin, if I may, with an apology which really takes the form of a confession. The reason why, at very short notice, I have brought myself to offer a few remarks (which I hope I shall be able to make clear) on the Motion set down by the noble Lord opposite probably needs a little explanation.

377
One of the most alarming things about addressing your Lordships' House, particularly for somebody who is a newcomer, not only to this House but to public speaking and politics, is the fact, which I have had corroborated by many people to whom I have talked, that there is, practically speaking, hardly any subject which one could raise here—from the incidence of rainfall in Tibet in the 17th century, to the proposal of a noble Viscount opposite yesterday that there should be, I think I am right in saying, a selective bank rate for "wine, women and song"—I am afraid I have misquoted him; it was a selective bank rate which should be high on wine, women and song: I cannot remember what it was low on, but presumably milk, malt and hopscotch; I do not know—on which one would not find a Member of your Lordships' House, probably sitting opposite one, who is, if not the greatest living authority on that subject, certainly the greatest living authority on it in the English-speaking language.
I was very grateful, as I have often been in the past, to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, whose speech I listened to with so much interest that I almost forget my own, on hearing that he agreed with me that this is a subject on which somebody who knew a great deal about everything could probably go on for a year and not really touch it. It was out of a certain cowardice that I felt that this was the only Motion likely to be raised in foreseeable times in which somebody with as wide, deep and specialised an ignorance as myself could splash about without making himself more than an average target and—and this is perhaps more discreditable—without involving any more research than is involved in looking up the word "ideology" in the dictionary in your Lordships' excellent Library. I did that because I will confess that five-syllable words are things I have always rather distrusted; I am temperamentally allergic to them. I do not mean that I find them too difficult to pronounce. The trouble is that they are too easy to pronounce. Longer words one very often has to divide up into sections to understand. The shorter words one is more familiar with.
I believe I am not alone in saying that I have talked very glibly about ideologies all my life without really having a
378
clear idea of what they are. I will not embarrass your Lordships by giving the result of my researches, which were very short, but I find I am not quite so wrong as I expected. There are apparently two meanings of "ideology", both of which will be familiar to your Lordships. The first one is specifically:
"the system of Condillac, which derived all ideas from sensations".
That, I decided, was not likely to be the one here, because we are talking about rival ideologies, and unless Condillac were Siamese twins, that would presumably be out. The second meaning given, invented by Napoleon Bonaparte, is:
"Ideal on abstract speculation; especially visionary theorising."
That was rather what I suspected, and, if so, I agree, even more heartily than I should have done if I had not known that meaning, with everything on the religious side that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said.
I may be showing my ignorance, but I feel that "ideal or abstract speculation; especially visionary theorising" is a very dangerous thing. We are told that "where there is no vision, the people perish." That is perfectly true, but everything that is up in the air without having its feet on the ground is, I think I am right in saying, extremely dangerous to irreligious people, and more dangerous, certainly to members of the Church to which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, belongs and (I stand ready to be corrected) to my own Church; the general trend of Christian thought always having been that the spiritual sins which are divorced from the flesh are more serious than the more fleshly ones, that Pharisees are more dangerous than the publicans, and so on.
That is not entirely irrelevant, because I do not believe that anyone in your Lordships' House, or, indeed, any sane man in the country, will dissent for a moment from the Motion which the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, has put before us: that the division of the world into rival ideologies is one which we should, and do, view with concern. It concerns us in a double sense. It concerns us in that it affects us; and it is one as to which, if we are not worried and disturbed about it, we ought to be. But for me to attempt to pursue that

379
train of thought any further would be quite intolerable to your Lordships, because a great deal has been said already on it, and I feel that, like many other trains (British Railways, for instance), if it stops there, it does not get one much further.
What I should like to do (briefly, because it is now twenty-past four, and I must not keep your Lordships too long; but I think it is worth running through shortly, simply by referring to the headings) is to mention the ways in which I personally believe that a Motion of this enormous scope could be dealt with usefully over a large number of debates on different subjects. That, I think, is the only way—and again I take courage from the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said that this is the only way it can be dealt with. The first thing, it seems to me, when one is considering anything which one dislikes or fears, is to got a fairly clear idea of how it began, and how, if at all, it can be stopped. So far as Communism and, indeed, Hitlerism, and other things which we (rightly, I think) talk about as ideologies—that is to say, philosophies; and I think that the noble Earl was perfectly right in not calling them religions, because they are up in the air—are concerned, there is a rather terrifying verse in the New Testament which describes Satan as
"The Prince of the Air, who is the Lord of this world".
Certainly he is the Lord of ideology, I think. It seems to me that the way these ideologies started is worth looking into.
My Lords, at the risk of being extremely tedious, I should like to say that it seems to me there are two reasons for this: what one might call the seed and the soil, to use a metaphor; that is to say, something which they grow out of, and something which they grow in. I should like to suggest, in view of what has been said about moral disarmament and various other things, that what they grow out of is rather crudely described in the Bible as "the heart of Man". I believe I am right in saying that it is the author of Ecclesiasticus who said of the heart of man that
"it is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."
380
That, I think is not incompatible with what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said: that it also has an element of good in it. I should say that Christianity means that there is something very wrong with us, and an infinite capacity for good as well. I should say that while politicians as politicians, or statesmen as statesmen, have every right to propagate their own views, either as Christians, as humanists, as Buddhists, or as worshippers of the Sacred Crocodile, Oogli, I believe that it is not really a political issue. It seems to me that the soil in which growths which we think are harmful grow easily, and the soil in which they can be made to wither away, is; so that we may grow what may be healthy, and that it may grow better.
If I may take advantage of something mentioned by the noble Lord who introduced the Resolution, I would recall that he said: "I think we ought to go back more to the beginning of this story". I think he is quite right. I hope I am not being dogmatic in making these statements, as if they were true without my supporting them. There are a great many reasons why heresies, evils, whatever you like to call them, grow; but I think that most people would agree that one of them is economic discontent. There was a time when it was fashionable to say that all delinquency and all evil in the social system came from economic foolishness. If one goes to the example of the Welfare State, one finds, even if one does not take the trouble to look back to Regency times and the wealthy Roman Empire, that when the Founder of Christianity said that it is hard for the rich to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, He was not talking such nonsense as some humanists think. But there is no doubt that poverty and economic strife is just one of the grounds for fostering discontent.
The other point that I should like to raise is this—and having raised it I shall not pursue it because that would need a knowledge of the economic thickets, through which it has often been pursued. enormously greater than I have. I shall treat it, if I may say so, with all the delicacy of an explorer skirting a virgin forest. It is the fact that there is more than one cause of poverty. We have had a great many debates lately, and naturally, about our present economic difficulties, which

381
have been succinctly described as "due to too much money chasing too few goods". Although it is unnecessary to remind your Lordships that the soil in which the ideologies both of Communism and of Nazism arose contained economic discontent, they were not due to that cause, but were due (as noble Lords present who are old enough to cast their minds back will remember) to precisely the opposite cause: too little money chasing what was called too many goods. In fact, we were told that tile bane of the system was falling prices due to general over-production. We were poor because we were producing too much. Naturally, we were even poorer because it was so easy to get the work done that we could not employ everyone to do it. Therefore, starvation in the midst of plenty was the only alternative. The Party to which the noble Earl belongs, not quite content with that, said, "No; it was due to lack of block planning"—like a traffic road. The great Party opposite, I think, had various views, but were never really united as to what was the cause of over-production.
Another point I want to raise is this, and after doing so I shall almost certainly sit down. Although there are a number of other things I should have liked to say, I am certainly not going to keep your Lordships any longer. Supposing—and this may seem fantastic to some people—that the unilateral disarmers, whom I personally regard as a great menace (I am probably entirely wrong), are wrong to the extent that the world is not in fact going to be blown into electrons in our lifetime, or in measurable time; that even, for one reason or another, a general amnesty on armaments should gradually be brought about, with the result that we do not have to pay an enormous number of people to produce what are technically consumer goods. I think that everyone in this House and elsewhere would pray that they may never be consumed, because if they are consumed, not only we but probably the world, and possibly the solar system, would be consumed with them. But if they are not consumed, we are in fact giving people money for doing nothing.
There were certain economic cranks who said, "Surely, instead of burning things, instead of burning coffee and
382
wheat in order to keep the price up, and turning away employees on the dole, which we have to take out of taxation, and cutting things down so that people cannot buy even the little that is being produced, would it not be better to produce more money, to distribute more money, to catch up with the supply of goods?" That, of course, was regarded in those days as a flaming heresy, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Brand, who is not here, will testify. The whole view of the City during the governorship of Mr. Montagu Norman was that money was a sacred thing, everything had to be subordinated to it.
There was what seemed to me at the time to be a rather elaborate system of idolatry, by which not only corn and wine and oil, but the lives of men, women and young children, were sacrificed to the nominal idol of gold, which was never seen—in fact, nobody knew whether it was there or not—on the understanding that if we went off the gold standard, which the National Government were especially elected to prevent, it would be the end of the world. Well, luckily, when the National Government came in, we went off the gold standard; and almost immediately after that happened we began belatedly—very belatedly—to arm against the possible menace of a German dictator, which meant paying out more money, and the economic system began to get better. I think it is worth remembering the general standard of living in the war and after the war. I will not give figures, but nobody will say that it has not improved. From the way in which children are dressed, and the television sets, it is higher.
We are all ready to assume that if money should cease to be spent in this loathsome way, and war were out of the question, our money would be spent in a way which I think noble Lords on both sides of the House would agree would be much healthier. Of course, that is not what happened in those days. What I should like to put into the minds of noble Lords who will have to deal with this matter later is the question whether we are quite sure that we have learned from the mistakes of those days and know the solution. Then it was called "Over-production and under-consumption". Then we were satisfied with the way in which money comes into existence,

383
which was in those days denied by the joint stock banks, except for an unfortunate article by Mr. McKenna in the Encyclopædia Britannica which admitted it. In other words, it was a method of putting more money into circulation when conditions were good and there was too much already, and of removing money from circulation when there was not enough.
It is no use discussing whether it is worth doing something at all or whether it is better to do nothing. If that were so, we should not be here; because there would be better ways of employing our time. A noble Viscount opposite said last night that unless something immediate and effective could be done about unofficial strikes it was no good taking any measures at all. I feel that he was unduly pessimistic. Now I entirely sympathise with what may be said, "For heaven's sake let us think of that when it happens. Do not let us start worrying now about whether we shall be able to distribute enough money."
If I were allowed to speak again, that is a point of view I should like to oppose with peculiar ferocity. The noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, made a speech the other day, with every word of which I disagreed, but it was characteristically courageous. From his own military experience, which nobody denies, I believe that the noble and gallant Viscount would agree that a time to win a battle is before and not during it. That is a point I would like to leave for consideration.
I should like to make one more point, only in order to get a point on which I can sit down without too much confusion. It is a question of what weapons to use meantime against those ideologies which I think I am right in saying we all believe should be combated. I should like to make a suggestion. The worst weapons to use are their own. I should like to quote from memory an Edwardian Liberal, who did not practise in Parliament but was interested in politics and who had an unusually forceful way of putting things. I hope that it is not irreverent to give two examples from an essay of his. If a little street urchin puts out his tongue at the noble and learned Viscount who
384
sits on the Woolsack, it does not follow that the best and most effective retaliation is for the noble and learned Viscount to put out his tongue at the little guttersnipe. In fact, such respect as the little boy should have, and I hope might some day have, for the noble and learned Viscount, or for his office, comes entirely, at that stage, from the fact that here is a man who refuses the temptation to put out his tongue, which to the little boy is surprising.
The second and more extreme example is this. If cannibals refuse to confine their diet of missionaries to three a week, ought the missionaries therefore to refuse to confine their diet of cannibals below that number? If you are fighting cannibals, of course the weapons are knives and forks. That may be the equivalent of what we use to-day. The thing is not to use the same kind of weapon but a better one.
I firmly believe, for the reason that I am not only addressing your Lordships for the first time in this House, but for the first time from these Benches, which are new to me, and would be new to me if not for the first time in this House, that exactly the opposite policy is more effective with the ideologies of the Soviet and Nazi kind, and that there are certain instruments that even now we should use. One is being used now. I do not know if it is in order for me to refer to it, but I will take the risk and do so. The fact is that the Foreign Secretary is exactly the kind of weapon to be used against an enemy Government such as the Russian one. And if that is thought to be Party disloyalty, I would say that what I conceive to be Liberal policy might very well be another—without going so far as to say, because it might sound a little startling, that a wholesale policy of theft would be an effective weapon. My noble friend Lord Rea said in the debate on the gracious Speech that he was delighted and not too bitter when the clothes of the Liberal Party were stolen. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, said that if we left them lying about, we must expect them to be stolen. I think that a certain exchange of the best clothes would be an excellent thing. Of course, Party labels should be attached; but for Party labels to be worshipped is wrong.
If, before sitting down, I might mention the case of the Liberal Party, I would

385
point out that there are two ways of writing the word "liberal"—one with a capital "L", the other with a small "1". I do not believe that any noble Lord, on either side of the House, however strongly he may feel against the Liberal Party with a large "L", is opposed to liberal policy with a small "1". We all dislike, as motorists, when at one moment we have to keep our eyes on the road and at the next moment glance at the sign posts, having a highminded but not widely experienced 'back-seat driver—there is one here at any rate—who points out how much better he could do things himself. That is always irritating, and I entirely sympathise with the Government in that respect. But if we spell liberal with a small "1", I think a great many noble Lords on both sides of the House would agree. In conclusion, I should like to quote from a Jewish writer, writing well over 2,000 years ago, who, after giving his view that the time would come—and we only have his word for it; it was in the remote future—when (translated into more modern words) spivs, charlatans and jumpers-on-to-bandwagons would no longer deceive the public so easily, concluded by saying—and I had better get the words right:
"But the liberal man shall do liberal things; and by liberal things he shall stand".
4.41 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SHEFFIELD: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Viscount who has just spoken on his maiden speech. I think at the opening he was unduly overawed by the thought that this House contains nothing but learned men who know all about their subjects. But there are quite a number of us who are very general practitioners with only a modicum amount of experience, of knowledge and of skill. So that need not embarrass the noble Viscount when he speaks to us again. He took us around some unexpected corners in a way which English roads are apt to do, and that made his speech all the more interesting.
I am reluctant to address your Lordships at all on this subject for three reasons. First of all, one feels that the Resolution is very widely conceived and would allow one to range almost at random over an immense field. Secondly, in spite of the difficulty I feel about that, the noble Earl, Lord Long-
386
ford, speaking from the opposite Bench. has said extremely ably almost everything that can be said on this subject in the limits of a comparatively short debate. I am grateful to him for the way in which he analysed the subject and the conclusion to which he came; and, as I say, there is not a great deal to add to it. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the noble Lord who introduced this Motion, because it deals with a matter of immense concern to us all. I wish to make only one or two disjointed comments, without trying to rival, very badly, the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
Ideologies always do divide, and have done so all through history. One feels that the particular problem with which we are faced to-day is this culmination of the fact, which the noble Lord who has just spoken referred to when he talked about seed and soil, that here we are dealing with an ideology which has been tremendously intensified by the political and economic conditions of the times. Who can, as it were, distinguish between the fundamental Communist policy and the deep-seated, and I think quite rational, fear of the Russions of a re-armed and re-united Germany in Europe? I think it is difficult for us in this country, with our gift for tolerance, based as it is upon long experience, to understand and appreciate the passionate ideologies of some European peoples. Some people, and possibly some noble Lords in this House, may think that our inherited gift for tolerance is a weakness. It can become a weakness, but I am sure it never will if it continues to be bred by intelligent sympathy and political wisdom. The particular difficulty for us who enjoy a free democracy, as our fathers did before us, is to understand the mentality of a people who are willing to tolerate the rigidities and austerities of a totalitarian State, such as the Russian State is to-day, but compare it in their minds, as they must, with the previous tyranny in that same country.
Nearly fifty years ago a distinguished Cambridge scholar writing about the Roman Empire said that the Christian cause was victorious over rival creeds because, in the long run, and in the short run, it out-thought them, out-lived them and, if need be, at times out-died them.

387
I think when we are considering rival ideologies in the world to-day—because there are more than two—these words are extraordinarily relevant. I will take them in the reverse order and begin with "out-died". I think it is historically true to say that, more than any word spoken, it was the Christian martyrs in the early centuries who convinced the Roman society of the truth of the faith that gave them their courage. When a man may suffer or die for a mistaken creed, if he is a man of intelligence, we are bound to take seriously that creed for which he dies, even in our appraisement and criticism of it. We do not in modern times know this experience in our own country. I remember in 1946, when I first went to Germany after the war, being tremendously humbled when I found myself sitting beside men who had spent many years in a Nazi prison face to face with the possibility of death on account of their loyalty to their faith.
Wherever we get this depth of devotion we have something of which the world has to take notice. So to-day I greatly admire many Christian priests, ministers, and pastors who are seeking to do their job in spite of—not the possibility of death, but continuous persecution and frustration of another kind, and stick to it rather than escape to the Western part of their country. I am also equally impressed by some of the younger men who are trying, under great difficulties of thought, to see how they can, as it were, live their lives and be loyal to their faith in a society which has politically an entirely different basis altogether. I am sure, therefore, that we in the West have to recognise this. We are not going to win out against these ideologies merely by beating them in terms of economic prosperity and the like, but we have to acquire a courage and conviction which mere neutralism will never give us.
That leads me to the second heading of out-thinking. This, I believe, is tremendously important, because time and time again within the Christian Church and the general community in this country and, indeed, in Western Europe, we find people willing to dismiss the whole of Marxist Communism as though it were a fantastic absurdity which no rational man could tolerate for two minutes, and they are ignorant of the his-
388
torical basis and the whole historical situation. If we are going to out-think Communism, I am quite convinced there must be some more accurate historical analysis; far more re-thinking of our own position if we are to out-think them. I am quite certain that Christian and non-Christian democrats have to make a thorough appraisement of both the thought and the consequent practice of Communism in Eastern Europe if we are to succeed in turning men, whether they be simple or subtle, from its persuasive appeal in the newer countries—accurate knowledge and not just a caricature; a shrewd appraisement both of context and of historical conditions in Europe.
Speaking as a representative of the Christian Church, I recognise that Marxist Communism is aggressively anti-religion. It says, "Your God is dead; he has never been alive." But, even allowing for those rather extravagant statements, one has to recognise a point which the noble Earl, Lord Longford, made, that a great many people who think they are rejecting the whole Christian faith, or the Jewish faith for that matter, are revolting against a false conception. I, like the noble Earl opposite, have many friends who, with modesty and humility, call themselves agnostics, and yet are men. I think, who are not far from the Kingdom of God and are reacting to a whole series of false conceptions. I should not be surprised if Communism in Eastern Europe fastens on that kind of thing and gets a good deal of support from people of that temperament. Therefore, it is more important that we should do some first-class thinking and analysing, following the line which the noble Earl suggested a few minutes ago.
There is one other point in this connection which I should like to make. The Chinese are considered to have a peculiar aptitude for what is called brain-washing, and it is a very disagreeable and irrational thing in which to indulge. But one of the anxieties we have in this country is the degree to which to-day, through various very powerful influences that work in our midst of a commercial kind, very often it is possible to create something rather like a mass mind on a whole variety of subjects. The very fact that we have

389
powerful instruments of propaganda—the television, the Press and that sort of thing—is making it more, rather than less, difficult to get people to apply their common sense and such intelligence as God has given them to analyse and estimate truly current events. Though we may not indulge in anything so crude as brain-washing, yet it is possible, I think, to eliminate the thinking capacity of a great many people by certain powerful methods of propaganda against which we have to be very much on our guard; because democracy, if it is to be an effectual political force in the world, must have a rational appeal and be the policy of men and women who are able to think intelligently on these subjects.
That leads me to my last point on out-living. We recognise, with great sorrow, that many European countries are alienated from the Christian Church because it seemed to them to be identified with social injustice and unjustifiable privileges. The battles of the nineteenth century are for the most part over, but the hangover remains and it will last a long time, certainly in the industrial areas in this country. But Western society, I believe, must win the ideological battle, not only by rethinking running right through the whole of our democracy but, as has been said, by the quality of our life and our moral vitality. It is not a case of saying, "This chap or that chap" but a case of the influence in the world, the witness in the world, of a society which may seem, to the rising countries, the worthwhile way of life. It is that kind of way we want to build up in our land. We must have our forces, but I am sure that in the long run it is no use fighting Communism with defensive tactics. We have to put in its place, in the eyes of the young people of Africa and Asia, the quality of life in the individual or in the community which makes them see that this is what they ought to aim at.
4.58 p.m.
LORD TWINING: My Lords, may I add my congratulations on the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington? May I also say that I have listened with interest to the speech of the right reverend Prelate who, I understand, has just announced his resignation from early next year. I feel sure that your
390
Lordships will miss his contributions to your Lordships' House.
I propose to confine myself to some remarks on the question of Communism in Africa. The question is frequently asked: what is the nature and extent of Communist interest and activities in Africa? It is not an easy question to answer, as the matter is somewhat involved. Up to a few years ago, Soviet policy seems to have been one of watching and studying, and intruding only actively when an opportunity arose to exploit a situation. As more and more African countries have achieved independence, situations capable of exploitation have more frequently arisen. This has led to some Russian re-thinking and a more objective assessment as to how they can influence affairs in Africa.
At the same time, the Chinese have been turning their attention to Africa, and they have decided on a different approach. Nor must we ignore the fact that the Yugoslav Communists are also taking a very active interest in Africa. Let us first try to make an appraisal of their strategic aims and tactical methods. The Russians seem to be taking a longterm view. They wish to create a situation which will lead Africa ultimately to take its place in a Communist world. By working on the Africans' desire to be really independent of their former colonial masters, they hope to develop an atmosphere for an eventual Communist take-over. The African desire for emancipation and the apparent dedication to the ideal of African Socialism provide a fertile soil on which Russia can work. Previously, Russian theory has argued that all African nationalist leaders were bourgeois and would have to be swept away by a revolution of the proletariat after independence had been gained. But now, more realistically perhaps, they have accepted that other methods than violent revolution should be their policy. By defending the political and economic independence of African States, by challenging what they like to call imperialism in the form of military blocs and foreign bases, and starting agrarian reforms—by such means they hope to woo African leaders and seduce them into Communism.
China takes a different view. It believes Communism in Africa can be fostered only by direct, violent

391
revolution. Mao has said that co-existence is only temporary before war destroys capitalism. This is in contrast to Khrushchev's statement that co-existence is a continuing policy and the only alternative to war. The Chinese policy is to supply experience in organising international trade unions and the know-how for anti-colonial revolutions on the Vietnam pattern. Extremist African leaders are being invited to China where they are indoctrinated. It is significant that at the Afro-Asian Economic Cooperation Conference held in Cairo in May, 1960, China, while consenting to become a member, showed her true hand by bitterly opposing such co-operation. The Chinese rather naïvely claim that they are better placed than the Russians to understand the feelings of the Africans because after the Boxer rising they experienced and suffered a period of Western colonialism.
The Russian ideas on Africa are set out in a book by Dr. Potekin called Africa Looks Ahead. Potekin is the head of the new Institute of African Studies in Moscow. He claims in his book that colonialism has kept Africans backward and that foreign monopolies have prevented Africans from accumulating capital. As a result, he asserts, there is no sizable native bourgeoisie nor, except in Nigeria and Uganda, any native capitalistic elements. He claims that the transition to Socialism will, as a result, be easier. In arguments which characteristically ignore inconvenient facts and which are peculiarly inconsistent, he maintains that Lenin's theories are applicable to Africa. "Africa", he writes, "cannot be some sort of exception." He goes on to say that the proletariat, with a little of the right sort of encouragement and Communism, will succeed.
Thus, my Lords, while the theory remains the same, its application is to be based on a much more accurate observation of African character and aspirations than before. At the Soviet Party Congress in 1956 the Russians defined their plans for Africa and a five-year programme was drawn up which envisaged a peaceful route through subversion. Selective economic and technical aid is being given; industrialisation is being encouraged; an African Institute has been set up and Africans are being used
392
in studies of their own Continent. Emphasis is being laid on the fact that Russia is not a colonial power and has no race prejudice, and this latter point is being brought home by Communists from the Asian Soviet Republics. Propaganda is now being intensified with a wider distribution of works about Africa, in English, French and Portuguese and in the main African languages. Western works on Africa are being translated into Russian with suitable editing and footnotes. As much use as possible is being made of radio; for instance, Moscow has increased her Swahili programmes to fourteen hours a week. Africans are being given encouragement to attend youth festivals, which provide a specially good atmosphere for indoctrination. Without going into further details it is clear that Russia means to intensify her efforts not only to win over new African governments but also to gain a substantial following for Communism, particularly among African youth.
My Lords, we must now consider what the African reaction to Communism and Communist-dominated countries is likely to be. It is perhaps natural that, on emerging from the influence of the political and cultural outlook of the metropolitan colonial Powers, the new African States should want to look around to see how other countries conduct their affairs. They are in such urgent need of economic aid that they are likely to accept it from any source, from wherever it is offered. Russian aid moreover tends to be given on more favourable terms than that offered by the West. As yet there is little evidence that any but a small minority, including it is true some of the political leaders, are aware of the motives behind Russia's intensified interest in Africa.
The African's craving for education is such that those who have been unable to get places in Western universities have accepted scholarships in Communist countries. The reaction of foreign students in Russia has more often than not been unfavourable. The crowded living conditions, strange food and the climate have all meant a standard of comfort lower than they had expected. African students do not like being regimented and resent that they are segregated in the People's Friendship

393
University from the main student body. They dislike interference with their private lives and being subjected to irksome surveillance, to censorship and to travel restrictions. On the purely academic side they are sometimes prevented from having access to material needed for their work. There is no doubt that an African student's life in England is easier and his study is likely to be more profitable.
However, it cannot be over-emphasised that Africa is in a hurry. The Western argument that if you proceed with caution, step by step, yours will eventually be a fully developed, self-sufficient democratic country has no appeal at all. This gradual approach is regarded as a device to hold Africa back. The African intelligentsia point to the success that Russia has had in developing her own country from the backward slough of the Czarist régime to the great modern State that is now reaching even to the moon. African political leaders and intellectuals dream of Africa's becoming a third power in the world within their own lifetime, perhaps even in little more than a decade. Russia has done it, so here is an example for them to follow. Nor is this a peculiar achievement which it would be rash to try to emulate, for now it seems that China is doing it too; so why not Africa?
With their imagination fired by these examples the politicians within Africa are looking eagerly at what is being done in Guinea under Communist guidance. It is believed that there are a large number of Chinese agricultural advisers there who are trying to bring about economic revolution in the life of the people of the rural areas. It is doubtful just how much this will appeal to the people concerned, for African peasants are just as imbued with traditional conservatism as peasants are elsewhere in the world. Technicians from behind the Iron Curtain have not been a great success everywhere in Africa for they have found themselves in a strange environment with its peculiar difficulties, whether they be building bridges, erecting factories, or whatever their work may be. In most cases they have no lingua franca with which to communicate with the local population. In all these respects the former colonial Powers have a start over
394
the Communist Powers, but the latter intend to catch up and may well do so if we are not very careful.
My Lords, experience brings with it a certain blindness. The Soviet leaders are looking at Africa and its peoples from their own African historical and cultural background and not as partners in the history and culture of a European mother country. This is the way that Africa wants to be looked at, and if we are blind to this we cannot hope to enjoy the confidence of Africa. African leaders are fond of referring to the "African personality". By this they mean something which is truly African and not borrowed from their former masters, or from anywhere else outside Africa for that matter. They want it to be an expression of the African genius which will find its final form in Pan-Africanism. There are so many ethnic, linguistic and environmental differences within the continent that Pan-Africanism would seem an ideal hard to achieve. But if the ideal is unlikely to become a reality, there is no doubt about the reality of African devotion to it.
In view of the great Communist interest in Africa and African interest in Communism, what must we do? Africa's first concern is to remain uncommitted to East or West. We must ensure that she does. Indeed, the former colonial powers have a special interest in seeing that newly independent countries do not lapse into dependence upon other States. We can reasonably conclude that the great majority of Africans are not enamoured with Communist ideology; but they are susceptible to Communist methods and may find themselves unwittingly entrapped by them. We must, at the same time as explaining the aims of Soviet and Chinese policy, convince African political leaders that we, too, genuinely want Africa to remain uncommitted, and that we sympathise with their aim to make Africa a third power in the world as soon as possible.
Finally, my Lords, let me say that in our relations with Africans, both in England and in their own countries. we have an advantage over the Communists. We have a significant measure of good will. We should be able to persuade Africa that the West has more to offer than Russia or China. We must be prompt in our aid and we must not allow

395
Russia to undercut us. We must do more than we are doing to assuage the African hunger for education. I believe that out of some 470,000 overseas students at present in this country some 15,000 are Africans. Should we not endeavour to increase this to a much greater figure—say, 25,000? We must resist and counter the insidious propaganda of the newly-established Communist news agencies. Russia's new observation of Africa, as Potekin's book shows, is very accurate, but her deductions tend to be inaccurate and confused by political theory. Provided we use our experience to good advantage without allowing our present attitude to Africa to be determined by our old relationship, we can foil the influence of Communism in Africa. Our attitude towards Africa will determine the success or otherwise of Communism in Africa. We must demonstrate for all Africa to see, not just that the old colonialism is past but that we believe in the future of the new independent Africa. But, my Lords, there is certainly no time to be lost.
5.15 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I rise to support the Motion that this House notes with concern the division of great areas of the world by rival ideologies. I think it can be said that right throughout the history of the world ideologies have supplied much of the driving force behind human causes. I feel that people must believe in something, something that is bigger and better than they feel themselves to be, and I believe that that is the basis of all the religions in the world.
Last night there was celebrated in many parts of the world another kind of ideology, one that has come on the scene since 1917 and one that has had up to now profound effects upon a great part of the world. I allude, of course, to the 44th Anniversary of the October Revolution in Soviet Russia. I have always been interested in Russia, and I remember being thrilled as a young man when Tsarism was overthrown. We had rather lurid conceptions of Tsarism and what it was doing, and I confess that I did not know as much at that time about how that event had come
396
about, how that overthrow had taken place, as I have learned in later years.
I have had the pleasure of visiting Soviet Russia six times. My first visit was in 1925, the second in 1935, the next in 1941, when the Germans were only some 20 miles from Moscow where I was, again in 1943, 1946 and 1956. The latter visit was in connection with the delegation which the Electricity Authority sent to Russia; all the others were in my capacity as the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress. I was for many years a member of the Anglo-Russian Parliamentary Committee, and through the instrumentality of that Committee I met several of the Ambassadors—in fact, all of them during the period I was a member—and many of the economists and others who came to London to represent the Soviet Union. I regret to say that in later years most of those men that I knew by name were denounced as traitors, some of them were shot, and others were imprisoned for long terms. I hope I cannot be described by anybody as a captious critic of the Soviet régime; my interest is much too profound for that, and I believe that the régime is bound to have such effects upon the world as a whole that nobody would criticise merely for the sake of criticising.
Last night's celebration was for the October Revolution—not the revolution, be it noted, which overthrew Tsarism. Somehow or other, it has crept into the public mind that it was the Bolshevik party which overthrew the Tsar and his régime. It was nothing of the kind, if indeed it could be described as a revolution at all. I think the proper description would be the collapse of a régime rather than a revolution. But that happened in March, 1917, and what the Bolsheviks did under Lenin and Trotsky was to overthrow the then provisional Government headed by Kerenski, and they established, step by step, the present régime in Soviet Russia.
I think they had a great deal to celebrate last evening in those different countries. It cannot be denied that Russia has made phenomenal advances and development in the industrial, economic and generally material sphere. Russia was transformed from a predominantly agricultural country into one

397
of the two largest industrial Powers in the world, and now is confidently challenging the United States of America in that situation. I think we can say that they have made progress in practically every sphere, whether it be from ballet to bombs or atomic energy to athletics; all but one sphere, and that sphere is respect for human life and human liberty. Many people hailed successes in the economic field, but they were very much dismayed by the lack of progress towards political and industrial democracy.
Russia claims to be a Socialist State, and when I first visited Russia in 1925 I was told very regretfully by some of the most prominent people, both in politics and in the trade union movement, that Russia had attained only State capitalism; they hoped the day would come when they would be a fully Communist State. But, frankly, my own observations do not show me any of those advances in the direction of a social democracy which would entitle Soviet Russia to describe itself as a Socialist State. Russia does not claim to be a Communist State. It regards Socialism as a transition stage towards Communism which will be more fully developed when the doctrine "Each according to his needs" will be prosecuted much more than it can be to-day.
But I challenge the view that Socialism is prevailing in Soviet Russia, and I think the world would be misguided to judge Socialism and Socialists by what happens there. Russia is a dictatorship—probably the most inflexible dictatorship that history has known; far more rigid than Tsarism ever was, so far as my reading carries me. Many people call it a police State. I think we ought to remember that Russia never had anything approaching a real political democracy. The Provisional Government of March, 1917, had no time to establish democratic processes before its short life of six months had expired and it was overthrown by the Bolsheviks.
Everybody hoped that in the beginning the Communist Party of Russia would make a real effort to show how it was possible for, as it were, an economic resurgence to take place in that country side by side with political liberty. In fact, it became fairly apparent that what had happened was that one
398
dictatorship had been replaced by another. I well remember a comment which was made by a member of the Trades Union Congress delegation who went to Russia in 1925. She came back saying that all that she could really see had happened in Soviet Russia was that the people had changed their bosses.
I think most of us have been horrified and bewildered by the excesses which took place, not only at the time of the Revolution itself but in subsequent years. I have called this dictatorship an inflexible one. Everybody knows—and the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, pointed out—that it was founded on the broad principles laid down by Karl Marx. I am not, and I never have been, a Marxist. I understand something about the doctrine, but I have found many unfathomable statements made in Das Kapital and other works of Marx. It is fashionable nowadays to deride Karl Marx, but let us remember that Marx, for better or worse, is influencing a larger section of the peoples of the world than all the other economists put together.
Marx was something of a philosopher and, while I cannot agree with some aspects of his philosophies, none the less his influence in Soviet Russia and the satellite States is immense. Marx thought that there would have to be a transition stage from, as he assumed, the collapse or overthrow of capitalism, which he called the dictatorship of the proletariat. I think that is a contradiction in terms. I do not see how a nation can dictate to itself; and as the vast majority of people are proletarians I think that was quite a wrong type of definition. But this conception of Marx, that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, was for a period of transition. When in Russia I tried to find out how long that transition was likely to last. I was told quite frankly, "As long as the danger of an attack from the capitalist States lasts; so we must continue the dictatorship."
When I think that that conception of dictatorship is built up almost entirely on a few lines of Karl Marx's works, expanded in great measure by the Soviet theoreticians and others, I wonder whether if Marx were living to-day, he would feel happy about the kind of dictatorship that has been established, and its length

399
of life. Of course, it is quite clear that while that state of mind continues Russia must spend large sums of money on armaments. This was said to me both in Russia and in this country as an apology (and I think a justifiable apology, if one accepts the need for large armaments), for the low standard of life of the people. I have heard Russian civilisation described as a shabby civilisation—one that would always be a few jumps behind the rest of the civilised world. To some extent, my own observations confirm this; but I would deny that no progress whatever has been made in the realm of improving the standard of life of the people.
As everyone knows, Lenin was the leader and the inspiration of the Communist Party. He was a strong, determined and ruthless man, far-sighted and, in some senses, clear-sighted, but he was not always right in what he said and what he wrote. I well remember Sir Ben Turner, who was a Member of the Labour Party delegation that went to Soviet Russia in 1921, telling me that Lenin had told him personally that there would be revolution in England in 1922. He said it with the utmost confidence and just pooh-poohed any observation to the contrary that Turner expressed to him. He said they had 12,000 shop stewards in Great Britain, and that the Trade Union Movement, whether it liked it or not, would be driven into a revolutionary force by the power of the workers. Well, he was not right.
It may be that he was not right in many of the other things that he wrote and did. He was the author of Democratic Centralism, which has been referred to earlier and which is a deadly doctrine to anybody who in any sense espouses democracy. It meant the centralisation of power in the hands of a few men and the subordination of the individual to the commands and dictates of those men
It is said sometimes that the Communist Party are the rulers of Russia. That is only partially true. It is a group of those people in the Communist Party who rule and who have ruled for a long time past in Soviet Russia. The so-called Politburo and the Presidium are the centres of power in this respect, and even outside Russia the measure of subordination of the individual Com-
400
munist to the dictates of his Party passes all understanding. It is difficult to understand how men of intelligence, integrity, and of some idealism who are to be found in the Communist Party, surprising as that may seem, can allow themselves to be ordered about, compelled to change their views almost overnight. The classic example of that, of course, was the beginning of the 1939–45 war, when several of the prominent Communists here, including the Secretary of the Party, Harry Pollitt, first described the war as being entirely justified, and then a few days later, at the dictates of Moscow, had to stand themselves on their heads.
I think the most cynical and the most dangerous doctrine adhered to right through the Revolution, that the end justifies the means, has prostituted all the normal concepts of morality in which the ordinary individual believes. Lenin himself said that it was perfectly justifiable to lie if the purpose of one's lie was the furtherance of an end which was justified in itself. No doubt some people believe that, but it does lead to some terrible consequences if it is pursued. The dictatorship is not personal. It never has been personal: although I am not quite sure whether Lenin, were he alive to-day, would be in any way opposed to that, because in his Collected Works, the 1923 edition, he says:
"Soviet socialist democracy is in no way in inconsistence with the rule and dictatorship of one person."
Whether he was preparing the way for himself at that time, I really do not know. At all events, that was the view he then expressed. Stalin acted upon this, and during the war—in fact, before the war, and perhaps right from the period of 1930-he secured such power over his immediate colleagues that he made them, in substance, completely subservient to his will. That was the reason, without doubt, that many of them adhered to the Party doctrine and were afraid to give any expression of opinion which appeared to differ in the least from the doctrines laid down by Marx and Lenin.
Marx died 77 years ago. Das Kapital was never finished by him. It was finished by Friedrich Engels, who himself was a manufacturer with a business in this country, and who, I suppose, in

401
modern Communist terminology, would have been called a bourgeois capitalist. But he saw the importance of parliamentary institutions as a means of achieving, without revolution, the change that he desired to see from capitalism to Socialism. Lenin died 37 years ago. How could any of these men possibly foresee the events that were to take place in the interim period? I cannot understand how any man of free mind, of any intellectual capacity, can slavishly follow doctrines laid down so long ago on such different data from those now available. There was one good thing that Lenin did say, or is credited with saying, and that was:
"Don't trust that Stalin. He is too ruthless."
I have not seen that statement obtruded very much, but when I was in the position of Secretary of the T.U.C. it was very well known in our own circles. How right he was! Stalin, in his subsequent actions, showed that very clearly.
Stalin died in 1953, and after his death the so-called "personality cult" was denounced. The triumvirate was appointed—Khrushchev, Malenkov and Beria. I do not know whether I dare call it a troika, in view of the suggestions made by Soviet Russia for the General Secretaryship of the United Nations; but what happened was that it was not very long before one of the troika was shot—Beria. He was executed by his colleagues. It is rather an interesting reflection that every one of the heads of the secret police—Beria was in that position—met with a violent death, either by execution or by some other means. Malenkov was banished to Siberia. If we had read of this in Czarist days we should have thought it an awful thing to happen, but Siberia is a big place, and I am not sure that Malenkov's position would be as bad as that which the name of Siberia suggests. So, of that triumvirate only Khrushchev remains in power. He is clearly a very strong personality, and I think he is a man of great courage. He denounced Stalin in 1956-and remember that Stalin was looked upon as a god. In those days I think it required tremendous will power and confidence to launch the sort of attack on Stalin with which the Western world became acquainted very shortly after that event, but which the Russian people, even
402
to-day, so far as I know, have never seen in full measure.
To-day everything is ascribed to Khrushchev. If an atom bomb is set off, Khrushchev is the man who did it. If it is "busting up" a Summit conference, Khrushchev is the man who did it. He always acts, apparently, on his own decisions, without any kind of restraint from his colleagues. I do not believe that for one minute. It is completely out of character with the Communist régime and the way in which the Communist régime is being carried on.
In 1938 I addressed the Australian Club in Melbourne. I was there visiting the country. It was a private function, and I was asked to speak on Russia. When I had finished I was asked the question, "What do you think of Khrushchev?" I said, on the spur of the moment." Well, he is a hard man to size up, but I believe he will be a factor for peace." Now I know that when your Lordships reflect on what I have just said, and when others read what I have said, I am bound to be described as a very gullible person. But I do not think I am. I think that his ungovernable outbursts and his belligerence and pugnacity are for home consumption more than for overseas consumption.
How do we know what struggles are going on inside the Communist Party and its Central Committee? We know of the struggles in the past. Within recent weeks Khrushchev has again attested to the struggle that took place between 'himself and Malenkov in the early days and with Molotov, Voroshilov and the others. But anybody who can say that Khrushchev is the agent who is responsible for all that is evil in Soviet Russia and its relations with other countries does not understand the mechanism by which the Communist policy is evolved and executed. I should say that Khrushchev is an extremely good poker player, as many of the Russians must be. I never came across people who were more ready to go to the brink—right to the brink—on any matter that they thought very strongly about, even to the brink of war. But I am not one of those who believe for one minute that they will cross that brink. They have far too muh to lose from any kind of adventure such as that.

403
We must remember about Khrushchev that there have been no political executions in Soviet Russia since Beria died in 1953. I think that is a turn for the better and an immense change, having regard to what might have happened had Stalin been in power and not Khrushchev. Does anybody believe for one minute that Molotov, Voroshilov and Malenkov would still be alive? I doubt that very much. Khrushchev has done what Stalin did not do, with the exception of a few occasions during the war. He has travelled to other countries and he has tried to understand what is happening in those countries. Most of his colleagues have never been abroad and they assess other nations on the basis of their own narrow experience in Soviet Russia and their reading.
Boastful? Of course Khrushchev is boastful. Who would not be with all that Russia can show in the materialistic sphere? He sees what I saw when last in Soviet Russia: a rising standard of life. And while I still think the description "a shabby civilisation" is by no means overdone even in the present circumstances, my six visits have convinced me that the standard of life in Russia is rising, and would rise far more rapidly were Russia able to shed her tremendous burden of armaments and get rid of her ventures in space. I saw marked improvement there in 1956 and I do not think it does anybody any good to point out that the people of Soviet Russia are not as well dressed, or as well housed, as is common in the Western world. I know that to be true—I investigated it on the spot as late as 1956-but I am quite certain that progress is being made.
Are the people any freer? Is there any movement in the direction of giving them greater liberty? I think there are some signs. Although it is still difficult, it is much easier than it was for tourists to visit Russia; and inevitably comparisons are to be drawn, and conversations can take place, although, I think, authority is very suspicious even of the humblest tourist who goes without any ulterior intent of any kind. I read in last Sunday's Observer the heading, "Speakers' Corner in Red Square". The article went on to say:
"Every day at sundown Red Square becomes a debating place, where free speech is practiced
404
within sight of Stalin's fresh grave, and within hearing of smiling, tolerant policemen."
To my mind, that is a tremendous change, and I only wonder how long it will last. I am quite sure that when anyone ventures, in that kind of environment, to say anything critical of the political régime of the Soviet Government, then there will be a considerable damping down of the opportunities of free speech at "Speakers' Corner".
One must remember that in Soviet Russia the dictatorship is spread over several people. In fact, I ought to go wider than that. I have mentioned the Politburo and the Presidium, although I think the Politburo is still the major body. It cannot, in the nature of things, as with any other dictatorship, allow any other organisation in the country, whether religious or whatever it is, to challenge the decisions of that dictatorship. That is such a plain, simple fact that I wonder how anyone can really doubt it. How can people be free when they are denied the right to form political parties, to form free trade unions, to have any kind of liberty of speech or writing, and when they have practically no freedom to travel? It is true that the Russian workers for many years have been free to call and criticise the boss; that is a unique kind of freedom which, perhaps, could be developed with some advantage in this country.
I wonder what is going to happen next. I think it is anybody's guess. People have always been free to support the Communist Party, and I suppose they will always be "free" in that sense. What is being practised in Russia, and was practised by Hitler in Germany, who, I believe, copied this method from Russia, is the combined method of propaganda and repression. The control of the radio, the press, the platform, and every agency of public expression, is all in the hands of the Communist Party. There are no rivals. They can say what they like. Even at football matches I have heard coming across the loudspeaker statements extolling the virtues of the Communist Party. I asked for them to be translated to me. When I was in the Red Square in 1956, at the May Day Parade, every few minutes there were similar messages being broadcast over loudspeakers to awaiting crowds.

405
One thing impressed me very much on that occasion, and that was the lack of response from the crowd. I was really surprised. There was Khrushchev, standing on the mausoleum with all his colleagues, when Zhukov, the other most popular man in Russia, made the statement about how the glorious Red Army, the glorious Red Air Force, and the glorious Red Navy, could repel any aggressor. No, my Lords, I am wrong about Zhukov; I think Zhukov was a year or two before that; but it was whoever was the Generalissimo at the time. While these messages were coming over the loudspeakers, I watched the faces of the crowd, and, so far as I could judge from the people around me, the messages had no effect whatever; and I heard no cheers or anything of that kind.
Yet we should be foolish to assume that there is any diminution in the loyalty of the Russian people to the Communist Government. I do not think there is disloyalty. There is a slavish following by everybody of Communist orders. In that May Day procession I saw only one banner being carried on which was a portrait of Stalin. Had it been the previous year, one would have seen Stalin's portrait on every banner, but I suppose the instructions had not got through to this particular contingent. The Government in Russia is firmly rooted, make no mistake about that, as it has been all the way through, and external pressure, in my judgment, will merely consolidate it. Reform must come from within, and I think it will come from within, although it is far too slow to satisfy people like myself who hope for so much.
As to external relations, the doctrine of peaceful co-existence has been interpreted by Khrushchev as meaning freedom to let capitalists jump about like fish in a frying pan. I do not know that the capitalists are particularly glad of that. The Chinese do not believe in this doctrine of peaceful co-existence, and, so far as I can judge, Lenin did not either. He said in his collected works, of which I have already spoken:
"As long as capitalise and Socialism remain, we cannot live in peace. In the end, one or the other will triumph. A funeral requiem will be sung either over the Soviet Republic or over world capitalism."
406
We do not hear very much of that quotation in Soviet Russia to-day, and let us hope that there has been a movement towards peaceful co-existence. The Russians are very confident that their economic system will prevail throughout the world. I sincerely hope that some of it will be copied by other nations, because there is value in it; but certainly not the dictatorship. They are still preaching class war, no collaboration with the bosses, and so on. They carried that doctrine to Geneva, as I said previously in the debate on cooperation in industry.
To-day there are 81 Communist Parties with 36 million members, and with a tiny little replica in Great Britain. There is a pitiful membership in this country which, at the beginning of 1961, numbered some 27,000. They are very active in the Trade Union Movement, as I have said on other occasions, but I do not want to develop that. The Communist shop stewards are fearless and aggressive. They are not to be intimidated by employers, and they become popular with the workmen as a consequence. They exploit the workers' grievances, some of them legitimate, some of them not legitimate. Inspiration is very largely drawn from the Daily Worker, which keeps them in news.
So far as I can judge, the circulation of that paper is no greater to-day than it was when I was Secretary of the T.U.C. in 1946. Some 50,000 or 60,000 copies are sold, which is a small circulation. It has no advertisement revenue worth the name, but I must say, from my reading of it, that it is a greatly improved paper compared with what it was formerly. It is registered nowadays as a co-operative society, so that we can know a little more about it, but we do not get very far in knowing where the money comes from. There was a deficiency in the balance sheet for 1960 of £92,000. That was an accumulated deficiency built up over a series of years. When we look to see where that money came from, we learn it came from the "People's Press Fighting Fund". So again we find obscurity as to where the money comes from. The Daily Herald was at one time called the "miracle of Fleet Street", but I think that expression ought to be applied in a financial sense to the Daily Worker. Month after

407
month, year after year, when I was Secretary of the T.U.C., there was always an appeal being made for money. They would say: "We want £2,000 to continue publication". From some unknown source of donation that money was always forthcoming, and the publication of the paper was always continued.
To sum up, I see little prospect of a Communist triumph in this country, but I think that, throughout the world generally, people are influenced, certainly in the first instance, by materialistic considerations, by their conditions of employment and by the wages they receive. And the best answer to Communism to most of the people of the world is a rising standard of life in all countries. Where we, as an advanced Western nation, can give any help in that direction, it is our duty to do so.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the subject of this debate provides the background for most of the problems in foreign affairs which we have to face to-day, and I believe that it gives your Lordships an opportunity of looking at the way in which the greater issues of foreign affairs have a direct impact upon us in this country and upon our domestic affairs. It is from that aspect of the subject that I should like to say a few words this evening, though I must say that I so profoundly agree with what my noble friend Lord Birdwood has already said that I think I can do little more than underline some of his points. I agreed with him when he warned your Lordships against taking this debate as in any sense alarmism or as setting on foot any sort of witch-hunt. I believe that that would be most unfortunate. None the less, Soviet international Communism presents a fundamental challenge to everything for which we stand. I was not surprised to hear the words which the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, attributed to Lenin. I believe that those plans were true then and that they have not changed in one single instance to-day.
In this country, there is a complete ignorance, a complete blindness and complacence in dealing with any of these subjects. I believe that it is of the greatest value that it should be
408
debated in public, so that the people of this country can form an idea of the sort of problem against which we are now struggling. One of the most appalling things about this struggle was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, when he said that to the international Communist the end justifies any means. Within that context, one of the most successful of their tactics is to muddle and lull the populations of the free world. They are immensely clever in this, and one of the ways they do it is by using the technique of jargon.
At the moment, the key phrase which is lulling and muddling so many people is "peaceful co-existence ". Already this afternoon there have been several quotations about the meaning of this phrase. My noble friend Lord Dundee gave another instance the other day. I am afraid that I should like to add one more. It is a very recent one, which fell from Mr. Khrushchev himself at the Communist Party Congress a fortnight ago. What he said was:
"Peaceful co-existence must continue up to the complete victory of socialism throughout the world."
By Socialism, he means Communism. Mr. Khrushchev added:
"The triumph of Communism is inevitable."
The words "throughout the world" includes Great Britain. We may think that there is a choice between the Albanian and Chinese policy of an inevitable nuclear war and the Soviet Russian policy of peaceful co-existence, but I do not believe that the latter is any more pleasant a choice, or gives any more grounds for complacency among us than does the former. The meaning of words is a subject into which one could go in great detail. The situation has now arisen, which was foreseen by Orwell in his book, that to the opposite sides words have exactly opposite meanings. For instance, what Communism calls freedom is slavery to us. Therefore, when we listen to what they say, it is essential that in no circumstances should we forget that what they say does not mean the same to us.
I am sick and tired of hearing the taunts that come from the other side of the Iron Curtain about colonialism and imperialism. I believe that the record of this country is second to none in the field of our Colonies. Then I look at

409
what has happened within the framework of the Soviet Empire. There is the row of colonies in Eastern Europe—Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and the rest—whose economies are now being tuned to the Russian economy, so that they are complementary to it. In the end it will be doubtful if these countries will ever individually be viable again. And the other day there came news that their armed forces are in some way to be incorporated into the Russian Red Army. If they are not colonies, I do not know what they are.
Inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics itself there are complete annexations: the three Baltic States, the Georgian, Armenian and Azerbaijan Republics and the five Soviet Socialist Republics in Central Asia, in what used to be Turkestan. In none of those countries does nationalism exist any more. It has been the policy of generations of Communists to stamp out any form of nationalism in those regions, or Soviet Socialist Republics, as they are so surprisingly called. There have been deportations of vast proportions of the population. There is no freedom for national forms of art and literature. Everything has been done to destroy even language itself and to inculcate into the people Russian phrases and Russian words. This is not even colonialism; it is annexation. In the other great half of the Communist bloc, what China did in Tibet was not annexation, I believe, but annihilation.
Then we have to stand and listen to these taunts of colonialism and imperialism. They are made to sound dirty words. Yet we listen to them and apparently either do not notice or do not mind. It is bare-faced, downright impudence, and I am sure that it is high time that somebody said so. Is it that we do not care or do we think that we are losing ground? I do not want to go into the impact of the subject upon our colonial affairs in Africa and Asia and all the other important parts of the world where the Western point of view must prevail, and where all these lies go uncontradicted day after day, and where we apparently do nothing except show an example. We say no words and do nothing to counteract these things.
There can be no doubt that the danger is in this country as well. It is perhaps
410
not so apparent a danger as that during the last war. It is probably a more long-term and cunning danger. Yet it is a fully-fledged campaign against our way of life and against our form of civilisation. I think that there must have been something of the same feeling among the ancient Romans when they saw Christianity spread across what they then knew as the world. Somewhat the same historical set of conditions occurred in the Middle Ages in the Crusades, when, after all, the greatest sacrifices were made by people from all over Europe when danger came nowhere near them at all.
I do not think that we need to make sacrifices today, but what I implore is some sort of awareness that this is a danger and an emergency. I cannot see how people can sit and watch examples such as the recent action in the High Court in the Electrical Trades Union's case. I do not know what may happen on appeal, of course; but even if only some of the evidence that came out in that case is true, surely it is a matter of the gravest concern. Again, as my noble friend has said, can there be much doubt that trouble in the docks and trouble in the car industry has something in it to do with the workings and machinations of international Communism? I should be surprised if it had not. For, after all, where better can the economy of this country be struck than in the docks, through which all our exports pass; and what larger exports have we than our motor cars and motor vehicles? Those are two ways in which any clever machinator would attack us, and I cannot believe it is pure chance that those are the areas of our industry where trouble is attending.
The Electrical Trades Union itself, of course, can paralyse the country, if it so chooses. I was glad, therefore, to hear the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, say that there is concern in the trade unions about this, because I cannot believe that this country can sit back and watch in silence and do nothing for much longer while these things come to light. I do not know exactly what I am asking for, except that the other day my noble friend Lord Dundee made a very profound speech which brought out a large number of these points. I am sure that my noble friend was right to make that speech, and

411
I hope he will make another such speech this evening. I hope, too, that others will make similar speeches, both from the Front and the Back Benches here, and from the other side of the House, because, quite apart from some sort of vague faith that we shall win in the end, I believe that we must have action now.
Above all, I would beseech that this problem should be put, as it were, into the frame and given the perspective that it is certainly due when we consider such problems as our entry into the European Economic Community. It has always been the policy of a dictator to divide and conquer, and surely a united Europe is something which would give us immense strength. It is against the background of the spread and the aims of international Communism that I should like to see that sort of problem looked at, and not purely on a domestic or even perhaps on a Commonwealth level. If we are aware of the danger which I am sure we are in, I believe that awareness will give us strength as a nation; and it is, above all, strength and purpose that we must have if we are to negotiate with the Communists. Of course we must negotiate with them; but strength and purpose are the only two things that I believe they understand. Surely an informed, an awakened and an aroused country will give the emissaries of Her Majesty's Government just that feeling of security and strength which we so much need.
6.5 p.m.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Birdwood, for having initiated this debate to-day. I think it has been a useful debate. For myself, I have spent my life in the main in going for, attacking and exposing Conservatism, Liberalism and capitalism, and I have enjoyed the freedom which has been permitted to me in so doing. It is one of the real tests of democracy whether you can get up on a soap box in Hyde Park and tell Her Majesty's Government exactly what you think of them; that they ought to finish, go out and be replaced by somebody else. If you cannot tell the Government that, then your freedom has gone. And it is the case that in Communist countries they are not allowed to say those things about the Government which we here in
412
Britain can say in any park or on any street corner.
In the words of the late Aneurin Bevan, with whom I did not always agree, and, goodness knows!, he did not always agree with me,
"The Communist Party is not a Party; it is a conspiracy."
That is true. It essentially works underground. Its own structure is that there is some degree of what may be called Communist democracy within the Party; that is to say, there are some forms of election within the Party under a sort of Soviet system whereby the lower branches of the Party have some hand in electing the higher branches and the higher branches the higher still, and so on, so that there are elections of a sort. I am inclined to think, however, that, bad as the elections of the E.T.U. apparently were, through ballot rigging and so on, there is not even a pretence at democratic election in Communist elections. When the Central Committee or the Executive Committee of the Communist Party of Great Britain go to one of their Annual Congresses, as they are called, they take a list of recommendations as to who shall be elected—that is to say, they are a continuing body corporate—and, in the main, almost universally those people are elected.
It is true that within that Central Committee and the Political Bureau, and so on, there can be argument, according to the amount of power possessed by the leading personality in the Party. I should imagine that in the British Communist Party there can be argument, and it may be so in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union as well. The arguments are secret; the controversies are secret. But once a decision has been reached, nobody can go outside to try to convert the rank and file of the Party to another point of view, as is the case with our free British political Parties—and, heaven knows!, it is a common practice of the Labour Party for people even on the National Executive to go outside to try to convert people to take a different view from the National Executive's. It is a free country, so far, and they have the right to do so. But they do not do that in the Communist Party.
The danger of this is that, although there may be a nominal form of election,

413
which, however, is not real, power is then conferred on the Political Bureau or the Central Committee or the Secretariat which can impose itself on the minds and the outlook of the rank and file and the policy of the Party. This is how Soviet democracy works; it is how the democracy, so-called, of the British Communist Party works. But it is not democracy. It is not the dictatorship of the proletariat, as my noble friend Lord Citrine has well said—in fact, the proletariat knows little about what is happening—but is the dictatorship of the Secretariat; and if the First Secretary is powerful, it can degenerate into his personal dictatorship. I would therefore recommend that anybody who wants to be Prime Minister of Russia under Communism should make it a condition that he must be the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, because otherwise he will be in trouble before he is many years older. That, I think, was probably the difficulty which faced Mr. Malenkov and certain others.
The great thing to do is not to get neurotic about this question. On the other hand, one must have convictions and indignations against tyranny, and not be afraid to speak out. In the British Labour Party, in the Trade Union Movement, and in local Labour parties for quite a number of years we had to face determined attempts—on the whole unsuccessful, but not wholly unsuccessful for a short time—by the Communist Party to capture the show. I went through all this when I was Secretary of the London Labour Party and when I was a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party. If one is to enter into battle with the Communists, one must not be ignorant of Communist ideas. One must not. be afraid to read Communist literature—and, as a matter of fact, like my noble friend Lord Citrine, I have saturated myself in Communist literature. I was determined to become as expert about Communism as the Communists themselves, and if possible to know more about Communism than the Communists knew, because it is only by intelligent discussion and argument against the ideas that one can be effective in these matters.
And we were effective. If Communism is weak in the United Kingdom, the
414
major credit belongs to the Labour Party and the trade union leaders. We have fought it energetically, strongly and with understanding. We have done something else. Communism can grow on the economic desperation and poverty of the people, so we in the Labour Party and Trade Union Movement made another contribution in the political sphere by improving the social conditions, housing, social insurance, and so on, of the people and securing for them a 'better standard of life. If we had not fought Communist activities intelligently, if we had not understood them, and if we had not made these struggles for better social conditions, Communism might have been, not necessarily predominant, but a substantial political force in our country at this time. As it is, they have not one single Member of Parliament; they have not one member on the London County Council, and they have very few members on local authorities as a whole. I do not want to be too boastful, but I say that the major credit belongs to the British Labour Party and the Trade Union Movement.
I admit, on the other hand, that there is too much Communist influence in some of the trade unions—though, as in the case of the Electrical Trades Union, if it goes too far it gets pulled up. But it would not be fair to say that the whole of the friction with the shop stewards is Communist. Some of it is, and undoubtedly the Communist countries are anxious to weaken our country economically as much as militarily, because the two things are interlocked. They are doing everything they can in that direction. It is the duty of the rank and file trade unionists to go to their branch meetings and vote in elections, so that a representative decision is reached. I would go further and say that it would be a good thing for some of the unions to follow the example of the Steel Workers' Union which, in the case of one unofficial strike, expelled or suspended a limited number of the leaders of that strike. There is much to be said for it, because if unions think that there are conspirators against the union as well as against the employers, then they have a right to stop it.
It is not only within the Labour movement and otherwise that the Communists work. A pamphlet has been issued

415
written by a Communist. It is perfectly true that it has a preface by me, but the book is by a Communist. In typically long-winded language it is called, How Parliament Can Play a Revolutionary Part in the Transition to Socialism and the Role of the Popular Masses. There is one thing about technical Communist literature: it is nearly as boring as Hitler's Mein Kampf. They lack the popular style; but not always. This is the inside story, written by a Communist and participant, of the overthrow of democracy in Czechoslovakia. Mr. Benes, the President of Czechoslovakia, whom I knew, meant well. He was living near the Soviet Union, and he sincerely believed in co-operation between democratic countries and the Soviet Union. He was determined to get on and be good friends with the Soviet Union, and was absolutely sincere about it. Jan Masaryk, poor chap, had the same view, and he came to that tragic end.
What did Benes do? He formed a Popular Front with Social Democrats, Liberals, and Communists, which, of course, was exactly what the doctor ordered, so to speak. The Communists worked with some patience, but with a good deal of speed, to undermine Parliamentary democracy in Czechoslovakia. Benes, under Russian pressure in Moscow when he went to see them there on a friendly visit, made one fatal mistake bigger than the other mistakes. One mistake was letting them in at all, but the fatal mistake was giving the Communists the Ministry of the Interior. If anybody is tempted to form a Popular Front in this country, which I hope they will not, I would beg of them not to give the Communist element the Home Office, the Scottish Office or the Commissionership of the Metropolitan Police, because that is asking for trouble. But Benes did it, I am sure meaning well. The result was that the show went wrong.
Czechoslovakia was one of the most successful Parliamentary democracies in central Europe. Between the wars their poor country suffered from Nazi dictatorship, then it got its freedom for a little, and then suffered from Communist dictatorship. It seems to be a very unfortunate country. But Benes and company should never have formed that Popular Front. They should have stuck
416
to democratic elections, and sought to get a majority for Parliamentary government.
Now when these people get in, another thing they do is to try to discredit Parliamentary government and make it impossible to work. I am not going to judge Mr. Khrushchev this way or the other, because I find him very difficult to judge; it depends upon which day of the week it is, or which week in the year it is, because he can be a man of peace one week and a man of warlike threats the next. It may be that in some respects, as my noble friend, Lord Citrine has indicated, we owe him some benefit of the doubt. I do not express a view one way or the other, because it is exceedingly difficult to tell. But it was not without significance that he kicked his shoes on the tables of the United Nations and made a shocking and undignified row, which one would not think a Prime Minister of a great nation would ever do. His colleagues acted in the same way. So once in a Parliament they conduct it in such a way that they bring discredit upon the Parliamentary institution, in the hope that people outside will say, "What is the good of Parliament? It is no good at all."
This pamphlet speaks about the rôle of the popular masses. The popular masses, whoever they may be, were mobilised to make demonstrations against the Government or particular Ministers; to demand the elimination from the coalition of this Party or the other Party, with a view to the elimination of democratic Parliamentary elections and the installing of the other elements. This can happen in other events, such as strikes. That action is taken with a view to making impossible the work of democratic institutions, and even, at times, in a few cases, democratic trade unions. Of course there is the element of the insidious boring of a nation from within.
I read a book which is very different from this one. It is readable; it is a novel—a romance. It is, I think, exaggerated and on some points unreliable nevertheless it has a message for us. It is called When the Kissing Had to Stop. The edition I read was published in New York and written by a Mr. Fitzgibbon. I The story here is that in the United

417
Kingdom unilateralism made great progress, to such an extent that it influenced and shaped the result of a Parliamentary general election, and a unilateralist Government was returned. Working within were some Communist elements, some muddle-headed elements, some wishful-thinking elements, and some intellectuals, who sometimes are funny people. There they were, and there was some crookedness also in the Government. There were ambitious people. People were pushed out and people pushed in.
The result was that the Government decided to destroy all its atom bombs anti get rid of the American bases. The Russians had promised to get their bases out of the occupied countries, and they started with Poland. The theory of the book was that that was the best place to start because it would least injure Russian military power. They invited journalists to go and see it and they went, it was so. It was not so in countries generally, but it was so in Poland and it was so in Britain. Then an inspectorate came over, followed by military people, police agents and so on; and the story is that the country became subordinated by essentially Communist influences and we became a Russian satellite country, much to the regret and sorrow of America. As I say, there are exaggerations in it. but theoretically it is a possible idea and it has to be taken into account as a possibility.
One of the sad things about the recent Communist Party Congress in Russia was that Mr. Molotov was denounced—I do not propose to defend him; I always regarded him as a miserable sort of fellow and too negative—so was Koganovich, who had a better reputation, and so were others alleged to have been anti-party men. It is another illustration of Communist democracy. The tragic thing is that these poor fellows were not permitted to go to the Congress and defend themselves and put their side of the case; they were condemned in their absence, and that really is pretty rough. I have been condemned in the Labour Party now and again for one thing and another—not too badly; I cannot grumble at the treatment I have received—but, at any rate, I have had the right to answer back. My noble friend Lord Citrine has had his troubles in the Trade
418
Union Movement, but he has had the right to answer back; and, my goodness!, he did so with effect. But these poor fellows have no right to answer back. I say "poor fellows" in inverted commas, because they have not been so poor as all that in their time. However, they cannot answer back. We do not know whether or not Molotov has a case, because he has not been allowed to state it. Therefore we have to be on our guard against people being individually worked upon! or politically seduced, even for material reward. Everybody must be on his guard, because dangers can happen—dangers to our country and our influence in the world.
It is true, as my noble friend Lord Citrine has said, that one cannot say that no benefits of any kind have arisen from Communist rule in the Soviet Union, and possibly in China, although China seems to be having a stickier run at the moment; but Russia had a sticky time earlier on. It is likely that Russian economic production has improved in recent years, and certainly it ought to have done, in view of the economic power of the Government. I think the standard of life of the Russian people is better than it was under Tsardom, and it needed to be. It is probably still noticeably below the standard of life of the Western working and middle-classes, and some class division has been created in the Soviet Union as a result of the bureaucracy. That may be conceded.
Up to that point it is a good thing; but what I cannot stomach is the loss of individual freedom, of liberty and political freedom. Material advantages do not really outweigh that loss. Therefore I earnestly hope that some day the Russian people and the other people in the Soviet colonies of Eastern Europe, to which the noble Lord opposite referred, will realise this. He is quite right: Russia is the most imperialist Power on earth at this moment, the greatest colonial Power. In relation to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Twining, who is very experienced in colonial matters. I would point out that it was our own British Government, ever since the Labour Government and continued by the Conservative Government, rightly or wrongly, who took us as an imperial Power out of the Colonies and

419
conscientiously sought to train the colonial people for self-government. I myself gave lectures in East Africa, as the noble Lord, Lord Twining knows, because he was with me. I was asked to go there by the authorities for the purpose of seeking to educate African legislators in the arts of Parliamentary democracy; and the Government themselves have done the same.
We did not make the mistake that the Belgians made of being too late and too quick. We have sought to bring the folks along; we have taken risks; we have gone very quickly when it might have been better to go a little more slowly; but if we had, we should have had the Africans impatiently waiting; and, on balance, I think we have gone the way we should. India has gained enormously in education from the British Administration when it was there and the freedom that we freely granted. But what is sad is that when the freedom which these folks sought has been granted, they are in danger of losing it to a new and worse kind of tyranny than ever the British imposed. That is a terrible state of affairs, and I should hope that the former colonial people will not fall for it, because it would be a sad thing.
Now the great thing is knowledge and education, and I agree with the noble Lord on the Back Bench opposite that the Government are not doing enough in the way of factual education on these matters and on our own record, which is not a mean record. We ought to do more among all the peoples of the world and try to get inside the dictatorship countries themselves. None of us wish to be enemies with the people of the Soviet Union. Unlike my noble friend Lord Citrine, I went there only once, but I thought they were a nice people. The reputation of the Russian people is that they are not an aggressive people and that they usually have to be convinced that it is a defensive war before they will put their backs into it. The trouble now is that we do not know who is doing the educating. But there it is. They are a nice people and they are suffering from enormous military and propaganda expenditure. Let us hope that the day may not be distant when nation can "speak unto nation", as the B.B.C. says,
420
when our people can freely talk to the Russian people and they can freely talk to us, and there can be free contact between the democracies and the Communist countries of the world. For it is not good that men should be politically slaves. It is desirable that all men in all countries shall be free—and free to participate in the government of their country.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I first offer my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, on his most interesting and delightful maiden speech, which we all enjoyed hearing very much. The noble Viscount suggested that this debate might breed other debates on a great multiplicity of subjects arising out of it, among which he evidently included the banking policy of Mr. Montagu Norman and the gold standard. But however that may be, we all hope that the noble Viscount will speak to us again on a great variety of subjects with that agreeable latitude which we always admire in the Party to which he belongs.
My Lords, the ground which your Lordships have covered in this debate is very much the same as the ground which I tried to cover in my remarks to your Lordships on Wednesday of last week. I do not want to repeat anything I said then, and your Lordships will therefore probably not mind if I try to be very brief. I think I thoroughly agreed with everything which was said just now by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. His only criticism of the Government, so far as I remember, is the criticism which I have always rather sympathised with, that we are not doing enough in the way of information to tell the world of our achievements; I have always felt that myself. But I think that we are now doing a good deal better than we have done in the past, and I hope perhaps at another time to have the opportunity of showing the noble Lord some evidence of the growth of our information services.
My noble friend Lord Birdwood, who introduced the Resolution, gave a very careful analysis, with which I think all of your Lordships have agreed, of the nature and motives of world Communism, and I entirely agree with him that it is our duty to understand the strategy and

421
the tactics of world Communism, which I think your Lordships, as this debate has shown, understand very fully.
I do not agree that the world is divided into rival ideological blocs: I think that is a Communist fallacy, an oversimplification of the real position. There is a Communist ideology which is imposed on hundreds of millions of people by a small ruling class who are indoctrinated with the theories of Marx, and I think what really separates the world ideologically is not the existence of any positive ideologies in the free world but the distinctive Communist definition of justice and morality which is quite different from the understanding of those words which is held by ordinary human beings in every part of the world. In the language of Communism, justice and morality are simply what serves the interests of Communist dictatorship. There is no conception of the transcendent justice or transcendent morality which most ordinary men and women recognise.
In the Communist view, the idea held by most ordinary people that there is such a thing as a transcendent morality is nothing more than an emotional noise. I understand that this view is now held by a number of dons at Oxford, with whom the noble Earl, Lord Longford, is probably more familiar than I am. They do not matter very much because they do not have nuclear weapons and they do not control the destinies of hundreds of millions of people.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, since I have been mentioned, perhaps I may say that I should have thought they were dying out: that they were the men of yesterday.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am delighted to hear the noble Earl's opinion on that, but of course it is a pretty safe opinion because these pseudo-philosophies never last very long; they always die out sooner or later.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: They come back again.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, they come back again in different forms. In all societies throughout history there has been a great deal of injustice and cruelty and oppression and a great many atrocities, and the worst examples of in-
422
justice and cruelty of one man to his fellow creatures are highlighted very often by historians in order that they may be held up to execration among people who learn history, like Cromwell's massacre at Drogheda in the seventeenth century, or the massacre of St. Bartholomew Eve in Paris in the sixteenth century, the cruelties of ancient Rome and so on; they are all looked on as abominations that ought to be execrated, and they are recorded for that purpose. But now, in the twentieth century, behind the Iron Curtain, these things are not specially recorded; they are regarded as normal and good. That is the real point: that cruelty, atrocity and injustice, as we see them, are regarded in the Communist ideology as good and virtuous if they serve the ends of Communist dictatorship, I think that is the real thing which separates intellectual and ideological Communism from the rest of the world.
In the rest of the world, in the free world, we do not seek a uniform ideology at all; we have a great variety of social systems, of customs and of religions, and it is the Communist ideology which offends against the ideas of humanity in general. There is no countervailing ideology to put against it on the other side. All the talk in the last few weeks at the Twenty-second Congress in Moscow about there being two blocs in the world, the Communist bloc and the capitalist bloc, is a sheer fallacy; it does not exist. I do not think you could get greater differences in the social ideas and religions of the free world than exist, let us say, between India and Western Europe; although, as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, very rightly said, India owes a great deal to us. She does; we have educated her in free government. The general social background and history of India is very different from that of Western Europe and America, but the ideas of the ordinary people on these fundamental things, whatever their religion may be, are very much the same.
I wonder whether I might give your Lordships as an example an article by a well-known Indian journalist, A. D. Gorwala, which I read not long ago in the magazine Encounter, which I think puts so well the differences which your Lordships have been discussing in this

423
debate. I would quote only a few sentences. He is writing about conditions in India, and he says:
"We do not have a legal system which makes the will of the rulers the law. We do not ban open discussion of public affairs. Our newspapers are not organs of the government repeating whatever the Press bureau tells them. We do not let the executive will decide court cases. We do not try people by mass meetings, nor compel confessions by refined torture. We do not execute large numbers of men by making them kneel and then shooting them through the head from behind to the accompaniment of the revelry of merrily-dancing crowds. We have not murdered (the Communist Chinese term is 'deprived of existence') about 12 million citizens in six years.
We do not compel our people to obtain permission before buying railway tickets. We do not force them to join street committees so that their movements can be kept under watch. We do not 'brainwash' our people nor make them agree to think as we like. We do not insist on their confessing whatever the Government feels they ought to confess. We do not make our peasants yield their lands by force to so-called 'co-operatives', which take away most of their produce. We do not terrorise our people into compulsorily volunteering for any task the Government desires to have done. We do not have concentration camps. We do not regard as absurd the enjoyment of individual freedom by the citizen…. We do not look upon tolerance as an unconscionable hindrance but rather as the greatest good. We do not take refuge in the `double-speak' which means dictatorship when it says democracy, the Communist Party when it says the people, and tyranny when it says justice."
My Lords, I thought this was such a good commentary on everything your Lordships have been discussing this afternoon that it would bear quotation at some slight length.
Of course, the first duty of the Government—I am not going to say much about this because I said it a week ago—is to keep our society and our country and our Allies free, not from Communist ideas, but from their practical consequences: the threat of nuclear war, which arises from the ruthless aggression and the cruel tyranny of Communist power, or the subversion which has been mentioned by so many of your Lordships—as Lord Twining, who spoke about Africa, and the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, and others have said—in any part of the world where they can stir up trouble. In the Congo, or Vietnam—any part of the world which is not subject to their domination where there seems to be an opportunity
424
for creating trouble—it is their invariable practice to send in propaganda, arms, sometimes perhaps volunteers, not so much to further any particular cause but simply to create trouble in order that the non-Communist world may be in a state of disturbance. Then there is the industrial penetration of the trade unions, again not with the purpose of getting anybody to vote Communist, but of disrupting our industry and preventing free countries from being economically prosperous.
As to the first, of course the point of overriding importance is that we need to try to prevent nuclear war. There is no use pretending that we have not had a terrible set-back owing to the action of Russia in breaking off the conference at Geneva which offered some hope of getting the first step—a small step but a first step—towards disarmament, which we hoped would be an agreement to suspend nuclear tests for a long period. Of course that is only a step. We cannot remove the terrible danger of nuclear war unless we have disarmament. I remember at the beginning of 1959, more than two years ago, debating in this House a Motion about nuclear disarmament in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke. He said, very truly, that the real obstacle to an effective disarmament agreement was the Russian phobia about inspection. That was very true then, and it is very true now.
In spite of the disappointments we have suffered, we must persevere. We must try to get disarmament, because that is the only way. If we never get disarmament then, sooner or later, by accident or otherwise, nuclear war might break out. We must aim at disarmament and, in order to get it, we must somehow or other overcome this Russian phobia against inspection. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, thinks we should also provide for an international police force and some kind of world government in order to make disarmament effective. I think that very likely he may be right. I am not going to pursue that point. But the first thing—we do not want to give the Russians too much to swallow at once—is for us to try to get an agreement on inspection. That must be our first objective. Meanwhile, as I say, I am afraid we have had a terrible set-back in the Russian breach of the undertaking to suspend tests.

425
Their abandonment of the conference for the suspension of tests has been a terrible shock to every peace-loving man and woman in every part of the world.
As for penetration by military and other methods in any country which offers the opportunity, we must persevere in trying to counter that wherever we can. I entirely agree with all that your Lordships have said, including the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, just now, about the greater susceptibility of some countries which have lately emerged from despotism, through colonialism to liberty. Often they are naturally, both for economic and for other reasons, a little more susceptible than others to Communist penetration. As the noble Lord said, we must try to counter this with understanding.
As for industrial penetration, this was the main point on which I am not quite sure I was in agreement with my noble friend Lord Birdwood, although he put what he said in the form of a question rather than a proposal, when he suggested that there might be a need for a Government inquiry into Communist penetration of the trade unions. I doubt if an inquiry would do much good. I think that we know all the facts which we need to know about it. We all know that in some unions the representation of Communists is out of all proportion to their numbers. As Lord Morrison of Lambeth said, this is entirely due to the apathy of the voters; sometimes not more than 10 per cent. of them vote.
I think that the main defence against this kind of subversion must be the common sense of our people. We do not proscribe Communism. We do not make the holding of Communist opinions or membership of the Communist Party illegal. And as for the trade unions, out of the large number of trade unions in this country there is only a handful in which Communist representation is strong at the top. I think that the problem is best dealt with by the unions themselves, and that Government action can do more harm than good by reducing the incentive on their part to responsible self-government.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment? I had not meant this proposed inquiry to be confined to only the
426
trade union movement. I had meant it to cover every possible form of Communist activity in the country. For example, perhaps even penetration into the educational field.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I certainly agree that we cannot know too much about Communist activity. I was merely trying to say on this particular point that I do not think an inquiry about the trade unions would do much good. I think that, on the whole, the duly elected officials of the trade unions, with the support of the majority of their members, exercise their power responsibly. This exercise of power was illustrated in the action taken by the Trades Union Congress in the recent Electrical Trades Union case, although I know that some people thought they took a long time to do it.
I think that most of your Lordships who have spoken in this debate this afternoon, although, of course, we are all interested in immediate Government responsibility, have been a little more interested in the long-term question rather than in the immediate problems: that is, the long-term question of how we and our children are going to live with the people of Russia and China. We all want not only to be on friendly terms with the Russian people and with the Chinese people, and with all peoples, but to help them, and we want them to help us both materially and in culture—in fact, in every way. As the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, very rightly pointed out, and as I also pointed out to your Lordships last week, I think, when the Russian Government talk about peaceful co-existence they do not mean what we mean by peaceful coexistence at all. They mean trying to subdue the whole world without the necessity of dropping hydrogen bombs on the free part of it. That is what they mean by peaceful co-existence.
Peaceful co-existence is a thing which is held up solely and entirely by the Communist Powers. It is not we who build the walls around East Germany, who try to keep unwilling people in, who will not allow contact between our own people and the outside world, and who will not tell our own people the truth. The Russian people have not yet been told that their Government have broken the pledge about suspending nuclear tests and have exploded 31

427
nuclear bombs in the atmosphere within the last two months. They do not know that; it is known only to the Communist ruling class. We are not putting any obstacle in the way of peaceful co-existence. What we want, my Lords, is what is sometimes now called, in order to distinguish it from peaceful co-existence, "co-existence plus"—that is, a coexistence which will enable the peoples in Russia and those in Western Europe to know each other and to help each other, to trade with each other, to exchange views and to travel freely, to mix with each other and to be friends with each other. That is what we call "coexistence plus".
I have made one quotation already to your Lordships, and I should just like to mention an article which appeared yesterday in the Guardian by an honourable Member of the Labour Party in another place, Mr. Mayhew, who I am very glad to see defends and supports this conception of "co-existence plus". I will just quote one short sentence. He says:
"In reply to the Communist challenge, therefore, the non-Communist world should take its stand on the conception of 'Coexistence Plus': plus ideological co-existence, and an end to proselytising and to bitter and dangerous rivalry; plus practical East-West co-operation; plus genuinely free East-West contacts. Millions of non-Communists in N.A.T.O. and uncommitted countries could find common ground here, and would probably support with great moral conviction a worldwide peace-and-friendship campaign based on these principles. Those who clung to the old. sterile Marxist conception of co-existence would find themselves isolated, and probably disunited as well".
I should like to say that the Government welcome this article, which corresponds with their own views.
I know that the immediate prospect is very discouraging. We must overcome the apparently monolithic obstinacy of the Communist ruling class. But there is one thing which I believe we have on our side. Twentieth-century progress in production, in commerce, in communication and in science is making the world more and more interdependent, and it is going to become more and more difficult for any ruling class to shut off its own people intellectually from the rest of the world. I think that we on our side have that advantage; therefore
428
do not let us despair. In spite of the apparently insuperable difficulties, let us keep on trying to change this Russian idea of peaceful co-existence into an idea of co-existence plus, which will be founded on genuine tolerance and on mutual help.
6.56 p.m.
LORD BIRDWOOD: My Lords, may I first thank all those noble Lords who, at great trouble to themselves in some cases, have contributed to this debate? I had no idea, when I initiated this debate, that we were to have a maiden speech. I think it was the Greeks who told us that "Variety is the breath of life", and, if I may say so, the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, certainly gave us a real puff of life this afternoon.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl who has replied for the Government for a very searching answer indeed to this debate. There is one thing, I think, which we have put into perspective in all our minds, and that is the meaning of peaceful co-existence. It is sometimes held that these rather theoretical debates—in which the House of Lords alone, I think, specialises—do not serve a purpose. It is said that, in contrast, we ought to stick to discussing facts and the day-to-day ad hoc situation in the world. I hope and believe that the debate this afternoon has given the lie to that kind of approach to the theoretical debate. Incidentally, it seems to me that a good many practical points have been introduced as well.
There are two points that I wanted to bring out in this debate. The first was the need to counter apathy, and the second was the need to introduce into all our policies the concept, always, of the freedom of men and their ideas to move across frontiers. I was very pleased to know that at least two or three of your Lordships fully supported me in my approach, both to the apathy in this country and to the freedom of movement. The noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, referred to a document. If I may say so within the context of apathy, it has seemed to me rather curious that that document, translated into English, has, so far as I know, sold less than one thousand copies in this country, whereas it is selling in tens of thousands on the Continent and in

429
America. Here, after all, is the blueprint of a plan to undermine and bring down all that is precious to us and what it stands for. Copies of that document should, in my view, be in the hands of every single Member of Parliament. That is just an example of the apathy that exists.
I could not quite agree with a view that was expressed during this debate: that we had to meet abuse from the other side by a kind of dignified silence on this side. Much has gone wrong, as I see it, through our case lapsing by
430
default, and it is refreshing, these days, to find that we are answering the Communists with force—and fairly quickly, too. I think that is all I wish to say in comment on this afternoon's debate. I feel that, at last, this subject has had a full airing, and I hope and believe that some of the views that have been expressed will find their way out into the country. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at seven o'clock.