Sitting of 19 October 1961

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

NEW WRIT
For Manchester, Moss Side, in the room of James Watts, esquire, deceased. —[Mr. Redmayne.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER No. 29)

Return ordered,

"respecting application of Standing Order No. 29 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1960–61 (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:—

1

2

3

4

5

6

Date when Closure moved, and by whom

Question before House or Committee when moved

Whether in House or Committee

Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by Speaker or Chairman

Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion

Result of Motion and if a Division, Numbers for and against

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS
Return ordered,
"of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into the House of Commons and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1960–61.
Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1960–61 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the Sitting of each Committee; the

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER No. 9
Return ordered,
"of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the definite matter of urgent public importance and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1960–61."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]
number of days on which each Committee sat; the number of days on which each selected Member served, the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee: the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:
Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1960–61, were referred by the Committee of Selection to Committees on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:
And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the Sittings of the Committee."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS
Return ordered,
"of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1960–61, showing:

(1) the number which received the Royal Assent;

(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of the Prorogation."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC PETITIONS
Return ordered,
"of the number of Public Petitions presented and printed in Session 1960–61 with the total number of signatures in that Session."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES
Return ordered,
"of the Select Committees appointed in Session 1960–61, with the Sub-Committees appointed by them; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each met, and the number of days each Member attended: the total expenses of the attendances of witnesses at each Select Committee and Sub-Committee; and the total number of Members who served on Select Committees; together with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmen's Panel and the Court of Referees." —[The Deputy-Chairman of Wars and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
Return ordered,
"of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1960–61, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the Sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on
334
which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered,"—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES
Return ordered,
"for Session 1960–61, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present: (2) the number of Bills considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of Bills considered in relation to their principle and the number of Estimates and Matters considered by the Scottish Grand Committee, the number of Matters considered by the Welsh Grand Committee, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates and Matters considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing, in the case of each Bill, the particular Committee by whom it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered, the number of Members present at each of those sittings and, in the case of Estimates and Matters, the number of days on which they were considered and the number of Members present on each of those days."—[The Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.]

"QUEEN MARY" (REPLACEMENT)
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the replacement of the "Queen Mary". [HON, MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The Government have considered the statement which the Cunard Company has made public today of the reasons why the company does not feel able to place an order at the present time for a ship to replace the "Queen Mary".
The company has expressed to the Government its hope that until it has completed the reappraisal referred to in its statement, and has been able to advise the Government as to the action which, in its opinion, should then be taken as regards the replacement of the "Queen Mary", the question of financial assistance from Her Majesty's Government should be held open pending a final decision.

335
The Government's agreement to assist the building of a ship to replace the "Queen Mary" was based on the understanding that an order for the new ship would be placed this autumn, and that the ship would be in operation at the earliest possible date thereafter. The decision which the company has now reached creates a new situation—[Laughter.]—and the Government must reserve their right to consider, without prior commitment, any proposals which the company may put forward at a later date.
Mr. Strauss: It will be clear from the way in which the Minister of Transport's statement was received—
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister is even more deeply committed than the Minister of Transport on this matter, ought he not to be here in support of that statement?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Strauss: In view of the way in which the statement by the Minister of Transport has been received, it is clear that there are mixed feelings about it in the House. The Minister will remember that when this matter was discussed during our deliberations on the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, many hon. Members, on both sides, expressed the view that our national resources could be better used and greater benefit conferred upon the shipbuilding industry by other means than the building of a "Queen" as a replacement.
I should like to ask the Minister some questions on his statement. First, are not the arguments put forward today by Sir John Brocklebank, in justifying the Cunard Company's decision, exactly those expressed by many of us within this House and at the time strenuously refuted by the Government?
Secondly, whatever merits there may be now in abandoning this enterprise, is it not clear that in doing so the Conservative Party is breaking yet another General Election pledge? Is it not a fact that both in the official election manifesto of the Conservative Party and, more specifically, in the Prime Minister's speech at St. Andrew's Hall, Glasgow, during the course of the election, the
336
replacement of the "Queens" was promised if the Conservative Party was re-elected? Is the Minister aware that this pledge induced many people in the shipbuilding areas throughout the country to vote for the Conservative Party? Is this not yet another warning to the nation never to believe Conservative election promises?
Finally, what alternative plans has the Minister in mind for assisting the shipbuilding industry?
Mr. Marples: To answer the last part first, the Government must wait until the Cunard Company has completed its reassessment. In reply to the first part of the question about the opinions expressed in this House, the Opposition did not divide on Second Reading, nor did they divide on Third Reading of the Bill. The only hon. Member who voted against the Bill on Third Reading was the Leader of the Liberal Party—
Mr. S. Silverman Mr. S. Silverman rose—
Mr. Marples: —assisted by two very able Tellers from just below the Gangway, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the hon. Member far Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot). They were the Tellers, but they did not vote.
On the second part of the question, Cunard stated quite clearly in its published statement that the passenger trade has slumped, particularly in the second half of this year, first-class traffic has fallen and operating costs, including wages, have risen enormously.
As regards the election pledge, the Government went to great lengths to vindicate their honour.
Mr. Montgomery: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a statement made by the Cunard Company in 1960, when it said:
"We believe that the ship we are hoping to build is the right ship and exhaustive examination and research have led us continually back to that belief."
What reason is there for the Cunard Company now to change its mind, having made a mockery of so many of our shipbuilding firms? Has any thought been given to the cost or effort put in by these firms who tendered to no avail?

337
My right hon. Friend has said that when this question is considered again by the Government, they will look into the matter. May I ask him, first, to read the Conservative Party's election manifesto? If he does not take any notice of it, I shall remind him of it in the House in debate. I happen to represent one of the shipyards that would almost certainly have got the contract had the order been placed. The people in my constituency will be very angry about the whole business.
Mr. Marples: This is a matter of commercial judgment for the Cunard Company. The traffic has altered in character just recently. Concerning the question of a successful tenderer, the Cunard Company announced, I think, that Swan Hunter and Vickers submitted the best tender. It is, however, a matter for the Cunard Company, but I am told that it will discuss with Swan Hunter and Vickers the question of that firm's expenses in tendering. This question would arise only the case of one firm—that is, the successful tenderer.
Mr. Bence: I believe that I heard the Minister say—
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member started it all.
Mr. Bence: Is it not a fact, Sir, that the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) is responsible for all this?
Mr. Speaker: It is no good asking me. I did not even hear what was said.
Mr. Bence: I believe that I heard the Minister say that we could not expect the Government to give a pledge in this House concerning the replacement of one of the "Queens". Why should the Prime Minister, in Green's Cinema, Glasgow, and in a letter to me, give a pledge during the election, when this House was not sitting, that when returned to office the Government would finance the replacement of the "Queens", and yet today the Minister says that he could not give such a pledge?
Mr. Marples: It must be quite clear that the Government have fulfilled their pledge. We have passed in this House an Act, which is on the Statute Book,
338
to help the Cunard Company; but the Cunard Company has now decided that it does not wish to go forward. My statement said that the Government
"must reserve their right to consider, without prior commitment, any proposals which the company may put forward at a later date".
Mr. Shinwell: Does the Minister recall that during the Second Reading debate on this matter, and during the prolonged further stages of the Bill, hon. Members on both sides demanded that the report of the inquiry preceding the Government's decision should be made available to hon. Members, but the Minister resisted that demand for some unaccountable reason? May I ask the Minister whether he will place that paper on the order of the House so that hon. Members may study it and come to a conclusion about why the Cunard Line has now decided not to proceed with the building of this vessel?
Secondly, as one of those who, all along, declared his doubts as to whether the ship would ever be built—and the Minister is aware of that—may I ask him whether, during the debate, he did not stake his reputation over and over again on the building of this ship? Quite seriously, ought he not to consider resigning?
Mr. Marples: The answer to the last part of the question is "No, Sir". The answer to the first part of the question, about the publication of the Chandos Committee's Report, is that at the time the Chandos Committee was set up it was said that its report would be confidential and it was, therefore, able to get information from shipping companies and shipbuilders which otherwise it would not have got. Therefore, the Government cannot go back on that pledge. The Report cannot be published.
Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: In the light of his statement today, can my right hon. Friend say what steps he will take to see that support is given for the continuation of the North Atlantic British express passenger service, to which such great importance was attached during the Second Reading of the Bill?
Mr. Marples: The Government must wait for the reassessment by the Cunard Company.
Mr. Short: Is the Minister aware that the two statements which have been made today will be received with shock and dismay in shipbuilding circles throughout the country, particularly on Tyneside, which, we are told, submitted the lowest tender and the most imaginative design?
Is the Minister aware that we from Tyneside do not for one moment accept that the reason for abandoning this project is that commercial prospects were not adequately investigated? We cannot believe that a firm of this experience did not properly go into the prospects before asking for tenders. Is the Minister aware that we shall want to debate this subject? We shall want to know a great deal more about why this decision has been taken. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell): the only honourable thing that the Minister can do now is to resign.
Mr. Marples: The question of having a debate is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I realise that this announcement will be a disappointment to the shipbuilding industry, but I am quite certain that if the Cunard decision is right on commercial grounds the shipbuilding industry would not wish to have a ship built which would not be successful.
Mr. P. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend not now agree that he has wasted a great deal of the time of the House during the last few months, and perhaps his own as well? Therefore, for the future, will he give an undertaking that he will apply as much vigour in promoting the interests of British shipbuilding, more especially with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to taxation, and representing the needs of British shipping in America—two things which are absolutely vital to the survival of British shipping? Will he devote as much energy to those two matters as he has done in trying to frustrate sensible policies in the last twelve months?
Mr. Marples: I am sorry that I cannot agree. I find that, as usual, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend on shipping matters.
Mr. Thorpe: I ask, in the temporary absence of one hon. Member who did vote against this in a Division forced by two other hon. Members in front of me, whether, as the right hon Gentleman says that he is keeping this matter open, he does not think that it is preferable, instead of the pay pause, that this whole idea should be scrapped completely? Will he bear in mind that many people find it very distasteful that public money should be used to subsidise private capitalism without any public control at all?
Mr. Marples: The reason for the subsidy to this particular express passenger service was that every other North Atlantic express passenger service is subsidised to some extent. To that extent I think that this subsidy was justified. The Government have reserved judgment, without prior commitment, on any proposals which the company may put forward at a later date.
Mr. Peyton: My right hon. Friend appeared to ignore the fact that there was a quite important Division at another stage of the Bill, in which a large number of hon. Members took part, when they divided against what he said at the time was the substance of the Bill, so I think that what my right hon. Friend said just now was rather misleading. In this new situation, which some of us would welcome, will my right on. Friend really take to heart the lessons which are there to be learned?
Mr. Marples: I really think that the only thing the Government can now do is to—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign"]—wait for the reappraisal by the Cunard Company.
Dr. Dickson Mabon: Since the Minister, like a good many of us, has always wanted the Q3 to be built, can he say how many months will it be before he becomes impatient with the company in its reappraisal? Secondly, in view of the unemployment in many of the shipbuilding areas, will the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing in a Bill to enable the Government themselves to build this liner?
Mr. Marples: The answer to the second part of that supplementary question is, "No". The answer to the first

341
part is that the Cunard Company says that it does not expect to be able to complete its reassessment before the second quarter of next year.
Mrs. McLaughlin: May I remind the Minister that the people of Northern Ireland will view this statement with great regret despite the fact that a tender from Northern Ireland was not the successful one? Will he now, despite the necessity of waiting for Cunard's reassessment, energetically look into other means of helping the shipbuilding industry with a view to seeing whether, if it is not possible to replace the "Queens", further shipbuilding can go ahead without undue delay?
Mr. Marples: That is another question.
Mr. Bence: It is the same question all the time.
Mr. Popplewell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise what this statement really means to the whole shipbuilding industry of this country, particularly on Tyneside and the North-East? Does he not understand that this is the second decision which has been taken to abandon shipbuilding in the North-East, as only a few days ago an 18,000-ton tanker was abandoned on the Wear in spite of the Wear's having put in the lowest tender? Now we get the abandonment of this passenger ship.
When will the Minister realise that he has a duty to the shipbuilding industry? Is it not peculiar that even in this announcement the Minister had not the courtesy to pay a tribute to the new design and propulsion propounded by the Swan Hunter Company? When will he show some interest in this type of thing? In view of what he has now said, is not the only honourable thing he can do to admit his complete failure in this and in all other transport matters and resign forthwith?
Mr. Marples: The answer to the last part of that question is, again, "No." But I do realise that to the shipbuilding industry this is a very bitter disappointment, because, naturally, it wishes to build a ship of this class which would be unique in the world. At the same time, I must repeat that I do not think that the shipbuilding industry would wish to build a ship when the people
342
who were to operate it think that the conditions have changed and that it would not pay.
Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least admit that what has now happened is a complete vindication of all those on both sides of the House, and not merely on one side, who opposed this proposal from the beginning? Will he bear in mind that, although three of us voted against the Third Reading, the whole of the Opposition voted against the only substantive Clause of the Bill—
Mr. Shinwell: The Minister said that it was a wrecking Amendment.
Mr. Silverman: —that vote being to the same effect and what the right hon. Gentleman described as a wrecking Amendment? Is not the moral of this whole situation the unwisdom, to say the least, of making election promises which you know perfectly well you have no possibility of fulfilling?
Mr. Marples: I think that, as I said before, the Government, by passing the Act, fulfilled their election pledge. I am bound to say that if hon. Gentlemen opposite really were so certain I simply cannot understand why they did not vote against the Second Reading.
Mr. Silverman: I did.
Mr. Strauss: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one simple and direct question? The Conservative Party, in its official election manifesto, said:
"We intend to support the replacement of the Queen liner."
Will the Minister now tell us whether that is still so?
Mr. Marples: That is exactly what the Government did by passing the Act. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, that is exactly what the Government did by passing the Act, but the company which was to run the ship decided that the conditions have now altered and has withdrawn from its side of the bargain, and, to put it crudely, has said, "All bets are off." We say now, "Reassess the position, let us look at it when you have reassessed."
Mr. G. Brown: Will the Minister answer the question? The election manifesto of the Conservative Party is

343
not something for which the Cunard Company has responsibility. The Tory Party said:
"We intend to support the replacement of the Queen liner."
The Cunard Company has now withdrawn. Does the Conservative Party still stand by its election pledge? If so, how does it intend to bring it about?
Mr. Marples: The Government brought it about by the support which they said they would give to the project. The Government supported the replacement of the liner and carried out their pledge by putting on the Statute Book the Bill which this House passed. There was a genuine movement on the part of the Government to support the Cunard Company. If the Cunard Company does not go ahead it cannot be said that it was because the Government did not support it.
Mr. Brown Mr. Brown rose—
Mr. Speaker: I have to bear in mind that a very large number of hon. Members are wanting to speak in the debate which follows. I really think that we cannot debate this important matter now, without a Question before the House.
Mr. Brown: May I raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker? The Minister has purported to answer a question I raised; he did so in terms which had nothing to do with the question I raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] I am still putting a point of order to Mr. Speaker.
The question I raise with you, Mr. Speaker, is that the terms of the election manifesto by the Government party were the supporting of the building of a "Queen" liner. It will be apparent to you, Mr. Speaker, that there was, in that manifesto quotation, nothing about the Cunard Company, but simply a statement about the replacement of a ship, to which the Government committed themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the point of order?"] My point of order to you, Mr. Speaker, is this. If the Government spokesman insists upon answering the question in terms which have nothing to do with the issue we are raising we are then forced to return to it and take away from the Govern-
344
ment time which otherwise they would not lose.
May I, therefore, not submit to you that it would be better if the Minister answered the question we have put, here and now? Do the Government stand by the election pledge which they gave in the terms in which they gave it?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) has stated his question which, I hope, will be apparent in the OFFICIAL REPORT and go echoing down the centuries in that form, but I hope that the House will forgive me if I take the view that we really cannot debate this matter now.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Would you permit me, Mr. Speaker, or some other hon. Member, to put a question to the Leader of the House on the possibility of the Government setting a day aside for a debate on this subject? This is the only way that I can put the point to you.
Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that it would be quite sensible to think that perhaps that question might better be put on the first business day of the new Session, because there does not seem much opportunity for a debate on a general view at this time. I hope that it will be thought that this suggestion is acceptable. I want to get on to the debate if I can.
Mr. Short: On a point of order. I understand that it is not possible to move the Adjournment of the House today under Standing Orders since the debate is on the Adjournment and the subject of debate is agreed between the two sides of the House. In the circumstances, as this matter is a great grievance to people in the shipbuilding areas, which this House ought to reflect, would it be possible for the sitting to be extended by one hour tonight to enable us to discuss it?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me, as the hon. Member knows.
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. As the Fairfield Shipbuilding and Engineering Company tendered for this vessel and that company is in my constituency, Govan, could you not have given me the chance to ask a question, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Speaker: The time of the House does not always allow us to go round the shipyards, nor, indeed, am I informed as to who tendered. I am sorry, but I think that we ought to get on with today's business.

ADJOURNMENT
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjaurn.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

AFRICAN AFFAIRS
3.3 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The fact that it is only three days since I took over my present solemn responsibilities clearly puts a considerable limitation on what I can say to the House today. I do not intend to pretend to a degree of knowledge which I could not possibly have acquired in the course of three days. I also wish to speak with particular caution because I am aware that in these complicated and tense human problems an ill-chosen word, even if chosen sheerly by reason of inexperience, can do very great harm and make difficult things more difficult. I hope that the House will permit me to speak subject in the circumstances to those limitations.
I should like to spend most of the time that I have on the developments which have taken place in the African Territories since the House last debated these matters in July, but first I should like to stress particularly the continuity of colonial policy. For ten years now my distinguished predecessors Lord Chandos, Lord Boyd and the Leader of the House have pursued a consistent policy designed to bring independence to the Colonial Territories at the pace and by the methods best calculated to meet the aspirations of the peoples of the Territories and to serve their economic and social interests.
In particular, my immediate predecessor, who held office at a time of intense difficulty, has been responsible for some of the largest developments in colonial policy that have been achieved and he has established himself as one of the outstanding figures in the long and unfolding story of the Empire and Com-
346
monwealth. I have seen it suggested in some newspapers that a change of Colonial Secretary may mean a change of policy. I think that this is based on some misapprehension of the working of our constitution. The policies which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has followed have been his policies, in the sense that he has been the initiator and has borne the prime responsibility, but they have been more than just the policies of one individual. They have been the policies of the Government as a whole, supported by all members of the Government. This is and will remain true, and I am anxious that there should be no misunderstanding whatever on this point.
The continuity of policy has been much sustained, of course, by the work of the Colonial Service. I should like in my first speech as Colonial Secretary to pay tribute to the outstanding work of all in this Service, because never have their services been more necessary or more clearly valuable than they have been in these recent years of turmoil and of change.
I should like to turn now to developments since our last debate. First, there is Tanganyika, rapidly passing out of the sphere of the Colonial Office. There is no more I need say other than to repeat once again the happiness of the House as a whole at the progress achieved in Tanganyika and to wish the people of that country the greatest possible success under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Nyerere when the day of independence soon comes.
The position in Zanzibar is quite different. The situation is quieter than it was but still clearly gives rise to some concerned. The Commission of Inquiry into the July riots has just returned to this country and is now working on its Report. In the meanwhile, I was happy to see that the Government and the Opposition parties began joint discussions on 29th September to work out mutually acceptable proposals on the measures necessary to give independence to their country.
Perhaps the major recent development has been in Uganda. Since our last debate very encouraging progress has been made and the recent London conference, over which my right hon. Friend

347
the Leader of the House presided, produced results which few people would have been confident enough to predict before it took place. These results arose from long and patient discussion and also from the desire of Buganda representatives to work with their neighbours and build a country unitary in character but nevertheless preserving the distinctive traditions of its diverse provinces. It is true that much remains to be done, and determination linked with understanding will be needed from all concerned. But it is remarkable that it was possible at that conference to achieve agreement on the date of 1st March, 1962, for internal self-government and 9th October, 1962, for independence, provided that the necessary discussions can be completed and arrangements made before that date.
In debate on 25th July last the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred particularly to representation of the Lukiko in the new National Assembly, and this clearly was one of the most difficult problems. It is indeed satisfactory that agreement has been reached on this point, based on the principle that the elected representatives of the people of Buganda should decide whether or not direct elections for the National Assembly should take place in Buganda. I am glad to say that Mr. Kiwanuka described the conference as a whole as a tremendous success for democracy. This progress with the tough task of reconciling the distinct traditions of the various parts of Uganda with the general desire to work together in building a nation is very heartening. I am sure that the House will feel that the success of the conference reflects great credit on all the rulers and political leaders who took part in it. I am sure that the whole House hopes that Kenya will be able to show its ability to follow the path charted by Tanganyika and Uganda.
When the Kenya representatives were here for the discussions about the East African High Commission in June there were good hopes that the various groups would be able to reach a measure of common understanding, and, indeed, as a result of them the Governor was able to start discussions, under his chairmanship, about constitutional advance and other problems, including particularly the important question of property
348
rights. Before these discussions were opened, the two principal African parties had worked together to produce joint proposals. But the Governor's discussions ran into difficulty on the question of forming a coalition Government pending the next major constitutional step forward. The discussions have been discontinued for the time being to enable the Governor to make his report to me. I am now studying his report, and the Governor himself is coming back to London next week for discussions with me about the present situation. I am sure that the House would not expect me to enlarge on the present position until I have been able to make a thorough examination of where we stand.
I am equally sure that no one is blind to the very real difficulties that will have to be overcome if Kenya is to be able to make the same sort of progress as has been made, and is being made, by neighbouring countries in East Africa. Kenya has so much potential, as we all recognise, but the problem of welding it into a harmonious and prosperous whole represents, I should have thought. one of the greatest challenges that we have yet faced in Africa.
Inevitably, in recent months attention has been focused on the conflict between the tribes and the races that go to make up this country. But I think there is evidence that among the leaders of all the various groups there is a real understanding of the vital importance of restoring confidence both within and outside the country and of the importance of creating a nation in which those who come to govern will genuinely respect the interests of the minority tribal or racial groups. I believe that if we can allay the present anxieties we shall find that we shall be able to build on sure foundations.
The present political difficulties should not be allowed to obscure the solid preparations that are being made on the ground by the administrators and by their colleagues in the various professional services—the work on land reform, the building up of local government services, the steady development of education and other services, and the many spheres of economic development, all of which will stand Kenya in good stead when her underlying political problems are resolved.

349
The next territory to which I turn is Nyasaland. Here the major event since our last debate has been the holding of the first General Election under the new Constitution. I have no doubt that the House is well aware already of the facts, but I think it is particularly interesting that the number who registered as voters —about 110,000—was very close to the estimate and the expectation. Also, the poll exceeded 95 per cent., which is certainly higher than we normally expect for most elections in any part of the United Kingdom.
As a result of the election, the Malawi Congress Party holds twenty-two seats and the United Federal Party five, and there is one European Independent supported by the Malawi Congress Party. After consultation with the leaders of the main party, the Governor appointed to his Executive Council, in addition to five officials, four elected African members of the Malawi Congress Party and the elected independent European. The Legislative Council has already met for a short informal meeting and will meet again in November. Meanwhile, the new Ministers have assumed their offices.
The arrangements made for the General Election, in which tens of thou-stands of voters cast a vote for the first time in their lives, were commendably efficient and successful. Polling day passed off without incidents. The result of the election has been to give Africans a very full opportunity to participate in the government of the Territory as they now hold a large majority of the seats in the Legislative Council and a majority of the portfolios for the elected Ministers. I am sure that the House as a whole will wish them well, confident that they will approach their task with a full sense of responsibility for the welfare of all the peoples of Nyasaland.
I turn next to what seems to me to be the most urgent and difficult of all the problems now facing us, and that is Northern Rhodesia. The position remains as in the Government's published statement on 14th September. In that statement we noted that the plans put forward for constitutional arrangements, proposed in June, had achieved a wide measure of support, but there were on some aspects very considerable criticicisms. As it has always been, our purpose is to try, if possible, to devise a
350
settlement which will secure general acceptance, and, therefore, we shall certainly, before bringing the new Constitution into effect, be ready in the normal course to consider further any reasonable representations within the area where there is still a divergence of view.
The recent outbreak of disorder in certain parts of Northern Rhodesia has made it impossible in those circumstances for the Government to consider constitutional issues. But we have made it perfectly clear that when in the judgment of the Governor violence and disorder have ceased we shall be prepared to consider, on the basis of the White Papers, and on the basis of my predecessor's statement to the House of Commons on 26th June, any representations within the area where there are still divergent views. After considering these representations, we shall proceed to take a final decision and introduce the new constitution.
It is not possible for me to go beyond this at the present moment, but on 6th October the Northern Rhodesia Government were able to announce a substantial improvement in the situation in the two Northern Provinces. I think that the speedy progress towards the full restoration of law and order is a great tribute to the patience, the restraint and the determination of the Governor and the Administration in tackling this very difficult problem. I see that Mr. Kaunda, the Leader of the United Independence Party, has recently made a general appeal for the cessation of violence. So there is now a prospect of emerging from a situation in which violence has been delaying constitutional advance.
The Governor is, of course, watching the situation extremely closely, though he is not yet satisfied that he can advise me that violence and disorder have ceased within the terms of the statement of 14th September, which, as I have said, is still the governing statement. As soon as it is possible for the Governor to advise me to this effect, I intend to invite the various political groups who were represented at the Constitutional Conference to submit in writing through him their considered representations on the Constitution within the limits indicated by the September statement.
My right hon. Friend who preceded me in this office has in the past echoed for us the hope that these representations, when they are received—and the

351
sooner they are received the better so far as I am concerned—may disclose a prospect of general agreement. In my first speech in this office, I would appeal to all parties in Northern Rhodesia to consider whether within that framework there is not still a possibility of finding common ground, because if common ground can be found there could be no better solution for everyone concerned.
So far I have been discussing the political problems of the African Territories. I should like for a short while to turn to the economic problems, because they seem to me to be important, not only in themselves and as a basis for all material and social advance but because they are very relevant also to the question of political advance.
There appear to be three main problems. The first is capital—the provision and the retention of capital—both financial and technical, as a basis for development. The second is how to broaden the economic base of the territories, which at present rely so much on a limited range of commodities. The third is the question of the best size of economic unit in Africa. Moreover, the territories, as we all know, have a very close interest in our discussions with the European Economic Community, and we are resolved to ensure that their interests are properly safeguarded as these discussions proceed.
I believe that our record in this country in the provision of aid to developing territories throughout the world stands comparison with that of any other country. In recent years, the amount of aid provided from public sources has been doubled, and we are currently providing for the East African territories, for example, loans and grants to the amount of about £35 million. We continue this form of assistance so long as we are responsible, and, as the House is aware, we also give assistance to dependent territories as they approach and achieve independence.
We must recognise that this is, and remains, a great burden on our balance of payments, but one which we all cheerfully accept. Indeed, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his
352
recent proposals for dealing with the balance of payments problem, he made it quite clear that it was not his desire to cut back on the total level of economic aid. But, of course, there is a limit to what we can do, and it is in nobody's interest that we should try to stray beyond that limit.
In addition to financial and economic aid, there is technical assistance which, in the long run, it seems to me may be even more important still. Investment in plant and machinery creates an asset once, but investment in human brain power can multiply itself many times over. It is in the provision of experts and, above all, of instructors and teachers that the maximum and most lasting aid can be given to developing countries. The establishment of the Department of Technical Co-operation, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Runcorn (Mr. Vosper), is evidence of Her Majesty's Government's intention in this field.
But public sources of capital are by no means the whole of the story. Private capital is of vital importance, and that is true of developing territories throughout the world. What is clear is that in the modern world private capital, particularly large-scale capital, is both mobile and highly sought after. There are many attractive projects for investment of capital throughout the world and, when it is possible to invest it in secure investment with a good return, it is obviously very unattractive to private capital to go to areas where security is not available.
Apart from large-scale private capital, there is the form of private capital which is immobile by virtue of its nature or small size, such as small shops, farms or businesses, in which a man may have put his savings and his labour. This capital, too, is of great importance, and needs to be constantly nourished. In conditions of security, it can be of immense importance to developing territories, but insecurity and sense of injustice produce a situation in which languishing confidence inevitably produces loss both to the owner of the enterprise and to the territory.
Aid in every form is inadequate without trade as well, and unless these territories can find developing outlets for

353
their goods, their economic development will be gravely restricted. Here, we have a two-fold responsibility—first to maintain outlets for their traditional products, and, secondly, to help in the search for new products. We must maintain our traditional attitude of liberality in this country towards the products of these territories. We must continue to fight their battle in international organisations such as G.A.T.T. In our discussions with the Six, we shall keep closely in mind the interests of these territories, particularly their tropical produce.
My personal view is that more can be done by international commodity stabilisation schemes. I have heard so often, at conferences of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers, the justifiable complaint that all the value of aid may be completely counterbalanced or written off if there is a drop in price of commodities to an exceptionally low level. The one can outbalance the other. This is not a problem which we alone can solve, because we are not big enough or strong enough to carry the burden of everyone's economy, but we shall continue to press on with schemes of this kind. There are hopeful signs, it would seem, such as the recent agreement on coffee.
There is also the question of the best size of any economic unit. There is a general tendency in the world towards larger economic units—for example, the Six and the Seven in Europe, where we hope as soon as possible for a single European economic system. There are various proposals for larger economic units in Latin America. I have been particularly interested to learn of the proposal for the continued development of the common services in the East African territories. I am sure that nothing but good can come of this development, which will provide a broader basis for economic expansion in these territories.
In the Central African Federation, federation itself is of the highest economic importance.
I have endeavoured to run over some of the things that have been happening since the last time the House debated these African problems, and I have also said a few things about what seem to me to be urgent and important economic difficulties that have to be faced. I want to conclude by mentioning, as this is my
354
first speech as Colonial Secretary, the principles upon which I intend to approach my task. The first is, as I believe Pollock or some other famous jurist said:
"Before you can have justice you must have security."
I believe there is great wisdom in that statement. I believe that without security, without respect for law and order, without respect for the rights of minorities and the feeling of security that comes from confidence in this respect, there can be no true justice and no true peace between man and man.
Secondly, I believe that the essence of tragedy is not a conflict between right and wrong but a conflict between right and right. This seems particularly true of some of the tragic situations that have from time to time arisen in Africa. I believe that we can better ward off impending tragedies by appreciating the true nature of their origins.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: And in Europe.
Mr. Maudling: And Europe, too. I have been deeply impressed in recent years with the limited ability human beings have to communicate effectively with one another. With fear so general, how much of the world's problems and difficulties at this moment are based simply on misunderstanding of peoples and purposes? I may be simple and naive about this, but I have always believed that by far the greater part of our human conflicts arise from this form of misunderstanding and the failure to communicate between man and man. In the case of the Colonial Territories it must be my duty, as far as I can, to try to dispel misunderstanding.
Finally, I hope that the House will forgive my one Latin maxim, which I have retained from school: homo sum humane nil a me alienum puto—I am a main and I count nothing human indifferent to me.
On that principle, I will endeavour to work.
3.28 p.m.
Mr. James Callaghan: I have already extended a welcome to the right hon. Gentleman in his new task, and I do not think any of us

355
expected that after only three days in office he would have anything very profound or new to say to us. He shifted into perceptively higher gear when he came to economic matters. Perhaps that is not surprising, and he seemed to speak with a great deal of fluency and competence about them.
I was glad to hear this passage. Through no fault of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, political events have so crowded upon the table of Colonial Secretaries over the last few years that there has not been sufficient time to consider the economic implications of some of our political actions.
I am constantly reported in the Press as being anxious to take over the job of Colonial Secretary, but I look at what he has to do and I am not sure that I am not in the best place here. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I would expect hon. Members opposite to agree to that. But the burden upon Colonial Secretaries has been extremely onerous, and, indeed, even on this bench the burden cast upon people who have to try to keep up to date is extremely hard. I am very glad indeed, therefore, that the new Colonial Secretary has this excellent grounding in economic issues. But I warn him that much of what he said has been said before. I have said much of it to at least three and possibly four previous Colonial Secretaries, and the fact that he is now saying it gives me some hope for the future, although he has the Treasury to face yet.
I put one more thing to him which will meet with support on either side of the House. Will he have another look at the position of the Colonial Development Corporation? I had a great disappointment in the Leader of the House. I thought that he was a man of sufficient strength and sufficient intelligence to be able to see the stupidity of the Government's policy in this respect. I can only assume that he was so busy with his other preoccupations that he had no time to fight this battle. The new Colonial Secretary will find support on both sides of the House if he will once again examine the ridiculous situation by which the Colonial Development Corporation is stopped from further investment in new projects in territories at the very moment they become inde-
356
pendent. The arguments have been gone over and I do not propose to divert from what I have to say to repeat them, for they are well known, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman to look into this matter and I assure him that he will find much support if he does.
May I be permitted one further comment without appearing to be governessy? There is a tendency to extreme enthusiasm about projects for economic aid and development. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to beware the great feelings of sensitivity in the new territories, feelings which can lead them to suspect, perhaps too readily, that there is a taint of economic imperialism in what we are doing. I am sorry to say that there have been only too many illustrations of the truth of that.
I will return to the situation in Northern Rhodesia later, but I recall that the British South Africa Company today has a lien on the mineral rights of that territory under which for every ton of ore extracted by the mineral companies a royalty is paid to B.S.A. amounting to about £5 million in a year, if not £10 million—I have not checked my figures—in terms of sheer royalty. That is widely known and the Colonial Secretary must beware of those charges. Indeed, if I were the Government in Rhodesia, despite the settlement made with the B.S.A. Company, I would want to reopen that settlement in view of the heavy financial burdens which will fall on the Northern Rhodesian Government today.
That is all I want to say about economic issues. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman said that he would continue with the policies of his predecessor, but I was amused when he said that Her Majesty's Government had followed a consistent policy. We all know that the Tory Party believes that the public have short memories, but it has no reason to suppose that hon. Members have short memories, too. I recall what we said in the House about Cyprus, and the way in which the Government turned tail on that issue and rightly changed their policy.
I recall that the Leader of the House had to undo the damage done by Lord Boyd in Nyasaland and I cannot accept that there has been much consistency

357
in Conservative policy. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters do not think that there has been consistency because there still stands on the Order Paper a Motion signed by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and 85 others calling upon the Leader of the House to depart from the policies he had been following and to return to those of Lord Boyd. There is not much consistency about that, at least not in the view of the hon. Members supporting that Motion.
I say to the Colonial Secretary what, with his intelligence, I am sure he already knows. The Leader of the House was right when he said that he had to walk a tight-rope. He has to walk a tight-rope between his own followers as well as in the Colonial Territories. I do not know to which tight-rope the Colonial Secretary was referring when he used that expression, but he had had a most difficult job to assuage the feelings of his own followers. When I saw a television broadcast the other night, recorded before the right hon. Gentleman became Leader of the House, once again I thought, "Lucky lain‡" He said in that broadcast that he had always wanted to make a change at the very moment it had come. I wonder whether that is true this time. Certainly he was in great danger in the case of Northern Rhodesia of tarnishing his reputation and he has passed to the incoming Colonial Secretary a problem which he will find extremely difficult to solve. I will return to that later.
As the Colonial Secretary said, events have moved on since our last debate. I would like to pick out one issue which he mentioned on the question of Tanganyika. I join with him—the whole House does—in what he had to say about our good wishes going to that country and to Julius Nyerere in the task which he has to undertake after independence. On behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House, I claim our share of the credit for the financial settlement. I have strong reason to believe that it was the pressure which hon. Members brought to bear—and I am not claiming any exclusive credit for this because, although I happened to speak first, there were other hon. Members behind me and opposite in support—which convinced the Government in July and strengthened the arm of the
358
Leader of the House to enable him to return to the Treasury and get a financial settlement which was well merited and well deserved.
At a time when there is a tendency to decry the value of the House of Commons, I claim that that was one of those clays when the debate had a considerable impact upon the Executive and enabled a financial settlement to be reached, for which we all share the credit, even Her Majesty's Government by their belated repentance.
Just as Julius Nyerere is the anchor man in East Africa, so in West Africa Nigeria has been pursuing her path, not hitting the headlines, but pursuing the path of progress, and we can all congratulate her upon that. It is as well that we should say that at a time when our debates are inevitably taken up with accenting and highlighting the parts of Africa where there are difficulties It is because I wish to and must accent those difficulties that I wish specifically to refer to what is happening in other parts of Africa where there is considerable quiet and where steady progress is being made by newly independent countries. As I have said, Nigeria tends to be the anchor man in West Africa.
I want to refer to the situation in 'Ghana. The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations paid a timely visit to Ghana following upon the Press war which seemed to have been developed and which was being fought out with great bitterness. There was a useful exchange of views. The communiqué seemed to be rather in the form of a dialogue—" Mr. Sandys said this and President Nkrumah replied that". It did not seem to be so much a joint communiqué as an expression of what they said to each other. However, there was one thing on which they apparently agreed and I wish to speak in these terms this afternoon. The communiqué said that President Nkrumah and the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations appealed
"… to all who play a part in forming public opinion in each country to show understanding for the point of view of the other country, and to take the utmost care to avoid misinterpretation of the other's policies and intentions, and thereby help to strengthen confidence and friendship between Ghana and Britain."

359
What I have to say this afternoon is said in that spirit and very much with those words in mind.
However, I must say that considerable anxiety has been aroused in this country by the arrest during the last few weeks of a large number of people in public life in Ghana. The Government has made allegations that those people have been arrested because of their activities which were intended to overthrow the Government by violence. I wish to stress that that is the case of the Government of Ghana and its view about the matter. It has reinforced its determination to maintain order by the Bill recently passed through the House in Ghana to set up special courts to hear the cases of the fifty who have been arrested.
Like everyone else, I have not seen a full account of what is happening in Ghana, but I must be influenced—as we must all be influenced—by the views of people like Mr. Gbedemah, whom many of us have known for years and whose experience in public life is well known to all of us and whose attitude to public affairs has been well determined and settled. When he says, as he did of the earlier Preventive Detention Act, 1958, that it has become an instrument of tyranny, such a statement must cause grave concern coming from such a source.
I understand that there are over 300 people who are called reactionary agents and tribal fanatics who are in gaol today without trial in Ghana. According to Mr. Gbedemah—and I repeat that I have not seen it and therefore have not read and do not know its full content—this Bill which is now in the course of passage will extinguish the flickering flame of freedom in Ghana.
Those are serious allegations from a person who was so close to the Prime Minister and who has held the position that Mr. Gbedemah has held for so long. The High Commissioner in London has promised that the Government will issue a White Paper setting out the evidence upon which they are acting. In a letter which he wrote to The Times on 13th October, he reminded us—and I think it was a reminder that we needed—that on a previous occasion when there was
360
a Commission of Inquiry into events in Ghana it was found by that Commission that certain prominent political leaders had been engaged in a conspiracy which was revolutionary in character.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is my hon. Friend aware that that Commission of Inquiry was composed of three persons, one of whom was the eminent British jurist to whom that letter refers? The other two were entirely under the control and in the power of the Government of Ghana. The chairman, the distinguished and eminent British jurist, made a minority report in which he said that none of these things had happened.
Mr. Callaghan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) reminds me that the Report was unanimous on this section that I am quoting. I think that my hon. and learned Friend is falling into the trap which I am trying to avoid. He is prejudging these issues because he has taken a keen and active interest in them. I do not think that it is the job of this House to act as judge and jury in this matter, but it is our job to point out to the Government the anxieties that are felt and to try to present as fair and as balanced a picture as we can of the pros and cons of this matter.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will not pick out something which he finds attractive to his point of view at the moment, because I am trying to say what the position is as we see it here. Having made that quotation, I was going on to say that I think we must wait for the White Paper before we form conclusions. I ask that the Government in their communications with the Ghana Government should consider, in any diplomatic way they can, pressing on the Ghana Government the advantages to all those who are friends of Ghana of setting up a judicial committee of inquiry so that we can ascertain as far as possible what happened and what has happened as a result of these recent developments.
It has been said by some spokesmen for the Liberal Party that because of this development we should cancel the Queen's visit. It is even said that her safety is endangered. I find that very difficult to believe. The Queen's visit to Ghana is made as Head of the

361
Commonwealth. If this issue is involved, it will be for all the Commonwealth Governments to discuss the matter, and no doubt Her Majesty's Government will play their part in any discussions that are necessary on this issue. I do not wish to dignify this issue with further importance by pressing the Secretary of State for the Colonies for assurances about the Queen's safety or anything of that sort. It seems to me that this issue ought to be left to discussions if any are necessary, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman for no assurances. I am confident that the Government will do whatever is necessary and proper in discussions with other Commonwealth Governments, and that the Ghana Government will take part in these discussions.
A further point put by the spokesman of the Liberal Party was that the Queen should not visit Ghana because of strong disagreement with the policy of Ghana. It is said that even though we here know that the goes as a constitutional Monarch, or, more accurately, as Head of the Commonwealth, and we realise that she is not responsible for the actions of her Ministers, nevertheless, it is said, her presence will be used to bolster up the régime of the present Ghana Government.
I do not take that view. It seems to me that it would be utterly wrong for advice to be offered to Her Majesty which would mean an irreparable and permanent breach between Ghana and other Commonwealth members on the issue of a visit by her to West Africa. She will be visiting other territories. She will be going to Sierra Leone, and it seems to me that we should certainly not take a decision which will create a breach between Ghana and the Commonwealth over this matter.
I know that there are elements in Ghana who would welcome a breach with the Commonwealth. Is it the intention of anybody in the Liberal Party, or anybody else, to strengthen those elements? The communiqué which was published at the end of the discussions said that President Nkrumah and Mr. Sandys were
"convinced that the Commonwealth as a multi-racial association of free peoples could play a unique part in providing a bridge between races and continents and in helping to create trust and understanding between them."
362
I agree. It is not for us at this stage to encourage elements in Ghana or elsewhere who would endeavour and desire to separate Ghana from the Commonwealth.
We know from that communiqué that Dr. Nkrumah does not share those views; that he is anxious to maintain a close association with the Commonwealth. I had the good fortune to know Dr. Nkrumah for 14 years before he reached his present elevated position. He has written me friendly letters and I have replied in like terms. I should like to say to him as one friend to another that I very much admire the work that he and his Government have done in the domestic field. In schooling they have made a most dramatic and remarkable change and offered tremendous opportunities to the children of their country. They have made great advances in health. They have made great progress in housing. They have done great things in communications and transport. I think that we can all take pride in feeling that the Government of Ghana have been able to take such rapid strides forward on the domestic front. I hope, too, that his tremendous Volta River project will succeed.
In my view, there is no case for repeating the folly of the Aswan Dam. This Volta River project must go on, but I say to Dr. Nkrumah that I am alarmed at the acute division which exists in Ghana. I am alarmed at the action being taken against people who until recently have been his political associates and friends for many years. I hope that he will assuage the anxieties of those who are speaking as his friends by ensuring that no steps are taken which will lessen the liberties of the people of Ghana or deprive politicians of their freedom because they speak their minds. Equally, there is an obligation on those who are the opponents of the régime to eschew violence and sedition in any form. The obligation falls on both sides, but the obligation falls in a major way on Dr. Nkrumah to create conditions in which it will not be felt that sedition is the only way of recovering and restoring the position which previously existed.
I deal now with Kenya. In recent weeks contrast has been made between

363
the economic and political developments in that country. I have not had the good fortune to go there, although I hope to be there on Saturday morning in company with the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot). I am sure that the Colonial Secretary knows that there is only one way to get to know about a country, and that is to go to see for himself, and I hope that he will make it his business as soon as possible to visit Kenya and Northern Rhodesia. These are two territories which he should visit at the earliest possible moment—and if he wants to know the names of some good hotels, I will tell him where they are.
But, as I understand it, there is, fortunately, a movement on the economic front which seems to tend towards greater stability. It looks as though the Europeans, who were extremely frightened—as we know from past debates—have recovered from their first shock, and I hope that the new investment which is going on will continue and that there will be an upsurge in addition to the turn up that has taken place in the Kenya economy. The Colonial Secretary is right when he says that it is upon the economic development of that great country that all the social advantages and benefits that the new Government wish to make will turn and develop.
Politically, however, the position is bad. I hoped and thought, and I said—and I was attacked for saving it—that when Kenyatta was released a national leader would emerge. Hon. Members opposite attacked me for saying this, not because they thought that he would not emerge as a national leader but that he would be a force for evil. I am afraid that I overestimated his position. He has not emerged as a national leader, as I had expected and hoped would be the case when he was in detention. As the Colonial Secretary said, constitutional talks have broken down because of the fears of domination by one tribe about another.
Although hon. Members opposite think that we are always very good at prescribing solutions, I am always cheerful about doing so. But I do not prescribe many of them, and I do not wish to do so on this occasion. I do not think that it is possible for the Colonial Secretary, here in London, even with the advice of Sir
364
Patrick Renison, to produce a solution in this case, and I would beg him to go slow before he arbitrates on this matter.
It seems to me that the time has arrived for the Africans to work out these solutions themselves. It is no use their looking to us all the time to pull them out of difficulties which they cannot resolve. These men, Mboya, Ngala, and the rest in Kenya, with whom I have had many conversations and discussions, are the founding fathers of their nation, and they really must now agree upon their basic aims and purposes and the conditions under which their nation is to live. The constitutional rights of the individual and the question of land titles, which the Colonial Secretary mentioned, are of supreme importance. I am sure that the Governor is right when he says that there must be a joint approach by all parties in Kenya to this basic question, because the nation cannot begin to galvanise itself to move forward until there is some agreement on the basic principles and issues under which the Government will operate, and there must be common consent under fundamental purposes.
But when the Colonial Secretary is discussing these issues with the Governor, I would ask him to examine the question whether there must be a national Government in order to achieve these ends. I do not see why, if the Kenya Africa National Union is in difficulties about coming into the Government, it should be pressed to do so. It is in a very difficult position at the moment. It is in some ways the majority party, and it can claim that it is operating against a minority Government. I can see the advantages of the Administration in Kenya taking Kanu inside the Government. It would create a broad front. But if Kanu has these difficulties about coming in, it is up to that party to decide, and I think that it is entitled to stay out of the Government if it wants to.
At the same time, to the extent that we can offer advice—and we have been doing so for a very long time, perhaps we do it too much—we are entitled to tell it that whether it joins the Government or not it really must have discussions with the Government Party in order to work out the fundamental basis

365
and aims of the country. Then there will be a starting point from which the party battle can commence. If these people do not show themselves able to resolve these basic differences, I would tell them that they are not fit for self-government. If there is not a sufficient identity of purpose between the people living in a State to enable them to work out fundamental aims, then clearly they are not able to act as a unitary country. This would be an impossible position.
I do not wish to raise heat, but I can imagine some who might snigger about this and say, "There you are. What did we tell you?"
Viscount Hinchingbrooke Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South) indicated assent.
Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the noble Lord the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will not say that, because he cannot govern out there, and the local Europeans cannot govern out there. It must be for the Africans, who now have the political power and responsibility, to show themselves capable and able of forming a nation and acting as such within the premises laid down. The responsibility rests upon the African political leaders and parties in this matter to solve Kenya's problems.
I now turn to Northern Rhodesia and Central Africa, because it is upon this question that I have my major criticisms to make of Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me that the situation there has gone back since we last debated it, on 25th July. Since that debate there have been over 2,600 arrests, particularly in the Northern Province. A number of people have been killed. I do not know the precise number, but it is variously estimated that between twenty and forty Africans have been killed, shot, are missing or have died in disturbances. I have seen enough of African affairs to know that the blame rarely rests on one side in these issues, and I would be quite willing to assume that there has been arson by irresponsible elements, and that there has been violence by Africans who have turned in this direction because of the deep feelings they have about the British Government's proposals.
But, having admitted that, I am bound to say that I do not put the police in a white sheet on this issue. One has only
366
to mention the word "Hola" to know that there are occasions where a police force, under heavy strain and subject to great temptation and difficulties, can go beyond the normal bounds of what is necessary in order to restrain mob violence, arson or whatever the crime may be, and it is a shocking thing that between twenty and forty men and women should be killed in one of our colonial territories without the Colonial Secretary seeing fit to make any reference to that fact in his first speech at the Dispatch Box.
I believe that we should do in this case what we have done in other cases. In the case of the election disturbances in Zanzibar, the former Colonial Secretary sent out the mission to which the present Colonial Secretary referred this afternoon, which is coming back with a report. I hope to carry the House with me when I say that if between twenty and forty subjects for whom we are responsible are shot or killed during the course of disturbances the House has a responsibility to make sure—quite apart from any reassurances that the Colonial Secretary may have had from the Governor—that the right degree of force has been used, and that we have behaved properly in carrying out our responsibilities as the governing power. Therefore, I make the strongest request of the Colonial Secretary to set up a judicial inquiry similar to those set up in similar territories in similar circumstances in order that the facts may be made known.
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would try to avoid this because it would be inconvenient to him. There is no reason why he should not do so, and I would not dream of accusing him of seeking to avoid such a course. But we cannot allow these events, which have gone on over a period of some weeks, and have not been widely reported in the Press, to go without investigation by independent persons. Therefore, I make that strong request to the Colonial Secretary.
Some indication has been already given to the House by the Colonial Secretary of the course of events. I do not wish to detain the House too long, but I must recite some of them. Let me sum up the position, perhaps for the Colonial Secretary's own edification, so that he may

367
see how we stand. Monckton recommended over a year ago that there ought to be an African majority in Northern Rhodesia. This is how we see it. When the Africans came here for the Constitutional Review in December, as we see it and as we understand it, the Leader of the House gave them assurances that there would be an African majority in Northern Rhodesia. I have said this before. This is their understanding of what he said to them.
When the Federal Review was completed and they met later on for the Northern Rhodesia Constitutional Review, the first thing that happened was that Sir Roy Wellensky's Party boycotted it, and here the Leader of the House made his first mistake. He conducted back-door negotiations with those who had boycotted the Conference. He would not have done that with the Africans if they had boycotted the Conference. The Leader of the House held his ground sufficiently as a result to publish a White Paper which, although it did not give the Africans a majority—and they were rather disappointed in him personally, therefore—at least it enabled us to go to the Africans, as I did, and to advise them that with 75,000 electors, as against 22,000 European electors, it was really worth their while to fight the election in Northern Rhodesia to see how far they could get. We did not divide the House on it—although there was some pressure upon us to do so—because it was felt that the Government had gone back on their pledges.
Then came the period of intense pressure, both by "Voice and Vision" and by Sir Roy Welensky, between March and June. It is then that the damage was done. When Sir Roy Welensky flew back to Salisbury on 21st March he left the Prime Minister almost in tears—so I am told—in tears of gratitude to Sir Roy Welensky for the understanding which he had shown and the assurances which he had been given. The Press said that no assurances had been given to Sir Roy Welensky and he returned defeated. I have been rereading the cuttings over the last couple of days to refresh my memory.
What happened? In June, there was another White Paper which went back on the old one, and the Scotsman, which
368
has followed these events very intelligently, stated:
"Perhaps a casuist may say that the new June White Paper was within the spirit of the March White Paper but the results were different."
The Colonial Secretary and the Leader of the House know that they were different. I do not share the view of Lord Salisbury that the Leader of the House was "too clever by half". I think that he was not half clever enough. I think that the right hon. Gentleman thought that he had outsmarted Mr. Julian Greenfield, but Mr. Julian Greenfield did the arithmetic better than did the right hon. Gentleman. That was said by the Scotsman at the time. Mr. Julian Greenfield gave an interview to the Scotsman in which he claimed that the consequences of the new White Paper were that the United Federal Party had a prospect of securing a substantial electoral victory. This was the only logical inference.
If hon. Members will think back over the course of events, they will see how the Leader of the House departed from the original expectations, intentions and beliefs of the Africans in Northern Rhodesia, and this has caused the trouble in Northern Rhodesia today. The Leader of the House is responsible for it. Although it may be said that the right hon. Gentleman was subjected to great pressure by Sir Roy Welensky, his was the decision. It was the Leader of the House and the Prime Minister —and all the members of the Cabinet, of course—who had taken the decision. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that he has tarnished his reputation in Northern Rhodesia, and I am extremely sorry about that because of the good work which I know he has done elsewhere, and for which I commend him. I am extremely sorry that he did not stay at the Colonial Office to clear up this issue. I say to the new Colonial Secretary that his predecessor only tarnished his reputation in that respect. He had done good things elsewhere. But the new Colonial Secretary has not that advantage. He is starting with Northern Rhodesia and he cannot retrieve affairs in Nyasaland as did the Leader of the House.
I am sure that the new Colonial Secretary has realised, even in the last two days, that in Tanganyika they will be

369
watching to see what he does. In Uganda they will be reading the Press to see what are the opinions of the Colonial Secretary. In Southern Rhodesia they will be observing his progress in Northern Rhodesia. This is also the opportunity of the right hon. Gentleman. Everywhere he will be judged in Africa by the way in which he tackles his first problem. He cannot leave this problem. I hope that he will not listen to siren voices telling him to let it boil, to let it simmer. We have to take the problem of Northern Rhodesia in hand straight away, and we believe that the actions of the Government on this issue over the last few months have altered very substantially. If I may put it in its simplest form, the fact is that the votes of 22,000 people will weigh much more than the votes of 73,000 people. If they do not believe that a majority ought to count, do not put those people on the electoral roll. If they do think that, let it be represented in the results which emerge from it.
I must say a final word to the Colonial Secretary about what I think he ought to do. The electors must have a representative Government in Northern Rhodesia. This will involve the right hon. Gentleman in great difficulties with Sir Roy Welensky—and perhaps with some of his own supporters. But he has to make a decision on this issue. He can walk the tightrope as much as he likes and keep everyone sweet as long as he can, but there comes a moment when a choice has to be made. I put it simply to the Colonial Secretary that he must make this choice. It is quite simple. He must have a representative Government in Northern Rhodesia if there is to be peace there and if justice is to be done. Those are our very strong views.
Secondly, and this is a minor point, the Asians should be restored to the upper roll. That is something he will find little difficulty in doing. Sir Roy Welensky thought that if they were put on the upper roll they would vote with the African's. I think that they will. So what? What is the object? From Sir Roy Welensky's point of view it is the frustration of the will of the electors, but that ought not to be the object of the Colonial Secretary.
370
Thirdly, I repeat my simple request that the right hon. Gentleman should inquire much more closely into the whereabouts of prisoners who have been arrested recently. I have received a number of allegations with which I do not propose to trouble the House because I think it would be unfair to read out the things which have been said. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman must have received them at the Colonial Office. But a number of allegations have been made in London and Northern Rhodesia which, from a security angle, demand a full-scale judicial inquiry.
I have one other thing to say to the Colonial Secretary. I have in my hand what is said to be a photostat copy of a directive issued by the United Federal Party. No doubt other hon. Members have received a copy. If this be true it seems to me very close to sedition. It is dated 20th September and contains a number of points and includes a suggested possible course of action for discussion. There have been references in the newspapers to the conference which discussed what is supposed to be the agenda—I say supposed to be because how can I prove that it is so? This has been given to me by a reputable person, someone who was a colonial civil servant in Rhodesia. It calls on the Federal Government to:
"Exercise control over immigration and emigration of colonial civil servants"—
that seems to me highly improper—
"exercise control over the use by colonial civil servants of the federal system of transportation—withdrawal of loan guarantees—Federal Police Force—call-up for training purposes of all classes 30–40 age group."
If Kenneth Kaunda had said half of this he would have been in gaol by now. I ask the Colonial Secretary to review this problem.
I wish to say a final word about the Federation. I will not repeat all the arguments about it. They are well known and I have stated them many times. But I should like to draw attention to one thing. I had a telegram from hon. Gentlemen visiting the Federation and Nyasaland at the time of the dispute some time ago appealing to me to intervene because the houses of supporters of the United Federal Party were being burned down. I have had sufficient experience of these

371
matters to know that I should keep away from that sort of allegation and I did not act upon it. But there is no doubt that it influenced a number of hon. Gentlemen in this House into believing that the Malawi Congress Party was addicted to violence and would give way to it. I think it ought to go on record that those who made the allegations have been sentenced to gaol for perjury and that the action which they took was quite unrelated to the truth of the events. I believe this to be true also of another scare which I think influenced hon. Gentlemen very much, that is the vaccination scare.
I had the most explicit assurance from Dr. Banda that officially he and his followers never opposed the idea of vaccination, but I warn hon. Members who go out there under "Voice and Vision", or any other auspices, that we are moving in very murky waters. Sometimes when I see the reports of what they say when they come back I wonder. Someone was reported as saying recently that before he went out there he thought all the Europeans were arrogant and all the Africans were slaves. He cannot have attended our debates here or ever been present at the discussions we have had in this Chamber. It is really too bad that "Voice and Vision" should pick up people who never attend colonial debates or discussions either before they go or after they have been and come back to make speeches about events when clearly they have never studied the events which have taken place in those territories.
Mr. Robert Jenkins: I happen to be one who went out and I have attended all the debates. A large number of my hon. Friends who have been out there have done so also, as have some of the hon. Member's hon. Friends. Therefore, it is quite wrong for him to say that those of us who have been out there and know the facts very well indeed do not attend the debates and do not take part in them.
Mr. Callaghan: If the cap does not fit the hon. Member he need not wear it. I was not particularising about anyone.
I welcome very much the progress being made in Southern Rhodesia by
372
the Southern Rhodesian Government. The communiqué issued today about the recent speech of Sir Edgar Whitehead seemed to me to show a marked improvement and a marked change. If that course which Sir Edgar Whitehead has marked out is held to it can make a tremendous improvement in relationships with Southern Rhodesia, but it cannot save the situation in the Federation. The Federation is blamed as being responsible for every evil. If the cow does not give enough milk it is the fault of Sir Roy Welensky. As Lord Monckton and his colleagues saw clearly, this matter has passed the point of no return. It would be far better for Sir Roy Welensky and his friends to cut their losses on the Federation and start again to build an association between these territories which is freely negotiated and to which there is assent.
So long as they continue with the present system in the Federation, I believe there will be nothing but continuous trouble and these territories will not move in the way they should. To be anti-Federation is not to be anti-European; indeed, there are many Europeans who are anti-Federation. The Federation was nothing but an artificial structure to impose on these territories as a very useful and convenient form of Government. I point out to the Colonial Secretary that it is not even necessary for economic development. Different arrangements could be made to achieve the economic development of these territories. I beg him to start again in this field. Banda, Nkomo and Kaunda are looking to Dar-es-Salaam and will not look to Salisbury as long as the Federal Government, dominated by a small minority, is in power there.
I am sure I am right about this. No matter what we think about the advantages Federation could bestow, has bestowed, and can continue to bestow, the fact remains that we are up against one of the big political obstacles in Central Africa today—the refusal of the great majority of people there, whether they have votes or not, to accept this system of government, thought up no doubt with the best intentions. It has not fructified in the way in which those who originally created it hoped it would. I have ventured to make statements at some length on this matter, but I hope the House will

373
agree that it is worth while to have this discussion on Africa today which I hope will follow in the debate.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. R. H. Turton: With the first part of the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) I found myself in very close agreement. As I have said before, I think it a great pity that during the last eighteen months we have not devoted more attention to the economic side of colonial problems.
In particular, I think it lamentable that the Colonial Development Corporation has remained so limited and has not been able to deal with the problems of emerging territories. Equally, I am sure that the hon. Member is right to stress the need to work out some system for the stabilisation of the prices of primary commodities. I can remember going to see the present Colonial Secretary, when he was in another capacity, and urging him to take a very great step in that direction.
When the hon. Member came to the question of Ghana, I started to find myself not in agreement with him. I, too, have considerable anxiety about what is happening in Ghana. I, too, have a desire not to enter too deeply into the politics of Ghana respecting Mr. Nkrumah, whom I know, and also bearing in mind that I have friendship with Mr. Gbedemah, but I do not think that that is the whole of the question. At the time that South Africa was in the Commonwealth, I do not think that the hon. Member would have adopted quite the same line about a projected State visit there. I feel that we must look at this matter not only as affecting ourselves, but from the point of view of the Commonwealth as a whole. This is a Commonwealth matter.
Suppose that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had placed in custody the right hon. Member far Belper (Mr. G. Brown), the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker). Suppose the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Colonial Secretary had been forced to resign their offices. Suppose, also that the Leader of the Opposition had set up an alternative Opposition in
374
Paris. I think that the French people would advise President de Gaulle against paying a formal visit to the Prime Minister. It would not be the right moment for that State courtesy to take place. I have tried to put the position in a parallel.
It seems to me that this is not the moment for Her Majesty the Queen to go to Ghana. She is something far too precious both to us in this country and to the whole Commonwealth. If President Nkrumah has been wise to take these precautions, quite clearly there is grave danger to Her Majesty if she makes the visit. If he is acting not out of wisdom, I think that the rest of the Commonwealth would prefer her to postpone her visit for a year and not to visit him when he is acting unwisely.
I leave that and come to the point about which as the House knows I feel strongly and on which I hold a minority view. I was impressed by my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, whom I congratulate on his appointment, when he talked about continuity of policy. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East was quite quick to react to that.
The February proposals and the June settlement were something I did not like. I always regarded the June settlement as the final decision, but I did not like it as a final decision because, in my view, it was not based on the principles of the 1958 Constitution that were settled by the predecessor of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I should like to have seen a solution based upon those principles, but I was in a minority and my right hon. Friend thought that his solution was, as he expressed it in this House, fairer than the principles of the Lennox-Boyd Constitution and would get more Africans into the Assembly.
I agree with everybody in this House that it is most desirable to get more Africans into the Assembly in Northern Rhodesia, but the question is: what Africans? I remember that when speaking last July, when I gave the answer "The responsible Africans", I was sneered at by the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon)—whom I warned that I would refer to him—because he asked who was I to decide who was responsible. On that occasion,

375
the hon. Member betrayed his ignorance of the history of this matter.
I was using that expression because the Tredgold Franchise Report was asked to determine for Northern Rhodesia how this franchise should be extended and to whom control should be given. In that report, the Committee made it clear that its definition of "responsible persons" was those who could exercise the franchise "with reason, judgment and public spirit". In my view, the Tredgold Franchise Report was something that it was wrong to disturb last year. The Lennox-Boyd Constitution of 1958 was based upon it. Had we wanted to have more Africans in the Assembly, it was perfectly possible, under the Lennox-Boyd Constitution, to have achieved that object by increasing the number of seats in the rural areas where it was certain Africans would be returned.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster did not choose that course. As a result, he chose his much more dramatic February proposals, pretending that they would work out to be non-racial in character. The reason why, I think, the Government have got into such difficulty over the Northern Rhodesian Constitution is that there has been a lack of continuity of policy and the February Constitution was bound to have this racial content in it, as became evident between February and June.
Instead of having a Constitution based upon the Tredgold Report, we are having to try to put in guarantees and defences against electors being subjected to intimidation at the hands of extremists. That is why, obviously, if the February Constitution is to work, there must be some method of protecting the country against intimidation. That was why we had the White Paper in June containing the Governor's proposals.
In that White Paper, which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said that he required a slide rule to understand—and I, equally, have found difficulty with it—the Governor said, in paragraph 13:
"I remain of the view that it is essential, if the purposes of the White Paper are to be realised, to subject all candidates for election in national constituencies to a requirement that obliges them to obtain a prescribed measure of minimum support."
376
He then brought in the 12½ per cent. or 400 votes for qualification, and he said:
"I could not recommend reliance on an absolute number of votes as the sole test of minimum support, without the alternative of securing a percentage, because this would permit frustration of the elections in the event of a low poll …"
and the danger of boycott.
That was the first of the conditions which, I gather, are in the balance.
Secondly, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East mentioned the Asian seat. I found the Asian seat the hardest part of the June White Paper to understand. If, however, one reflects that there must be safeguards against intimidation— and I hope that much as we in this House differ on these matters, the two sides of the House both agree that any constitution which Britain offers to an emerging territory must contain adequate safeguards against intimidation—there is a particular problem in the African townships where there are Asian traders, who are undoubtedly vulnerable to intimidation, especially at the hands of extremists.
I do not know what other hon. Members find, but I always find in my constituency that the shopkeepers are never very anxious to enter into party politics, because they think that that would damage their custom. In a country where intimidation is rife, clearly the Asians must be protected against intimidation. I believe that the Asian seat was the right way of doing it.
As to the amount of intimidation, that is something which cannot be ignored. Paragraph 29 of the Monckton Report has been quoted in this House before. I only want to remind hon. Members that in that paragraph, the Commission said it was convinced that
"intimidation and violence have been organised on a considerable scale by national parties against their political opponents."
The whole paragraph deals with it, but to save time I merely refer to it.
What justification has been given for the Asian seat? May I remind my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and hon. Members that when my right hon. Friend was discussing the matter on 25th July he expressed surprise that there had been any queries about the Asian seat, and he said:
"Frankly, I find this surprising, because if we look at the Monckton Report we find that

377
the Commission recorded specifically … in paragraph 48, that it was one of the points, indeed the first point, made to it by the Asian and coloured witnesses. They said that they were given no political representation. Part of the Monckton recommendations is that there should be such political representation."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 266.]
That was the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when Colonial Secretary, justifying the final settlement of June, the final decision of the Government.
I did not agree with that general settlement, but I felt that it would be wrong for me to vote against it because it appeared to me to be an honest attempt to secure a non-racial solution. It was not the way I would have chosen. I would have chosen something else—the Lennox-Boyd Constitution. But what followed? There was opposition by the African National Congress and by U.N.I.P. The African National Congress used argument, but some followers of U.N.I.P. resorted to very ugly outbreaks of violence.
What I think is very wrong in that connection is for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, without any evidence, to blame the police and accuse them of rough handling. I do not think that it is right that we in Parliament should attack men who are doing their duty, basing our charges on no evidence. All the evidence, even the admission of Mr. Kaunda, is that some of his followers burnt cinemas, burnt schools, sabotaged communications, used dynamite—
Mr. Callaghan: I think that I put the position fairly. It has been reported to me, as a Member of Parliament, that there are a number of men and women, whose names I have—and whose names, I believe, the Colonial Secretary has—who have been beaten up, who have been abstracted from their homes and are missing.
The right hon. Member is really putting an impossible burden on hon. Members if he says that we are not to say such a thing in this House unless we can show that we have been to the territory—because I know of no other way—and can demonstrate that this is so. I really did try to put it as fairly as I could, and I hope that I succeeded. I thought it my duty to report the matter, and wanted an investigation. I really see no reason to withdraw anything said.
Mr. Turton: Perhaps I misunderstood that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech. I thought that he was there trying to diminish the importance of the extremists' violence by laying the blame on the action of the police. If I was wrong, I can only say that that was the impression he conveyed to me. We have to be very careful in this House, when public servants are doing their duty under very grave difficulties, when dynamite is being used and a great deal of damage is being done to the progress we hope for in Northern Rhodesia, not to attack those whose duty it is to keep law and order, and who are doing a job requiring the support of every one in this country. It is very unwise to attack them—
Mr. Fenner Brockway: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to Mr. Kenneth Kaunda as having admitted that some of his followers did this violence. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report issued by Mr. Kenneth Kaunda last week, after he had been allowed to visit these areas for the first time, which gives, in considerable detail, evidence that supports what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)?
Mr. Turton: If the hon. Member is to make some more charges against the police—I gather that he was in that occupation yesterday, regarding Trafalgar Square—what is quite clear is that on 30th August, the Prime Minister, through his Private Secretary, wrote to Mr. Kenneth Kaunda saying:
"It is a matter of great regret to the Prime Minister that, despite the sincere advice which has been given to you by the Colonial Secretary and others about the dangers and repercussions of violence, the situation should have developed in which large numbers of adherents of the party of which you are the leader have deliberately resorted to violence to gain their own ends."
It is to me a matter of very great regret that within fourteen days of the Prime Minister writing that letter—in fact, on 13th September; if I may correct the Colonial Secretary, not 14th September—on 13th September, the very day when, a few miles away over the border, force was being used and the unarmed police of President Tshombe were being shot down, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster should have authorised the Colonial Office to

379
make a statement saying that the final decision of June was to be reopened when violence had ceased.
I notice that, in his spare time, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is writing in the Sunday Times articles on appeasement. I am afraid that on that occasion he applied appeasement to Africa. I believe that that was a wicked, wicked thing to do. I do not believe that by appeasement one brings peace. Perhaps I may here be allowed to quote from a letter I received from Africa, written directly the writer heard of the former Colonial Secretary's action. He wrote:
"You know, as I do, that methods employed by the terrorists are foreign to this country, and have been imported from outside our borders, engineered by enemies of both Christian Democracy and the West. Britain should realise that she is not surrendering to African Nationalists but to those who have trained them to employ these evil methods."
He goes on:
"No one likes the proposed Constitution for Northern Rhodesia, but it would be unwise to reopen negotiations on it again at this stage, as it will certainly mean surrender to violence. It will be a bad example to Africans."
I very much hope that the Colonial Secretary will bear those facts in mind. I think that the present Colonial Secretary is so right to say that one of his three principles is that where there is this difficulty of communication between himself and the Colonies, between this side of the House, often, and that side, we should try to remove misunderstandings. Perhaps it may help, as I am one who holds what is a minority view on this, if I try to restate to myself and to the House my views generally on this problem.
I believe in the Federation in Central Africa. I believe that what we are trying to seek is right—a multi-racial solution of these problems, and a multiracial partnership. After all, I have talked to Mr. Kenneth Kaunda and to many of the Nationalist leaders in the different territories, and they have always told me that they thought federation was the solution, although they always disagreed with me that the Federation should include Southern Rhodesia. I think that there must be a Federation in order to give the economic advantages to all three territories, and I believe that it will be tragic if it breaks down.
380
I attach importance to multi-racialism. Some people tell me that the word "multi-racial" is a dirty word and must not be used; that one ought to use the word "non-racial." The danger of that attitude is that, in time, every word becomes a dirty word. Every African who tries to support partnership becomes an outcast, and that is because certain people outside the country are trying to undermine partnership in Africa.
I am sure that we in this House, however much we disagree, have to try to get over that difficulty. We must, I think, try to build this multi-racial partnership by breaking down the barriers between the different races in the Federation, and I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East when I say that after my recent visits to Southern Rhodesia one of the most cheering things today is the efforts being made to break down this racial discrimination. I think that Sir Edgar Whitehead has done a great deal on that matter. I would welcome an African majority if I were satisfied that it was in favour of federation.
Mr. Ede: Oh.
Mr. Turton: I knew that that would evince a chortle from the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede).
If one believes in federation and in Northern Rhodesia being a partner in that federation, what is the use of electing men who are out to wreck the Federation? Far better for us now to take our decision and say that we will end the Federation. If this experiment is to succeed—it is the biggest experiment in Africa—it requires men who are devoted to the idea of federation. I have found in Central Africa many Africans, not necessarily of all one party, who are determined to make this multiracial experiment a success. They are there. That is why I believe that we ought to stop intimidation there and give every encouragement to multiracial partnership.
I hope that my right hon. Friend, whom I sincerely congratulate on his appointment, will take one further piece of advice from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, that he should go out and visit the Colonies. Will he also review his system of having constitutional conferences at Lancaster House?

381
I believe that it is a very great mistake to have conferences in the gaudy Victorianism of Lancaster House, hoping to impress delegations from emerging territories with the grandeur of Britain with that particular type of architecture and with the Westminster Parliament and hoping that they will go back to build a constitution on the Westminster model or make some advance on the pattern proposed by the Colonial Office.
I think that it is a very unwise thing, because when such delegations go back from Lancaster House they are removed from this spell and have to explain what they have agreed to people who have not been under that spell. It would be far better to hold our constitutional conferences in Africa. It would be very good for the Colonial Office and give it a little travel which is very good for broadening the mind. It would be difficult for the Colonial Secretary, but by a system of double banking I expect that it could be done. If there would be subversive influences surrounding the conferences, let us remember that those influences will be there when the members go back to Africa from Lancaster House. It would be much better to deal with them there on the spot. I give that thought to the new Colonial Secretary.
When I wish him well, I realise that we shall differ from time to time—from one emerging territory to another. But I know that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is not the personal private possession of any particular Colonial Secretary. In my view, it is a policy formed to float on the Wind of Change and, as such, I shall at times have to oppose it, but that is not a bad thing. I never mind differences of opinion when they are sincerely held and, obviously, if there are differences of opinion this House is designed for them.
If there were no difference of opinion this House would have the wrong shape and no purpose. However much we may differ, I hope that my right hon. Friend, in all his policies, will never again allow appeasement to enter into them as a way of solving a problem. If once the British Government are thought to be appeased by violence, that is the end of their policy. There are too many of this
382
nation who have died as a result of that policy. If we apply it to Africa it will arouse the contempt and distrust of all.
4.46 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) does not expect me to examine his declaration of faith. I imagine that he is somewhat gratified that he and his friends have succeeded—it is certainly a factor in the matter—in the change of the Colonial Secretary and the appointment of a new one. I wish the new Colonial Secretary all success in the difficult work that he has to undertake. I would say of his predecessor that he has to his credit a number of very liberal achievements, and it was the regret of many of us that in the last days of his administration that a lapse occurred in regard to Northern Rhodesia.
The subject of the debate is wide and, I fear, somewhat vague. It is not my intention to discuss some of the immediate issues in Africa. They have been brilliantly discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Issues in Ghana, Kenya, and some of the problems arising in Central Africa I leave alone. I want also to ignore some of the fundamental, social and economic developments in Africa, important as they are, and merely refer to a limited number of political issues respecting the continent as a whole.
All of us, I think, are conscious of the amazing changes which have come over the face of Africa in the past 15 or 16 years. New nations have evolved, and new political forces are at work as a result. These nations are now represented in the United Nations and we have now to reckon, in the conditions of this modern world, with new developments the like of which could not he contemplated when the last war occurred. Old imperialisms have been steadily dismantled. France is engaged in her last struggle in Algeria. Already Belgium has left Africa and Portugal alone remains. I wish that our Government would show a much more vigorous and positive attitude in respect to the policy our ally Portugal is pursuing in her African territories. I said that the old imperialisms are disappearing in Africa. I regret that there is a new imperialism

383
operating in South Africa—the annexation by the Union of South Africa of South-West Africa and her refusal to allow international supervision over that territory.
I recall how a very short time ago comparatively speaking—the Colonial Office removed from Downing Street on the promise that there would be built on the site of the old Westminster Hospital a grand and spacious Colonial Office, handsome and suitable for all the great tasks which that office would have to do in the days to come. That was only about fifteen years ago. It was a pipe dream. That new Colonial Office was never built. No one foresaw at that time the changes which were coming about inside what was known then as the Colonial Empire. No one foresaw that within a brief period so many countries under Imperial domination would be free.
The Colonial Secretary this afternoon referred to the work of Conservative Colonial Secretaries during the past ten years, but let me remind him that it was the two Labour Governments which laid the foundations of independence and which made possible the work which the Conservative Governments have done since. That piece of history ought not to be forgotten. We as a party have always stood for the liberation and the freedom of the colonial peoples. It amuses me sometimes when I hear my Conservative friends talking that language—a common language today—with respect to Colonial Territories, whereas only a few years ago they were critical when I myself was engaged in the task of trying to prepare territories for independence. Sometimes I think there is a tendency for Conservatives to wear the clothing of my party and to talk its language. Anyway, today we commend the achievements of Tanganyika, Nigeria and Sierra Leone. We welcome them in the Commonwealth. We welcome their independence. We also notice that Kenya and Uganda are today well on the way.
All this means the gradual demise of the Colonial Office itself. I should like to pay a tribute to this Office of great historic importance before it becomes so disintegrated that its significance amongst the public offices is altogether lost. It has done this job of dismantling our British Imperial system without much
384
violence. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to Cyprus and the violence that was shown there, and to the violence which has occurred in Central Africa; but, on the whole, this Imperial system has been dismantled with very little violence, largely because of the ingenuity and the care which that great office has shown.
The transfer of political power which has occurred, the making of new constitutions suitable far the countries concerned—all that has been a very remarkable achievement. My only regret is that on the achievement of independence there has been a far too pedantic view of the meaning of independence, in that too many of these countries have been left with insufficient resources to cope with the social and economic development which independence has called for.
It was generally thought that there was no great problem in dismantling an empire such as Britain possessed. I believe that in earlier days Socialists thought that it was simple to rid the country of this heavy responsibility. Wendell Wilkie during his vice-Presidential campain often talked of the need of colonial powers ending colonial status, as if by a mere flick of a whip the thing could be done. But I think the Colonial Office has been involved in a number of very great difficulties. We have today discussed the problem of Ghana. The transfer of power into a territory which to some extent was politically immature and in which the traditional elements had to be brought under control was no easy task. I think sometimes that to expect a Western democracy to flourish where tribal society has previously existed calls for a very considerable jerk of one's imagination.
Likewise, there have been the difficulties due to European settlement, such as we have seen in Northern Rhodesia and Kenya. How could racial conflict be avoided? How could the aspirations of Europeans be subdued in order that they might be reconciled to the aspirations of the indigenous peoples in the territories? In this transfer to independence we have run into difficulties concerning the boundaries of some of these territories. Today there is the problem as it affects the Somalis—the boundaries fixed with Abyssinia—and Kenya. These are real difficulties arising from the building up of unity inside a State and

385
the satisfaction of the claims of other races inside some of these boundaries. Likewise there have been difficulties such as those recently experienced in Buganda, which has been standing out for its own traditional rights. In some cases we have had solemn treaty obligations, such as in the cases of Barotseland, Zanzibar and the East African coast. These pressing and urgent problems are being overcome today with very great skill by the Colonial Office.
In the making of constitutions—indeed of new nations—there can be no simple line of advance. And, as to the Continent of Africa itself, there can be no master plan for its development. The Colonial Secretary will discover in the archives of the Colonial Office an extraordinary master plan put forward about 1948 by Lord Montgomery for the development and the exploitation of this vast Continent. With his usual arrogance and profound ignorance of what he was writing about, he suggested that this great Continent should be the subject of what he called a master plan; that the Imperial Powers apparently could gather together and exert their influence over this Continent in order that the great wealth contained in it could be utilised by the Western world. It was all nonsense, of course, but it shows that too frequently when we have thought of Africa we have tended to think of one great land mass without also thinking of the great differences which exist in terms a race, economic conditions, geographical factors and the many other aspects which are so diversified in these great areas.
It may be that in the recent advocacy of some of the African leaders on the subject of Pan-Africanism they sometimes forget these wide diversities of conditions. The degree of political unity they are seeking may be impossible when the differences of races and the geographical factors involved are considered. However, we welcome the regional co-operation inside this Continent. The effort of the British Government in days gone by to get some degree of co-operation in West Africa obviously broke down and the council created, is no more. It was set up in the war years. An effort was made in East Africa. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will give every encouragement to the further effort now being made, particularly by
386
Mr. Nyerere, in the reconstituting of the High Commission for East Africa. Some tribute should be made to Sir Phillip Mitchell for the conception of the present High Commission. I had something to do in persuading the adoption of this Commission. It was based on equality of race, equality of territory and the establishment of common services administered by the representatives of the three territories. I welcome the fact that the great political development which has gone on in East Africa allows a reconstitution of this Commission in such a way that it can continue under the guidance of three democratic Governments and the maintenance of common services vital to East Africa.
That brings me to the issue of Central Africa and the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton regarding federation. I would reply that federation was possibly a sound political conception had the time been ripe for it. I have always opposed the present form of federation. It imposed a system on people who were not ready for it and who certainly did not want it. That fact struck me at the time—and I wrote and spoke about it. When I was in office I opposed it—largely because I knew that it must result in trouble and difficulties in the days to come. I suggested that the answer to the problem is an association between the three territories involved. This is of vital importance, for I believe that certain common services are necessary within the three territories. I felt that it was far more important to proceed on a basis of equality for the three territories and the creation of a loose association, with less power at the centre, and more in the territory if the cooperation of the Africans whose territories formed Central Africa was to be gained.
It will be very difficult for us to go forward with discussions on Federation until the Northern Rhodesian problem is solved. I have never been satisfied or happy with the electoral arrangements in the Federation and Rhodesia, some of which appear utterly fantastic and bear no reality to the facts. This applies also to the present Northern Rhodesian Constitution in which the arrangements seem completely unreal in the circumstances and conditions of that territory.

387
The final proposals which have been offered will be discussed only by the ending of violence in Northern Rhodesia. I cannot understand, when we are the protectors of the African people, when African political representation is inadequate and Africans have few channels of protest open to them against the acts of Government why justice cannot be done to the Africans when a thing is known to be just. It is known by the admission of the late Colonial Secretary that some amendments are due to the proposals which he has offered. He must be aware that these proposals are arousing not only the opposition of the Liberal Party but also the unanimous opposition of the Africans. Therefore, why pursue his proposals? If he permits Sir Roy Welensky to exercise duress on the Northern Rhodesia Government and the Colonial Office, why is pressure described as duress when the Africans protests, often by the only means at their disposal? If something is just, let the just thing be done. To put conditions that we must wait for violence to come to an end is absolutely monstrous. The constitution must be made sound, just and proper, and I hope that there will be no delay on the part of the Government in doing this.
I must refer now to Southern Africa, because I want to know how far the discussions have progressed with the Union of South Africa in respect of the relations between this country and the Union. South Africa has gone out of the Commonwealth and there are a large number of problems needing to be tackled. We have been told that within twelve months some settlement would occur and there would be discussions. I want to know what discussions have taken place and whether there has been any resultant progress. I urge that in these discussions there should be no surrender whatever of our rights in respect of the three Protectorates in South Africa, and I hope that in any agreement reached there are the completest safeguards as to the integrity of the High Commissioners Territories under the Commonwealth Relations Office.
I also urge that the Government proceed as fast as they can, irrespective of credit squeezes and economic difficul-
388
ties, to improve, develop and build up Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. These countries have been neglected far too long. I believe there was a flicker of hope that new constructive work would be developed, and I urge the Under-Secretary to see that a vigorous, positive and constructive line is pursued in each of the territories.
I also ask the Under-Secretary that in the constitutional talks going on in respect of Swaziland he should give careful heed to the representations made to his right hon. Friend about future electoral franchise arrangements and representation. I ask that the fullest consideration be given to the representations of the Swazi Progressive Party. I hope that we do not see traditional claims overriding the legitimate democratic claims of the people involved.
My last point concerns certain of the Trust Territories. I had the great privilege of playing some part in the United Nations on behalf of this country in the inauguration of the trusteeship system. At that time I felt obliged to try to convince the settlors in Tanganyika of the importance of Britain continuing the mandate in the form of a trust agreement. They accepted the view I put forward. We have had en excellent example, in the case of Tanganyika, of good fellowship between the three races there and a steady movement towards independence and freedom, all most commendable. Tanganyika is one of the best examples of the success of the trusteeship system.
I am not quite so happy about the Southern Cameroons. There was a debate on this territory when Parliament adjourned at the beginning of August. I thought then that the reply of the Government was extremely unsatisfactory. It is important that we should know how this trustee agreement has been wound up. It was left in a somewhat ragged and unsettled condition owing to circumstances largely beyond our control, but we are entitled to ask what the final arrangements made between this Government and the new country were. What Constitution was secured which safeguarded the rights and interests of the people who were formerly in our territory? What have been the financial arrangements and the fate of the

389
administrative and technical officers employed by Her Majesty's Government in that territory? I hope that we can have some further information, possibly in the form of a White Paper containing the essential information.
If I had had time I should have said something about areas apart from Africa —for instance, the proposals about South-East Asia—Singapore and Malaya —and the proposals in regard to the West Indies Federation now that Jamaica has come out of the Federation. I was deeply involved in those two regions.
However, I will conclude by saying that we must all be conscious that this great Continent of Africa is at last awake and becoming very rapidly a positive force in the life of the modern world. But there are influences at work in that continent which may be utterly anti-democratic. Conflict may arise between the conceptions and ideals of the Western world and those of the authoritarian world.
I therefore urge that we meet that situation by a strong and positive contribution in every possible way to the social and economic development of this vast Continent. It needs our aid. The Secretary of State for the Colonies must keep in mind the great spirit of trusteeship enunciated in days gone by by Edmund Burke and by many of our administrators since—that we are in Africa to help, to protect and to see to the progress of the people in our charge. We hope that the people will come to full independence with decent economic and social conditions. That is the task which the Colonial Office must perform.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Chataway: The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) has been able to give the House a very interesting review from his very considerable experience of Africa. I found a great deal of what he had to say fascinating. I was especially glad that he stressed the need for aid in Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland. In this respect, Britain has a special obligation. If we are to show that our system, rather than apartheid, is superior, greater efforts will be needed from this country.
390
I was also interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman explain again the reasons for his opposition to federation in the early days. There are not, I suppose, many hon. Members in the House today who would feel absolutely certain that the right decision was taken over federation, but I wonder what the position of Southern Rhodesia would have been today had there been no federation. Would Southern Rhodesia have made the progress towards multi-racialism or non-racialism that has been made, or would she have moved in the direction of South Africa? I must admit that the latter course seems to me the more likely.
Therefore, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), I should like to see federation succeed. I, too, support multi-racial partnership. I am not sure that I mean the same thing by "multi-racial partnership" as my right hon. Friend does. If it means white people and black people and brown people working together and tolerating each other's existence and rights, I am for it. I hope that we are seeing it in practice in Tanganyika and Nigeria. If by "multi-racialism" is meant the retarding of African advancement for a considerable period in order to retain effective control in the hands of a more advanced European community for many years, I am against it.
I want to confine my remarks, which will not take very long, to the Federation, particularly Northern Rhodesia. I shall do this particularly because a longstanding engagement in my constituency will prevent me hearing many later speeches. I base my views on the Federation on three propositions contained in the Report of the Monckton Commission. The Report said, first, that the Federation can continue only if it can enlist the willing support of its inhabitants. I believe that that is profoundly true. I do not believe that the Federation can long continue without enlisting that support, which must mean that before very long there must be African majority rule in the Federal Government.
The second Monckton proposition of which I want to remind the House is this:
"The fear that Federation will stand in the way of political progress is … one of the main reasons for the dislike in which it is held in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland."

391
That was true in October, 1960. It must be much more true today after the Federal Government have spent much of the past year in making representations to the British Government in order to retard political advance in Northern Rhodesia. It cannot be a matter of satisfaction to those who want federation to succeed that the Federal Government have taken so obvious a hand in retarding advance in Northern Rhodesia.
The third proposition of the Monckton Commission to which I should like to refer is its recommendation that there should be an African majority in the Northern Rhodesian Legislature. That I support. That, it seems to me, is necessary at this stage if African support is to be won for Federation.
The Colonial Secretary has said from the beginning of this year that he would aim at parity rather than at an African majority. That I am perfectly prepared to accept. But it seems to me that when there is African majority rule in Uganda, in Tanganyika, in Nigeria and in almost every African country to which Northern Rhodesians look, it is totally unrealistic to think that because of the presence of a substantial European minority the consent of Africans can be gained to denying them that majority rule for any period of time.
The need for an African majority is reinforced also by the nature of the African leaders at the moment in Northern Rhodesia. Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House I have been impressed by Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, by his moderation and by the obviously sensible approach which he has to many of the problems that face his territory. Why, then, should we not at this moment move to African majority rule in Northern Rhodesia? Is it solely the desire of the United Federal Party politicians to remain in power which is the hindrance?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton suggested that it would not be right to move to African majority rule in Northern Rhodesia until there was an African Government that would be favourable to federation. If that argument applies to Northern Rhodesia it must equally apply to Nyasaland, too. I believe that one would have to wait a very long time
392
before moving to majority rule if that were to be the criterion.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) suggested another stumbling block—the British South Africa Company. There have been some in the past months who have expressed the belief that the British South Africa Company constitutes a reason for holding back advance in Northern Rhodesia. Some have noted the marked contrast between the views of Lord Salisbury and others associated with the British South Africa Company and the views of men like Sir Ronald Prain, of the Rhodesian Selection Trust. Admittedly, the British South Africa Company is in a particular financial position, and I hope that the House will bear with me if I look at that position for a moment.
The British South Africa Company receives royalties on every ton of ore which is removed from the ground in Northern Rhodesia irrespective of which company mines it. Those royalities derive from an agreement reached with the Chiefs between 1895 and 1900. In 1948, Mr. Roy Welensky, as he then was, argued that these royalities should revert immediately to the Northern Rhodesian Government. As a result of the controversy that then ensued a new agreement was reached by which 20 per cent. of the royalities went to the Northern Rhodesian Government and an agreement was signed by which the company should retain the remaining royalities until 1986. That agreement is worth a great deal to the company. In the five years up to September, 1960, the royalties were worth £50 million. Some of the money derived from them is invested abroad.
Evidently it is thought that fear may be entertained by the Brtish South Africa Company that once there is African self-government or independence in Northern Rhodesia that agreement will be abrogated. I do not think that that fear would constitute a very cogent argument to most hon. Members of the House, and certainly not to the Government, for delaying constitutional advance. But there is an important additional point to be borne in mind.
The interests of the other mining companies in Northern Rhodesia are surely very different, because they will depend for their success in the future on African

393
Governments who realise the value of the foreign mining companies, who realise that they cannot exist without their expertise and their capital. The present African leaders do. Even the British South Africa Company has, I understand, very substantial holdings in the Rhodesian Selection Trust and Anglo-American. It should not, therefore, be even the British South Africa Company's sole interest to retard independence in Northern Rhodesia for a few years in the hope of getting these royalties irrespective of what may follow.
I believe, therefore, that the new Colonial Secretary should be prepared to receive representations about the June proposals put forward by his predecessor. I am by no means convinced that the June proposals differ materially in their effect from the February proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend now the Leader of the House.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East spoke with considerable assurance on this subject. He felt certain that there had been a climb-down to the Federal Government. Having done my best to study both of these sets of proposals, this is certainly not clear to me. I am quite convinced that the Leader of the House did not believe that there was any material difference between the effect of the February proposals and the effect of the June proposals.
It is not in question that the upper roll will largely go to the United Federal Party, and equally that the lower roll will go largely to the African Nationalists. The difficulties and the controversy centre around the middle roll, and, in particular, over the qualifying percentages that are needed for both African and European parties if they are to go forward in the elections for these national seats.
I do not wish to enter into the details of these arguments, because I do not believe sufficiently in my own powers of clarity of exposition to be sure that I should be able, amid these mathematical intricacies, to make it clear, but I believe that the June proposals would still have given a reasonable chance to both African and European parties to qualify. In 1952, Mr. Oliver Lyttleton said:
"The political advancement of Africans in the Northern Territories must be, and must be seen to be, safeguarded."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th March, 1952; Val. 497, c. 231.]
394
I do not believe that the Africans have been able to see in the June proposals that their interests are safeguarded. It thus seems to me to be extremely important that the new Colonial Secretary should be prepared to hear representations from the parties in Northern Rhodesia.
I realise that this is a hard decision for him, because it may be said that this is appeasement, as it was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton.
I hope that, if I had been in the House in the 1930s, I should have been opposed to the appeasement of dictators. I am certainly opposed to the appeasement of Soviet imperialism. But it does not seem to me necessarily to be wrong to appease —if that be the word one cares to use—progress, or the inevitable forces of change. The Leader of the House has made it easier for the Colonial Secretary to act because he has already said that, when violence ceases, the Government will be prepared, as they have been prepared on occasions hitherto, to hear further representations before an Order in Council is issued.
In conclusion, I pay my tribute to the work of the former Colonial Secretary. He has succeeded in capturing the faith and trust of Africans to a remarkable extent in a particularly difficult period. When one thinks of the turmoil there has been on the African Continent during the past two years, it is a remarkable achievement that we have, had no security situations and no serious disorders in British territories throughout that time. We have seen a calm transfer of power in Nyasaland, in Tanganyika and in Uganda. Perhaps—I hope that it will be so—we shall soon see an end to the bickerings between local African politicians in Kenya.
During the last few years there has emerged the bright hope of an East African Federation. However little the past Colonial Secretary's name has been openly associated with that idea, I believe that he has a share of credit to take in it. The Leader of the House hands over substantial achievements to my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary, but I stress that I consider it vital that he should at the earliest possible moment show that

395
he is prepared to listen to the representations which the African parties, in particular, wish to make to him about constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia.
5.33 p.m.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) has delighted many of us on this side of the House with the distance he has covered and the speed with which he covered it, if, indeed, he started from the starting line of the views of his party some years ago in arriving at the very progressive views he expressed to us this afternoon. I can only express the hope that he will retain the grit and show the courage which he showed on previous occasions in matters of speed and will continue to advocate those progressive views until the aims which he and many of us in different parts of the House—on this side, in particular, I think—have in mind for the future of Africa.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I intend to devote myself to one aspect only of African affairs, the situation in Ghana. In this House, of course, we have no right to interfere in the internal affairs of a self-governing country in the Commonwealth. I shall attempt to observe that principle, but I feel that, whether we are dealing with South Africa or dealing with Ghana, we all have not only a right but a duty to consider what effect what is done in those countries has upon the Commonwealth. It is from that angle entirely that I shall make my observations on this very limited part of the subject we are discussing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who was extremely kind in allowing me to interrupt him during his speech earlier, stated that he hoped he would be making a statesmanlike speech. We all hope that. Nevertheless, I must say that the speech he made with regard to Ghana reminded me very much of speeches I heard in the House when Mussolini was coming well up into the saddle. It was said, "We must be statesmanlike. We must not be too critical of what is going on inside Italy. The trains are running on time". The same thing, sometimes in those very
396
words, is said now about what is happening in Ghana. [An HON. MEMBER: "The trains running on time?"] It is very important that the trains should run on time, but, at the same time, there are other things very much more important than the punctuality of the railways.
In what I am about to say, I shall not claim by any means to be nearly so knowledgeable about Ghana as many hon. Members are, but it has been my good fortune and duty to visit that country many times during the past five years, and I have seen a certain amount—I put it no higher—of what is going on there. Ghana has, during the last five years, been in the grip of as vile a dictatorship as it could be possible to imagine, a dictatorship exercised by a man who seized a party machine from those who had forged it and used it to win Ghana's independence, who then claimed to have won that independence himself, and who has ever since used the whole machinery of the party and, indeed, of the State, once he was able to capture it, to make himself ever greater and ever more likely as a candidate for pan-African leadership. That is the situation, as it seems to me.
We all know the familiar story of how events began and developed. There was the putting of his image on the stamps. There was the statue erected outside Parliament, with the rather odious words which he had put there—"Seek ye first political power, and then all other things will be added unto you". We remember how the Constitution was altered so that he might perpetuate his own power, how opposition was swept away, how youth was organised in groups so that it might be used to venerate him. We remember how the judiciary was used and how it has come under his power, so that now judges may be dismissed virtually at his mere will. What chance is there of any rule of law in such circumstances? We remember how he has taken his opponents, one by one, and not just put them away in camps where they can have their friends and their reading but where they have been breaking up stones on less than prison diet, just at his command.
That is the sort of situation with which we are dealing in Ghana now. We have the right to discuss it and consider its effect upon the Commonwealth because,

397
of course, there is the present proposed visit by Her Majesty to Ghana, among other countries. It seems to me that it would be a tragedy on general grounds of a moral order if Her Majesty's Government advised the Queen to put herself in a position in which she has to appear graceful and smiling in public with the man who is responsible for this state of affairs in Ghana.
Mr. George Thomas: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is not so very long since the Queen was put in the same position in Portugal, where, equally, there is a dictatorship and equally no liberty? Therefore, I think that, if the Queen goes outside the Commonwealth, we ought to hesitate before speaking against her travelling inside the Commonwealth.
Mr. Mallalieu: Many of us raised our voices about Her Majesty going to Portugal. We thought it perhaps a mistake that Her Majesty should do so because she would appear to be condoning what had been going on inside Portugal. That is precisely what I fear concerning her visit to Ghana.
I feel that Her Majesty would appear to be condoning the terrible tragedy which has befallen the wonderful country of Ghana and her gay, courteous and happy people since their independence was aborted by the introduction on to the scene of this man who has since so much tortured them. Not only has he put his opponents in gaol, it is said for five years, but, of course, that can be increased indefinitely—it may be five, ten, twenty or twenty-five years; to all intents and purposes it is for as long as he is in power —but even the families of these people are being persecuted, with wives and children being prevented from getting employment.
This is the most ghastly tragedy. All the decencies of public life have been removed from Ghana in so short a time by this man. Yet this is the man with whom the Head of the Commonwealth may be advised to hob-nob in public and to appear pleased to be with him in public. Apart from that, which is a general consideration, I do not wish to stress again any particular knowledge that I may have, but it would be a blind person indeed who went to Ghana and
398
did not see the sort of dangers which the Queen will be in if she goes to Ghana.
It has been my very great privilege to stay several times with Dr. Danquah, who was among the fifty people who were put away in the last batch. This is a man who would not even lift a hand in anger to get rid of Nkrumah, and that is saying a very great deal. He is a man of peace. Nothing would make him into anything else. Yet he has been put away. What is happening to his family now?
I have always said that some of the people who have been put away by Nkrumah and his associates may have been men of violence—nothing is proved against them yet—but many of them were not. I have always said that they would never use violence even against Nkrumah to get rid of him. But such has been the dictatorship in that country for the last five years that it is no longer possible to say that there would not be very great danger if the Queen went there. I am not thinking merely of new and perhaps inexperienced police forces. I am thinking of the feelings of pent-up frustration and fury which are bound to be engendered in people's minds if they have to suffer this persecution.
Is it possible for Her Majesty's Government to say that there is virtually no danger if the Queen goes to Ghana at this time? I cannot say positively that it is certain that there will be a catastrophe, but I certainly cannot say that it is unlikely. I submit with great respect to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations that, unless he can say that it is very unlikely that there is any danger, he should not advise Her Majesty to go to Ghana.
Why must we appear to condone people of whom we strongly disapprove? I am sure that everyone disapproves of the way in which the Government of Ghana carried on. But it is not our affair, except where it touches the Commonwealth. Would not it be far better to give a message of hope to these people who had such promise and to whom everyone wished well, people who are so popular wherever they go abroad, a message of hope to their poor brethren who are now breaking up stones? Would it not be better to call off this visit and to say that it would not be wise at this time for Her Majesty to go to Ghana?
5.45 p.m.
Sir Anthony Hurd: I wish to switch the attention of the House right across the African continent to Kenya, a small corner of Africa where, as I know hon. Members realise, we have special responsibilities. It is a beautiful country, made, as we see it today, by European settlers who have created productive farms where there was mainly wasteful and extensive grazing and warring tribes. It has its droughts and floods, but it is a country of great capacity and still greater opportunity. That progress has come because the people of Kenya, regardless of race, have benefited by the rule of order and by honest administration. We have given them that.
I am sorry to say that, for the moment anyway, the orderly progress of Kenya is in the melting pot. In recent months, the political and economic affairs of that country have drifted into a sad mess. Miscalculation, perhaps here, perhaps in Nairobi, is evident in Kenya today. The processes of emerging into independence have been gone through. There have been elections to give African politicians the opportunity to prove that they are capable of serving Kenya, putting the interests of the people of Kenya first before their own political ambitions.
With a few honourable exceptions—I think of Mr. Ngala as one, and there are others working with him—they continue to quarrel among themselves, and, so far, they have miserably failed to live up to their opportunities to serve Kenya. May that phase quickly pass. It is as distressing to us as it must be to all decent people in Kenya. The emergence of Mr. Jomo Kenyatta raised hopes that his influence would bring African politicians of all tribes together and would help them to steer a steady and responsible course. Judging by some of his recent exclamations, however, he seems to be no better than the others.
The Governor of Kenya, Sir Patrick Renison, for whom I have the highest regard, has done his utmost to get a broad-based Government established, but he had to confess in a broadcast to the people of Kenya the other day:
"I feel very much dispirited and frustrated that so much effort is in danger of being wasted."
400
There is hope in the discussions which have started and which, I trust, will continue to create a federation of East Africa which would link Kenya to Tanganyika, where the progress towards responsible government and independence is being made more satisfactorily. But we in this House are still responsible for Kenya. Are we pinning our hopes for that country's future entirely to this project of a federation of East Africa, hoping that somehow things will work out all right for British farmers and businessmen who have made their lives in Kenya and who wish to stay there, for the British civil servants and police who have given honest administration and the rule of order and the hundreds of thousands of decent Africans who rely on Britain for sound administration and fair dealing free from tribal prejudices?
We owe a duty to these Africans, because we have shown them right ways. I am as worried about the possibility of abandoning them and the Indians there as I am about abandoning the people of my own colour. Let us give a fair wind to this project of a federation of East Africa within the Commonwealth, but we must make clear now the terms on which we will hand over our responsibilities in Kenya. I think that we have failed to speak frankly enough since the Lancaster House conference.
Kenya is an agricultural country, and everything there depends on farming, how it is done, the seasons and the crop yields. Everybody's livelihood there depends on agriculture and its progress. I want to speak particularly about the European farmers, who are for the most part tenants of the Crown. This House sometimes overlooks that fact.
I cannot do better than refer for the latest information to a leading article in the Kenya Weekly News of 13th October. It stated:
"Early in September, it was estimated that about 10 per cent. of the European farmers, exclusive of large companies, were determined to leave Kenya as soon as possible, even at the cost of heavy financial loss. Another 10 per cent. were anxious to leave as soon as possible, but were held back by their financial commitments. Another 40 per cent. were anxious to sell their farms at reasonable prices but were not prepared to sacrifice nearly all their assets, and the remaining 40 per cent. intended to remain in Kenya.

401
Today, six weeks later, the situation in the mixed farming districts has changed for the worse. The proportion of farmers who intend to leave Kenya at any price has risen sharply, and the proportion of farmers who intend to remain in Kenya has fallen sharply. Moreover, more farmers have decided to transfer funds overseas in case they are forced to leave Kenya."
That is a sad picture. These are the men who with their wives have made modern Kenya. I was disturbed by a remark made by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), who was formerly Colonial Secretary, and who is not now in his place, who spoke about the need to "subdue the aspirations of Europeans in Africa". Good heavens, we need all these aspirations, all the ambitions and all the help which Europeans can give. This is surely the case, because if there is to be any future for Kenya it has to be a partnership. It is the Europeans, and particularly those of British stock, who have shown the way, something quite different from what has developed in some other territories in Africa for which we are not responsible. Kenya needs these men, their wives and families more than ever as it emerges into independence, to stand on its own feet. Unhappily today too many of them are preparing to pack up and leave because they cannot see what the future holds for them in Kenya.
Many of the farmers, both Africans and Europeans, are tenants of the Crown. The Crown has tenants in this country also, and the Crown, like any other good landlord, has responsibilities to its tenants. We cannot abandon them—I am not prepared, anyway, to abandon them—to the whims of African politicians. For the good of all, I believe that we should say so bluntly now.
The best plan I know did not originate with me, but I put it to the Colonial Office some months ago. It is that we should sponsor a Kenya Land Corporation, broadly based, to take over the obligations of the Crown to the present landholders, facilitate the transfer of land on fair terms to Africans and Europeans who intend and have the capacity to farm intensively, and administer for the benefit of all Kenya farmers the development finance promised from outside sources, such as the World Bank. When I was in Kenya, in January, the World Bank was making its inquiries, and so were West German finance
402
houses and others about the possibilities of land development in Kenya, but nobody will put money into Kenya unless there is security of tenure and property rights are respected.
It seems to me that to restore confidence all round we need to have a broadly based body like the Kenya Land Corporation which I have suggested, that would be impartial, with its members drawn perhaps one from this country, perhaps another from the World Bank, another from one of the West African countries which is emerging into independence, Nigeria for instance, and with several local men of high repute in Kenya. I put forward this suggestion, and I am happy to have the support of my hon. Friend the Member far Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). We went together to see the former Colonial Secretary about this.
Let me emphasise that security of tenure and respect for property rights is fundamental to the future of Kenya. It is an agricultural country, and whether it is to be farmed in the future mainly by Africans or mainly by Europeans, there must be security of land tenure. That is what is denied today by the quarrelling African politicians. This security is already recognised as a fundamental principle in Tanganyika, and this is one of the reasons why I am hopeful of this idea of a federation in which Tanganyika would perhaps lead Kenya by the hand in these essential matters.
We need to state clearly from this House, through the Colonial Secretary, that the same principle must be established in Kenya before that country moves further to independence and takes her part in an East African Federation. I believe that a firm line on this would do more than anything else to inject into Kenya politics the realism, common sense and tolerance which that country so desperately needs.
May I, in conclusion, wish all success to the new Secretary of State for the Colonies? He has a lively mind and a wide experience, and I am sure that he will be able to carry forward successfully the policies which have been so well engendered by his predecessor, who is now Leader of the House. I have always broadly supported the Leader of the House in his policies of advance in

403
Africa. I do not see that we have any alternative. But let us guide the advance in such a way that we keep together the best elements of all races to help in building up the economy and soundness of these countries. We need on the side of democracy in Africa those people of our own colour of skin who have done so much for Kenya and who understand the Africans—thoroughly decent people who want to help, if they are given the assurance about the future which we alone in this House can give. I pray that we give it them.
5.58 p.m.
Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) speaks with a great deal of authority on Kenya. It was my privilege to visit Kenya, in company with the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams), a few years ago on a Commonwealth Parliamentary mission. It was an experience which I shall never forget. I returned paying tribute to white and dark people, to Asians, Africans and Europeans, for the remarkable achievements which were evident in Kenya.
Kenya has advanced and is ready for self-government. Her people are able to govern themselves. There is not the slightest doubt about it. There are political difficulties, but when the political difficulties are resolved the people in Kenya are just as able to manage their own affairs as are those in Uganda, Tanganyika and Nigeria. With every respect for the hon. Member for Newbury, I think that his speech will have exacerbated fears on the part of Europeans there.
In my conversations during the summer with people who came from Kenya to this country, I found that all the Africans to whom I spoke expressed a realisation that Kenya needs the skill, the ability and the devotion of those white people who are there We must remember that there are white Kenyans and dark Kenyans. The sooner the two African parties are able to come together and the sooner the wise lead given by Mr. Kenyatta when he re-entered public life is accepted, the better it will be for Kenya and for us.
I join everyone who has spoken in congratulating Tanganyika on her inde-
404
pendence and Uganda on the achievements of the last conference. I listened with deep concern to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who spoke about Ghana. His words, which were not lightly spoken, are bound to cause dismay among people in Nkrumah's party. Dr. Nkrumah knows that we on this side of the House, and I have no doubt hon. Members opposite, had tremendous affection and respect for them in Ghana when their day of independence dawned.
I do not know enough about Ghana to speak with the authority with which my hon. and learned Friend spoke, but I know that the Methodist Church is very strong in Ghana, that it was given complete autonomy last July and that it includes in its ranks people distinguished in the public life of Ghana. Until recently, at any rate, the Methodist Church included members of Dr. Nkrumah's Cabinet. It is a very powerful institution in the land. I hope that all those who believe in the rights of men to free speech and to full political rights in their democracies, especially those who belong to the Methodist Church in Ghana, will make their voices heard at this time, whatever the price, for there is a time when people must be prepared to suffer in the greater interests of their fellow men.
I want to speak, not for long, about a subject which perhaps only touches the colonial issues which we are debating today. During August, I paid a visit to the Congo-Angola border. I went to see the streams of refugees fleeing from Angola. I went soon after the debate in the House because of the conflict between the statements made from the Government Front Bench and the Portuguese authorities and those made by the missionaries who had called to the world to protest about the treatment of Angolan Africans.
Wherever I moved in the Congo I found people asking, "Why is England, which is a democracy, supporting Portugal in Angola?" I believe that the good name of our people in Africa is suffering because we are linked with the policies of Salazar in Angola. What nonsense it makes of enlightened talk here and of enlightened attitudes to our own colonial people in Africa if we are lending moral and financial support to

405
an ugly dictatorship which is loathed and condemned by Africans wherever we meet them.
I know that an hon. Member opposite paid a visit to Ruanda in recent days. I did not go into Angola. One does not need to go into Angola when it is possible to meet the people who have the first-hand experiences as they stream out to tell their story to the free world. In a report which is being issued this week, Eric Blakebrough, Baptist minister at Southend, and I submit for the consideration of our people and the Government evidence of slave labour, evidence of physical ill-treatment by the use of the palmatoria, evidence of a tyranny which no free man ought to support.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government in Africa has been defended in various terms. We all know that there has been a progressive attitude compared with pre-war years—a new attitude. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway), rather than the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), represents it. I believe that the general policy which the Government have been trying to follow in these postwar years is enlightened. But we are throwing away good will among enlightened Africans because they know that what goes on in Angola today could not go on if Salazar had not the connivance and the support of Her Majesty's Government.
We have heard talk about the Queen's visit to Ghana. I am sorry that she went to Portugal. I am sorry that we are put in a position of defending the indefensible, for whether we sit on this side of the House or on the opposite side, we are all concerned for the good name of our country and also about essential human rights.
We have seen in these post-war years a development in Africa of a consciousness by the people that they are entitled to the same human rights, the same social security and the same political liberties as those which white people have. Give them the opportunity and the Africans, whether they are in Angola, in South Africa or in Kenya, are our equals in their gifts, and they would soon show it. What a pity, then, that while we are talking of further liberty for our own people in Tanganyika and Uganda,
406
we are offending the decencies of Africans by giving moral support to the Portuguese for their policy in Angola.
There is just one more thing I want to say. We have had in this House a report from our consul-general. The present Lord Privy Seal assured the House, after being questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), that the consul-general had been able to talk freely with the Angolan Africans, without the presence of the Portuguese police. I can provide for the House evidence from a missionary who is back in this country, who spent twenty years in Angola, who is an honourable man, and to whom the Africans who were interviewed by our consul-general went to talk.
They described how they were asked, in front of the local chief of police and the Portuguese administrator, whether they were happy under Portuguese rule, and they looked at the policeman, and they said, "Yes, Sir." Of course they did. For me, it destroys any confidence in the report which that consul-general sent to this House, and I believe that we have a right to know if we were given a report which was drawn up almost under the eyes of the Portuguese police themselves.
I know that the Minister who will be replying to the debate will not be dealing with Angola itself, but I hope that he will bear in mind that I speak with deep sincerity when I assure the Government that people in the new Republic of the Congo who want to be friendly to us, and people in the Government of the Congo itself, are gravely disturbed at the evidence they have of what is going on in Angola, that they are linking our name with that of the Portuguese, and that as long as we hear talk here of our "oldest ally" this linking up will continue.
I conclude by saying that, because I believe that it is inevitable before the end of this century that liberty will have spread her light across the whole of that dark Continent of Africa, I should like this House, which has been the custodian of human liberties for so long, to give a message to the Africans in Angola that just as we want to see the rights of brotherhood reach out to other Africans so, too, we want them applied to them.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and I seem by strange coincidence almost invariably to follow or to precede each other, and I am tempted to be as critical this time, while I have the chance, as he was the last time he had, but I shall resist the temptation and limit myself to only two comments about the hon. Gentleman's speech.
First, I think it is a pity, although I appreciate with what sincerity he always speaks, that he should have attacked the consul-general's report, because we have got an understanding in this House generally that we do not attack civil servants, who are incapable of defending themselves. I would, therefore, just say that it is rather a pity that the hon. Gentleman Should have done that. I will give way if the hon. Gentleman wishes, but that was a very mild comment.
Mr. G. Thomas: Of course I do not attack individual civil servants. I have never done that in this House, but when a report is given as evidence to influence the whole House I have every right and, indeed, the responsibility to speak out.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: As I have just met the consul-general, may I tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that my impression of him is that he is a man of great fairness and great intelligence, not a man to be hoodwinked, and not a man wholly uncritical of what he sees in the country where he is stationed.
Mr. Bennett: I am afraid that the intervention by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West does not alter my expression of view. We all appreciate the sincerity with which he speaks, but for my part I prefer the attitude of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), who has unfortunately left the Chamber, because he speaks with equal intensity and equal vigour and force against oppression Wherever it is, Whether in South Africa or Ghana. I noticed that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, West was rather pleading for moderation in our comments on Ghana and then went on to make a very vigor-
408
ous, forceful attack of his own on what was going on in Portuguese West Africa.
Today I listened with particular interest to the Colonial Secretary's speech; with particular interest because, as some of my hon. Friends know, I was far five years and until very recently his Parliamentary Private Secretary. I must confess a little ruefully straightaway that without my sitting behind him he seemed to do just as well as ever.
For the last year or two the issues which we discuss about Africa and other parts of the remaining Colonial Empire have seemed to me to have been bedevilled by this over-simplification of what we are arguing about. Those of us who have been critical of the Government on certain colonial issues are always told that we are in favour of going slow and that we are accusing them of going too fast. I do believe that this is not only an over-simplification; it is really rather misleading. Because it seems to me that the question in any event whether one is going too fast or too slow, is in most parts of Africa largely irrelevant and academic; but it is legitimate also to inquire where we are going, whether fast or slow, and by What methods it is proposed to go there.
Although my remarks will have implications elsewhere, it is on that theme in Kenya that I wish to address a few remarks tonight. What exactly are we getting to, not just in Kenya but in certain other parts of Africa? Are we still determined to hand over to them what I would call a Westminster type of unitary constitution based on one man, one vote?
It is not altogether without significance that out of all the many territories, almost scores of them now, which have gained their liberty from one colonial Power or another since the last war, upon the principle of democracy, one man, one vote, hardly one has anything other than an authoritarian form of government today. There are one or two notable exceptions. I shall come in a few minutes to comment on why I think this is. The first, of course, is Nigeria, and one is Tanganyika, and the third, although it is too early yet to say what will happen, is the most recent one, Sierra Leone. But everywhere in Africa—and I am sure that I must carry the

409
whole House with me in saying this—the high hopes of Parliamentary democracy with which we left those territories have disappeared, and Africa, as in other ex-colonial territories emerging from their colonial status, is littered with broken maces and disused copies of Erskine May.
When is it, then, that this should have happened? Because if we are planning yet again in Kenya and certain other remaining parts of our dependent territories once again to try to thrust upon them or to induce them to accept or even to agree to their trying to adopt the Westminster type of unitary form of Parliamentary government, we are doomed to certain failure yet again.
One man, one vote has never been in most parts of Africa a profund constitutional concept. It has been a device. I say it without being rude about it. It has been a perfectly legitimate, fair device to get rid of the colonial Power in question. It is a method of getting the former European, dominant Power out of the country. But once that Power has gone one very rarely has heard the cry arising again. Why is this so very often? It is not because there is any great wish for iron-cast dictatorships of the sort which has unfortunately been sprung upon us in Ghana. I think there is another reason. I think that, living in this country, we have for far too long—and this includes the Colonial Office, too, I fear—underrated the power of traditional tribalism in Africa today.
One of the reasons why that is so is that the word "tribalism" has become in some people's minds an unfortunate word to use about primitive peoples. But it is no more unpleasant to be a member of a tribe than to be a member of a people, and that is all these tribes are. This is a word which lingers over from the nineteenth century. The small countries of Europe are tribes in exactly the same way. No one suggests that because Luxembourg, Denmark or Liechtenstein or Switzerland are small peoples they should be incorporated in larger unitary States.
The tribes of Africa are peoples just as much as European peoples, and they are just as much entitled to self-determination along their own lines of culture
410
and of ways of life as I expect are the beloved Welshmen of the hon. Member for Cardiff, West. I said earlier that I would explain why I thought that Nigeria was one of the great exceptions to the record of democratic failure in most of Africa. It is there that we have checks and balances produced by three federated so-called regions, though in fact they are large tribal areas. I do not wish to make a gloomy forecast but I would bet that if one of the three went out we should have within a generation the same pattern of authoritarian government developing there as in the rest of Africa.
I remember being in Uganda in 1954 and having a long argument with the then Governor. I had lived in Africa, apart from making visits, and I said that in my limited experience I was absolutely sure that we should never manage to impose a unitary form of government on Uganda. I was told that I did not know what I was talking about. Shortly afterwards an expensive commission toured Uganda and supported the Colonial Office view that a unitary form of government was essential for the prosperity of that country. Later another commission issued a similar report. Now, after six or seven years, a third commission has at last acknowledged the realities of the people of Uganda. Whether we approve of their wishes or not is unimportant. These are the people who will decide their future. Enough of them want to live their lives in that particular way and now we have had to acknowledge it.
I have been accused sometimes of wanting to go too slow in Africa, but I wanted to go fast six years ago in what is now acknowledged to be the right direction.
To the question whether we could achieve what we are aiming at without federations and could protect the rights of minorities and still have a unitary form of Government by paper constitutional guarantees for minorities I would answer, "No". This has been proved to be a complete fallacy. I remember the then Colonial Secretary, Lord Boyd, saying with quite justifiable pride when he was explaining the constitution of Ghana on the eve of independence that guarantees were written into it relating to the courts,

411
the minority rights of the Ashanti, and so on. Every one of those guarantees has disappeared after the disappearance of the capacity of this country to support them.
It is very easy to create on paper a unitary form of government. I have no doubt that the new Colonial Secretary by one method or another could bring about a phoney coalition in Kenya and form a unitary government. No doubt we should have an occasion of congratulation in this House and we should send out a Parliamentary delegation to their independence day, but within months, if not weeks, that Government would be in ruins in Kenya. We shall have regional States in East Africa whether we like them or not. The only choice before us is whether we send them into that form of government in reasonable order, or whether we allow chaos to do it for us. I therefore suggest that in Kenya we follow along the lines of trying to work out some form of regional governments with autonomy for the regions which takes account of the actuality on the spot as people see it and live it themselves and not as we here should like to see them live it.
I have a copy of an excellent letter from Sir Armigel Wadg, who has had thirty years' experience in the Kenya Administration. I had intended to read it to the House, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to take up the time. This distinguished gentleman wrote to the Daily Telegraph the other day one of the best letters that I have seen for a long time saying very much better than I can what I am saying now. He says that we shall have a form of regional government in Kenya whether we like it or not and that the only choice before us is how we shall bring it about.
As to how people should emerge into independence, as these big federations come along—and I am thinking not only of Kenya but possibly of an East African federation—do not let us necessarily be bound by the old frontiers of the Colonial Territories concerned, provided that we have the people's consent. One of the biggest pieces of nonsense imaginable is to think that one can create a country in any true sense simply by following frontiers which were agreed upon by colonial
412
Powers in the nineteenth century. They are not frontiers. They are simply lines where one Power came up against another and knew that it risked war if it went further.
These frontiers have even less meaning than the one in the story which no doubt many hon. Members know and which I heard long ago about an old Russian peasant at the end of the First World War. He had lived in Russia all his life but suddenly, with the drawing of new frontiers, found himself ten miles inside the new Polish frontier. He was asked by a visiting journalist how he liked the change. He said that although he was a loyal Russian he liked it because he could never have stood another Russian winter.
This may sound a comical incident, but it is not much more comical than some of the things that have happened in years past in our colonies. I believe that Mount Kilimanjaro and the area that surrounds it was a birthday present from Queen Victoria to the then Kaiser. Now the land on that frontier is regarded as Tanganyika on one side and Kenya on the other. Do we really expect the Masai, some of whom are on one side and same on the other, ultimately to preserve a system about which the local people were never consulted when the frontiers were drawn? I ask the Colonial Secretary to think more in the regional sense and of what the people want rather than be hidebound to past decisions which have no relevance to the present or the future.
I have quoted one or two lighter examples, but yesterday there were many references to the Congo and Katanga. I do not wish to go into detail. I make no excuse for the mercenaries, but the arguments which I have heard from Government spokesmen on why it was essential that Katanga should return to the Congo as part of that State for economic reasons are precisely those which hon. Members opposite have dismissed in relation to other parts of Africa. What a row there would have been in the House and in the country if Sir Roy Welensky, in order to try to impose federation for economic reasons in Central Africa, had shot one-tenth of the number of Africans whom the United Nations shot in Katanga to force integration for economic reasons. If one is being shot it is no comfort to know that one is dying for

413
the ideals of the United Nations. A bullet is equally painful whether the man who fires it wears a blue helmet or something else.
If I may end on a particularly personal note for fairly obvious reasons, the great foe with which my right hon. Friend will have to contend in Africa today is in a realm that he mentioned, and that is the human aspect—trying to get an understanding between all the various human beings concerned. The great enemy in that context is fear leading to lack of confidence.
I was on one occasion in a small house on the Congo-Northern Rhodesia border, a house occupied by an ordinary working-class white family. It was at a time when one or other of the constitutions—there have been so many constitutions—was being published, and it was a very reasonable constitution, too. I told the wife that that was the sort of thing the people would have to face up to, and that they would have to realise that they would have to share the country with the Africans and live with them. She produced a newspaper which, as was common at that time, contained photographs of small girls and others who had been raped or butchered in the Congo, and said, "In a few moments' time my child will be cycling to school. I do not know whether that sort of thing will spread over the frontier here now." I said that it would not, and, thank goodness, so far we have not had disturbances of that sort in Northern Rhodesia. Nevertheless, that woman's fears are entirely understandable.
If the Secretary of State is to succeed in his task, he will have to bear in mind when talking to the Europeans of Northern Rhodesia that he cannot expect them—it is not fair to expect them—to react as dispassionately as do we who are living comfortably in this country. I do not say that he should always give way to them, but he should understand that their impulses and reactions must be regarded in the circumstances that surround them.
We have had two previous great Secretaries of State. They have both shown in their separate ways great courage and imagination. One was sometimes accused from the Opposition benches of being too pro-white in his dealings in Africa. The other was sometimes
414
accused of being too pro-black. This is not the moment when one should wish to delve into the past. It is the present and the future to which we should be looking. To argue whether these accusations were true or not is wholly irrelevant. What is true is that if my right hon. Friend is to succeed he will have to gain the confidence of all the races in Africa. I am sure that he has the qualities to do that, I am sure that he will succeed, and I wish him particularly well.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) has given us an extremely useful appraisal of the political evolution of Governments in Africa. From my slight knowledge of Nigeria, I entirely agree with him that part of the success of the Federal Government there has been caused by the regional checks and balances. I agree that this will be a factor that we shall see appearing in many other African territories in the future.
I was somewhat interested by the speech of the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). On the one hand, he told us, perhaps to excuse his own cussedness in this House, that he was all in favour of differences of opinion, provided that they were sincerely held, but that this was not to be applied in Central Africa and that no African was to be given majority rule unless he happened to have the same attitude towards federation as does the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton. It seems that his political theology is of a decidedly selective geographical application.
This is the first debate on Africa that we have held for many months without the participation of the former Colonial Secretary. He has wrestled with territory after territory and consititution after constitution, and as one goes around Africa one finds that the name of the new Leader of the House is a household name there. It has different connotations in different areas. Sometimes it is looked upon as a cure for political indigestion. Sometimes it is regarded as a violent purgative not to be taken internally.
However, I think that those of us who, I hope, have a reasonably balanced view would say that, with the unfortunate

415
exception of Northern Rhodesia, the right hon. Gentleman has shown tremendous patience in negotiations, political realism and integrity during the time that he has held that office. Perhaps no Colonial Secretary since the time of Joseph Chamberlain had done so much to awaken the British public to their responsibilities towards our Colonial Territories. One can only hope that his experience in the job of enlightening political extremists, Which he carried out an Africa, will be put to good use in his new post as Chairman of the Conservative Party.
I should also like to welcome the new Colonial Secretary. Apparently, the greatest tribute that can be paid to a Colonial Secretary in this House is to say that he carries out liberal policies. I entirely agree. If I may give the new Colonial Secretary a piece of advice, it is that if he sticks to Liberal policies and continually horrifies and shocks the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton he will not go far wrong. I believe that in Africa in the next twenty years we shall see every form of political experiment tried out. Some will be staggering successes; some will be tragic failures.
I want now to touch on a very few territories for which we have a responsibility or in which we have a continuing political interest. The first is South Africa. I re-echo what the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) said in that regard. I think there was a sadness when South Africa left the Commonwealth, but there was also a feeling of relief, at any rate for me, and I think that what this established was that for the first time the Commonwealth found that it had a collective conscience, that it had a common moral language, and that that language said, quite plainly, that if the Commonwealth were to survive it must be placed on a basis of racial equality. It was for that reason that South Africa did not feel able to apply to remain within the Commonwealth.
The future relations between the United Kingdom and South Africa are shortly to be worked out. The status quo is to be maintained until May of next year. There are matters upon which Her Majesty's Government will
416
no doubt intend to negotiate. There are matters of dual nationality, defence, Commonwealth preference, the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and so forth. I believe that if Her Majesty's Government try to negotiate an agreement which is comparable to the Irish Treaty they will then fail completely in the whole purpose of the decision which was taken at the last Commonwealth Conference. Our political consciences throughout the Commonwealth having been stirred, let us have the courage to face the obvious economic disadvantages which this situation will bring to both sides. I do not believe that any economic bargaining with the Protectorates would justify giving South Africa special terms. I believe not merely that it would be unwise now but that it would be politically unwise for the future, because I hope that the day will come when South Africa, with a representative Government, will seek to rejoin the Commonwealth.
Up to the time that South Africa left, Africans regarded the Commonwealth as a shield, a sort of shock absorber, to protect South Africa in the United Nations and other world forums. I know that it is the opinion of Chief Luthuli, leader of the Africans, that the Commonwealth, because of the stand which it took, is now worth rejoining for an African State or an African Government in the Union of South Africa.
This is not only the view of the Africans. I know that it is the view of many colleagues in the Liberal Party in South Africa who have been conspicuously successful in forming the idea of multi-racial politics. The Progressive Party is doing the same thing. I believe that both have a very valuable part to play. Therefore, I hope that the Government will not fail to face the economic consequence; the logical conclusion, which arises as a result of the political decision that South Africa should leave the Commonwealth.
While I am on the subject of the Protectorates, there are some other matters that I wish to raise. First, last month the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was kind enough to receive a deputation, consisting of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), myself and some others, about the alleged kidnapping by South African police of Anderson Ganyile and

417
two others on 26th August while they were on the British territory of Basutoland.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State was kind enough to assure us—and this appeared in the Press statement—that if these men had been kidnapped on British territory, Her Majesty's Government would take a very serious view of it, but that at the moment inquiries were proceeding and that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations one way or another. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations can tell us tonight whether he has any news about this.
With regard to the general position of the three Protectorates, let us be prepared to press forward with the recommendation of the Morse Commission. It is vital that each of these territories should become a viable economic unit. The Commission took the view that Swaziland's viability was a near certainty, that Bechuanaland's was a reasonable probability and Basutoland's a possibility. We must be prepared to make the economic sacrifices required to raise the standard of living of the peoples of these territories.
In Bechuanaland only 5 per cent. of the arable land is under cultivation, and we must improve water supplies and stimulate cattle ranching. In Basutoland, nearly 130,000 of the 180,000 men regularly go to South Africa for employment. That situation is partly dictated by the lack of communications in Basutoland. Those which exist mainly go to the Union of South Africa. An improvement must be made there. In Swaziland, which is economically the most advanced, there are problems of communications and of soil erosion, and the authorities are courageously pressing on with a rural resettlement scheme.
We must recognise that these territories are our shop windows in the south of Africa, and that we shall have to spend a lot of money and depend upon devoted local colonial servants for many years before they can become viable. I know that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations visited them during the summer, so perhaps he will be able to say something about them.
418
In Northern Rhodesia differences have arisen as a result of the June Constitution. The former Colonial Secretary was good enough to receive a Liberal deputation during the Recess, which made known its fears about the June proposals. He maintains, and has maintained all along, that there is no difference between the February and the June proposals, but it is interesting to note that the February proposals were accepted by U.N.I.P., the A.N.C., and by the Liberal Party, but rejected by the United Federal Party, whereas the June proposals were accepted by the U.F.P. and rejected by the other three.
Either the former Colonial Secretary is right, and there has been no change—in which case all of these political parties are misinformed in thinking that there is a difference between February and June—or perhaps he himself is taking the view of the juryman who was in disagreement with his colleagues and said that he had never met so many misinformed and prejudiced men as his eleven colleagues.
If one examines the Constitution, one can see that there has been a retreat. The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton talked about appeasement, but if there has been appeasement then it has been appeasement between February and June as a result of pressures which the Federal Government brought to bear. One has only to read Sir Roy Welensky's speech in Bulawayo on 30th June, when he said:
"It was imposed on us, but, as the result of our representations, a considerable number of modifications were made to it, and I believe that if the Federal Government handles its cards well, it could emerge from any election with a substantial majority. You have only to look at the Press reports of the reaction of the African nationalists here to see the extent to which they are opposed to this constitution."
Certainly it is the view of Sir John Moffat, Mr. Kaunda and Sir Roy Welensky that the June proposals are different from the February ones. The general effect of the Asian seat is to polarise racial differences rather than work towards racial partnership. There is the difference made to the national rolls. Whereas before there was to be the same percentage for any candidate to secure election on the highest average on the two rolls, and a set minimum percentage of both rolls with the percentage being the same for both—that

419
was the February proposal—now there is the proposal that, in order to get elected to the national roll, one has to get the highest average percentage on the two rolls with a set minimum percentage or a numerical vote of 400.
As has been made quite plain, this will mean that, in order to qualify, a European in an average constituency need only get 4 per cent. of the total African vote, whereas an African will have to get 11½ per cent. of the European vote in order to qualify. There is complete imbalance. I believe that the new Colonial Secretary must keep the original 12½ per cent. and abolish the alternative numerical figure.
The Government must realise that this is a constitution which the two African parties and the multi-racial Liberal Party are not prepared to work. They will not work the present Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman must ask himself whether he is to go through the old routine of violence, bloodshed, emergency regulations and filling the prisons with people detained without trial, only, at the end, to give far greater concessions to extremists, whereas a moderate return to the February Constitution would avert all that. That is the choice, and the whole of his reputation will be judged by whether or not he gives in to the Federal powers during the talks on this constitution. If he does not give in it will show to the Africans that if one wants to get somewhere with the British Government, one should boycott talks and then negotiate by the back door. That is what Greenfield and Welensky have been doing, and that is why Roberts was not allowed to come to London on behalf of the U.F.P. in February.
Now I want to say something about Ghana. This is an extremely difficult question. I believe that the arguments which can be used against those I want to put forward have great force and great logic. I accept, as did the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), that it is a political principle of the Commonwealth that one member does not interfere with the internal affairs of another fellow member of the Commonwealth. But I would say that that is not a doctrine to which Dr. Nkrumah subscribes, as Sir Milton Margai, of Sierra Leone, will tell us.
420
Sir Milton has just imprisoned two Ghanaian spies for six months for taking part in disturbances. President Tubman of Liberia will tell us that the second secretary of the Ghanaian Embassy was expelled for taking part in a Communist plot. And President Olympio of Togoland was able to intercept Ghanaian arms which were sent to opposition members during the elections a few months ago.
The fact that Dr. Nkrumah does not accept the doctrine is no reason why we should not. But I do believe that the Commonwealth as a whole has a right to ask itself whether or not a particular state of affairs is or is not consistent with the principles upon which the Commonwealth is based. We asked that question, rightly or wrongly, about South Africa, and I personally am equally shocked by attacks on fundamental liberty, whether it be by Governments that are black or Governments that are white.
We are, therefore, entitled to examine the policies in Ghana as they affect the Commonwealth as a whole, and to ask ourselves what is the political effect of the head of the Commonwealth visiting that country.
What is the position in Ghana today? As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) quite rightly pointed out, since 1958 mare than 300 persons have been detained without trial under the 1958 Preventive Detention Act. Four M.P.s were arrested the day I arrived and, without any trial, they have already forfeited their seats. Under the new Criminal Procedure Bill, a copy of which I have in my hand, there is to be created a special division of the High Court to try criminal offences. It will be composed of three persons—the Chief Justice and two other persons, who need not necessarily be judges, appointed by the President. There will be no preliminary examination. Cases will come straight to this court. There will be no right of appeal.
Mr. F. M. Bennett: I am sure that the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) would also like to point out that, since the changes in the Constitution, the Chief Justice himself is now appointed by the President as well.
Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett). What is far more sinister is

421
that although the Chief Justice is a presidential appointment, there is power of presidential appointment of people who need not even necessarily be judges. That is very sinister. There is no right of appeal. The President may prescribe by legislative instrument what criminal offences may be heard in this court. If there be a minority opinion within that court, it may not be made known in the judgment of that court. The Star Chamber pales into insignificance. The great fear is that many people like Joe Appiah and J. B. Danguah will be charged in this court with only twenty-four hours' notice and therefore be totally unable to prepare their defence.
The Press is censored. Last year the Ashanti Pioneer was banned and was recently banned again. Strike leaders have been imprisoned. Indeed, strikes are illegal and one can join a trade union only if one is a member of the ruling C.P.P. Party. We now see a one-party State in which opposition is crushed and in which democracy has ceased to exist. I spoke to K. A. Gbedemah about the Criminal Procedure Bill and, the House will remember, on Monday he said that if it went through, the flame of freedom in Ghana would burn very low indeed.
I do not object if Dr. Nkrumah wants to cultivate the cult of personality; if the youth movement wants to sing, "Nkrumah never dies, Nkrumah lives forever"; if they want to welcome him as the Messiah and Saviour, and bend the Old Testament to the purpose. That is their matter. But the deprivation of personal liberty, the way in which opposition has been stifled, the manner in which the prisons have been filled with men detained without trial, offends against every basic libertarian principle on which the Commonwealth is founded.
Therefore, one can ask what effect the head of the Commonwealth going to Ghana will have. There is no doubt that Her Majesty the Queen is politically useful. At the last election in Ghana there was shown a photograph of Her Majesty the Queen waving her hand in this gesture, which I now demonstrate to hon. Members. That also happens to be the C.P.P. sign. The canvassers went round saying, "You see, Her
422
Majesty makes the C.P.P. sign; you must therefore vote for Dr. Nkrumah"
I believe that in the rest of Africa, where this régime is hated, her visit will be widely misinterpreted as condoning this régime, or, alternatively, being indifferent to it. The House is entitled to ask what will be the effect on Ghana if the visit is cancelled. That is a fair question, but one is also entitled to ask what will be the effect on the Commonwealth if the visit goes on. I believe that it will underpin and strengthen this detestable régime.
I do not want to go into the question of security at any great length, but a White Paper will shortly be published in Ghana and is at present being drafted by that evil genius, Mr. Geoffrey Bing. It will show a massive assassination plot to overthrow the Government and assassinate the President. Massive murder plots have been alleged ever since 1958. If the Ghana Government be right, there is in Ghana an inexhaustible supply of would-be assassins.
Nkrumah himself, I think, is genuinely frightened of assassination. That is why he has surrounded himself with guards drawn only from his own tribe—as Lumumba did. That is why he is so seldom seen out of the Presidential compound. He has been out twice since he came back from Russia—and once with the President of Somalia. He may be right. He is certainly unpopular and he may be right in believing that an attempt may be made on his life.
Mr. S. Silverman: Lumumba was.
Mr. Thorpe: Lumumba was. I can manage solo without a duet. Nkrumah may be right. What frightens me is that bombs and bullets are not very selective.
May I say this to President Nkrumah? This is a Commonwealth decision and it is also a decision for him. Would it not be better if Her Majesty went to that country when there were happier times? Would it not be better when he himself felt that these massive murder plots had been laid to rest, if they exist? Would it not be better when conditions had returned to normal and when he was not faced with a recurrence of strikes—and there have been general strikes? Would it not he a happier occasion if this visit could be postponed until conditions returned to normal? I believe that he would be right to give that advice and

423
that the Commonwealth would be right if it advised Nkrumah to tender that advice.
I do not regard the Commonwealth as a club which anybody can join and stay in if he wants to. The Commonwealth Should be in microcosm the sort of world society which we want to see created. One thing which we have done in the Commonwealth is to break down racial prejudice and try to build up the idea of racial partnership. Nowhere is it working perfectly, but nowhere has it succeeded better than in the British Commonwealth. I do not say that the Westminster model will work everywhere. I do not say that there will not be times when Parliaments will be suspended. But I believe that the régime in Ghana at the moment is evil and totalitarian and that the effect of the head of the Commonwealth going there will be to show that the Commonwealth itself approves of this evil and vicious régime.
In conclusion, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will realise their responsibility in this matter, which is no greater than that of other Commonwealth Governments, and that reason will prevail.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: The whole House will have been moved by the eloquent and clear appeal of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will consider the view which the hon. Member has expressed. When my right hon. Friend winds up the debate, I hope he will confirm that this is a matter on which all Commonwealth Governments must rule and that it is not solely a matter for Her Majesty's Government in this country. I echo the hon. Member's plea that if the Commonwealth is to mean anything, this is just the type of occasion when the Governments of the Commonwealth must act together and put forward their joint advice to Her Majesty as Head of the Commonwealth.
This has been a very interesting debate. I have been to Africa on more than one occasion in company with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). When we have been there, I have always found that our views about
424
the future of Africa were very much in tune, but when we have returned here and spoken from different sides of the House, the similarity of view has seemed to disappear. However, today I found myself in almost total agreement with his views, except when he spoke about Northern Rhodesia.
The hon. Gentleman was followed on his side of the House by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), who, quite fairly, reminded the House that the general trend of British colonial policy was not the prerequisite of one party alone. Both parties have continued the policy which has led to the evolvement of individual, sovereign States within the Commonwealth. Both sides have contributed to this aim.
I should like to take the House back to that time in February, 1960, when the Prime Minister made his famous speech in Cape Town. He was not announcing an alteration of British policy, but merely defining more precisely the inevitable development of British policy. He said quite clearly that Britain must be against any form of racial superiority. That view is held by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and it is the only possible policy for our multi-racial Commonwealth.
In that speech the Prime Minister also emphasised that we must recognise the contribution made by the minorities in Africa, and the rights of those minorities. He went on to say that the criterion for political and economic advancement must be that of individual merit, and individual merit alone.
Surely this policy means the gradual transfer of political power to the majority races as they become capable of wielding that power, while at the same time trying to maintain and strengthen the economy without which it is impossible to provide the education, technical facilities, and so on, which will alone enable the majority races to take their rightful places in the community. The House should recognise that that policy is accepted by the majority leaders, or perhaps I should say by the leaders of the majority party in the Rhodesias. It is accepted by Sir Roy Welensky and by Sir Edgar Whitehead.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East paid tribute to Sir Edgar Whitehead. I saw the hon.

425
Gentleman fumbling with his papers and I believe that he was looking for the quotation I now want to make. When addressing the U.F.P. conference earlier this month he said that if his party did not reject out of hand the out-dated policy of white domination, it would have to look for a new leader. He said that the maintenance of straightforward white supremacy was "as dead as the dodo" and that it was essential that there should be no artificial barriers between the races.
I am afraid that, at any rate in 1960, that policy had not been adopted by the majority of Europeans in Kenya, though it had always been accepted by the leaders of the New Kenya Party.
How the policy defined by the Prime Minister in Cape Town has been applied, and whether we have gone too fast or too slow, only history can judge. Unfortunately, the policy which he tried to define, and which I believe has been the continuing policy of Her Majesty's Government, has not been understood in Africa. It has not been understood perhaps through no fault of our own, but through pressure of world events, the United Nations, power blocs, the cold war, and events in the Congo and elsewhere. I think that most hon. Members who have been to Africa will agree that a large number of white Africans, and indeed black Africans, believe that the British policy is that of a rapid withdrawal from Africa as quickly as we can go and irrespective of the consequences or, to put it another way, the problem of multi-racial States has become a hot chestnut which we want to drop as soon as possible.
People who preach that idea are obviously encouraging those who shout the loudest, the more extreme political leaders, both black and white, in the Continent. I do not believe that any Conservative Government could possibly contemplate such a policy. It would not only be a betrayal of our kith and kin but a cruel blow to all minority races, and we must not forget the large Asian community in East Africa. Above all, like the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd), I think that any such policy would be a betrayal of the trust which we hold for the mass of the African people.
426
May I congratulate the new Secretary of State for the Colonies on his appointment, and perhaps commiserate with him on the burdens which will be placed on his shoulders? I suggest that his first task is to disperse this false concept of British colonial policy in Africa, and to show that our policy is to transfer power to all races, the only criterion being merit. If that aspect of the policy is stressed, confidence will be restored in Africa.
I deal now with one or two problems in East Africa before turning to the Federation. Many hon. Members believed in multi-racialism in Kenya. If we had attempted to define this some years ago we would probably have said that we mean equal partnership between black and white. However, we must recognise that if this was our definition it is no longer possible. Multi-racialism in East Africa is dead, but we can still achieve a society where the moderates of all races will work together for the common good. We can achieve that society if we can find the right answer to the dominant question in East Africa, and that is—to whom shall we transfer power?
In Kenya, do we hand it over to the able and ruthless young demagogue, or the rather elderly tribal leader who gloried in Mau Mau, or to the young detainee who has just been released and whose preaching of violence against the minority races and their property is finding him a considerable following, or do we hand over to the moderate leaders who believe, as we do, in a Christian and democratic civilisation?
The Kenya African National Union, which won the election on votes, refused to take office unless Jomo Kenyatta was unconditionally released. K.A.N.U. controls the largest tribal grouping in Kenya—the Kikuyu and the Lwo, but as a political party it is deeply divided. It was hoped that Jomo Kenyatta would emerge as a national leader but it now looks as though he will only be accepted as a Kikuyu leader. Tom Mboya and James Gitchuru lead one wing, Odinga another, Dr. Kiano takes the middle line, and the party is split, comes together and splits again. Basically, it is a tribal party and if that party prevails I fear that a situation will arise

427
after independence which will make Dr. Nkrumah's dictatorship look insignificant by comparison.
There is another party, the Kenya African Democratic Union. In a way, this party is a coalition supported by moderates of the other two races and in this way it has a majority in Parliament. The leaders of this party were persuaded by many in this House to take over the Government of Kenya, and in doing so they risked not only their political futures but possibly their lives. Therefore, we as a House of Commons, owe them a considerable measure of support. I suggest, therefore, that we give their new proposals on regionalisation which they are now bringing forward for consideration at the next General Election or constitutional conference, whichever comes first, fair and thorough consideration.
What are they saying? They believe that we must recognise the facts of life, as they are. They are saying that in Kenya it will never be possible to make the Kikuyu and other tribes work together in one political party. They are saying that they will not recognise Jomo Kenyatta as Kenya's national leader because he is only the leader of the Kikuyu. They say that we must recognise this and, therefore, create six or seven regions in Kenya based on major tribal grouping, and that each regional government should have control of land problems, local civil services, tribal customs, and so on. They suggest that there should be a central two-chamber government for Kenya, the lower chamber to be elected on the principle of one man, one vote, and the upper chamber to include equal representation from each of the regions. They go further and say that the Executive should be separate from the legislature, as it is in the United States of America. This is an imaginative scheme which may well commend itself not only to Kenya but to larger areas in East Africa. It deserves our consideration and support.
I turn now to Uganda, because we have somewhat the same picture there. We have the great Buganda tribe which is disliked by other tribes. I congratulate the Leader of the House on the way in which he saved the Uganda conference
428
from disaster when he found a solution to a problem which had been bedevilling that country for many years. Let us, however, recognise that the alliance between the Buganda Government and the Opposition in the Central Parliament, the Uganda People's Congress, has the sole aim of destroying the moderate Democratic Party. It is an unusual, perhaps an unholy, alliance, but that is its aim. The basis of the problem was how Buganda was to be represented in the Central Government, by direct election or by indirect election by the Lukiko. This problem is still unsolved as the Buganda people are now to decide for themselves. I believe, therefore, that this alliance may well come unstuck for, although the U.P.C. may gain votes in Buganda owing to their association with Mr. Kintu's Government, I think that this unpopular alliance may well cost them votes in the other kingdom and in the rest of Uganda and that Mr. Kiwanuka and his moderate Democratic Party will still lead independant Uganda.
The Munster Commission and the constitutional conference have accepted a form of regionalisation in Uganda. It has accepted what is virtually federal status for Buganda and the other kingdoms; why, therefore should this idea of regionalisation not spread to Kenya other areas of East Africa.
It would be wrong to leave the problems of East Africa without paying tribute to one of Africa's most able and moderate politicians, Julius Nyerere. Most of us hope that the East African Federation will come about. Most of us hope that Mr. Nyerere will emerge as the real leader of that Federation. I again congratulate my right hon. Friend the new Leader of the House on winning the battle with the Treasury, because the one real service we can do for Tanganyika is to ensure that it has adequate financial support in the first years of its independence. The only slight criticism that I would offer is that Mr. Nyerere, when asking African leaders to meet him recently in Tanganyika, apparently saw fit not to ask Mr. Ngala, although he invited Mr. Kenyatta. I do not believe that Mr. Kenyatta can now be regarded as the leader of African opinion in Kenya and I hope that the Leader of Government Business in Kenya will in future be consulted.

429
I hope that the whole concept of the East African Federation also will succeed. It depends entirely on whether Kenya can settle its political differences, and these political differences may well be settled by the regionalisation plan which, in itself, can be the basis of a new concept for an East African Federation. A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr F. M. Bennett) talked about Kilimanjaro and the tribes around there being given as a present by Victoria to the German Government. The Masai are divided between Tanganyika and Kenya. They could provide one autonomous area in a new East African Federation, so recognising, as my hon. Friend said, that the African tribes are really peoples, and recognising them on the basis of the European idea of countries rather than the vague generalisation as tribes.
I do not wish to weary the House, but I hope that it will permit me to return to the question of Rhodesia. I feel that many of us would wish to pay tribute to the much maligned Europeans in Southern Rhodesia, who, by a three to one majority, have opened up their Parliament to Africans and in so doing have passed political power to the majority race in the not too distant future. They should be congratulated for doing this at a time when South Africa is going in the diametrically opposite direction.
In the Federation we are now nearing a political balance. In Southern Rhodesia we have a European Government with African support and in Nyasaland an African Government with European support. The key is, therefore, Northern Rhodesia, and I submit that if we are to keep a political balance in the Federation we want something approaching parity in Northern Rhodesia. Our policy over Northern Rhodesia is perhaps difficult to understand. I believe that we have got the worst of both worlds. The Monckton Commission recommended a built-in African majority. Mr. Kaunda therefore, expected this, and the February White Paper encouraged his expectations. Then, for various reasons, the June White Paper was published and Mr. Kaunda felt that he had been let down. Now comes the September statement, which makes the Europeans, particularly the Southern Rhodesian electorate, feel
430
let down. Therefore, whatever we now decide, everybody will feel a certain lack of confidence in us. I believe that our aim should, therefore, be to achieve a constitution giving something like parity in Northern Rhodesia.
After the February White Paper was published the Federal Government made efforts to have it recognised that the upper roll should predominate over the lower roll in the election for national seats. They failed to get this recognised. However, it was made clear that in electing the middle block of national seats it must be recognised that the upper roll is already some 15 per cent. non-European whereas the lower roll is wholly African. Therefore, the European starts with a considerable disadvantage, and it is for that reason that the qualifying percentages are important. The Asians were removed from the upper roll in order to try to create a fair balance between the Europeans and the Africans. If we are to have Members of Parliament in Lusaka elected by both races we must regard the qualifying percentages as essential.
When he was Colonial Secretary, the present Leader of the House said quite categorically that he regarded the June White Paper as fair, and as being liable to produce an African or a European majority, or parity, and I hope that we will not move from those proposals. What does the September statement mean? Does it mean that the question of qualifying percentages is still in the melting pot, that the Asians will not have a special seat, and that the upper roll will be slanted against the Europeans, because 15 per cent. will be non-Europeans? If so, it means that there will no longer be a fair fight, but that there will be a built-in African majority.
Ten days after the September statement I have referred to, Mr. Kaunda is reported as having said, in Lusaka:
"There are two ways of obtaining selfgovernment—the violent method which the peoples of Cyprus and Kenya have utilised and the non-violent, which the British Government does not seem to understand."
I do not believe that a built-in African majority will necessarily mean the end of violence. People may say, "We have got this; we want more. There is every reason still to use violence and intimidation." Even if the Africans get a built-in majority, does it mean that the United

431
National Independence Party will be the majority party? I have great respect for Mr. Kaunda as a person, although I do not like some senior members of his party, but he cannot claim to represent all the Africans in Northern Rhodesia. I do not suppose that even the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) will disagree with that. The African National Congress, under Mr. Lawrence Katalungu—a man of far more political experience of negotiation ability than Mr. Kaunda—is gaining in power. He represents perhaps Africans in the higher income group and in certain tribal groupings. Mr. Kaunda may also have some trouble from the Barotse, who are utterly opposed to the United National Independence Party.
Therefore, if we gave the Africans a built-in majority we might create a situation like that which exists in Kenya at present, with two African parties irreconcilably opposed to each other. That can only result in weak government. I do not think that we would want that, in a territory whose frontiers are contiguous with Katanga and Angola.
It would also mean that the Southern Rhodesian electorate would regard themselves as being victims of a confidence trick. They voted in their referendum on the understanding that the June White Paper would be the final answer.
Mr. Callaghan: Not the final answer.
Mr. Wall: Yes, they certainly did. They said quite openly that they would not have their referendum until they knew what were the British Government's proposals for Northern Rhodesia. If we go back on what we have proposed in that White Paper in any fundamental way, I believe that it will lead to the immediate break up of the Federation.
Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member is right when he refers to the June White Paper as being final in the sense that it was to last for two years, but surely he would not wish to regard it as lasting any longer than that. The people of Southern Rhodesia cannot have voted on the basis of the White Paper's proposals being permanent when anybody who looks at the situation must have realised that they could persist
432
only for one election. The Southern Rhodesian electorate must have had in mind an eventual African majority.
Mr. Wall: That is a valid point. What I mean is that the constitution defined in the White Paper would be the constitution on which the next general election would be fought. That was the understanding of the Southern Rhodesian electorate, and on that understanding they registered a three to one majority for increased African representation. No one likes the present Constitution. No political party in Northern Rhodesia likes it, but I believe that it is a reasonably fair compromise. I believe that a moderate government will arise from the constitution defined in the White Paper and that this government will have a majority of Africans in it. I am certain—
Mr. Thorpe: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman's arguments with a great deal of interest and attention. Would not he agree that the object, by and large, is to give support to those who are moderate in the sense that they can command support from both races as opposed to those who are extremists and get support from one race or the other? Would not he also agree that, in order to achieve this, the qualifying percentage should be the same for both Africans and Europeans; that is to say, the percentage support they would have to get from the other race should be the same for each race, whether European getting African support or African getting European support?
Mr. Wall: I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that Mr. Speaker would not wish me to go into the arguments. They are all contained in the June White Paper—the reason for this percentage and the figure of 400. I believe that they are essential for reasons I have given earlier.
We should all be proud of the success of British colonial policy particularly at a time when the colonial policies of other European nations in Africa have fallen into ruin. I hope that we shall do our best to convey to the uncommitted nations those figures which were given by the Leader of the House at the Conservative Party Conference, when he said that since the war 600 million people in dependent territories of the

433
British Empire had become independent members of the British Commonwealth, and at the same time 100 million people had been enslaved by the Soviet bloc. Those are facts and figures which cannot be controverted and should be remembered by all uncommitted nations. They are factual and nobody can argue against them.
I believe that we are facing our final and most difficult task in Africa which is to deal with the problem of the multiracial societies. I believe that we shall succeed provided we tackle it with patience and understanding. I am sure that we must provide the machinery which will enable the will of the people to be expressed, but this does not mean giving a platform to the people who shout the loudest. We have to recognise that in Africa intimidation is a political weapon which is used very frequently and very effectively.
We have to recognise the power of Communist subversion and of the propaganda poured into Africa where it is said that colonialism has gone and that the main danger is now from neocolonialism by which is meant anything to do with the West—religion, trade unions, economic aid, teachers, bases or anything of that kind. The Soviet propaganda is designed to make out that neo-colonialism is a real danger and that all Western aid of whatever kind is tainted and should be left alone by the Africans. We can counteract this and defeat this propaganda by the solid backing which we have in Africa and the good will the people of Africa have for this country. To do this I believe that the object of our policy must be to give all possible support to the moderates of all races who believe, as we do, in a Christian and democratic way of life.
7.24 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said that we should be proud of the British colonial record, and, up to a point, I think that we would all agree. But, surely, we are not able yet to know whether we can reasonably claim pride in it, and we shall not know that for some years to come. We shall not know the quality of the society emerging in these countries obtaining independence which, after all, in itself is of
434
only limited validity. It is the kind of country which develops which will be the real test of how soundly our foundations may have been laid or how weak may be some of those foundations.
Mr. Wall: I agree. But that was the point of my thesis, that what we must do is transfer power to the more moderate elements who are likely to support our way of life.
Mrs. White: There again I would take exception to the attitude of the hon. Gentleman. Surely he is claiming rights which we have ceased to hold. Once we give internal self-government it is not for us to say to whom we hand over power. Once we have taken the intermediate step of giving internal self-government before final independence it passes from Her Majesty's Government or from this House to decide to whom we hand over. That is left to the decision of the people in the territory concerned. I felt that the hon. Gentleman was speaking in terms of a political manipulation of something which is, in fact, beyond our control.
The new Colonial Secretary has been receiving much advice, and I must say that my sympathies are with him. The right hon. Gentleman has entered a rather select club. Those of us who speak in these debates know one another very well and we might almost deliver one another's speeches. Some of us have been speaking on African affairs in this House for many years, and I am afraid that the Colonial Secretary will probably, for some debates to come at least, continue to receive advice from those who consider themselves specialists or experts in this subject. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. P. M. Bennett), for example, claimed some credit for having in 1954 put forward opinions and views on Uganda which now prove to be valid. I could go back earlier than that and say that if in 1950 and 1951 the advice I then gave on some points had been followed by the Colonial Office things might have been for the better.
I should like to stress two matters before coming to the rather more political points upon which I wish to touch. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will give attention to them. One was emphasised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the complex economic development

435
of these countries. What was said by my hon. Friend was correct. It is no disparagement of the present Leader of the House to suggest that from the moment he came to office until the time he left office he was so much occupied by what one might call the higher diplomacy of colonial affairs that he did not appear to us to give enough attention or to have a sufficiently detailed command of the economic problems which are so exceedingly important.
I do not pretend that the political problems are not a greater priority but one cannot sustain the kind of society which we in this country would wish to see unless we have also a sound economic basis. So we particularly welcome the advent of the new Colonial Secretary who has had considerable experience in the economic sphere, and we hope for great things from him in this respect, as we had in many ways very great progress from his predecessor on the political front.
Certainly I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East on the matter of the Colonial Development Corporation which we have felt over the years has been treated with a complete lack of imagination and has received utterly inadequate support from the Government. That opinion, I know, is shared by hon. Members opposite. We have had one debate after another where the two back benches have been against the Government Front Bench in this matter and hon. Members have pointed out the inadequacies of our whole approach to this instrument of economic planning and support.
Another thing which I hope the new Colonial Secretary will look at very carefully is the conditions for overseas civil servants. Although there have certainly been improvements recently, there, again, for many years hon. Members on both sides of the House have been against the Government. We have felt that colonial civil servants, or overseas civil servants as they should be called, have not always had a fair deal. There are still some past servants who are treated most abominably over their pension rights. We all regret that illness has kept the hon. Member for
436
Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) from the Chamber. He is one of the champions of former civil servants regarding pensions.
We know the argument that it is the former colonial Governments who are responsible for paying these pensions, but, nevertheless, none of us can feel easy in his or her mind when some of these devoted servants are being asked to live in retirement in conditions of which we can only be ashamed. It is a difficult problem, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have another look at it in conjunction with the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
There is another matter concerning overseas service which I still think is of importance, although one recognises that the number of territories remaining in which non-African civil servants are to be found in large numbers is shrinking. One of the problems I have found, as long as ten years ago when discussing matters in the Gold Coast, as it then was, is that while the specialist has a fair chance of staying on for at least some years, and so has the person with some technical qualification, the young administrative officers are told, "There is no future for you; you should leave." Yes the quality of the administration, until the moment it is handed over to suitable African appointments, is of the utmost seriousness and moment.
Only a couple of weeks ago I spoke to a young man who was in the service in Northern Rhodesia. He was a young administrative officer who was told, as I think they all were told three or four years ago, "Those of you with no technical qualifications had better look for some other job now. We cannot promise you any future here. You are not sufficiently senior to have any guarantees under the scheme for overseas civil servants. You had better get out now."
This young man is now reading for the Bar and selling books in his spare time, yet he wanted to continue in the Overseas Service. Probably it is too late now and that horse is already out of the stable, but I think it a great pity that more imagination was not shown years ago over the whole question of dealing with the Overseas Civil Service, particularly among the administrative

437
people, the keen young men, not just those in sight of a retirement pension or lump sum compensation. I think that in some areas we shall gather rather bitter fruit through faults in earlier policy.
Having touched on the Overseas Civil Service and economic development, I wish to say a word or two about some of the political problems which face us. The former Colonial Secretary has been congratulated, quite properly, on the recent Uganda Conference and the success of the negotiations. He is an extremely skilful diplomat, but what goes in Lancaster House does not always work out quite so well—as we have seen in Kenya—when the problems have to be worked out in the territory concerned. I hope very much that the solutions for Uganda will prove adequate to the very difficult situation there.
I hope very much that we shall have a position in which the Lukiko elections will be really free and only elected members of the Lukiko will act as an electoral college. I would far prefer the solution of Mr. Kiwanuka that there should be direct elections from Buganda, as from the other parts of the territory, to the central legislature. I wish very much that that could have been attained. That agreement has not been reached on these lines I personally regret, but I hope that it will bring the satisfactory representation of Buganda, without external manipulation in the Uganda legislature.
I am sorry that the Conference did not support the Munster recommendations on one of the difficult problems, that of the lost counties of Bunyoro. I spoke about this before the Conference took place. The facts are perfectly well known. I do not see why it should be necessary to send Privy Councillors out there to find what is known already. The proposals of the Munster Commission were sensible and could have been carried out. Whatever means may be chosen to deal with this problem I hope we shall not leave Uganda before this matter has been settled. We have been discussing today the difficulties and weaknesses of some of the Governments in these emergent territories. If we leave a really knotty problem like that unsolved when the umpire walks off the field, we shall be just asking for trouble.
438
We have rightly been discussing our deep concern over the situation in Ghana, but let us not forget that one of the reasons for that situation is that we never fully integrated Ashanti into Ghana before we left. Only a very few years before we handed over responsibility in what was then the Gold Coast we did not even have a common administration of the three sections. Ashanti and the Northern Territory were separately administered. We did not give an opportunity for people from the three sections of Ghana to learn to know one another, to get confidence in one another and to work together as a team before we pulled out.
What worries me—it may sound a little odd coming from these benches—is that we may be hastening too much in pulling out and handing over complete independence in some countries before the political people and the civil servants there have had a real opportunity of working together as a team with internal responsibility. It is not easy in those countries which are so deeply divided by tribal, linguistic and religious differences, which are artificial entities, to work together.
One does not want to parade one's own prescience, but it is several years now since I, among others, suggested in this House that we showed far too little imagination in our constitutional thinking. I do not know what kind of constitutional advice the Colonial Secretary has in the Colonial Office, nor how deep is the thought given to these matters. I am not now talking of the diplomatic mechanism of conferences but of the much deeper political thought. We need a new Montesquieu in the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office to look at the problem of the kind of constitution which should be made to work in a democratic spirit in territories where we have such divergent interests and the lack of a homogeneous background.
Many years ago I suggested something on the United States model. The British are sometimes irritated by the difficulties of dealing with the United States Government now that that country has become a great nation. But when the thirteen States first attained their independence, Virginia and Massachusetts were as different as chalk from cheese and there was a great deal to be said for the kind

439
of checks and balances which were worked out by the eighteenth century constitutionalists, who gave a measure of authority at the centre while leading considerable independence among the separate states. We know of the battles which went on between the Federalists and the advocates of States' rights, but there is something to be learned from that.
After all the examples of difficulties in territories which are not always multi-racial but often multi-tribal, I am not sure that in the Colonial Office we have adequate guidance given to people who are inexperienced in the art of government and have a right to look to us for suggestions. It is for them to decide whether to accept them or not, but we should not pretend that the type of government we have here is the last word and equally applicable in all conditions all over the world.
This does not for a moment mean that we should subscribe to the notion that one-man-one-vote is of no account. It is not that which is wrong nor the democratic expression of the individual's point of view, but it is the structure that is built on the one-man-one-vote principle which in many cases seems to be lacking in reality and effectiveness. I hope very much that in the problems that face us in Kenya and Uganda, and possibly elsewhere, we shall have a much more imaginative approach to the realities of the situation.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice was on the wrong line when he suggested that we should favour Kadu rather than Kanu. We cannot say that. We have to accept the politicians and the leaders who are thrown up by the movements in Africa. I have no doubt that that comment was well meant on his part, but it is a little dangerous for him to speak as though he believes—I do not think he does—that from here we could manipulate them as though they were puppets.
Mr. Wall: Of course I do not believe that. I meant, as I said in my peroration, that we have to create the machinery, but that, as far as possible, we can direct our support to the more moderate elements of all races.
Mrs. White: And that is what I said. We must try to establish the best type
440
of machinery, in consultation with them, and they must try to make it work.
I do not wish to go over ground which I covered in our earlier debate, when I referred to Tanganyika, but I could not let this debate pass without saying a word about Northern Rhodesia. The situation there is deeply distressing to hon. Members on this side of the House. I think that we all recognise that the Leader of the House was in a very difficult position. We appreciate that he was subject to great pressure; we suspect that there was pressure from his own colleagues and we are certain that there was pressure from Sir Roy Welensky. We sympathise with him.
Nevertheless, we feel that there is a basis for the disappointment and, until recently, the despair which has been felt among many Africans in Northern Rhodesia. No one pretends that the United Independent Party is all-embracing. There are other groups of Africans and other leaders of African opinion, as there should be. Nevertheless, the difficulty in which Mr. Kaunda has been placed has caused us great concern. Although the Leader of the House persists in maintaining that there was no substantial difference between the February and June proposals, without boring the House with all the details I will point out that I cannot possibly believe that he thinks that the 400 limitation is just or fair, and it seems obvious that some negotiation ought to take place on that.
I have in my hand a copy of the September issue of the Central African Examiner. In the leading article it points out that many of the people who have been involved in the recent regrettable disturbance in Northern Rhodesia could not hold a discussion on the mathematical probabilities of the seven double-member national constituencies. They add,
"But they do know that their acknowledged leader. Mr. Kenneth Kaunda, has been defeated by the powers of federation."
This was before the more recent statement by the Leader of the House
These people could not follow all the intricacies. Few of us in the House are capable of that. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway) confessed that he found it a little difficult. But that was not the point. They felt

441
that their leader had somehow been betrayed, and that was enough for them. The leading article goes on to say that the form in which their resentment was being expressed was a general resentment against Government, that they were largely attacking buildings and not people, but that the buildings which they were attacking mostly represented authority and represented Government power. It was therefore a revolt against imposed authority or what they believed to be imposed authority.
In other words, the constant struggle which one has in any country between Government and people, between "we" and "they", was seen here in an acute form, because the workers concerned feel that it is not their Government, that it is not the authority which they chose but that it is an authority from above to which they recognise no inherent loyalty. Unless, therefore, we can obtain in Northern Rhodesia a Government which the majority of the African people at least feel is not imposed, which they feel is part of them and in which they have some responsibility, we shall continue to be faced by this rejection of authority by people who could not possibly argue it out in terms of political philosophy. Nevertheless, these people have deep instincts in this matter which we should recognise.
We therefore all hope that the new Colonial Secretary will grasp this nettle and that in our next debate on African affairs we on both sides of the House shall feel that a satisfactory solution has been reached in Northern Rhodesia.
7.46 p.m.
Sir Richard Nugent: I am glad to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate. I feel almost that I should crave the indulgence of the House as a maiden speaker, as I have never taken part in one of these debates before. I realise, in the language of the debate, that I am almost from another tribe, but I hope that I shall be admitted to the debate and that my words will make some contribution.
I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said about Northern Rhodesia, although I do not fully agree with her
442
arguments condoning the violence there. Perhaps I understand some of the causes.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend who becomes Colonial Secretary, and I give him my best wishes in the difficult and very important job which he now undertakes. I had the good fortune to spend a month in the Federation, from which I have just returned. I spent a good deal of my time studying the problem in Northern Rhodesia, and I therefore felt that I might be able to make some contribution to this debate.
I trod the path which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) followed not long ago, and I spent some time with his friend in the European Minewokers' Union, where I noticed that the hon. Member had left quite an impression. But of all the conservative people I met in Northern Rhodesia, the people in the European Mineworkers' Union were the most conservative. I realise that the hon. Member had an uphill task.
My main comment will be on the two conflicting arguments which a newcomer to this sphere meets, both of which are compelling in their force. My right hon. Friend made a comment of great wisdom when he said that the definition of tragedy is not a conflict between right and wrong, but a conflict between right and right. That is certainly so in this case. In Southern Rhodesia, where I spent a good deal of my time, I was told on innumerable occasions all sorts of things about Government policy.
Although my friends of the European community live in a delightfully warm climate, they have lost nothing to the edge of their criticism, and they certainly set about me whenever they saw me. Their criticism runs on the familiar line which we all know—that we are proceeding much too fast in the transfer of government, that we are in danger, by handing over government so quickly to the Africans, of running the risk of having another Congo situation.
In looking at what our countrymen have done in this and previous generations in the Federation, I felt the deepest admiration for the tremendous achievement of the past sixty years, and I warmly join my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in recognising the wisdom of Sir Edgar White-head's policies which, in very difficult

443
circumstances with part of the white population, are leading Southern Rhodesia to more liberal policies.
This great modern State which has been built up throughout the Federation, and particularly in Southern and Northern Rhodesia, has been built up by the energies of this and previous generations of those who live and lived in the Rhodesias. In seeing this State I felt deep admiration for what they have done, and a considerable obligation to see that we do all we can to make it possible for them to go on with the work which they have so well started. That was the first observation. They have the strong argument that all they have done to bring this huge territory forward from a state of primitive tribalism to a very long way towards a modern Western economy should not be lost by a precipitate move.
I listened with interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) when he was speaking about the situation in Kenya, and for the farming community in the Rhodesias I felt a particular sympathy when I saw all that they have done. I saw the copper mines there, and I was deeply impressed by the magnificent industry that has been built up. There is, therefore, a deep obligation to preserve these things, and to make sure that they can all go on to bring benefits to African and European alike in those territories.
The argument presented to me continually was that the Africans are not ready. I was told of their state of education, and of their lack of professional qualifications and business experience. One argument was put to me with great force—and I believe that it is a new argument—by a man who has spent many years there and has made a great study of the situation. He argued that our forebears had gone to this part of Africa primarily and originally with a Christian mission. He said that they had gone as missionaries in the middle of the last century with the wish and intention of bringing Christianity to these areas of primitive tribalism, and giving them a better way of life.
This man added that we have not yet completed our mission, and that we would be false to that mission if we left before we had completed it. He urged,
444
with an exceptional knowledge of African tribalism and of the Africans' general philosophy and religion, the absolute necessity that we should have sown more effectively the seeds of Christianity before we handed over government to the Africans.
Hon. Members who have studied these problems far more than I have are well aware that the traditional tribal religion is, basically, ancestor worship. It is, therefore, a highly conservative religion, and one that has been the enemy of initiative and progress over the centuries. It also has the feature that personal property and personal responsibility are completely foreign terms. Quite obviously, with that background, there are the greatest possible handicaps to inheriting and governing a modern State, with a modern economy and with all the trappings we in the West all so well know.
I felt that there was great force in this argument, for not all the moral arguments are in favour of haste in handing over government, but, equally, we have a moral responsibility to see that, when we do hand over, the Africans are ready and have a sufficient understanding of the philosophy of the kind of modern economy we have created; to take responsibility for it, and to run it successfully.
What, then, is the argument one sets against that? The argument that struck me, and here I agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), is that having decided—as, indeed, we have decided, and the arguments that take place here on both sides are arguments about the pace of the transition—to hand over government, what is the principal element that will be the guarantee for a European population living there and working there in the future? There is no doubt in my mind that that guarantee, and the only guarantee, is the good will of the Africans.
No one who visits these parts can come away with an impression or, indeed, a conviction other than that every African, whether he understands constitutions or does not, wishes to be self-governed; to have an independent self-governing State. This is the wind of change to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has referred, and there is no doubt at all that it has swept through Africa. These people have seen other

445
parts of Africa becoming self-governing and wish to become self-governing themselves.
Therefore, with this strong urge in the blood of Africans running right through these territories, the problem is to decide how long the transition can take and yet carry their confidence so that the good will which is essential to the future of the multi-racial community that we all wish for and which, indeed, we all know is the only hope for these territories, should have a good prospect when the time comes.
Looking at it in that context, one is bound to realise that there is very little time; that if any significant slowing-up of the process of transition is made it is bound immediately to cause suspicion, resentment and, perhaps, outbreaks of violence. We have seen all this happen. We may say that it is sparked off by trouble makers, but there is no doubt that the tinder is there, and there will then be wholesale disturbances throughout the territory.
My impression was that any serious attempt to slow up the process of transition could be achieved only if we in this country were prepared to use force on a massive scale, sufficient, virtually, to coerce the minds of the whole of the African communities. I do not believe for a minute that anybody here wishes to do that. I am quite certain that the nation as a whole does not wish to see that done—and, in any case, I doubt whether we could do it for very long—
Hon. Members: Cheer up.
Mr. Elwyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Could we have less disturbance by the "1622 Committee" that has gathered on the other side of the House?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): That is not a point of order.
Sir R. Nugent: I know that my hon. Friends are not entirely with me outwardly now, but they may be by the time I have finished.
My argument is that it is not possible to slow up this transition except by the use of force on a massive scale. I am sure that that argument is right and that in any case the amount of time we would have gained in preparing the Africans
446
for the day when they would govern themselves would not be many years, and that, during that time, far from having them in the Government, where they would be learning, and preparing themselves for the day of the take-over, they would undoubtedly be in opposition, and stirring up the great disturbances that would be going on.
That was the logic of the situation that struck me; that however good the constitutions may be and however good the constitutional safeguards may be that can be devised here in the process of the constitutional transition to African Government, they have, at the best, only a relative value. There will be a sovereign Government there that we cannot control. There is only one fact that will make sure that our people can continue to trade there, to live there and to work there, and that is that the Africans want them to be there, trust them, and see them as an essential part of the community. They want them to continue the industry and commerce, to run the farms, and so on.
This, I am sure, is the logic of the situation that I found in the many discussions I had with the people in the Copper Belt and on the farms. Their argument continues about the unreadiness of the Africans, but they fail to take into account the shortness of the time we have in the transition, and the virtual impossibility of seriously slowing this up to give us a longer time in which to train them, if we are to hold their confidence and preserve that element of good will which alone can make it possible for us to continue there in the future.
Let me, therefore, apply that logic to the situation in Northern Rhodesia. In Nyasaland, I found that where the basic decision had already been taken the situation was settling down. I met quite a few of the European community who were prepared, and seemed reasonably confident, to accept the situation that there was now a majority African Government there and that the next step would probably be an independent African Government. The fact that there was now a Government by consent of the country was clearly something that had reduced the tension which was undoubtedly there before.
Let me then come to the immediate problem of Northern Rhodesia. Kenneth Kaunda has made it plain that he and

447
his party, U.N.I.P., are to boycott the present Constitution when the general election takes place next year, unless there is a change. As my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice has said, there is the alternative party of A.N.C., but the best opinion that I could consult in Northern Rhodesia convinced me that even if U.N.I.P. does boycott the election the strength, of the party will still be considerably greater than the A.N.C.'s and that the strength of the leadership, finance and the zip, the youth that the country puts into it, makes it the predominant party.
Here, I think, is where my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice is wrong. If we go on the basis that they continue their boycott and refuse to take part in the election they will undoubtedly continue to cause disturbance and become more extreme. They will continue to be the strongest political party and some of them will probably be shut up in gaol in the process of causing disturbance, and in the course of a year or two, because they are the strongest political party and because they are getting nearer to the point of transition we shall have to let them out again and negotiate with them when they are more extremist and less responsible, and we should have wasted a lot of valuable time when they could have been brought into government, learning something about it, and creating good will instead of the reverse. The logic is quite irrefutable. We simply cannot get away from it. We have seen it happen far too often not to know the lesson it teaches.
We must face this situation. I feel as much sympathy and loyalty to those who have co-operated with us in these territories as anyone, and the need to do all that we can to preserve their position and see that they are not victimised. The time will come when the Government is handed over, and we have to be quite clear that they will then be dependent on the good will of the African people. So far as the creation of a moderate party goes, it simply does not happen. I do not believe that in the present state of development of these territories of Africa it is possible to expect what we would call a moderate political party to arise. Indeed, in Nyasaland, where what one might call the
448
extremists were in gaol, there was the hope that a moderate party would arise a couple of years ago, but it did not, and when Banda and company came out of gaol they had more influence than before. Whether or not one wants to deal with this or that person, they are the strongest party.
We are dealing with realities and, in my view, there is no alternative but to deal with the realities of the political situation as we find them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) warned the Government most cogently—indeed, he criticised the Government—because they said that they were prepared to consider again the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia because of the expression of view by sections of African opinion that they were not satisfied.
My own feeling is that, however undesirable it is to have first one shift of the Constitution and then another, this is the only path of reality. I am quite certain that if U.N.I.P. is not brought in at this stage the Government will have to deal with it later in a more difficult situation.
Having said that, I am very much aware of the complexities of the situation there and that it will not be enough to get a basis which will suit them. It is essential to carry the A.N.C. with the Government and also essential in Northern Rhodesia to carry the chiefs with the Government, particularly in Barotseland which in no circumstances will accept U.N.I.P. domination. The chiefs generally in Northern Rhodesia are undoubtedly far stronger authorities than those in Nyasaland and, therefore, must be carried, I am sure, by the Government in any settlement that is made.
The third matter, and in some ways perhaps the most important of all, is the opinion of the Europeans there. The extreme views expressed by some of the Right-wing elements there I do not believe are typical, but, on the other hand, there is no doubt at all that a section of European opinion in Northern Rhodesia is seriously disturbed. Not only is it disturbed, but the Federal Government are disturbed, as Sir Roy Welensky has made known on more than one occasion.
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it goes much

449
further than that? The provincial and district commissioners themselves are very worried about the situation.
Sir R. Nugent: Some are and some are not. The impression I gained by consulting a wide range of the best opinion amongst the authorities that I could get was undoubtedly that U.N.I.P. must be brought in and that means must be found of bringing it in.
The point that I wish to make to my right hon. Friend is that the Federal Government and Sir Roy Welensky have very big responsibilities in the Federation. There are very big implications in Southern Rhodesia as well. We are all aware of just how much our Government's action in Northern Rhodesia affects both the Federation and Southern Rhodesia. Somehow, in the next step that is taken, I am sure that the Government must find a course which will be acceptable to Sir Roy Welensky and the Federation as well as meeting the necessities of our own case. One of the most worrying features that one meets continually in the Federation is the growing degree of friction between the European population there and, indeed, the Federal Government there. There is criticism of Her Majesty's Government and of us generally. This is something that can be of damage to both of us.
We have a most complex and difficult problem to solve there and it is vital that we should unite our forces and resources to solve it together. When Sir Roy Welensky is in this country, as I believe he will be next month, I urge my right hon. Friend to try to find an opportunity to bring both sets of considerations together, on our side on the lines I have indicated, and on their side with the responsibilities and implications of which we are all well aware, so that one more shot could be made and this time, I hope, a successful one, so that this time it should be possible to get a constitutional settlement here which will be satisfactory to both sides. I wish my right hon. Friend well in his extremely difficult task and I hope that what I have said will have made some contribution towards it.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: The hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent) began his speech
450
by saying that he was uncertain whether he ought not to crave the indulgence of the House because he was speaking for the first time in a new sphere. I want to assure him, as one who has sometimes taken part in these debates, that everyone in the House, as we have listened to his speech, was impressed not just by its sincerity but by its thought, its philosophy and its constructive character. I am perfectly sure that the new Colonial Secretary will have been impressed by that speech and that it will not only have moved his emotion but will have influenced his mind and that the hon. Gentleman has made a real contribution towards the future of Central Africa.
Though I am speaking late in this debate, I should like to add my welcome to the new Colonial Secretary. I think I shall probably trouble him in his office quite a lot. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the speech which he delivered today, and I particularly welcome the fact that he indicated that the problem of Northern Rhodesia is by no means closed.
I think he made one great mistake when he suggested that under the series of three Colonial Ministers which we have had the policy has been continuous. Cyprus has already been mentioned, but much more relevant is Nyasaland. I have a very great respect for the work which the present Leader of the House did while he was Colonial Secretary. My only regret is that he did not change his office six months ago, because during the last six months when he has been facing the problem of Northern Rhodesia he has hurt those of us who have had respect for the work which he has done for Africa. I will say only to the right hon. Gentleman as he takes over the post of Colonial Secretary that we hope he may begin his office by a change of policy in Northern Rhodesia which will be as helpful to Africa as was the change of policy in Nyasaland with which his predecessor began his office.
A little unusually, I also want to offer a word of congratulation to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on the speech which he made in the early stage of this debate. It was one of the most impressive, most statesmanlike and most constructive speeches that I have heard

451
on colonial subjects in this House, and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) will convey that remark to my hon. Friend, in case he does not read what I have said in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning.
We are discussing Africa, and we have done well to do so during this first week when the House has reassembled because the political revolution in Africa is the greatest change that has taken place in the world during the latter half of this century. We have now reached a stage where two-thirds of the population of Africa are Independent. Their representation in the United Nations is now becoming an effective and sometimes even a decisive force.
I am not claiming that the obtaining of political independence means that all becomes well. There are very deep causes of difficulty and disagreement in African society itself, in the customs of tribal institutions, in the rivalries of one tribe and another, in the artifical states which colonialism has left behind, in the new experiment in democracy which is strange to many of those peoples and which leaves problems which will be long enduring.
I feel that I must begin this evening by making a reference to the situation in Ghana to which other hon. Members have already referred, and I do so with a good deal of feeling. President Nkrumah has been my close friend since his student days. I was an associate of his when he was still in London. I had a great admiration for him and I still have an affection for him. But I also believe tremendously in personal liberty. I believe intensely in democracy and in the rights of minorities.
Whenever I have gone to any country where Governments have been detaining persons and political opponents without trial I have protested there, and I cannot be silent about Ghana, even though President Nkrumah has that close relationship with me. When he introduced his detention Bill I wrote privately to him first and then protested publicly. I am not going to say more about the present situation than this, that I have again written to him privately and that I have indicated to him that I will withhold any further
452
public expression of opinion on this matter until the White Paper which he has promised is in our hands and we have studied it.
I want to add this. I have not only protested when detentions have taken place in foreign countries. I have protested when they have taken place in our own Colonial Territories, and I regard it as a little hypocritical that there should be sneers about what President Nkrumah has done in Ghana when hon. Members have been silent about what has been done in Nyasaland, Kenya and other British territories. If one is going to stand for personal freedom, one must stand for that personal freedom in whatever country the rights of individuals are outraged.
I also want to make some reference to the Congo, though the main debate took place yesterday on foreign affairs. I will make my reference brief and I am making it only because I want to try to contribute something constructive to the solution of the problems there. As I see it, there are now three alternatives. There is either the United Nations imposition of a solution of the Katanga problem by force, or there is civil war between the central Government and the Katanga Government. I do not believe there is anyone in this House who wants either of those solutions. The third solution must be by the method of negotiation and the difficulty will be to bring the Leopoldville Government and the Katanga Government together so that those negotiations shall take place.
The constructive proposal I make tonight, and which I hope will be referred to the Foreign Office, is this. Leopoldville represents the more moderate section of African opinion in its Prime Minister and the more extreme section in its Deputy Prime Minister. Katanga represents the less advanced section among African opinion. If they are to be brought together, I am quite sure that it must be mainly by African influence.
In the continent of Africa today there are African representatives of those three points of view. There is the Monravia bloc, which includes Nigeria, which represents very much the view of the Prime Minister of the Congo. There is the Casablanca bloc which represents

453
very much the point of view of Mr. Gizenga, the Deputy Prime Minister. There is Liberia which represents, perhaps, the view of Katanga. Though one would never describe Julius Nyerere as belonging to that attitude, his influence would be one which would make for moderation and negotiation also.
My proposal, therefore, is that the the Foreign Office should at the United Nations, in its effort to make a contribution to the solution of the Congo problem, seek to get the opposite numbers among African leaders outside the Congo to become a negotiating body for the African leaders who, at present, are in conflict within the Congo itself. I hope that that idea will be passed on to the Foreign Office.
Because other hon. Members have done so, I do not propose to analyse the situation in Kenya. I merely ask for a reply from the Government to one new point I wish to raise. One of the problems in Kenya now is not merely tribal rivalries in opposition to unification within a great part of Kenya, but is the difficulty of the coastal strip which, it is suggested, should be united with Somali. I believe it should be settled, after proper preparation and reasonable time, by a plebiscite by the people in that area. It should be for them to decide whether their future relationships should be with Somali or Kenya.
I wish to ask one question. There are reports in Kenya that the British authorities are encouraging the movement in that coastal strip to break with Kenya so that a military base may be established in that territory. When Kenya gains its independence it is unlikely that Britain will be able to retain its base in the neighbourhood of Nairobi. The report is spreading that the British Government, therefore, is thinking of the alternative of the coastal strip and, to facilitate that, is encouraging the activity which is seeking that the coastal strip should break with Kenya.
I hope very much that before the end of this debate we may have a denial of that report because nothing could be worse than the impression that Britain is pursuing certain political policies because of any advantage in military bases.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Hugh Fraser): I can give
454
the hon. Gentleman a categorical denial of any such move by the Governor of Kenya or by the British Government.
Mr. Brockway: I welcome that very much indeed. The hon. Gentleman knows the situation in Kenya and that his public denial tonight will be of great value in Kenya.
I am not going to go over again tonight the ground concerning Northern Rhodesia. I wish merely to make one constructive proposal. Honestly, I do not believe that there is any possibility now of rescuing the present system of Federation. I think that it is doomed. The fact that one has the African majority in Nyasaland, the European majority in Southern Rhodesia and these difficulties in Northern Rhodesia mean that that Federation is effectively destroyed.
Nevertheless, I am in favour of the principle of federation and I would like to see a federation much broader, much bigger even than the Central African Federation which exists now. We are moving towards federation in East Africa. Uganda, Kenya, Tanganyika are gaining their independence—gaining their African majorities. There is Nyasaland, with its African majority. Extend the principle of African majority to Northern and Southern Rhodesia, and one may have a much bigger idea than has been urged in this House—the practical idea of a great East and Central African area federated, cooperative, and with all the economic advantages that that broader association would bring.
I now turn a little further south to South-West Africa. I have recently been on deputations to the Joint Under-Secretary and have discussed this subject. I wish now to make the two main proposals which I made to him but which, I realise, must be referred to the Foreign Office.
The South African Government have refused to allow a United Nations mission into the territory of South-West Africa. My great regret is that the British Government refuses to allow that mission to enter South-West Africa from Bechuanaland, despite the resolution of the United Nations. I want to make two proposals. The first is that an effort should be made to influence the

455
Government of the Republic of South Africa, even if they will not allow the United Nations mission to go to South-West Africa, to allow citizens in South-West Africa and in the Republic of South Africa itself to visit the United Nations mission, whether it be in Tanganyika, Ghana or Nigeria, wherever it may be at that moment. Those citizens should be allowed by the Republic of South Africa to go and to return. If the Republic of South Africa would agree to do that, it would maintain its view that the mission should not enter South-West African territory, but at the same time a large number of South African citizens who wished to give evidence to the mission would be able to do so knowing that they could return to their country after doing so.
My second proposal is this. The Republic of South Africa has agreed that one individual of international status shall be allowed to visit South-West Africa and make inquiries. Why would it not be possible for the Chairman of the United Nations mission, or perhaps two members of the mission, to be regarded as persons of this international status who might enter South-West Africa? I urge the Joint Under-Secretary of State to advocate that policy with the Foreign Office.
I want, lastly, to deal with our own Protectorates. I take the view that the most effective way to influence the future of the Republic of South Africa would be to make our Protectorates models of racial equality and African advancement. In the new Constitutions for Basutoland and Bechuanaland, in which both Europeans and Africans participate, some contribution is being made towards that end.
There are two problems about Basutoland that I want particularly to raise. I have already discussed one of them with the Joint Under-Secretary in his office. It is the allegation that three South African citizens who had been registered as refugees in Basutoland have been kidnapped by South African police and taken across the border. The hon. Gentleman knows the facts about Ganyile. He probably knows now that we know the identity of the other two Africans and have their names.
The event took place as long ago as 26th August. We learned something
456
about it only because Ganyile was able to smuggle a message out of his prison. I think that it is now accepted that the message which came out of the prison was his. There is apparently some doubt now because the Republic of South Africa says that the men were seized when they had returned to South African territory. However, against that is the fact that their huts were found dishevelled, blood was found upon the blankets in the huts, and blood was found outside. I ask the hon. Gentleman to use his utmost influence with the Government of the Union of South Africa with a view to a lawyer, who could report to the British Government, being allowed to visit these men in prison and attend any trial that takes place so that the British Government may become aware of the facts. If this were done, we should be able to obtain the evidence to enable us to make the protests in a more public way.
The second problem about Basutoland is this. There is a danger of it becoming another Sierra Leone, with the corruption which entered into the diamond market there. The licence has at present been given to the representative of De Beers. Africans are finding diamonds. Africans are being arrested when they find those diamonds. Is it not possible to organise the African diamond winners in Basutoland on a co-operative basis? This has been done in Ghana and in Guinea. It is being considered in Tanganyika. If in Basutoland we could organise that industry on a co-operative basis, we should, I believe, be able to avoid corruption of the kind which has occurred in Sierra Leone.
I have dealt with several aspects of the situation in the continent of Africa, but perhaps the biggest issue is this. Nearly all the new Governments are neutralist. I recognise that today, while they are not pro-Communist they are anti-West. I do not want them to become Communist. I believe too much in personal liberties and in democracy. But I thought it was a little extreme of the Lord Privy Seal in his speech in the House two days ago to make the complaint that they were becoming anti-West. One has but to look at the record of our own Government in the United Nations, at the way they

457
have abstained or the way they have voted against every resolution in the United Nations which has favoured the independence of colonial peoples. When that is done by the representatives of this Government at the United Nations, can one wonder that the peoples of Africa become anti-West?
Because I want to see a democratic society in Africa, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Colonial Secretary to seek to influence the Foreign Office to begin to express in its policy at the United Nations some of the better features of the work which was carried out by his predecessor and which I hope he will carry on to still greater effect.
8.36 p.m.
Mr. Paul Williams: I shall leave aside the flights of fancy of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) in the latter part of his speech. I hope to be brief and I trust, also, that I shall be to the point.
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend, the Colonial Secretary, as almost every other speaker has, upon his promotion and appointment. Secondly, I congratulate him on introducing into the content of his speech a wind of change of emphasis, a change of emphasis from constitution-mongering to placing more reliance on economic and trading advance in our territories in Africa. As has been said once or twice already today, for too long have we thought that to issue a constitution was to build a paper pyramid for democracy. For too long have we ignored the need for economic advance and the securing of markets for the potential produce of Africa. I shall return to this matter in a few moments.
I trust that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary will not take too much notice of the "Dismal Johnnies" on both this and the other side of the House who believe that there is nothing which can be done to control, to influence and to condition the rate of advance towards independence. A few minutes ago we heard a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir. R. Nugent), who referred to remorseless logic. The remorseless logic of his speech was that, if we had any friends in Africa, we had
458
to sacrifice them. The logic of his speech was that it did not pay to be a friend of Britain. This may be true, but, if it is, it is a sad comment on recent years of government. Surely, we should have a little more noble ambition than to let down our friends.
Before I come to Africa, I have a few words to say about the Islands of the Seychelles. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) and I visited that Colony two and a half years ago and met the late Governor. I mention the Seychelles tonight for two reasons. First, I pay a humble and sincere tribute to the late Governor, Sir John Thorp, who gave his life not only to the cause of the Colonial Territories but in an attempt to save two children of the islands who got into difficulties while bathing. He was a man who personified the best in the Colonial Service. He went out of his way in striving to see that the development of some of the smaller territories came to fruition.
If this House could pay one small tribute to Sir John Thorp in his passing, it would be to carry on those policies of using colonial development and welfare funds for their best purposes in these smaller territories which are often forgotten and by-passed in debates in this House.
I now turn to Africa. Democracy lies very thin on the soil of Africa. The roots have not yet been put down. That is not for want of trying on the part of this country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) said, the efforts may have been misdirected. We may have been putting too much emphasis on the desire for a unitary state the boundaries of which have been founded on the chance of the Victorian era. Do we need to commit ourselves to these boundaries, these frontiers, of yesteryear for all time and inevitably, or should not we consider, as my hon. Friend did, the possibility of more regional Governments within the existing territories and even across existing borders and frontiers?
Perhaps in the Congo one might find a way of resolving the problems as between Katanga and the rest of the Congo and in Kenya through regionalisation. Why must we always, since independence and trouble came to the Congo, try to make Katanga conform to

459
the lower Congo? Why must Elisabethville be bent to meet Leopoldville? Perhaps it would be more sensible if we put the centre of gravity where, in fact, power, law, order and stability exist. Let us recognise that Katanga maintains these things and try to find a form of association around strength rather than around weakness.
I now come to the major point that I wish to make. What are the objects of British policy in Kenya and East Africa? Surely the first must be the creation of viable economic units, and the second the securing and maintaining of law and order with justice for all. This, naturally, includes the guaranteeing of rights for minorities. Further, we wish to effect a smooth transition to majority rule and independence, and consider whether we want to find some form of wider association for the States of East Africa.
At the Lancaster House conference, there was a significant advance towards freedom and independence. The failure at Lancaster House was, I believe, simply that of getting the members of K.A.N.U. to come into the Government, to staple down, by the fact of their participation, their willingness to be responsible in their behaviour on the political scene. The failure of the Lancaster House conference was to get K.A.N.U. into the Government which has led to many of the troubles since. The gradual introduction of African Ministers has proceeded. There can be a legitimate complaint by us in this House of the responsibility or otherwise of the African leaders of K.A.N.U. that they did not see fit to take up their responsibilities when they received a majority vote at the elections.
What of the present dangers in Kenya? It seems to me that there is a danger of a return to domination by the Kikuyu. One merely needs to look at the rôle which Kenyatta has played since his release to realise that he and they are tribalists in their outlook. We must face these facts, however regrettable they may be. However much we might have wanted to see a national leadership develop it is, nevertheless, true that tribalism is a fact of life in the Kenya set-up. We must recognise this in thinking about future constitutional advances. We must seek to achieve not
460
just domination by one tribe, but rights for the minority tribes.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. This is precisely the theme of the speech I made in 1952 on this subject, before Mau Mau took effect—that we could not isolate all the tribes and allow one form of racial domination in a multiracial society like Kenya, quite apart from the Europeans.
Mr. Williams: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has joined us late this afternoon, and that he has got his contribution on the record, but many other hon. Members are awaiting an opportunity to speak.
One of the other things one notices is that, as in other parts of Africa, thuggery and intimidation exist, and this, naturally, gives greater power to a tribe such as the Kikuyu. Because of this, there is a genuine fear, a very distinct and definite fear, in the less advanced, less aggressive and less slick, tribes that, after independence, the Kikuyu dominated, perhaps, by Kenyatta, might overthrow the position. This is a genuine fact in the situation, and one must take this into account when we are thinking about the future of Kenya.
If these, then, are the dangers, how do we secure the objects of British policy, while avoiding the dangers of handing over to people whose roots in democracy are perhaps not as great as those of the hon. Member opposite and myself? I think, first, one must consider most seriously those recent proposals put forward by K.A.D.U., which are, basically, that there should be four regional Governments with more power in their hands than is foreseen at the moment.
It seems to me that there is the obvious danger in this policy of reverting to tribalism, answering tribalism with tribalism, but I cannot myself see how we can avoid the danger of Kenya being dominated perhaps by one tribe, and perhaps by the powers of evil, unless we find some way of introducing those checks and balances which the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) mentioned. If we can, by introducing some form of regional Government, give certain powers specifically to

461
the regions, we might be able to secure the interests of minorities.
I believe that this security that would be given to the minorities more than compensates for returning to tribalism. On this issue of land—and I think not only of Europeans but of the Masai and certain other tribes—it would give a greater degree of security to those minority and weaker elements and give them confidence in the future. I do not want to commit myself to whole-hearted support of this scheme now, because I do not think that sufficient thought has been given to it. I merely urge my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary to consider this scheme with as detached a mind as he must have, coming to this task anew, uncommitted by the supposed loyalties, friendships or criticisms of Lancaster House, or what has gone before. It seems to me that this is a scheme which can achieve security and speed in Kenya, while doing nothing to preclude the advance on the way to wider African federation in due course.
May I now return to the first point I made after congratulating the new Colonial Secretary—the emphasis which he put on the subject of economic and trade matters? It is my hope that the words he used were not just padding for a speech. I do not believe that they were. I believe that they were a genuine expression of belief, and my hope is that in his office now he will put as much energy into developing a Commonwealth economic policy—and that means finding and securing markets for the potential products of colonial territories —as certain other members of the Government are thought to be putting into a European economic policy.
Personally, I do not believe that the two need conflict if we could have a system of trade priorities, priorities presently precluded by the G.A.T.T. Having said that, if my right hon. Friend is to do the task which he set himself this afternoon, it will be one not just of providing new constitutions, but of providing new provocations to the production of wealth and the new outlets and markets for that wealth.
8.50 p.m.
Mr. R. W. Sorensen: My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) intends to start winding up for the Opposition
462
at 9 o'clock. I will see that he is not frustrated. In the ten minutes at my disposal, I can be only selective in the many points which I should have liked to put before the House.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. P. Williams) referred to another member of his party as apparently encouraging the sacrifice of Africans who were nevertheless friends of Britain. That is a dangerous phrase if it means that those are friends of Britain in Africa who happen to endorse the policies which we adumbrate. Such a meaning does no service to the African scene, for the Africans themselves must work out their own salvation, whether or not that happens to coincide with our desires and preferences.
Time does not permit me to pursue this matter, but I mention it because I want for a moment to take a wider view. It is appreciated, as has been said, that in the Commonwealth there are about 600 million people who have been liberated from imperial domination and who now have self-government one way or another. I appreciate the emphatic contrast between that and what has taken place in the Soviet world, including East Germany.
Nevertheless, some hon. Members will remember the warnings before independence was granted to India and Pakistan, when it was said that we must go much more slowly in the granting of that independence. It was then often said that the Indians were not thoroughly prepared for the great responsibilities which they would shoulder. Looking back, one realises that it was by no means too early when independence was granted and many of the forebodings, fears and apprehensions of some Members, including the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), have been falsified by subsequent events.
Instead, we have seen, as I believed we would, the momentum of Indian and Pakistani liberation affecting other parts of the world, including Africa itself. This does not mean that there would not have been an African awakening without a prior Indo-Pakistani awakening, but a stimulus was added by the accomplished fact in Asia to what was aspiring in the minds and souls of the African people.

463
In my earlier advocacy of Indian liberation, I made it clear that among the many reasons for that advocacy was the fact that I believed that only with independence would India and Pakistan face facts which they would otherwise evade, and that when they were able to stand on their own feet and face those facts, they would recognise that many of the burdens, political, economic, and sociological, which they had to bear were not merely due to British imperial occupation and domination.
I mention that because reference has been made to what is taking place in Ghana and I do not apologise for adding a word of warning and appeal about that territory. When I was travelling to London from my district yesterday, a young African came along the carriage of my tube train and handed everybody a leaflet of which I have a copy in my hand. It is pathetic as well as informative. It is issued by the Ghana Students' Association in Great Britain.
In bygone days I had a great deal to do with students and knew in their student days many of those who are now in high positions in Ghana, Nigeria and elsewhere. I believe that this is an arresting and moving expression of the views of the Ghanaian students in London and elsewhere in this country. It is headed, "In defence of Ghana's freedom" and says:
"We the Ghana Students' Association humbly implore Her Majesty and the Members of Parliament of Great Britain to help us in our protest against the Totalitarian Practices in Ghana and pray to Her Majesty to use her influence to obtain the release of all the detained people in Ghana so that when she goes she might be accorded a worthy welcome by both the Government and the Opposition of Ghana.
The liberty of the people of our country is at stake. Men and women are detained without trial by the self-styled Osagyefo 'Redeemer' and 'Founder' of Ghana and the 'Messiah' of Africa.
The children and other dependants of the 350 detainees are suffering and need your help"
Then there is the rather quaint conclusion:
"Long live Her Majesty and other freedom fighters of Ghana."
I bring this leaflet to the attention of the House, because it apparently has the backing at least of many Ghanaian students in London, and in turn it may be representative of a substantial section of the Ghanaian people themselves
464
I was in Accra for a brief period last year and I lunched with Mr. Botsio who has recently been discharged from his post, and now we have heard that Dr. Danquah and Joe Appiah, both of whom I knew, are detained without trial.
I say this with sorrow and not because these deplorable facts give any reason for regretting transferring the responsibility which has now been conferred on the Ghanaian people. They have to work out their own salvation, and until they make mistakes they cannot make achievements. We have made mistakes, as have other free countries. Let us not jeer, or sneer, or be cynical, or despondent, about the mistakes, errors and failings which are attending some parts of the world where peoples have at last been liberated from European and Western domination. They, like us, have to work out their own salvation in national freedom.
At the same time, I make this plea to Dr. Nkrumah. I do not count him as a personal friend, though I knew him fairly well in bygone days. I appeal to him to recognise that on him rests a great responsibility for giving an example to Africa and the world on how an African country can work its way through to dignity and freedom instead of taking the apparently seductive short cut of dictatorship. Well meaning as it may be, and an apparent solution to a complex problem, in the end dictatorship is bound to be fatal to the best interests of the people of that country.
I say this, but without despair. Near Ghana there is Nigeria where fortunately at the moment there are no such circumstances as, unhappily, there are in Ghana. If hon. Members put on one side all the apparent failures or signs of difficulty, disaster or reaction, let us put on the other side such examples as Nigeria and India. Here are two countries with 400 million people in one, and 35 million in the other. Surely they can be quoted as examples of what we hope will yet be the policy pursued in Ghana and other liberated countries.
As one who has spent many years in a humble capacity striving to secure in this country a recognition of our duty to transfer full responsibility to dependent peoples, I echo the plea to Dr. Nkrumah, and indeed many others like him, to recognise that, no matter how difficult

465
his task may be, if he wants to be of greatest service to liberated mankind he must demonstrate consistency with this not in the distant future but at the present critical time in the affairs of his country.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Gordon Walker: My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) ended his speech with a passage with which I very largely agree, in connection with Ghana. Indeed, that has been a theme running through the debate. It has been very forcibly expressed in speeches by Members of all three parties, and I want to say a word about it to begin with.
It is not very easy to strike the right note when talking about this matter. On the one hand, we all feel grave disquiet and disturbance about some of the things that are happening in Ghana. On the other hand, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) said, it is a principle of the Commonwealth that we do not interfere in each other's affairs. But there is in the Commonwealth a necessary distinction between interfering and expressing judgments. Indeed, I am not sure that it is not one of the important things that holds the Commonwealth together that we do express judgments of each other. We help by mutual criticism to keep up a very high standard of government in all the countries of the Commonwealth, including Britain. We certainly find ourselves judged by other Commonwealth countries by standards infinitely higher than apply to Russia or even to the United States. But only foolish people here are worried about that. It is a compliment, and it is a good thing. If we, now, are critical of Ghana, it is by very high Commonwealth standards. The detention of 200 or 300 people in Ghana without trial does not remotely compare with the sort of things that happen in Hungary, East Germany and Egypt.
We must remember that it is a very important principle of Commonwealth relations that we put the best construction we can on each other's actions. We must do this in the case of Ghana, or any other Commonwealth country with whose actions we may disagree. We must put into perspective the things that are happening in Ghana.
466
They are part of a long struggle, starting before independence, to create a sense of nationhood against traditional and fissiparous forces in boundaries that were artificial. As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) said, Ashanti was not integrated into Ghana until just before independence, and some of the problems have arisen from the attempt to create and maintain a nation against these difficult forces. It is also true that some members of the Opposition in Ghana have indulged in improper actions, as was shown in the Sharp Commission Report of 1959.
It may be argued, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) argued, that some of the measures that the Government of Ghana are using were used by British Governments in emergencies, including actions taken against Mr. Nkrumah himself at an earlier stage. This can be pleaded by my hon. Friend, but it can hardly be pleaded by Ghana, because it bitterly protested against these things and fought for independence in order to get rid of them.
It is important that our criticisms should not be related to our own immediate United Kingdom interests. We must never tie aid or friendship in the Commonwealth to particular political actions or alignments, and I was glad that when the right hon. Gentleman when to Ghana he made it clear that there is no question of our objecting to their policy of non-involvement. That is fully accepted. Indeed, it is of benefit to this country that some countries of the Commonwealth should follow this policy.
In this connection we must be very careful about the Volta River scheme. I cannot believe that the United States will make the same mistake here as they did in the case of the Aswan Dam. We must use our full influence with the United States to stop them, and in any case we must stand by the scheme.
The criticisms that we express really spring from a friendship for the people of Ghana and from a desire that Ghana shall be a full and complete member of a multi-racial Commonwealth.
If, however, we look at matters from this point of view and put the best construction we can upon them, we find that they are still highly disturbing, and

467
we must say so quite frankly. We must await the White Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough said that he would. Nevertheless, by its very nature the White Paper is bound to be an ex parte statement. It is bound to state one side of the case. If they want to bring out the true facts the Government of Ghana would be well advised to set up another commission like the Sharp Commission.
But however the actions may be explained, we cannot justify many of the things that have been happening in Ghana. There is the detention without trial of opponents of the régime and the removal of Members of Parliament. If a Member of Parliament is detained and does not attend twenty sittings because he is detained, he ceases to be a Member of Parliament; and this is something which we could not possibly refrain from criticising. The Bill introduced on 7th October is one which must disturb anybody who is concerned over the survival of democracy in the Commonwealth. The summary trial by a judge and two others who need not be judges; the court delivering a majority decision with no dissent allowed to be expressed, if there is a minority view; and offences added by order without going back to the Parliament of Ghana.
I think that what we must try to say to the people of Ghana and to the Government is that these things disturb and alarm the best friends of Ghana, not only in this country but all over the Commonwealth. I am quite sure that the friends of Ghana in all Commonwealth countries are very disturbed about this. We can understand their difficulties. We understand that certain powers may have to be taken. Other democratic Governments have taken powers under certain conditions. But there are things which are essential if democracy is to survive there. Civil liberties should be preserved and the independence of the courts, and there should be the possibility of the Opposition expressing its views in Parliament.
In this connection I come finally to the question of the visit of the Queen which has been talked about by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), who was strongly in favour of it being cancelled or postponed, by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg and by the hon. Member for
468
Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe). I think that this view is wrong. I adhere strongly to the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). If the visit were stopped it would be the final break in our relations with Ghana which is something we must do our utmost to avoid.
We have to be particularly careful in the Commonwealth that we do not get into the habit of sitting in judgment on one another. That is particularly important after the withdrawal of South Africa. If that withdrawal became a precedent for people sitting in judgment on one another in the Commonwealth it would destroy the Commonwealth very fast indeed. It is essential that the South African episode be regarded as a unique way of dealing with a unique problem, and if it became a precedent it would be very destructive. We have to be careful not to let it become a precedent. I do not think that if the Queen goes to Ghana it could be regarded as condoning the things going on in Ghana which we are attempting to criticise. We have to be careful not to allow the visit of the Queen to Ghana to be a purely United Kingdom-Ghana episode. The Queen is not only Queen in this country but in the Commonwealth. She is the head of the Commonwealth and when she visits Ghana she is there as head of the Commonwealth and is no more Queen of this country than of Canada or Australia. I am sure that, subject only to security problems which the Opposition cannot judge, the Queen should be advised to continue with her plans; and any advice should be given not only by Her Majesty's Ministers in this country but by her other Commonwealth advisers. It is important that we should never lose sight of the Commonwealth aspect.
I should like to say a word or two about the Central African Federation, partly by way of background to what I want to say later about Northern Rhodesia. I agree entirely with the Colonial Secretary's statement that Northern Rhodesia is the most urgent and difficult problem facing us in Africa.
Originally I was in favour of the idea of federation. I thought that the arguments that it would lead to rapid economic development were powerful and I thought even more powerful was the political argument that one must guard

469
against any danger of a northward expansion by the Union of South Africa. I think that these are still important factors. Looking back, I think that there was great force in the arguments of those who said that we should have gone forward with a looser form of association.
In any case, my support of federation depended completely—as I made clear at the lime—upon the assumption that there would be rapid political advance in the various territories. I never felt that federation could possibly survive unless there were this rapid political advance, particularly in the territories under our control. The failure to bring about this advance rapidly enough has steadily changed my views about federation. The turning point came for me in 1957 when two very disturbing things happened. One was the demand by Sir Roy Welensky for Dominion status long before there was any kind of majority rule in the Federation. The other was the rejection by this Government of the first, and only, recommendation of the African Affairs Board. Those two things seemed to me to constitute a turning point.
The failure was the graver because of the political advance in other parts of Africa. As many hon. Members have said, there is a chain reaction. We cannot isolate one part of the continent from another. The bad influences, as in the breakdown in the Congo, and the good influences, as in Nigeria, affect the whole problem. The problem has become worse because of the failure to advance politically in Central Africa. The situation, as the Monckton Report made clear, has got worse. Paragraph 41 of the Monckton Report said:
"ֵ the opposition to Federation which … was strong at the time that Federation was introduced, has gathered further strength by African disappointment in the manner of its operation."
Looking at the question now it seems that two things are clear. One is that the survival or otherwise of federation is not any longer in our hands but is in the hands of the inhabitants of the territories of the Federation. The second is that it is not enough now, whatever may have been the case earlier, to argue the economic advantages. The former Colonial Secretary made this clear in an admirable way in his speech at Brighton, quoted in the
470
Guardian on 12th October, when he said:
"Don't ever fall into the error of assuming that because you give a man better housing and improve the health services that somehow that will satisfy his craving for basic political rights."
Those were very wise words, but they involve a radical change in the Government's policy towards Federation.
If we want people to consider responsibly the economic advantages of Federation we have to give them responsibility. People cannot look at things responsibly if we deny them responsibility. That is what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. There is a moral obligation upon us to do this apart from anything else because we are now fully committed to the transformation of an Empire into a Commonwealth. Once we have started on that we cannot stop half way. We cannot rely, so to speak, on the credit acquired in the past and fail to go on. Our good name is very high, but if we want to keep it high we have to go right through to the end.
The burden of the Monckton Report was that Southern Rhodesia is the crux of the whole problem of federation. Lately there has been a move in the right direction in Southern Rhodesia. Sir Edgar Whitehead made a very courageous speech at his party congress on 5th October. He said that if his party did not reject the outdated policy of white domination it would have to look for a new leader. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said, there have been welcome and important movements towards getting rid of the social colour bar in Southern Rhodesia. But one must also say that the basic racial privilege is political. The root of the evil in the Federation is the discriminatory franchises which are still there, the monopoly of political power by a white minority.
The Government must use all their influences in all parts of the Federation, including Southern Rhodesia, and they must accept—there is no other policy now possible—the simplicities of the Monckton Report. The objective must be full democracy with a full franchise. There must be effective and speedy steps towards it, and this means that there must be African majorities now in the territories.

471
Of course, in some of these territories the Whites are alarmed, and one can understand it. They play a vital rôle in East and Central Africa. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said, these territories need the Whites. That is undoubtedly true. But I am sure that many of the Whites, some of whose views were described in a fine speech by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), are wrong and shortsighted and self-defeating in their attempt to cling to political power and to entrench privilege behind fancy franchises and devalued votes. That is fatal. It is the sort of trickery which is bound to build up even more anger and opposition than there would otherwise be.
Certainly one should protect individual rights, but not racial rights, by a Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights is a protection of individual rights. But the only real security can be the acceptance of majority rule, and all experience shows that this is the only way in which a minority can be secure. This is the lesson of Tanganyika and the lesson of the West Indies. White minorities which were very alarmed when the franchise was extended have found that, in consequence of the extension, they are more respected and more wanted than they ever were when they kept political power in spite of being a minority.
I have been in the House for almost all the debate, and I have heard no mention of the right of secession. It seems to me that this must be granted. It is just in itself. No State can long survive if it is based upon a majority of unwilling citizens. Apart from the justice of it, nothing else can save any form of federation or association in Central Africa. Unless there are African majorities who have the responsibility of deciding whether to break up or continue the Federation, with all the consequences which would arise—but they would be consequences of their own acts—I do not believe that there is any hope for any kind of federation. If we create such a situation, then it is possible that the Africans will work the federal experiment in some form or other, maybe in the form suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) of a much greater
472
federation, possibly with the radical changes which the Monckton Report proposed. But I am certain that no form of association can survive on any other basis.
One of the chief means by which the Government can exercise power and influence is through the resumed Constitutional Review Conference. In this connection, I was very disturbed to read a report in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland News Letter—I imagine that it is accurate—of a speech by Sir Roy Welensky in Salisbury on 14th September, in which he said:
"I am gradually being forced to the conclusion that the better course may be to regard the Federal Review as having taken place and to go on from there."
In other words, there would be no recall and no Review Conference. It is urgently necessary that the Government should reject this idea. The conference was adjourned in order to have the talks on Northern Rhodesia. The Government are legally and morally committed to having this conference and therefore to recalling it. It is part of Her Majesty's obligations and of this Parliament's obligations to the peoples of the Federation, and it is essential that the right hon. Gentleman should tonight categorically reject what Sir Roy there said, and say that the conference is to be recalled.
I come now to Northern Rhodesia. Clearly, before the conference is recalled, there must be this real and speedy advance in Northern Rhodesia —that is why the conference was suspended or adjourned, but not stopped.
When one looks at what has happened in Northern Rhodesia since the House rose for the Summer Recess it is impossible to defend what the Government have done.
The great error was the issue of the new White Paper on 26th June. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Chataway), in what I thought was otherwise a first-class and admirable speech, said that he could detect no difference between the two White Papers. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has also always maintained that, but I cannot see how one can escape the conclusion that the second White Paper changed the whole balance of prospective power. That is why there has been all the trouble.

473
It took the Asians off the Upper roll and so took away the chance of Africans getting votes, but it also altered a specific pledge that candidates for the national seats would need the same percentage of votes on both the upper and lower rolls, to be returned. That White Paper altered the whole balance of prospective power.
As we all know, there has been serious violence. No one can condone that —no one can condone violence—and we know that it is the duty of Governments to preserve law and order, but the Government cannot be exonerated altogether for the outbreak of violence. The Government have the duty to remove legitimate causes of unrest—legitimate causes—and certainly not through weakness and wobbling to stimulate those causes of unrest.
What happened is that in June the Government dashed hopes that had been raised by the Monckton Report and by their own first White Paper, and they palpably appeared to be giving way to pressure from the Federal Government. This is quite clearly established. I could quote from the Africa Committee of the Conference of British Missionary Societies, and there is the speech of Sir Roy Welensky on 30th June, clearly saying that as a result of the Federation's representations great changes were made.
Fortunately, on 13th September the Government partly faced the consequences of their own actions. They have said that they would reconsider the Constitution if violence ended, and I am glad to say that the Colonial Secretary has today restated that. Violence, in effect, has ended and it is essential that there should quickly be made a new and unambiguous statement. The Government should again go on the simple proposals of the Monckton Report. The Asians must go on the upper roll and the national candidates must get the same percentage from both rolls—and a relatively low one, perhaps 5 per cent. or something like that.
Northern Rhodesia, as my hon. Friend has said, is the great test for the new Colonial Secretary. He will be under many pressures. Indeed, he has already been charged by some of his hon. Friends of appeasement, by which, of course, they mean giving way to people whom they do not like. When it is a
474
case of giving way to people whom they do like it is statesmanship. The right hon. Gentleman is already coming under great pressure, and will be under pressures, as we know, from forces in the Federation.
The test for him is that we have a new chance in Northern Rhodesia—perhaps the last chance. I agree altogether with what the hon. Member for Lewisham, North said about Mr. Kaunda. He is a dignified, co-operative, courageous leader, committed to the sort of advance we have had in Tanganyika and Nyasaland. The situation now is that hopes have again been raised by the statement of 13th September, and if they are dashed now I really do not know what may happen to Kaunda, or the grave effects there may be on other leaders in other East African territories.
At the end of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman gave a statement of principles, and it is inevitable that we should compare them with the confession of faith and statement of principles made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at Brighton. I must say that although I agree with a lot that he said it seemed to me that if one takes it as a full statement of principles, those principles lack somewhat in breadth and balance and vision.
It is, of course, true that we cannot have justice without security, but it is not enough to say this. If we have security without justice that is just total oppression. It is perfectly true that we have to look after the rights of minorities, as he said, but there are the rights of majorities, which he did not mention at all. I should like to have heard him put more dynamic things into his principles, the simple things like freedom and democracy and equality or, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman's brotherhood of men—all men. This was what I was sorry not to hear in the right hon. Gentleman's statement of principles.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take as his guide the things which his right hon. Friend said, particularly about the tragedies that can come from going too slowly. As I said, it is impossible for us to find any excuse for the Government's conduct of policy in regard to Northern Rhodesia. It has been incompetent, it has been shilly-shallying, it has indulged in double talk, it has

475
contributed to the outbreak of violence and it has certainly damaged—I do not want to put it too strongly—Britain's good name in Africa. That is one reason why we feel that we must divide the House tonight, to express our deep concern at the way the Government have behaved. There is another reason why we want to divide the House tonight, and that is because we want to bring all the pressure in our power to bear upon Her Majesty's Government to get back to the only course that can restore Britain's name in Africa and elsewhere and secure again peaceful progress in Central Africa.
9.27 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys): I think that all of us who have attended this debate will feel that we have had an extremely thoughtful discussion throughout. We have listened to a series of extremely objective and constructive speeches, starting with the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and running right through the whole of our debate. I am only sorry that after this debate, in which opinions have been expressed across the Floor of the House, in many cases independent of party, we should end in a Division. But I have scarcely ever heard a Division proposed in such moderate terms as those proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker).
I should like to associate myself with the good wishes which were expressed by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East and other hon. Members to Tanganyika. I shall be going there to represent Her Majesty's Government at the independence celebrations and very strenuous affairs these independence celebrations always are. I am sure that we can look forward to Tanganyika bringing an important new contribution to the strength and vitality and representative character of our Commonwealth. I am sure that the Prime Minister, Mr. Nyerere, will bring another important Commonwealth figure on to the world stage.
The right hon. Member for Smethwick and other hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred in differing
476
ways to our relations with Ghana. We have always recognised that Ghana wished to pursue a neutralist policy. The British Government understand and respect Ghana's desire to remain uncommitted like many other Commonwealth countries, and I agree with what the right hon. Member for Smethwick said; I believe that that is a good thing. I believe that it adds to the influence and representative character of the Commonwealth as a whole that there should be among its members a certain proportion who are neutral and uncommitted.
However, I must say that in recent months we have been considerably disturbed by some of the words and actions of President Nkrumah and his Ministers. We received the impression that Ghana was becoming more and more antagonistic to Britain and increasingly willing to support Soviet attacks against Britain and the West. But before accepting that these speeches and actions represented the true feelings of Ghana, I thought it right to discuss the whole matter fully with President Nkrumah himself. For that purpose, as the House knows, I went to Accra the other day.
I should like to say that President Nkrumah was the first to welcome my proposal to come and talk the whole thing out with him. After long and very frank talks, we issued a communiqué to which reference has been made during the course of this debate. I do not think that it is really in the nature of a dialogue, as was suggested. It was in the nature of each side clarifying points which had given rise to misunderstanding in the minds of the other, and to that extent I believe that it has some value. It certainly contained a number of very helpful declarations.
I welcome, in particular, the declaration by President Nkrumah that Ghana's policy will continue to be based on the principle of non-alignment, to which he added:
"neither leaning to the East nor to the West."
I also appreciate very much his public recognition—I think that this is the first time that he has said anything of this kind in public—of the "sincerity of Britain's approach to the colonial problem". I particularly value the advice he gave in this statement to the peoples

477
of the remaining British Colonies—these are the words that he used—
"to rely on the good faith of Britain and to work for their independence through constitutional means."
I believe that these and other statements in the communiqué are extremely valuable, and certainly reflect a genuine desire by President Nkrumah to improve relations.
These helpful assurances about Ghana's external policy would undoubtedly have given rise to more satisfaction here, had it not been for the anxieties which have arisen over the internal measures adopted recently by the Ghana Government. But, for reasons which the House will understand, I do not propose to comment upon those measures. It has always been the practice of successive British Governments, as far as possible, to refrain from expressing opinions, whether favourable or unfavourable, upon the domestic policies of other Commonwealth Governments, and I do not think that the House would wish me to break this well-established rule tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and other hon. Members voiced doubts about the wisdom of the Queen's visit to Ghana at this time. As Her Majesty's advisers we are, of course, very conscious of the responsibility which rests on us in this matter and several hon. Members have spoken of this responsibility. I can assure them that we are well aware of this.
I must point out that the date for the visit was fixed a long time ago, and that to cancel it now on political grounds would have a most serious effect on the relations between our two countries. As several hon. Members have pointed out, nothing would suit those who dislike Britain in Ghana better than a cancellation of the Queen's visit, and the crisis in our relations which would result.
Of course, in addition to the political aspects, there is what, in my view, is the most important aspect; the question of Her Majesty's safety. No Royal tour in any country is without some element of danger. But I can assure the House that if it should appear to us that the visit would involve abnormal
478
risks we would not hesitate to advise cancellation; and in such circumstances I am sure that everyone in Ghana would understand and agree that this was the only proper course. We have, however, examined the position up to date most thoroughly, and have considered the information available to us. As a result, the Government have reached the conclusion that unless there is a significant change in the situation, we would not be justified in advising any alteration in Her Majesty's plans.
I would only add, concerning the doubts that some hon. Members may feel about the timeliness of the visit, that one thing is quite certain. That is that the Queen will receive an enthusiastic welcome from the warm-hearted and hospitable people of Ghana, who have a very real affection for Britain and, I believe a very deep respect for Her Majesty.
Hon. Members have spoken of all the three territories in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I will not say much about Nyasaland except that it has now achieved representative government and a Legislature with a large African majority. Judging from the speeches to which we have listened everyone seems to agree that progress has been made in Southern Rhodesia, progress which was really unthinkable a year ago. They now have a new Constitution, or will have a new one shortly, which will represent an enormous advance. From there being no African representatives at all, about a quarter or more of the Chamber will be African, with every prospect of that proportion expanding.
What is even more striking—and this has been referred to by several hon. Members—is the complete change of outlook among Europeans which has taken place during this past year. It would have been unthinkable a year ago that the two speakers from the Opposition Front Bench should both praise Sir Edgar Whitehead.
Mr. Callaghan: Or even the right hon. Gentleman himself.
Mr. Sandys: Both of them were unstinted in their praise of the liberal approach, and quite rightly so, of Sir Edgar Whitehead and the Government of Southern Rhodesia to this problem.

479
The Government of Southern Rhodesia are at present carrying out a thorough review of the whole of their discriminating legislation. We must remember that much of this legislation is designed to protect the Africans. Therefore, there is no question of sweeping it all away overnight. One has to be discriminating in the repeal of discriminating legislation.
However, I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that the laws which have already been repealed recently include the Pass Laws, which imposed so many disabilities on Africans, the Immorality and Indecency Suppression Act, the Native Tax Act, the Native Adultery Act, the Native Inns and Eating Houses Act, and the Possession of Explosives (Natives and Asiatics) Act. Those cover quite a big field.
Recently the Government party, the United Federal Party, unanimously voted for the abolition of racial discrimination in cinemas, hotels, cafes and other public places. Racial control of land ownership is also being courageously tackled. A start has already been made by amending the Land Apportionment Act, and I understand that the United Federal Party Congress recently voted for further far-reaching reform, with the aim of removing further restrictions on the acquisition of land by persons of all races. That represents a revolution in thinking and in progress there—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—I am glad that this is so widely recognised in the House.
Criticism during the debate centred on Northern Rhodesia. I am sorry that after this thoughtful and constructive debate the Opposition wish to divide the House on the question of the Constitution of Northern Rhodesia. They complain, I understand, of the vacillation in the Government's policy. It would have been quite easy for the Government to decide on their own the terms of a new Constitution for Northern Rhodesia, and impose it with no more than perfunctory consultation. We have tried—perhaps we have tried too long—to find a solution acceptable to all. That is why we have at each stage been reluctant to close the door on further discussions and have
480
been ready to listen to further representations.
However, I emphasise that our objective has remained the same throughout. From the start we have sought to establish a new Constitution which would substantially increase African representation, and produce something like parity between the races. It was also our aim to frame the electoral arrangements in such a way as to ensure that a proportion of the candidates would have to seek support from both races. By this method we hope to encourage co-operation and confidence between Europeans and Africans and develop a multi-racial political life. We believe that this is in general accord with views which have been expressed for a long time on both sides of the House.
The Colonial Secretary has explained that, as soon as lawlessness ceases, the Governor will receive any representations which the political parties may wish to make. We do not expect that these will provide a basis for full agreement, but we hope that they will help to narrow the gap. In any case, after considering these representations and the views of the Governor, Her Majesty's Government will make their final decision, and arrangements will go ahead for the holding of elections under the new Constitution.
No one who has followed any of these debates will pretend that this was a simple problem. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, frankly said this afternoon that he was happy that he was not in the shoes of the Colonial Secretary. It is certainly much easier to make a critical speech and to divide the House than it is to devise a generally acceptable solution to this intractable problem.
I was asked about the proposal for an inquiry into the police action which had taken place in Northern Rhodesia, and I do not wish to shirk that point which was gone into at some length by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East. Mr. Kaunda, who was referred to in this connection, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister asking for a wide inquiry, not only into the action of the police, but into the whole cause of the disorders. From his letter, it was quite clear that he had in mind an inquiry into the reasons for the dissatisfaction of the Africans; in other words, an inquiry into

481
the rightness or wrongness of the Gov-ment's decision in regard to the Northern Rhodesia Constitution.
I think that the House will agree that, while the matter is still being considered, and when no final decision has yet been reached, it would not be right to have an external independent inquiry as to whether or not the policy of Her Majesty's Government as approved by the House of Commons was right or not. Therefore, any inquiry there might be would, obviously, have to be of a very different nature, confined to the actions of the police in regard to specific cases.
The lawlessness which has taken place has been on a very considerable scale, though restricted to certain limited areas. As I understand, there have been over 1,000 separate incidents. Two thousand seven hundred people have been arrested. Over 2,000 of these have been convicted, after trial, of criminal offences. I emphasise, since we have been talking about detentions in another connection, that there have been no detentions except pending trial on a criminal charge. About 20 Africans—this we deeply regret—have been killed in the course of the disturbances.
I wish to say a word about the action of the police in this connection, because we must look at the matter objectively. I am advised that the police have fired only when attacked by armed bands—when they were evacuating missionaries or removing road blocks—or when in imminent danger of being overwhelmed by threatening crowds. Those, I am told, are the circumstances in which the police found it necessary to fire.
Mr. Kaunda, whom I know personally and regard as a reasonable man, has alleged that he has full evidence, including photographs, to support allegations of improper behaviour by the police. I suggest that, before we consider any question of a special inquiry, the person who is making the allegations in the first place should present the evidence in his possession to the authorities, to the Governor, so that those responsible for the police may consider whether disciplinary action is necessary in a particular case, whether charges have been made out, or whether a wider inquiry is justified. I think that persons making charges should in an orderly fashion present the evidence in their possession.
482
In fairness to the police, I must say that our information is that the police have throughout exercised great restraint. Of course, if evidence is produced to show improper behaviour, action will be taken in the ordinary course; but, in the absence of evidence of improper conduct, it is, I believe, our duty to give the police our support in the difficult and dangerous duties which they have to perform.
Mrs. White: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is a serious matter if 20 people are killed? Would not he consider at least issuing a White Paper, or asking the Government of Northern Rhodesia to do so, so that this House may have full particulars of the circumstances in which such action by the police was necessary, or alleged to be necessary? We should know why people have been killed.
Mr. Sandys: I did my best to explain the position. As I say, I think that we had better wait before considering a matter of that kind until law and order is fully restored. This lawlessness is still continuing. I do not think that it is a good moment to have a post-mortem unless the reasons for it are very compelling.
Mr. Callaghan: I should like to support the statement of the Secretary of State that the evidence which Mr. Kaunda or others may have should be submitted in the proper way, so that it can be investigated. Meanwhile, however, I repeat the appeal which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and by myself. It is a serious matter if over 20 of our subjects are killed.
As I understand, the violence has practically died away. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman promise us a narrative account, in the form of a White Paper, of these incidents and what led to this loss of life which I am sure every one of us in this House deeply regrets?
Mr. Sandys: I will discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary and see what further information can be given to the House.
Lately, attention has been focussed on the three territories in the Federation, but I believe that interest is now likely to turn to the question of the future of

483
the Federation itself. The Federal Review was adjourned last December in order that progress might be made with the revision of the Constitutions of the three territories, and it was left to the four Governments to decide when it should be reconvened in the light of the progress made in the three territories.
The question which we now have to face is when it should be reconvened and what should be the procedure. Theoretically and logically, it would be right to wait until the elections have taken place in the three territories and new Legislatures and Governments have been formed on the basis of new Constitutions. But that may be rather a long time and I think that we must consider whether further steps should be taken in the interval. I cannot give the House a precise answer on that tonight.
Like my hon. Friends the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and Guildford (Sir R. Nugent), I still firmly believe in the rightness of the concept of federation and am convinced that it makes sense economically, administratively and politically. But I must say what I have said before, that I believe that the federation can continue only if it wins the general acceptance of the population as a whole within a reasonable time. The problem, therefore, is to reconcile the Africans and the Europeans. In other words, it is very much the same problem with which we have been faced in each of the three territories.
After the adjournment, I enunciated three principles. I said that we recognised our duty to the Europeans and to the Africans, and that we could discharge that duty only if they for their part endeavoured to co-operate with one another in developing the practice of true partnership; otherwise, we could not discharge our obligations to both. We are satisfied that the federal system has effectively helped to promote the economic and social progress which has benefited all the peoples of all the territories, and we would not wish anything to be done which would slow down the rate of further advance. If the federal
system is to win the confidence and general support of the population as a whole, then I believe that Africans must be allowed to play a bigger part in running the country. Those remain the principles which will guide us in approaching the problem of the Federal Review.
The hon. Member for Devon, North spoke of the political consciousness of the Commonwealth. I should like to say a word or two about that before I conclude. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) referred to his experience on a Commonwealth Parliamentary delegation. We had a highly successful Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference recently in London which revealed the existence of a Commonwealth consciousness in a remarkable way. Members of Parliament from all over the Commonwealth demonstrated the importance they all attached to our Commonwealth relationship. One delegate after another expressed his faith in the Commonwealth as a great moral force for peace and understanding in the world, and I believe that that is something of which people have been becoming more conscious, particularly in the last few years.
That is the unique rôle and mission of the Commonwealth, but before we can create understanding among other nations, we must first learn to understand one another. In this we all have a positive part to play. I hope that all the peoples of the Commonwealth, and their newspapers, will make a conscious effort to see each other's point of view. Let us trust each other's good faith and good intentions, and, as the right hon. Member for Smethwick said, let us always try to put the most generous construction on each other's words and actions. Above all, let us not put a spotlight on our differences. Instead, let us continuously seek opportunities for working together to further the great ideals which are common to us all.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—
The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 300.

Division No. 266.]

AYES

[9.57 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Ainsley, William

Awbery, Stan

Bence, Cyril

Albu, Austen

Baird, John

Benson, Sir George

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Blackburn, F.

Blyton, William

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pentland, Norman

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

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Ponplewell, Ernest

Bowles, Frank

Hunter, A. E.

Prentice, R. E.

Boyden, James

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Prioe, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

Probert, Arthur

Brockway, A. Fenner

Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

Randall, Harry

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Janner, Sir Barnett

Rankin, John

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Jeger, George

Redhead, E. C.

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

Reid, William

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Reynolds, C. W.

Callaghan, James

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

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Chapman, Donald

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Chetwynd, George

Jones, Eiwyn (West Ham, S.)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Cliffe, Michael

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Collick, Percy

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Ross, William

Corbet, Mrs, Freda

Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kelley, Richard

Short, Edward

Cronin, John

Kenyon, Clifford

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Grossman, R. H. S.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

King, Dr. Horace

Skeffington, Arthur

Darling, George

Lawson, George

Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Ledger, Ron

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Small, William

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Snow, Julian

Delargy, Hugh

Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

Sorensen, R. W.

Dempsey, James

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Diamond, John

Lipton, Marcus

Steele, Thomas

Dodds, Norman

Loughlln, Charles

Stonehouse, John

Donnelly, Desmond

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Stones, William

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

McCann, John

Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

Ede, Rt. Hon. c.

MacColl, James

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Edelman, Maurjce

McInnes, James

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

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

McKay, John (Wallsend)

Swain, Thomas

Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

Mackle, John (Enfield, East)

Swingler, Stephen

Evans, Albert

McLeavy, Frank

Sylvester, George

Finch, Harold

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Symonds, J. B.

Fitch, Alan

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Fletcher, Eric

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

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

Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

Manuel, A. C.

Thornton, Ernest

Galpern, Sir Myer

Mapp, Charles

Thorpe, Jeremy

George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)

Marsh, Richard

Timmons, John

Ginsburg, David

Mason, Roy

Tomney, Frank

Gooch, E. G.

Mayhew, Christopher

Warbey, William

Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

Mendeison, J. J.

Watkins, Tudor

Gourlay, Harry

Millan, Bruce

Weitzman, David

Greenwood, Anthony

Milne, Edward J.

Wells, Percy (Faversham)

Grey, Charles

Mitchison, G. R.

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Monslow, Waiter

White, Mrs. Eirene

Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

Moody, A. S.

Whitlock, William

Grimond, J.

Morris, John

Wigg, George

Gunter, Ray

Mort, D. L.

Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A, B.

Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

Moyle, Arthur

Wilkins, W A.

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Mulley, Frederick

Willey, Frederick

Hannan, William

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Williams D. J. (Neath)

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

Williams, Ll. (Abertlliery)

Hayman, F. H.

Oliver, G. H.

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

Healey, Denis

Oram, A. E.

Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)

Oswald, Thomas

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

Herbison, Miss Margaret

Owen, Will

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Paget, R. T.

Winterbottom, R. E.

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hilton, A. V.

Parker, John

Woof, Robert

Holman, Percy

Parkin, B. T.

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Holt, Arthur

Paton, John

Houghton, Douglas

Pavitt, Laurence

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Mr. J. Taylor and

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Peart, Frederick

Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

Hoy, James H.

NOES

Agnew, Sir Peter

Batsford, Brian

Bossom, Clive

Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Boume-Arton, A.

Allason, James

Bell, Ronald

Box, Donald

Arbuthnot, John

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Aahton, Sir Hubert

Berkeley, Humphry

Braine, Bernard

Atkins, Humphrey

Biggs-Davison, John

Brewis, John

Balniel, Lord

Bingham, R. M.

Bromley-Davenport,Lt. Col. Sir Walter

Barber, Anthony

Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Barlow, Sir John

Bishop, F. P.

Brooman-White, R.

Barter, John

Black, Sir Cyril

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

486

487

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Bryan, Paul

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Noble, Michael

Buck, Antony

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

Nugent, Sir Richard

Bullard, Denys

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Hirst, Geoffrey

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Burden, F. A.

Hobson, John

Orr-Ewing, C. Ian

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Hocking, Philip N.

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast. S.)

Holland, Philip

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Hollingworth, John

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Cary, Sir Robert

Hopkins, Alan

Partridge, E.

Channon, H. P. G.

Hornby, R. P.

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Chataway, Christopher

Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Perclval, Ian

Chichester-Clark, R.

Howard, John (Southampton, Test)

Peyton, John

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

Pickthom, Sir Kenneth

Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pilkington, Sir Richard

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.)

Hulbert, Sir Norman

Pitman, Sir James

Cleaver, Leonard

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Pitt, Miss Edith

Code, Norman

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pott, Peroivall

Collard, Richard

Iremonger, T. L.

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Cooke, Robert

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Cooper, A. E.

James, David

Price, H. A, (Lewisham, W.)

Cooper-Key, Sir Nell)

Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

Prior, J. M. L.

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Jennings, J. C.

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Corfield, F. V.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Costain, A. P.

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Pym, Francis

Coulson, J. M.

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Joseph, Sir Keith

Ramsden, James

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

Rawlinson, Peter

Critchley, Julian

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

Kerr, Sir Hamilton

Rees, Hugh

Crowder, F. P.

Kershaw, Anthony

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Cunningham, Knox

Kirk, Peter

Renton, David

Curran, Charles

Kitson, Timothy

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Currie, G. B. H.

Lagden, Godfrey

Ridsdale, Julian

Dalkeith, Eari of

Lambton, Viscount

Rippon, Geoffrey

Dance, James

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool,S.)

de Ferranti, Basil

Langford-Holt, J.

Robson Brown, Sir William

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Leather, E. H. C.

Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

Doughty, Charles

Leavey, J. A.

Roots, William

Drayson, G. B.

Leburn, Gilmour

Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)

du Cann, Edward

Legg-Bourke, Sir Harry

Russell, Ronald

Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

Lilley, F. J. P.

St. Clair, M.

Eden, John

Lindsay, Martin

Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshafton)

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Scott-Hopkins, James

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

Litchfield, Capt. John

Sharpies, Richard

Emery, Peter

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

Shaw, M.

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

Shepherd, William

Farr, John

Longbottom, Charles

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Finlay, Graeme

Longden, Gilbert

Skeet, T. H. H.

Fisher, Nigel

Loveys, Walter H.

Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

Forrest, George

Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Foster, John

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

MacArthur, Ian

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

McLaren, Martin

Stevens, Geoffrey

Gammans, Lady

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Gardner, Edward

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Stodart, J. A.

George, J. C. (Poilok)

Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Gibson-Watt, David

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

Storey, Sir Samuel

Glover, Sir Douglas

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Studholme, Sir Henry

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

Talbot, John E.

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Tapsell, Peter

Godber, J. B.

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Goodhew, Victor

Maddan, Martin

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Maginnis, John E.

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

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Maitland, Sir John

Teeling, William

Green, Alan

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Temple, John M.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Marlowe, Anthony

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Grimston, Sir Robert

Marshall, Douglas

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.

Marten, Neil

Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

Gurden, Harold

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Matthews, Cordon (Meriden)

Thomton-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Hare, Rt. Hon. John

Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Turner, Colin

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Mawby, Ray

Turton, Rt, Hon. R. H.

Harris, Reader (Heston)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

Vane, W. M. F.

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Mills, Stratton

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Montgomery, Fergus

Vickers, Miss Joan

Hay, John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

Morgan, William

Waider, David

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Morrison, John

Walker, Peter

Hendry, Forbes

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Hicks Beach, Mal. W.

Nabarro, Gerald

Wall, Patrick

Hiley, Joseph

Neave, Airey

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

488

489

Webster, David

Wise, A. R.

Worsley, Marcus

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Yates, William (The Wrekln)

Whitelaw, William

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Woodhouse, C. M.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

Woodnutt, Mark

Mr. E. Wakefield and

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Woollam, John

Sir H. Harrison.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

FOREIGN COMPENSATION (MR. VON PREUSSEN)
10.7 p.m.
Mr. John Foster: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Order in Council, dated 26th June, 1961, entitled the Foreign Compensation (Poland) (Nationalisation Claims) (Amendment) Order, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 1196), a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th June, be annulled.
In November, 1954, an agreement was made between the Polish and British Governments providing for compensation for the property of British subjects in Poland which had been nationalised, and I believe that the fund now stands at between £2 million and £2½ million.
An Order in Council was made which provided that British subjects could claim before the Foreign Compensation Commission in respect of properties which had been nationalised.
A certain number of claims were put in, and the next thing that happened was that the House of Lords decided that the descendants of the Electress Sophia were British subjects. This meant that a number of German princes were held to be British subjects, and six German princes put in claims before the Foreign Compensation Commission, as also did Mr. Friedrich von Preussen. About eighteen months later an Order in Council was passed providing that the descendants of the Electress Sophia, in other words, those persons who were deemed to be British subjects under the decision of the House of Lords, should be excluded from making any claims on the fund.
This was quite natural, because it was obviously undesirable that persons in Germany should make a claim on this fund, which was meant to compensate British subjects. Mr. von Preussen had a claim before the Commission, and he is a descendant of the Electress Sohpia. So the position was that there were seven claims before the Commission, six by the German princes who claimed to be British subjects
490
under the decision of the House of Lords, and the claim of Mr. von Preussen.
An Order in Council was then passed providing that the descendants of the Electress Sophia were excluded from making any claim on the fund, so when the claims of the six German princes were made the legal officer of the Commission made an answer saying, "These are excluded by the Order in Council made in 1958." That Order in Council was a complete answer to their claims, and they abandoned them. It is noteworthy that Mr. von Preussen's claim was not met by this answer. The legal officer did not say, in answer to his claim, "You are excluded from claiming on the Commission because you are a descendant of the Electress Sophia."
Mr. Charles Loughlin: What if he had been a laundry worker?
Mr. Foster: The reason was that Mr. von Preussen had been naturalised, and he claimed by virtue of his naturalisation, and in the 1958 Order it had been provided that the persons excluded were persons who claimed only by virtue of the Act of Settlement. So obviously Mr. von Preussen had a claim, because he was not claiming only by virtue of the Act of Settlement but also by virtue of his naturalisation as a British subject in 1947.
From 1958 to 1961 he proceeded with the preparation of his claim. He spent large sums of money in establishing the value of his claim, obtaining legal advice, and in due course his claim came before the Commission. It was admitted, and he was awarded about £632,000, which, scaled down by dividend, will amount to between £30,000 and £50,000. The order of the Commission allowing his claim was made subject to review up or down, and for any legal point to be taken, rather like a decision of a judge of first instance, subject to appeal.
But before the appeal could be heard, which was fixed, I believe, for 18th July,

491
1961, the Commission wrote a letter to Mr. von Preussen in which it said:
"Gentlemen, Friedrich G. W. C. von Preussen. I am directed by the Foreign Compensation Commission to confirm the writer's telephone conversation of 3rd July, informing you of the coming into operation of two new Poland Amendment Orders."
I will miss out the next paragraph because it refers to debts. This is concerned with a claim.
"The Foreign Compensation (Poland) (Nationalisation Claims) (Amendment) Order, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 1196)"—
that is the one which is prayed against—
"amends paragraph 3 of Article 12 of the Foreign Compensation (Poland) (Nationalisation Claims) Order, 1956, as previously amended, by the insertion of the words: 'at any time' between the words: 'a British subject' and the words: 'before the date'.
In view of these Amendment Orders you may think that it will not be possible for the existing Provisional Determination in favour of your client to be confirmed. In these circumstances I am to inquire whether you still wish for an Oral Hearing on Review. The original date fixed for the Hearing on Review is cancelled so as to give you time to consider the position and if so advised, to consult Counsel. Leave is given you, if you so wish, to submit a written argument to support your client's claim, or if you still wish for an Oral Hearing on Review, a fresh date will be fixed some time in October."
The effect of that was to deprive him of his success before the Foreign Compensation Commission. The umpire changed the rules in the middle of the game. He had won his case. It was as if he had won in the county court and the Government had passed a law saying "You have not won, and you cannot go to appeal. We dare not risk you going to appeal, because you might win" If the House is interested in how it works, it is that they said that anybody who was a descendant of the Electress Sophia would be unable to claim, even though he were a British subject otherwise, if at any time he had been a British subject by virtue of the Act of Settlement.
I should have thought that this wording would deprive even persons who were born British subjects, any descendant of Queen Victoria or the Electress Sophia for that matter; anybody in England would have been deprived of their claim because they would have been a British subject under the Act of Settlement. But that really does not matter because the
492
only person in the world whom this Order in Council affects is Mr. von Preussen. He is the only one who was a descendant of the Electress Sophia and has been naturalised and who had a claim before the Commission. So the Government passed an Order in Council and the Commission writes to say, "I dare say that you do not want to have an appeal because a law has been passed depriving you of the fruits of your victory."
We must remember that he had put this claim forward at least by 1958; that the Commission and the Government, had they cared to look at the claims, would have known of his claim from 1958. He was allowed to go on preparing his claim about the amount to which he was entitled until 1961 when he succeeded before the Commission and got an award for £632,000 which, as I said, when scaled down, would be somewhere between £30,000 and £50,000. Then there was the oral hearing fixed for review for 18th July, and on 3rd July the Order in Council was brought into force against which we are praying.
The objection to this legislation is quite obvious. It is that it is discriminatory and retrospective. It is retrospective because it says, "at any time"—any time from the time of a person's birth, it is retrospective right back. It is discriminatory because the only person affected by this Order, in my submission, is Mr. von Preussen. I know that on both sides of the House there are hon. Members who have very strong feelings about retrospective legislation. I remember an hon. Member opposite making a speech in a critical debate on the Finance Bill. I know that on both sides of the House hon. Members object to retrospective legislation. When I add to that that this is retrospective to meet the successful claim of a particular person, I submit that it is something which ought to be rejected.
It has been suggested that the Government will maintain that this Order is to cure an error. It is suggested that Mr. von Preussen is one of the princes and therefore we have to correct an error, but in my submission that is not an answer, because here there has been no error. Mr. von Preussen is already a British subject by virtue of his naturalisation. It is perhaps permissible to cure a defect of legislation

493
when a person's rights are not affected, but when someone has already gained something as a vested right—and the fact that it is subject to review does not make any difference—to deprive him of something is quite wrong.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: Can the hon. and learned Member say whether this gentleman's litigation in order to establish his right to be a British subject had any other object than to enable him to claim compensation under these arrangements?
Hon. Members: He was naturalised.
Mr. Foster: The answer to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is that I do not think that Mr. von Preussen was the person who brought the action in the House of Lords. He was naturalised and I think it a tribute to the fact that he was anti-Nazi, which is shown by the fact that he was naturalised in 1947 when anyone of German nationality had to pass very rigorous tests to be naturalised under the Government of that day. We can be quite sure that anyone whose political point of view was not unexceptional would not have been naturalised.
This is not curing an error simpliciter. It may be that the Government never intended Mr. von Preussen to succeed in his claim, but he did succeed before the Commission and he has been deprived of it. It seems very wrong that legislation should be passed depriving a man of a successful claim which he has obtained in what is a judicial tribunal.
For those reasons, I move this Motion.
10.23 p.m.
Mr. Gilbert Longden: I need add very few words to those which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norrthwich (Mr. J. Foster) has given the House. I do so only as a result of an interjection by an hon. Member opposite.
It does not matter to me who the victim of this alleged miscarriage of justice is. I am totally uninterested both in his pedigree and in his bank balance. If he had been a laundry worker I should feel exactly as I do now about it. There appears to have been a miscarriage of justice and there appear to have been two things which I thought were
494
anathema to the party to which I belong, first, an interference by the Executive with the judiciary and, secondly, retrospective legislation.
I add those words to those of my hon. and learned Friend and beg the House to support this Motion.
10.25 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peter Thomas): I rise at this time because it may be convenient for the House and is probably the desire of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) that at the beginning of the debate I should put the Government's case. My hon. and learned Friend has given a very fair summary of the background to this Order. Perhaps I may be permitted to repeat much of what he said, with certain embellishments which possibly put the case in a slightly different category.
In 1954, as he said, a financial agreement was signed by Her Majesty's Government and the Polish Government which provided, among other things, for the payment of £2,665,000 in full and final settlement of claims in respect of British property in Poland which had been nationalised. An Order in Council was made in April, 1956, providing for the assessment and payment of these claims by the Foreign Compensation Commission out of this fund. The money is being paid by instalments.
Before negotiating this agreement Her Majesty's Government had, of course, tried to obtain the most complete information about the amount and value of British property which had been affected. They realised, of course, that almost inevitably there would be a certain number of claims of which they knew nothing, and account was taken of this. What they did not know, and accordingly neither did nor could make any provision for, was that a large number of members of German princely Houses were, as living Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, British subjects by virtue of an Act of 1705. They did not know this because it was not until several years later, on 5th December, 1956, that this was established by the House of Lords in the case of Prince Ernst Augustus of Hanover.

495
All these persons suddenly became potentially eligible to share in this compensation. There were about 400 in number, and before the closing date for the filing of claims on 24th April, 1957, nine—I think this is the correct number—had submitted claims to the Foreign Compensation Commission. The value of the property involved was not given, but from its nature it was clear that it would be many millions of pounds.
I am sure the House will agree that it was obviously unjust that these people, on behalf of whom Her Majesty's Government had not negotiated and indeed could not have negotiated, and for whom they had received no compensation, should now be allowed to participate in the small fund available. If they participated, they would do so at the expense of the other claimants, many of them small claimants, for whom the compensation had been received and who in any event could expect to retrieve only a small percentage of their losses. I think that it has been agreed by my hon. and learned Friend, and that the House will agree, that it is right and just that this category of persons should be excluded.
Mr. Ronald Bell: My hon. Friend said the Government could not have known of the existence of these people. The Act of 1705 was not a little private Act. It was the Act of Settlement, which was fairly common knowledge.
Mr. Thomas: I suggest that at some time my hon. Friend should read the very interesting judgment of the House of Lords in the case. He will find, I think, that there was a decision by a majority in the House of Lords and a decision by a majority in the Court of Appeal, and that the only time when there was unanimity was in the court of first instance. I think that he will find that it is an extremely complicated case. Certainly the Government did not anticipate the decision which was made in this case.
In any event, I think that it will be agreed by the House that it would not be right for these people to be included. There was considerable outcry at even the possibility of their participation in this fund. The matter was raised in this House, there were letters in the
496
Press and there were representations by organised bodies of the claimants. Accordingly, in April, 1958, an amending Order was made and duly laid before this House with the intention of excluding from participation any person who, to establish a claim, had to rely on British nationality acquired by virtue of the Act of 1705.
If the House will bear with me, these are the words of this particular Order. They excluded
"… an individual who was a British subject before the date of the commencement of the British Nationality Act, 1948, only by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1705."
Those words "only by virtue", were words which, of course, subsequently became of great importance in the case of Mr. von Preussen, or Prince Frederick of Prussia as he is sometimes known—
Mr. Michael Foot: He is the Wedgwood Benn of Eastern Europe.
Mr. Thomas: I think that it is right to say that no one, even the persons affected, has ever questioned the justice of that Order and, as my hon. and learned Friend said, none of the claimants pursued their claims except Mr. von Preussen. But he was—and I should like to emphasise this—in a different position from the others in that he had applied for British naturalisation and had been granted an ordinary certificate of naturalisation on 27th October, 1947. Up to then, of course, he was regarded—and, indeed, regarded himself—as an alien.
Obviously, no claim of his was discussed during the negotiations leading to the agreement. Nevertheless, if he were able to establish that the grant of the certificate of naturalisation had been effective to give him British nationality and, further, to establish that his property had been taken after the grant of the certificate, he would have come within a category of persons for whom Her Majesty's Government had negotiated, and he would have been eligible to establish a claim without in any way relying on the Act of 1705. Had he succeeded in doing this, nothing would have been done to deprive him of his success. He obviously had to be given an opportunity of doing this, and the only way in which it could be done was

497
by having his claim determined by the Foreign Compensation Commission.
The Commission provisionally determined that he received British nationality by the grant of the certificate of naturalisation in 1947, but that his property had been taken in 1946, before the grant of the certificate. He did not, therefore, fall into any of the categories of British subject for whom Her Majesty's Government had negotiated or received compensation. Nevertheless, the Commssion also provisionally determined that, by reason of the grant to him of a certificate of naturalisation in 1947, he was, before the date of the British Nationality Act, 1948, a British subject not only by virtue of the Act of 1705, and he was therefore eligible to apply.
This produced a situation which quite clearly the amending Order had not, and indeed in my view could not, have contemplated. He was not eligible to claim under his naturalisation certificate because his property had been seized before that date. But since, by virtue of the Act of 1705, he was British in 1946, he was technically eligible. In other words, his eligibility depended on the very factor that was intended should exclude him. What was intended to be a disqualification enabled him, provisionally, to succeed. It was in these circumstances that the present Order was made.
Perhaps I may now deal quite shortly—because I do not want to keep the House—with the matters referred to by my hon. and learned Friend. The objections that he puts to this Order were certainly twofold and, may be, threefold. He said that it was discriminatory, that it was retrospective, and I think that the general content of his speech was that the Order was in every way unjust. Perhaps I could just briefly refer to some of those matters.
When he was talking about retrospection, he said that it was a deprivation, I think, of a vested right. I think there is a misconception here. The charge that it is retrospective and is a deprivation of a vested right appears to be based on the misunderstanding that Mr. von Preussen had obtained a final decision on his claim which, but for this Order, would automatically have resulted in his receiving payment of compensation. This is not so. There had
498
been a provisional determination only of his case which, by the Rules of the Commission, had to be reviewed before it could become final. I disagree with my hon. and learned Friend when he gives as a simile the example of a person winning his case in the court of first instance and being deprived of his right of appeal. It is not. He has not won his case in the court of first instance before going on to appeal. It is a review of the case for ultimate determination in November. That review has not even yet taken place.
It is possible, to put it no higher, that even if this Order had never been made, the Commission upon review would have reversed its provisional determination and rejected the claim. It is known that some claimants have sought to oppose it at the review, which is to take place on 7th November, 1961.
I submit that it cannot, therefore, be properly said that Prince Frederick has been retrospectively deprived of the fruits of a success which he had already achieved. The provisional determination is in reality no more than an indication of what the final determination may be. The provisional determination in this case was clearly contrary to the clear intention of the Order of 1958. The Order of 1961 was therefore made to ensure that this intention should prevail when the claim came up for review; and that is why it was made before and not after the claim had succeeded.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Would my hon. Friend deal with these two matters? First, why was this applicant allowed to go on with his case in the years 1959 and 1960, when it first became apparent that this position would arise? Secondly, if one is coming possibly to a compromise, are Her Majesty's Government willing to pay him the costs arising from what must admittedly be their own negligence? Will they make some offer of that kind ex gratia, which might affect the minds of some hon. Members here?
Mr. Thomas: I am sorry that I did not make myself clear to my hon. Friend. I think I said that if, in fact. Mr. von Preussen had been able to prove, first, the effectiveness of his certificate of naturalisation, and, in

499
addition, that his property had been seized after he received that certificate, then he would have been able to claim outside his claim under the 1705 Act. That is, in fact, why he went on, because he was in a different position from all the other people who were claiming solely by virtue of their nationality under the 1705 Act. As to the question of costs, I will certainly deal with that before I resume my seat.
On the question of discrimination, which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend, I will admit that in one sense the word "discriminatory" can be applied to this Order, but it can be applied equally to any form of legislation which, by laying down criteria of eligibility, necessarily excludes and so discriminates against those who cannot satisfy them. As I have already said, no one has questioned the justice of excluding from a share in this compensation persons for whom it was not obtained.
This Order does no more than ensure that this just exclusion is effective in all cases and that a technicality is not allowed to add a further injustice to the injustice which the 1958 Order was intended to prevent—the further injustice of allowing the disqualification to operate in all cases except one, and that is the case of Mr. von Preussen. I would suggest that if that were so, that would indeed be discriminatory in a sense that deserves condemnation.
As to the injustice referred to and the question of costs raised by my hon. and learned Friend, I cannot agree that there has been any injustice in allowing Mr. von Preussen to incur costs in obtaining a provisional determination before making a further Order. I tried to explain exactly how he might have succeeded and would have been supported if he had succeeded in the first place. He must, from the making of the 1958 Order, have been fully aware that it was not intended to allow anyone to establish a claim if to do so he had to rely on British nationality acquired by virtue of the Act of 1705.
If anyone had deliberately tried to defeat this clear intention by a technicality and had incurred costs in doing so, he would deserve no sympathy if he were left to bear them. But this was
500
not so in Prince Frederick's case. As I have already explained, if he had been able to prove the effectiveness of his naturalisation certificate and the fact that his property was seized after the certificate, it is possible that he might have been able to establish a claim quite independently of the Act of 1705. It would indeed have been an injustice to have deprived him of that chance by making an Order excluding him before the Commission had had an opportunity of giving a provisional determination on that issue.
Nevertheless, I agree that it is hard that he should have to bear the full cost of clarifying the position, as, indeed, the clarification of the position has been helpful to us. I should like to assure the House that we have great sympathy for Mr. von Preussen in the special circumstances.
Mr. J. Grimond: I want to ask the hon. Gentleman two questions of fact. Firstly, do I understand from the Minister's statement that had Mr. von Preussen—if that is his name—been effectively naturalised before his property was nationalised, the Government would have paid in spite of the fact that they say that it is not intended for this class of person at all? Secondly, can the hon. Gentleman explain how the Commission ever found in his favour? If he was debarred because his property was nationalised before his naturalisation was effected and if he was debarred because of the Order, how did the Commission ever come to find in his favour?
Mr. Thomas: I can quite understand why the hon. Gentleman might find this difficult. It is extremely complicated, but I will try to put it as simply as I can. It is not a simple matter. First, Prince Frederick applied for his naturalisation certificate. It was granted in 1947. Up to then he had thought that he was an alien. He had no idea that he was British. Then, some time later, the House of Lords determined that certain people were British by virtue of the Act of 1705. Therefore, he then found that under the 1705 Act he was British ever since he was born. It may well be that his naturalisation certificate then became null and void. But that point was not taken. It is a very important point.

501
The Commission found that Prince Frederick did not come within the Order which excluded all the descendants of Princess Sophia because of the words which I mentioned, which were:
"Only by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1705."
Therefore, the Commission found that he was a British subject at the time that his property was taken and was a British subject under the Act of 1705. Therefore, the very fact that disqualified him, being a British subject under the Act of 1705, according to the determination of the Commission meant that he was eligible to succeed, and that, I suggest, is a matter which obviously has to be put right, and is being put right in this Order. Before the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) intervened I was mentioning the subject of costs.
Mr. John Hobson: This may all be relevant, but why did the Government try to put it forward before the provisional review is determined by the Commission? Why could not the Commission determine it instead of this House?
Mr. Thomas: I have already dealt with that. I said that it is necessary to make it perfectly clear what was the intention of that 1958 Order.
If I may now come to the question of costs. As I said, in the circumstances and as an exceptional measure, the Government have made an offer and, I suggest, a very generous offer, to contribute to the costs which Mr. von Preussen incurred up to the provisional determination. I am sure that he will consider this matter very carefully.
I must make it clear that the fund made available by the Polish Government under the 1954 Agreement was not intended either by the Polish Government or by Her Majesty's Government for the benefit of those whom they regarded as possessing German nationality at the material dates. It would be a breach of faith to those for whom the fund was negotiated and among whom it was intended to be distributed to allow others to participate in it.
We think it is our duty to put this matter right and that is the reason that this present Order was made. I hope,
502
on reflection, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northwich will see his way to withdrawing his Prayer.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. G. R. Mitchison: What this Order purports to do is to put in the words
"at any time"
before the words
"before the date"
and the date is the date of the British Nationality Act, 1948. The rest of the sentence, as the hon. Gentleman explained, is "any person who is a British subject" solely by virtue of the Act of Anne. All I am asking is, what difference does this Order make?
Mr. Thomas: I thought that my hon. and learned Friend had clearly explained to the House the meaning. I am surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) does not understand it. It makes the difference that there is one claimant and one claimant only who would be affected by this Amendment—and that is Mr. von Preussen. In fact, if other people were allowed to put their claims forward I agree that there might be a real injustice because many people in this country were British citizens for many years, probably for years before the war, but it may be that at one time they may have been British citizens by virtue of the 1705 Act.
Mr. Mitchison: I am not talking about that. I am asking what difference it makes. What is the result of putting in these words? I should have thought that they made no difference whatever.
Mr. Thomas: I will try, if I can, to explain. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member for Kettering has the 1958 Order before him. He will see that the 1958 Order excluded individuals who were British subjects before the date of the commencement of the British Nationality Act only by virtue of the 1705 Act.
The determination of the Commission was that Mr. von Preussen was a British subject not only by virtue of the 1705 Act, but also by Certificate of Naturalisation. This Amendment, inserting the words "at any time" means

503
that anyone was excluded who at any time before the date of the commencement of the Nationality Act of 1948 was a British subject only under the provisions of the Act of 1705.
Mr. Eric Fletcher: To enable the House to reach a decision on the merits of the matter, could the Minister say whether it is correct as stated in The Times today, that Prince Frederick reacquired German nationality as a German subject in 1953?
Mr. Thomas: Yes; I believe that is right, but I am not absolutely certain about it.
Mr. David James: Will my hon. Friend answer what I believe is the crucial question, asked by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)? Had Prince Frederick been naturalised in 1945, prior to the nationalisation of his land, would his claim stand or not? I believe that the whole thing hangs on that.
Mr. Thomas: Yes. I would say that his claim would stand. Under this Order it would not, but if he had been naturalised in 1945 he would have succeeded on a different point before the Commission.
Mr. Loughlin: Would the Joint Under-Secretary clarify one point for me? Do I understand him to say that at the time that the agreement between the British Government and the Polish Government was made Prince Frederick was a German subject and considered himself to be a German subject at that time?
10.50 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I rise simply because the Joint Under-Secretary has so muddled the issue that I want to see if we can straighten it out a little. I must straight away declare an interest. I am one of the keenest supporters of the Hanoverian succession. The great advantage of the Hanoverian kings was that the first half a dozen of them could speak no English. It was because of that defect that our system of Parliament flourished, the Cabinet system flourished, and the power of the Executive grew. I believe that when King George II was told at Richmond that his father had died he turned over and said, "That is one big lie"!
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going beyond the Prayer.
Mr. Thorpe: I will now get in order and say this. If it be correct that British citizenship pursuant to the Act of 1705 is of no effect for the purposes of claiming on the Polish compensation fund—I understand that that is the position as a result of the Order in Council passed in April, 1958—we fall back on the question of naturalisation. That in itself is sufficient for the purposes of a claim, providing that the person was naturalised at the operative date, the operative date being the date when the Agreement was made with the Polish authorities.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon)The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon) indicated dissent.
Mr. Thorpe: The Solicitor-General shakes his head. Is it not correct that that date was 8th March, 1946?
The Solicitor-General: I shook my head because that is the relevant date under the Order. It is the relevant date, because that was the date of nationalisation.
Mr. Thorpe: If that be correct, the next question is this. Was the person in question naturalised for the purpose of claiming compensation for the nationalisation on the relevant date, which was 8th March, 1946?
Mr. J. Foster: The Agreement was in 1954.
Mr. Thorpe: The Agreement was subsequently signed in 1954; the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) is correct. But the relevant date, the date upon which Prince Frederick became a British subject, either by birth or by naturalisation, was 8th March, 1946. I think that is correct.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: It depends upon the date.
Mr. Thorpe: Of course it does. As I understand, the person in question—Prince Frederick—received his naturalisation papers on only 2nd October, 1947. Therefore, he was not a naturalised British subject at the relevant date. If that be so, why was the Commission prepared to entertain his claim? Is it sug-

505
gested by the Government that the Commission was wrong in law in suiting somebody who had no status and, therefore, had no right to be suited?
Do they suggest that this amendment is to be introduced so that the Executive may remedy an alleged defect on the part of the judiciary? Is that the position? If so, it seems to me to be a very dangerous doctrine. Or are they saying, "No. In fact, it was correct, and this person was entitled to have his claim heard because he qualified according to the Commission's view, but, since his valid qualification was not in the mind of the Government when they were negotiating the global sum, they did not claim, and, therefore, according to the Government, they must make up for that deficiency on their part by protecting other persons so that they will not suffer from the negligence of which they, the Government, are guilty"? If the latter, that, again, seems to be a very dangerous precedent.
Either the claimant has a claim in law—and he cannot have a claim unless he was a naturalised citizen at the relevant date, which was 8th March, 1946—or he has no claim in law by reason of the fact that he was not naturalised at the operative date. It is one or the other. If the Commission has been wrong in law, it is a question of legal process and remedy, not of the intervention of the Executive. If, on the other hand, the Commission was right in law, but it is a political inconvenience which now faces Her Majesty's Government, then, again, it is a very serious intervention on the part of the Executive. In either case, I suggest to the House that this is not the way to remedy either an alleged legal defect or a political oversight on the part of the Government.
I submit to the House that this Order sets an extremely dangerous precedent. It is admitted by the hon. Gentleman that it can possibly cover only one person, and it seems to me that that in itself is a highly dangerous precedent for any Government to introduce. Thereforce, unless the Solicitor-General, if he is to reply, can satisfy us that there are reasons for introducing this Order apart from remedying an alleged legal defect of protecting the Government from an alleged act of political negligence—unless there be a third and better explanation—we should pray against this Order.
10.58 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I propose to be brief. I recognise that those words may strike a slightly ominous note because my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State started with similar words and, in the event, regaled us with a very long speech of which, unfortunately, the persuasive effect seemed to be in inverse ratio to its length.
I have two interests in this matter, a general and a particular interest. The general interest is one which I share with every hon. Member, that is, a concern that the legislative processes for which we all jointly and severally are responsible are not abused, and abused they certainly would be if any form of legislation, be it Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument, which, after all, has the force of an Act of Parliament, were directed either in its purpose or in its effect against a specific individual or had the effect of depriving that individual of something to which the law says he is entitled or may say he is entitled or may be in process of saying that he is entitled. That is a general interest which we all share, and it is of itself quite enough to engage the attention of any hon. Member whether he has any other interest or not.
The particular interest I have in this case is that the gentleman against whom the Statutory Instrument appears to be specifically and discriminatorily directed is a constituent of mine. He has lived for a long time in East Hertfordshire. He is deservedly popular and held in high regard by the community among whom he lives.
It may well be said that his quality and attributes do not give him title to any special consideration, and of course they do not and nobody suggests it, but I suggest that they might afford him some special protection, if protection be needed, against his being singled out for discriminatory treatment. Of course, protection of that sort ought not to be required. No person living in this country should need any more protection than that afforded to every citizen by the fact that here it is our pride and tradition to live according to the law and by the rule of law. I think that it is clear from

507
what has been said in this case that there is here a departure from those principles.
The House should be quite clear what is our function in this matter. Our function, of course, is not to determine the issue of a specific individual claim. The House of Commons does not do that. It is concerned with the general principle of the application of the law. Specific questions such as that are reserved for the courts, or such other quasi-judicial process as may be set up, as in this case.
But if the House of Commons is not concerned with the individual case, how much less are Her Majesty's Government concerned with individual cases? Her Majesty's Government must not usurp the jurisdiction of the courts and impose their decision upon them. That, surely, is flying in the face of the whole of our constitutional and traditional practices in this country.
We are not, therefore, concerned with the legal complications as to whether my constituent has made out his case or not. We are not the forum in which that is decided. There is a procedure prescribed and it is quite clear—the one thing which emerged clearly from my hon. Friend's speech was this—that my constituent has claim, a right to claim, under Article 7 of the Regulations of 1956. That is beyond dispute.
What follows from that is that his claim then takes its proper course and is adjudicated upon by the Commission set up for that purpose. That Commission has used its jurisdiction and has been seized of this matter and has made it provisional award.
Perhaps whoever is to reply for the Government will answer quite specifically whether the Government think that my constituent has a good case, or that he has a bad case. If they feel that he has a good case, why do they want to deprive him of his claim? If they think he has a bad case, why do they not let the law take the course and review, which, my hon. Friend said, was still awaited? Let us have an answer to that question so that we may see why it is that it has been necessary to take this course.
I promised not to be long and I shall adhere to that promise. Let me, therefore, conclude by saying that it is
508
apparent that in this case the Government have usurped a jurisdiction which does not belong to them in interfering in a matter which is taking its proper course through the appropriate judicial or quasi-judicial processes. It is also quite clear that they have offended against the constitutional principle in bringing forward a Statutory Instrument directed specifically and discriminatorily against one particular individual, and also taking away from him a right which the law may be in process of giving to him.
I am sure that, if it is true to its traditions, the House of Commons will agree that it is unworthy of the Government to propose such a measure. It would be unworthy of the House of Commons to endorse this Order, and I ask my right hon. Friends to take it back.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: It is with some diffidence that I come to the assistance of the Government against the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). I do not think that they require my assistance, and it is an unaccustomed situation for me.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that this is the House of Commons and not the House of Lords. We are not here to determine individual rights in litigated cases. That is not our business. I thought that having made that point so effectively the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a little inconsistent in then calling upon the Government to say whether they thought this gentleman had a good case or a bad case.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either we are not concerned with that question, or we are. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was right when he said that we were not, and I think that he was wrong to ask the Government to usurp the function of the courts, because he was explaining exactly why we should not do that.
If we are not concerned with that, with what are we concerned? We are concerned with the natural justice of the case. If it could be shown that this Order was in conflict with natural justice, I would join with other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in opposing it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says

509
that it is against natural justice because it is discriminatory, because it is directed against some individual person, and because that individual person has vested rights which this Order may undermine. I think that it is established that he has no vested rights in the first place.
I say by way of an aside that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to me to be mistaken in claiming that this gentleman is a constituent of his. I do not see how a German subject can be a constituent of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He is a German subject now. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has been naturalised."] My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) referred to Mr. Wedgwood Benn. I hope that we are not heading for another electoral inquiry which would unseat the right hon. and learned Gentleman for having been elected by German subjects.
What is the natural justice of the case? The Government succeeded in negotiating with the Polish Government a limited, narrow, and probably inadequate scheme of compensation. When they negotiated it, they had in mind that the Polish Government had nationalised certain property belonging to British subjects, and they negotiated a figure having that in mind, and meaning to protect British subjects from that expropriation, to which the Polish Government agreed, and the compensation was the result.
At that time this gentleman did not regard himself as a British subject. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] At that time he did not. At the time when the agreement was negotiated he did not regard himself as a British subject. Until a decision was made in another case in the House of Lords, it never occurred to him that he was a British subject.
Mr. Peter Kirk: Von Preussen was naturalised a British subject in 1947. The decision in the House of Lords was made in 1956, nine years later. The negotiation took place in 1954, seven years after he was naturalised a British subject.
Mr. Silverman: At the relevant time the property was expropriated, and in respect of which this agreement was being made, this gentleman did not regard himself as a British subject. He never re-
510
garded himself as a British subject at all. It was because he did not regard himself as a British subject that he applied to be naturalised.
Mr. Kirk: That has nothing to do with the case.
Mr. Silverman: It was only after that that it was determined by a decision in the House of Lords that he had been a British subject all the time. He did not know it. The Government did not know it. The Polish Government did not know it. Nobody knew it.
In those circumstances, I find it difficult to understand what validity the naturalisation certificate has, because after the decision in the House of Lords it was clear that the man had been, much to his surprise, a British subject the whole time. We cannot naturalise British subjects; they do not need it. A certificate of naturalisation granted to a British subject has no validity at all. In those circumstances I am amazed that the Compensation Commission ever made a provisional award in his favour.
Never mind; it did, and now the suggestion is made that a great injustice is being done because the people who are to get only limited compensation in any case are to be protected from having that limited and inadequate compensation reduced in order to pay a large sum to somebody who never thought that he was entitled to it until the House of Lords decided that he was.
Mr. J. Foster: I believe that the hon. Member said that if Mr. von Preussen had a right he would oppose the Order in Council. Does not he think that Mr. von Preussen, when the Order in Council was passed, had a right to have his provisional claim reviewed by the Commission?
Mr. Silverman: He is having it reviewed by the Commission. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The ultimate one—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I expressed myself badly. I believe that what the hon. and learned Gentleman is asking me is this: having got a provisional award in his favour, and being therefore entitled to have the provisional award reviewed, ought his right to have it reviewed to be removed from him by administrative action? That is the whole question that we are deciding, and to decide it we have to look at what the

511
results will be—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] If we are thinking about natural justice we have to look at what the results of what we propose to do will be. I do not think that there is anything objectionable in that statement.
If we could go back to the Polish Government and negotiate a special award in his favour it might be a completely different matter, but if I am called upon to say whether the Order is right or wrong I shall do what the right hon. and learned Gentleman invited me to do, look not only at the individual case but at the global effect of our doing one thing or the other.
I say that if the result of annulling this Order is to enable this gentleman to obtain, out of a limited compensation fund and at the expense of a number of people poorer than himself, a very large sum of money, it is ludicrous to say that it would be in accordance with natural justice. Of course it would not. This gentleman was a British subject for perhaps five or six years—[HON. MEMBERS: "He still is."] No; he is a German subject now. [HON. MEMBERS: "He is both."] My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) asked the Minister whether it is true that this man had now reacquired German nationality, and the answer was, "Yes". So we are asked to deprive British subjects of very limited and inadequate compensation in order to give something to a man who has been a British subject for four or five years—
Mr. John Rodgers: Mr. von Preussen enjoys dual nationality. He is still a British subject, but he is also a German citizen.
Mr. Silverman: I do not know why the hon. Member interrupted me to say that. A man who enjoys dual nationality enjoys two nationalities. The two nationalities in this case are British and German.
Therefore, what is wrong with my statement that this man is now a German citizen? I see no reason why a man who sustained half a British nationality for four or five years, and I am not prepared to regard it as sustained, should deprive other people of part of a limited award in order that a large sum should be paid
512
to him when he was not in contemplation at the time—
Mr. Grant-Ferris: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that Mr. von Preussen is a constituent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)? He has denied that he was and suggested that my right hon. and learned Friend might become unseated through his vote.
Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman may think that of some importance. From my point of view, if the gentleman voted for the Prime Minister in this country and for Dr. Adenaeur in West Germany it would not increase his claim to my personal support.
I should have thought that having regard to the purpose for which the fund came into existence, and the number and the category of persons for whose benefit it came into existence, it would be preposterous to allow this gentleman to benefit from it.
10.17 p.m.
The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): This House is traditionally and rightly solicitous of the acquired rights of any citizen. It is also equally anxious that other people should not be unjustly prejudiced in the claims which they are enabled to put forward with the approbation of this House.
From the debate it is clear that there are two issues. One has been principally canvassed, but the other has also been raised. The first is, is this Order which is prayed against just in principle, and, secondly, has Mr. von Preussen suffered any particular injustice by the way matters have fallen out; and if he has, is the proper way to meet it to allow him to share in a limited fund in which no one has contended he was intended to share, or is he properly compensated by a generous contribution towards his costs?
I turn to the main subject in which the House is obviously interested. Is the Order, in principle, just? The first thing which I think has been clearly recognised is that in so far as Mr. von Preussen succeeds in his claim it must be at the expense of others for whom this limited fund—out of which a limited

513
dividend, a very limited dividend only of the claims can be met—was intended. It was certainly never the intention of the British or the Polish Government that anyone in the position of Mr. von Preussen, or any of the other German princes should share in the fund. I am told that that was made perfectly plain throughout the negotiations.
May I, then, look at the dates, because they are rather important. The date of the nationalisation was very close to the one given by the hon. Gentleman opposite, it was 10th April, 1946. That is the relevant date for the purpose of these Orders, and it is the relevant date, also, for the purpose of the agreement with the Polish Government; and the property had to belong to a person who was a British subject on the relevant date. In other words, in 1946. On that date neither Mr. von Preussen nor any of the German princes were British subjects, except by virtue of the Act of 1705, which was the ground for exclusion in the 1958 Order. It was not until 27th October, 1947, that Mr. von Preussen received his certificate of naturalisation.
I ought to make the matter quite plain. He is a dual national. He is a British subject, and indeed, by the decision of the House of Lords he has been a British subject from his birth. I understand—I know only what I have read, but my hon. Friend said what he believed to be right—that Mr. von Preussen is also a German subject, but he is unquestionably a British subject. However, that was not known in 1946, it was not known in 1947, or, of course, he would not have been given a certificate of naturalisation.
It was not known until 5th December, 1956, when, in the case of the Attorney-General against Prince Ernst Augustus of Hanover it was declared that he and some 400 other descendants of the Electress Sophia were British subjects. It is perfectly plain that although those 400 people, including Mr. von Preussen, were then declared to have been British subjects all their lives, none of them had any sort of moral claim on the fund which had been negotiated by the British Government. It would have been manifestly unjust to the other claimants, for whom this sum was negotiated, to have admitted their claim.
514
Nevertheless, on 12th April, 1957, twelve days before the closing date for claims, nine descendants, as I am told, of the Electress Sophia put in claims. They included Mr. von Preussen. So clearly unjust would it have been to have admitted those claims that there was strong pressure both in the public Press and in this House to exclude them; and it was in those circumstances that, amid general approbation, the 1958 Order was made on 3rd April, 1958—nearly a year after the claims had been submitted to the tribunal, nearly a year after all these princes had gone to the tribunal to submit their claims and asking to have them arbitrated upon.
No one objected that that was retrospective, although, of course, it was just as retrospective as the present case. No one objected that it was discriminatory, although it was just as discriminatory as the present one, unless one can argue that it is more discriminatory to discriminate against one than against nine, which I do not imagine anyone would put forward. No one objected that it was unjust, because it was clearly just. None of these people were people for whom this sum had been negotiated nor would their claims for a moment have been countenanced by the Polish Government.
The other princes withdrew their claims. Prince Frederick continued because he had two points. The first was that the date of nationalisation was after he became a British subject by naturalisation. I was asked what would have happened if he had been naturalised before his property was taken. The answer is that if he had been naturalised before his property was taken in 1946 this Order would not have been made and would never have been submitted to the House because he would have been within the category for which we negotiated—
Mr. J. Foster Mr. J. Foster rose—
The Solicitor-General: I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will excuse me, because I have very little time.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Foster: If a review commission finds that the property was nationalised after his naturalisation, this Order excludes him.
The Solicitor-General: That is true. As I said, the first point is that the property was nationalised before the date of his naturalisation, and of course it is on that that his principal costs have been incurred—the costs of discovering what the position was in Poland. But the provisional adjudication of the tribunal on this was that the date of nationalisation was a year before he was naturalised.
Mr. Foster: Suppose that the review says that that is not true.
The Solicitor-General: The review may say that it is not true, but as far as I know it is not now seriously contended that his property was nationalised after the date. There is a definition in the agreement as to what is the relevant date.
Secondly, he put forward an argument that he was a British subject not only by virtue of the 1705 Act but also by virtue of his certificate of naturalisation. On 9th February this year there was a provisional determination against his first contention but in favour of his second; and I think that the House will agree that, whatever else one may say, he succeeded on the purest technicality. That is subject to review, and other claimants are taking the point which was put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that since he was a British subject from his birth, the certificate of naturalisation was a nullity. I suppose that any lawyer, and indeed others, in the House, would say that there is a good deal to be said for that contention.
I do not think that it is right for me to answer the point which was put by my right hon. and learned Friend and to give my own views on that, because
it is a matter on which the tribunal will adjudicate. The review on that point would still be open if he continued. I say that advisedly, because the indications which we have been given are that he intends to continue despite this Order. He has a point which he feels that he can argue, and therefore my observation was not a wild observation—
Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Sheer prejudice. My right hon. and learned Friend should be ashamed of himself.
The Solicitor-General: I am giving my hon. Friend and the House some facts. He should not be excited merely because I present him with some facts. The point about the review is that there is no appeal; it is final. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).
It is not a question of interfering with a legal process or a legal remedy. If the review upholds this claim, there is an immediate payment out to the claimant here, Mr. von. Preussen; and that would be manifestly unfair to other claimants and also unjust to the other German princes who have been excluded. They, equally, were not naturalised in 1946. It is not true, as my hon. and learned Friend put it, that the umpire is changing the rules in the middle of the game. This is not a game. This is a matter in which a great many British subjects in quite humble circumstances have valid claims which ought to be met. I therefore ask the House to approve the Order.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 100.

Division No. 267.

AYES

[11.30 p.m.

Agnew, Sir Peter

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

Hirst, Geoffrey

Talbot, John E.

Berkeley, Humphry

Hobson, John

Tapsell, Peter

Biggs-Davison, John

Holt, Arthur

Teeling, William

Black, Sir Cyril

Iremonger, T. L.

Thornon-Kemsley, Sir Colin

Cooke, Robert

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Thorpe, Jeremy

Courtney, Cdr. Anthony

Kirk, Peter

Turner, Colin

du Cann, Edward

Kitson, Timothy

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

Fisher, Nigel

Longden, Gilbert

Webster, David

Foster, John

McLaren, Martin

Goodhew, Victor

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Mr. J. Rodgers and Mr. Channen.

Grimond, J.

Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

NOES

Allason, James

Bossom, Clive

Box, Donald

Barter, John

Bourne-Arton, A.

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Bingham, R. M.

Bowles, Frank

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Holland, Philip

Prior, J. M. L.

Buck, Antony

Hopkins, Alan

Pym, Francis

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Hornby, R. P.

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Chataway, Christopher

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

Rawlinson, Peter

Chichester-Clark, R.

Hughes-Young, Michael

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)

James, David

Rees, Hugh

Cleaver, Leonard

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Collaret, Richard

Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

Rippon, Geoffrey

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Kershaw, Anthony

Roots, William

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Litchfield, Capt, John

Russell, Ronald

Cunningham, Knox

Longbottom, Charles

St. Clair, M.

Curran, Charles

Loughlin, Charles

Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

Drayson, G. B.

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Smith, Dudfey(Br'ntf'rd & Chiswiek)

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

McInnes, James

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Emery, Peter

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Storehouse, John

Farr, John

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

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Fletcher, Eric

Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Walder, David

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Marten, Neil

Wall, Patrick

Gammans, Lady

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Whitelaw, William

Gibson-Watt, David

Montgomery, Fergus

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Godber, J. B.

Morrison, John

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Green, Alan

Noble, Michael

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Gresham Cooke, R.

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Woodnutt, Mark

Hannan, William

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hiley, Joseph

Percival, Ian

Mr. E. Wakefield and Mr. Finlay.

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

Pitt, Miss Edith

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

RAILWAYS (DUNTON GREEN-WESTERHAM LINE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Sir H. Harrison.]
11.39 p.m.
Mr. John Rodgers: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for detaining him at this late hour, especially after the strenuous time that we have already had, and I hope that he will forgive me if I trace briefly the short history of the proposed closing of a railway line in my constituency, the Dunton Green-Westerham line.
In March, 1960, a notice was posted in the Westerham, Brasted and Dunton Green stations giving details of the proposed closure of this line and giving particulars of where protests should be addressed. Subsequently, appeals were made to the London Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee. There was a hearing in July, 1960, at which my constituents were represented by counsel, and also at that hearing were representatives of the Kent County Council, the Sevenoaks R.D.C. and the parish councils.
This consultative committee recommended that the line should be closed, and this recommendation was passed to the Central Transport Users' Consulta-
518
tive Committee. This Committee, however, referred the matter back to the area committee on the ground that it came to its decision having had access to further information and the Transport Commission to which the objectors had not had access.
The London area committee heard the case again in February, 1961, and, again, my constituents were represented by counsel. This time the area committee recommended to the Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee that the line should now be kept open. The Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee examined the position most carefully and studied all relevant documents and recommended on 9th May that the line should be kept open on social grounds, though it recognised that a small loss would be incurred whatever modernisation or improvements were carried out. The committee, however, expressed the view that the present loss could by modernisation be very considerably reduced.
I would remind my right hon. Friend that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, in paragraph 422, of its Report, said:
"In some cases, there may be a different consideration. A service may be justified on other than economic grounds because, for example, the less populous parts of Britain might otherwise be left without a railway service. Account may in other words need to be taken of social considerations."

519
The Minister reinforced this point of view himself in his own White Paper, Cmnd. 1248, paragraph 50, when he suggested that
"… uneconomic services which the railways are required to provide on grounds of the national interest or of social needs should be met by specific grants from public funds."
The Government undertook that for the time being railway losses on such services would be covered by contributions from public funds.
It was, therefore, a very great shock to my constituents, two days before the House rose for the Summer Recess, to be informed, by Written Answer, that the Minister had broken all precedent and, for the first time, had overruled the advice of his Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee and had gone against the principles which he had enunciated in his own White Paper and had authorised the Transport Commission to close the line at any time after 15th September.
Had this been proceeded with there would have been no opportunity, as is afforded this evening, for a debate or further Questions to be put to the Minister before the line closed. I am glad, therefore, that the closing date was extended to 30th October, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that. Although the Minister's action was, as I have said, completely unprecedented, I recognise that he was acting quite within his powers. But to act within one's powers is not necessarily to be right.
Why do my constituents feel so deeply about the closing of this branch line? First, no real explanation has yet been given to the House or to my constituents as to why this line is to be closed. A Minister, even such an important Minister as my right hon. Friend, is not above having to explain his actions. Therefore, I welcome the fact that this Adjournment debate can be held so that we can hear his exact reasons for overruling his Central Transport Users' Consultative Committee.
As my right hon. Friend knows, there have been protest meetings, a Petition signed by nearly 2,500 people living in the area affected and literally hundreds of letters received by me which I have forwarded to him. My right hon. Friend will argue, I am sure, that the alter-
520
native transport arrangements which he is now offering, by way of augmented bus services will prevent any undue hardship. On paper, it certainly looks as if this new bus time-table is an adequate schedule. I submit, however, that the person who drew it up could have had no real experience of either the road or the weather conditions in the Darent Valley. The A.25 and the A.21 are already grossly overcrowded and in places extremely narrow, with an absolute bottleneck at Riverhead. Ice, fog, snow and floods have on occasions completely brought road transport to a standstill and, on much more frequent occasions, have been responsible for great delays.
The majority of people who use this branch line commute all the way to London, not from Westerham to Sevenoaks or to the intervening stations. These are not what one would call rich people. They are what one might term the daily bread winners, and among the travellers are school children. For many of these people their jobs depend, in large measure, on their ability to be punctual at work. Even if enough crews can be obtained to man these extra buses, there can be no guarantee that they will arrive regularly in time to make the necessary connections with the trains.
In addition, some of my constituents will not use the buses but are prepared to drive their private cars to Sevenoaks where, already, parking arrangements are difficult and where there is no oportunity for further parking facilities. Further, for my constituents using the line from Westerham, a full half to three-quarters of an hour will be added to their journey each day.
It is not only a question of time. The cost to them will go up by 10s. a week, perhaps more, although I recognise the temporary concession for one year for season ticket holders. The question is: if this concession has been made for one year, why not make it permanently? I urge the Minister to investigate this, perhaps resulting in season tickets at the old price, combining the use of bus and rail. I wonder whether this concession has been made as the result of a guilty conscience on the part of his officials at the Commission?

521
I realise that the Minister's main argument is likely to hinge on the astronomic losses of the railways and the impossibility of making this particular line pay. This is not the time or the occasion for detailed discussion on the statistics involved, but my own information—and this was the figure given by the Commission itself—is that the closure will save only £11,600 net, compared with the present loss of about £20,000.
Is it not true that operating modifications and the introduction of a diesel railbus would result in a loss of only between £2,000 and £3,000? If this is so, is not this course the economically justifiable one to take in this case? In addition—and the Minister knows this—my constituents have offered to pay an additional sum commensurate with the difference that would be involved in using the bus service.
I urge the Minister to consider that 180 season ticket holders, each paying £20 extra, would produce £3,600 and should wipe out any loss. If these figures are correct, I urge my right hon. Friend to give the necessary order to postpone the closure of this line until at least this experiment has been tried for a period, say, two to three years.
If the Minister will not accept this course and argues that this is only the first of many such uneconomic lines which it is proposed to close, then surely he should postpone a decision on such a major step until the House has had an opportunity of debating the Transport Commission's Annual Report and his own new Bill, so that the House can fully consider the place of the railways in the life of this community.
Is it the Minister's policy to push as much traffic as possible—despite his utterances on road congestion and safety—on to the roads? Perhaps the feeling in my constituency is best summed up in a letter sent a day or so ago to me—and which has been forwarded to my right hon. Friend—from the Kent Association of Parish Councils, representing 24 parish councils in my area. The letter states:
"We regard such closures as the one proposed as detrimental to our efforts to maintain and stimulate rural community living."
Many of my constituents bought their houses in this area in order to commute to work in London. The railway serves
522
a population of 8,000, which will soon grow to 10,000. If the Minister persists, 200 car users will probably take to the roads each day, in addition to the bus. As I have said, they will have to spend more time and money to get to work. I should have thought that it was sound policy to try to drain off the roads in and around London as much of the traffic that the railway can carry.
The figures in the case are not in dispute. If they are in dispute, the least the Minister can do is to keep the line open until an independent market survery can be conducted. In recent weeks the Minister has somewhat cynically posted up on the stations at Westerham, Brasted, Chevering and Dunton Green the slogan:
"It's less of a strain
To travel by train".
I urge him to allow my constituents in Chevering, Brasted, Westerham and Dunton Green to follow his excellent advice.
11.50 p.m.
Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I want to add only one or two sentences, not on behalf of the residents of Westerham, but on behalf of the visitors to Westerham. I have two married daughters there. One serves on the parish council. The husband of the other serves on the parish council. I know the deep feeling that there is in Westerham on this question. Westerham is a lovely village. It is the home of Wolfe. It is the home of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). Large numbers of visitors go there. They are not even being granted the 10s. per week concession which the residents are getting. On behalf of those who very frequently use the line I add my strong protest.
11.51 p.m.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): I am sure that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. J. Rodgers) will be grateful to him for raising this matter tonight. He has worked very diligently and skilfully in their interests. His constituents themselves are not without ability when it comes to presenting a case. They have marshalled their forces with great tenacity. In fact they presented a petition signed by 2,400 people—an impressive number. Alas, only 167

523
people use the line regularly. I should like to get a petition signed by 167 people with 2,400 travelling on the railway. It seems to me to be a disproportionate number.
I want to say how glad we are to see the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) with us tonight, because I feared at one time that he might not be able to be with us. But things went his way and we are grateful for his intervention, which otherwise we should have missed. I, too, go to Westerham. I know this line as well as he does and as well as my hon. Friend does. I have done more than my hon. Friend has. I have walked the length of this line. I know the district very well, almost every inch of it, because I walk regularly in the district. The other Sunday I went to look at the number of visitors going to Westerham. I counted them on a Sunday travelling by steam train. On the first train there were two. On the second train there was one. Anyone who heard that masses of people come to Westerham Station would be moved by the pleas of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, but I have discovered that they do not travel on this line on Sundays to visit Westerham.
Mr. Brockway: Not necessarily on Sundays.
Mr. Marples: That is when people visit Westerham—namely, weekends. I have counted the number who travel by train. I have looked into that carefully.
I will try to put it logically. It is operationally not possible to continue the present old and obsolete steam service after June, 1962, because of servicing difficulties. The steam service is losing money, so we must find some sort of alternative. The economic alternatives are either diesel rail bus, which is the cheapest form of railway services, or road bus services. There is an existing bus service which the railways have volunteered to augment.
On the financial side my hon. Friend did the Commission and my Ministry less than justice. The present steam service has a net loss of £26,000 per annum. That is over £150 for each regular passenger. In other words, the ordinary taxpayer is paying £3 a week
524
out of taxes for every person who travels regularly on this line. Taking a five day working week, it is 12s. a day paid by the taxpayer for every passenger on the service between Westerham and Dunton Green. That money is received by the recipient, as it were, free of tax. It is not added on to gross income. It would pay the Commission to give the passengers £3 a week and let the passengers include it on their Income Tax returns, because they would then have to pay tax on it. It is an enormous loss. When we look at it in perspective, it is terrific.
The cost of running this line at present is £29,700 per annum. If we take that figure as 100, the receipts from the line, which are £3,500, represent 12 per cent. of the cost. Therefore, the people who pay to go on the line pay 12 per cent. of what it costs. The other 88 per cent. is found by the constituents of other hon. Members, by the whole community. The constituents of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough are helping to pay for 88 per cent. of the cost of the line, and the people using it pay for only 12 per cent. I suggest to the House that this relative disproportion is something which cannot be tolerated. Those figures relate to the present steam service.
If it was made a diesel rail bus service, that would help a bit, but it still would not be a great deal better. The estimated loss would be £17,500 per annum on the present traffic, and this again is an enormous figure in proportion. It could be reduced to about £13,700 if increased fares were authorised on the scale that regular users have said they would pay, but there are two other considerations here. It might cause a loss of traffic. People say that they would pay, but a lot of people say that they will volunteer to pay extra fares although, when it comes to the point, they do not to so. Secondly, there is no guarantee that the Transport Tribunal would authorise any increases.
If the line were closed and the road bus service augmented the estimated loss per annum falling on the taxpayer would be about £11,000. There would be the possibility of a further reduction if all the extra bus services which were provided did not prove necessary. That is still a substantial sum. Expenditure

525
of this order is required, at least initially, in order to provide adequate services.
That is on the income side. I have never known of a business run with losses like those. With all respect to him, my hon. Friend had some very harsh things to say about me when a Bill relating to the cost of subsidies was passing through the House not long ago. This subsidy pro rata per passenger is greater than that on the Cunard Line. That may be a coincidence, and I do not put it on those grounds, but I am bound to say that what my hon. Friend proposes really is not on if we are to make British Railways pay.
Turning to capital investment, we know that in this country, because of pressure in a democracy, we have sometimes overstepped the resources we have and tried to spend too much money on capital investment. I ask the House to consider the investment which is wanted here. Initial capital required for a diesel railbus service would be £46,000. For additional road buses, which would have to be built for the purpose, the investment would be £12,700. Neither of those sums would produce an economic return. To invest £46,000 in expectation of a loss of about £14,000, which would be the loss on diesel, would not help the railways towards viability. If I am to yield to the pressure to keep these uneconomic branch lines open, there will be no hope of the railways ever becoming viable, and the taxpayer will have to find the difference. At the moment, that difference amounts to a substantial sum of money, almost the equivalent of 5d. in the £ on the Income Tax.
My hon. Friend talked about the hardship to users. Is he certain that it would cause undue social hardship? The consultative committees, to which I am very grateful for spending so much time and care on the subject, concluded that, on balance, the closure would cause undue social hardship—just. That was their view. What does that mean? I ask the House to consider the position. Parallel to the branch line there is a road linking Westerham and Sevenoaks. More trains run to and from Sevenoaks than call at Dunton Green. Buses and coaches run along the road at the rate of about four every hour. The railways have offered to provide four additional services between Westerham and Sevenoaks in
526
the morning and six additional services the other way in the evening.
My hon. Friend speaks about hardship. I should like him to go to certain parts of the North of Scotland to see how the situation there compares with what will happen at Westerham.
One of the questions which my hon. Friend had in mind was whether the additional services would continue to run after the first few months. Hon. Members may rest assured that as additional services are taken into considaration in reaching a decision on a closure, the railways would have to satisfy the consultative committees and me that there was no longer any demand for them before cutting these additional services. In other words, what the railways are doing by way of bus services would be continued so long as they here needed.
It has been said that buses are less comfortable. I have had some letters from my hon. Friend's constituents. They write to me in many and varied terms. In Westerham they have a use of adjectives which is something which I have never experienced before. Most of them are directed against me and not the consultative committees. I must take that because the responsibility for this is mine and mine alone. That is why I am here myself tonight to answer this debate, because I did not wish to saddle my Parliamentary Secretary with the responsibility when it is mine. I take the responsibility.
It is said that buses are less comfortable and somewhat less convenient. I have had a letter to that effect today. Passengers may have to wait at a bus stop occasionally, but the buses have been timed to take meeting trains into consideration. Some passengers will have a Shorter walk to the buses than to the railway station. Another objection has been that the bus journey will take longer—19 minutes against 11 by train. Against that, the service interval will be shorter—four buses an hour instead of a half-hour service at peak periods for trains.
It is said that buses will cost more, because there are no season ticket facilities and so on, by about £26 a year. That is only because the users have been subsidised by the taxpayer at £150 per

527
annum until now. The British Transport Commission is trying to cushion the blow by allowing the bus journey to be charged at season ticket rates for a year. If it was to subsidise the bus journey for longer, I do not know where we would be getting and there would be no hope of the B.T.C. becoming viable.
After very careful consideration, I myself have taken the decision. I myself have gone to the station to see it and to look at the line and to walk in the area on both Saturdays and Sundays and I have visited it on weekdays—I used dark glasses so that no one would recognise me, because I felt that I might hear some of the things which I have been reading in the letters from my hon. Friend's constituents and I did not want to be subjected to that indignity.
It has been said that I acted unconstitutionally.
Mr. J. Rodgers: Oh, no.
Mr. Marples: I know that my hon. Friend has not said that, but his constituents have written to The Times, and any letter in The Times causes me to lose sleep, saying that I have rejected the recommendation of a statutory committee without giving reasons and that that is unconstitutional. My hon. Friend has not gone so far as that, but his constituents have in their letters to The Times.
In a leader, The Times pointed out that the Central Committee is an advisory body and that its advice is not mandatory. The procedure established by Parliament places the final responsibility upon the shoulders of the Minister and my reasons for not accepting the Central Committee's recommendations were summarised in my reply to a Written Question on 2nd August. They were that I am unable to agree with the Committee's view that closure of the line would cause undue social hardship.
The second accusation made against me by my hon. Friend's constituents is that I have reached my decision after hearing additional evidence to which the objectors did not have access. That is untrue. My decision was based solely on the evidence put before the Consultative Committee. They also said that I deliberately delayed announcing my decision. That is untrue. My hon.
528
Friend will grant that, with all my faults and failings—and I agree that they are many—I always face the consequences of any decision I myself take.
I am bound to say that constitutionally I have behaved correctly. I am also bound to say that I do not think that a Minister of the Crown should pass responsibility to a committee which is set up to advise him. He makes the decision and not the committee. Otherwise, there would be no point in having a Minister at this Dispatch Box justifying whatever decisions he may take.
I know that certain people will be inconvenienced. I know that there is a sentimental attachment to these two coaches which chug along on a Sunday with a little steam engine drawing them, with more people in the engine than in the train. I know that it is a nice sight to see this train coming along a track with grass sprouting up between the lines, but I think that it does not play a part in this third quarter of the twentieth century in whatever transport system we are to have.
The railways are facing a crisis. I have sympathy with hon. Members and their constituents who are affected by closures of branch lines, but there is someone else of whom I have to think, and that is the taxpayer. I have repeatedly said in this House, and I do not apologise for saying it again, that the taxpayer, is shouldering an enormous burden. For the financial year 1961–62 £130 million is being provided to meet the Commission's revenue deficit and interest on past deficits. As I said before, it represents about 5d. an the standard rate of Income Tax.
We have to try to put the railways on a sound financial footing. They have made proposals to this end. The Commission is seeking to improve its position by cutting costs, by concentrating on the more profitable traffic, by increasing its share of the traffic, and by eliminating activities which do not pay. Inevitably branch lines will be cut out.
In this House I hear hon. Members cheer when I say that the burden on taxpayers must be reduced, but the same hon. Members who cheer that statement and those sentiments are solidly against me when it affects their constituents. It is the same with the roads we build. Everybody wants roads, but nobody

529
wants them to go through or near his back garden. This great tug-of-war goes on incessantly in almost every line of activity which we discuss.
The Prime Minister reminded the House on 10th March, 1960, which is a long time ago, that the public would have to face changes both in the extent and nature of the railway services. I agree that it may mean hardship. Where there is real hardship, the Government will take steps to relieve it. On the other hand, what have we done? The inconvenience to users by the closure of the Westerham line is not hardship in the true sense of the word, and the Commission has taken steps to alleviate that hardship by the provision of additional bus services. The closing of branch lines is an essential part of the Commission's plan for bringing the railways towards a condition of viability.
I ask my hon. Friend to assure his constituents about that, and to acquit the Government of discourtesy. This has been dragging on for a long time.
530
The processes have not been quick. Indeed, they have been slow, and the morale of the people who work on a line such as Westerham cannot really be very high if there are two people in the engine and they are pulling one person in two coaches behind. They cannot feel that they are part of a workable show.
I ask my hon. Friend to explain this to his constituents and to say that it was my personal decision; that I take full responsibility for it and that they must not blame anybody else; that I am sorry if any inconvenience is being caused, and that I shall still walk in the beautiful country round Westerham, whatever they may say about me in their letters. I hope that when I meet them they will be as courteous to me as they have been in the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock till Monday next, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.

GHANA
  Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and President Nkrumah (Statement)
  Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and President Nkrumah (Statement)
  JOINT STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT NKRUMAH AND MR. DUNCAN SANDYS
  JOINT STATEMENT BY PRESIDENT NKRUMAH AND MR. DUNCAN SANDYS
EDUCATION
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
EMPLOYMENT
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
SCOTLAND
  Teaching Profession (Review Committee)
  Teaching Profession (Review Committee)
SHIPPING
  British Ship Owners (Overseas Orders)
  British Ship Owners (Overseas Orders)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Carlisle

LORD DEVLIN
The Right Honourable Sir Patrick Arthur Devlin, Knight, one of the Lords Justices of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by subsequent enactments, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Devlin, of West Wick in the County of Wilts—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

BRITISH BASES IN SINGAPORE
2.45 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: 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 to make a statement on the discussions between the Prime Ministers of the Federation of Malaya and the State of Singapore on the proposed new Constitution, and the position arising on the British military bases in Singapore.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the Prime Ministers of the Federation of Malaya and of the State of Singapore have discussed between themselves the terms on which a political merger between their two countries might be arranged, if such a step were to be agreed upon by all the parties concerned, including the British Government. The position of the British bases in Singapore in that event is one of the matters which have to be considered in connection with these proposals. As has already been announced, the Prime Minister of Malaya is coming to London next month to discuss the
548
constructive proposals (which Her Majesty's Government welcome) which he has made for a political association involving also Brunei, North Borneo and Sarawak.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for his reply? I will not press him any further this afternoon in view of the visit of the Prime Ministers, but may I ask him whether he will impress both upon the Prime Ministers, and also on his noble friends, that a speedy solution to this problem would be in the interests of all parties?
THE EARL OF PERTH: Yes, my Lords. I will certainly draw the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of my colleagues. Of course, a speedy solution must depend on the satisfactory working-out of various circumstances.

PRISON WORK OF POLITICAL OFFENDERS
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: 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 what determines the conditions under which political offenders of various categories serve their sentences, particularly in regard to the work which they are required to undertake.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, the only prisoners who might be regarded as political offenders are those convicted of sedition, seditious libel or (in England and Wales) seditious conspiracy. These prisoners are not compelled to work in the service or industries of the prison (though they may be so employed with their own consent) and, so far as the conditions of the prison and the requirements of discipline and safe custody permit, they may work at their own trade, employment or profession. There have been no prisoners in this category for many years.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his reply, may I ask whether he could

549
tell me why the punishment for sedition is less severe than the punishment meted out to Miss Pat Arrowsmith?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I must point out to the noble Lady that the punishment which was meted out to Miss Pat Arrowsmith had nothing to do with the sort of punishment that would be meted out to a political offender of the type I have just been describing. It had nothing to do with that at all.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could I ask the noble Earl how he would define her position, and what is the punishment for that kind of offence?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, Miss Pat Arrowsmith broke the ordinary law, and was in exactly the same position as any other prisoner who had broken the law.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, could the noble Earl say whether the regulation to which he has referred applies not only under the Home Office which deals with England and Wales, but also to the Scottish Home Department as well?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, the only difference with regard to the Scottish procedure in such cases is that there is no recognisance procedure in Scotland, as there is in England. But in the particular case of Miss Pat Arrowsmith, this does not arise at all.

REPLACEMENT FOR THE "QUEEN MARY"
2.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to repeat to you a statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport. This is the statement:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the replacement of the 'Queen Mary'.
"The Government have considered the statement which the Cunard Company have made public to-day of the reasons why the company do not feel
550
able to place an order at the present time for a ship to replace the 'Queen Mary'.
"The company have expressed to the Government their hope that until they have completed the reappraisal referred to in their statement, and have been able to advise the Government as to the action which in their opinion should then be taken as regards the replacement of the 'Queen Mary', the question of financial assistance from Her Majesty's Government should be held open pending a final decision.
"The Government's agreement to assist the building of a ship to replace the 'Queen Mary' was based on the understanding that an order for the new ship would be placed this autumn, and that the ship would be in operation at the earliest possible date thereafter. The decision which the company have now reached creates a new situation and the Government must reserve their right to consider, without prior commitment, any proposals which the company may put forward at a later date."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord for giving us the statement which is being made by the Minister in the other place. May I say, first of all, that it is absolutely right for the Government, in view of the circumstances, not to be committed in advance of any new proposal. As regards the reappraisal, the noble Lord, Lord Mills, knows quite well that we have had a certain amount of criticism to offer with regard to the original subsidy proposed. Nevertheless, we are not unmindful of the rather threatening conditions in some parts of the shipbuilding industry, and I take it that we should all withhold our judgments until the reappraisal has been made. If any proposal then is submitted we can consider the matter perhaps in advance of a decision by the Government, and not have the kind of acceptance, apparently, by the Government in policy, which came after the committee had sat and reported, but which report I believe we never saw. I think that if the Government will take into account some of the things said then, it will be helpful all round.
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his helpful reply. I am sure the Government will take into account all the debates there have been in your Lordships' House and in another place before arriving at a decision, and, so far as I am able, I will do my best to keep your Lordships acquainted with any moves there may be; but I cannot, of course, pledge the Government not to make up their minds before the matter is discussed in your Lordships' House.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: May I take it, with regard to the element in the grant which might have been used—I know this is disputed—to assist financially the Cunard Eagle Air Line, which unhappily has been in some misfortune during recent months, that the Government do not intend to make a grant in such a way as will act as a subsidy to the Cunard Eagle Airline in its Transatlantic flights in competition with the British Overseas Airways Corporation?
LORD MILLS: There was never any intention in the original consideration to make a grant or to assist a grant to Cunard Eagle Airways, and there certainly would not be in the future.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: May we take it from the noble Lord that that means no assistance, either directly or indirectly, in view of the close association of Cunard Airlines with the Cunard Shipping Company?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, it is of course easy to construe the word "indirectly" in any way you wish, but I repeat that in considering this matter of assistance to the Cunard Company to build a replacement of the "Queen Mary" there was no other consideration and no other intention in the Government's mind; and there would not be in the future.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may we take it that the noble Lord's answer means that, although the Government may make up their mind on the reappraisal and the new facts, they will not make a final decision until this House and another place have had the opportunity of considering it? Otherwise we should be merely faced with a fait accompli.
LORD MILLS: I cannot give an assurance. It depends whether the proposal then comes within the Act which has been passed this year. If the proposal comes within that Act, then the Government are at liberty to proceed. If it does not come within that Act then Parliament will be fully consulted.

PRISONS, BORSTALS AND AFTER-CARE
2.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD THE EARL OF LONGFORD rose to call attention to the present state of the prisons and borstals, and to the aftercare system; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the problem on this kind of occasion is to keep one's speech within bounds without omitting vital topics—a problem which has invariably defeated me in the past. To-day, however, I am leaving borstals and after-care in better hands than mine, borstals in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, who has played such a fine part in previous debates, and after-care to the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading, who has led the W.V.S. to achievements in this field which have been one of the brighter spots in a depressing picture.
My own concern with after-care is, I think, fairly well known in this House, but I must not fail to pay tribute to many individuals who have laboured long and earnestly for after-care. Particularly I must not fail to make mention of officials like Commander Hague, who have brought in a new breath of life in the last few years. But I am afraid I must agree with the noble and gallant Field-Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein (I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will wish to call me a fellow traveller on this occasion) that in this field of after-care a complete revolution is needed; and I look forward with special interest to what the noble Marchioness, Lady Reading, is going to tell us this afternoon.
So much by way of introduction. I have said before, and I repeat it to-day, that in my opinion prison is a rotten answer to the question of what to do with delinquents. If any one could think of anything better than prison there would be little support for the whole

553
idea of prison, an idea under which we shut all delinquents away from their families with every prospect of mutual contamination under conditions which make it extraordinarily difficult to do effective work. I am sure that the future lies much more with compulsory training and work for the community, outside, or largely outside, institutions. Incidentally, that would fit in much better with any State plan of compensating the victim.
Penal reformers, among whom I suppose I may number myself, are accused, sometimes justly and sometimes unjustly, of neglecting the victims of crime. I think that is a point of view of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, who has left us at the moment. Personally I am very much concerned with the victims, and I have recently been honoured to become the Chairman of a Committee set up by "justice", a reputable society of lawyers, to work out a scheme of compensation for the victims of crimes of violence following the Government White Paper. But to-day I will try to concentrate on the prison situation as we find it, without looking too far ahead in time.
Over six years ago we in this House began to urge the need—and we began to urge it from all sides of the House, under the inspiration of the noble Viscount the late Lord Templewood—for a new and radical approach to penal policy, and for a much more ambitious programme of penal reform. Over five years ago The Times, commenting on one of our debates, described the prison services of this country, all too correctly, as "last in the queue." That was in 1956.
Four and a half years ago, at the beginning of 1957, the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Butler, assuming Office as Home Secretary, dedicated himself to penal reform more explicitly and enthusiastically than any Home Secretary within living memory. Of course, there are in this House—the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth—former Home Secretaries who have given very serious attention to penal reform during their own time of office. Mr. Butler set out to strike a new note. Whatever may be thought of the results of Mr. Butler's labours, no fair-minded person will deny that in spirit he has
554
kept the faith. Yet a White Paper issued under his authority, after he had had time to diagnose the problem, described the prisons in which the majority of our prisoners are held as "monumental denials of the principles for which we stand." That was more than two years ago. To-day the material situation is still deplorable.
I myself have no doubt, though this cannot be demonstrated, that under the present dispensation the atmosphere in our prisons has steadily become more humane and civilised during the last few years. That is certainly the testimony of prisoners, and I hope that it will not altogether be set aside because of its origin. But the material facts are still appalling. When Mr. Butler assumed office at the beginning of 1957 he accepted the number sleeping three in a cell as a significant criterion. There were about 2,000 sleeping three in a cell when Mr. Butler took office; to-day there are much more than three times as many. According to the latest figures reaching me, there are now about 7,600 sleeping three in a cell. By chance, I was in a local prison yesterday, and there about 40 per cent. of the prisoners were sleeping three in a cell. I was told that that was quite a normal thing in local prisons, though not in all prisons.
As Mr. Fairn, a Prison Commissioner, pointed out last week, the numbers in local prisons and borstals reached a new record on October 3. If we include those in detention centres, in addition to those in prisons and borstals, the total is now 29,600, as compared with 11,000 before the war. This is about 2,000 higher than a year ago and about 2,000 higher, as I shall mention later, than last December. Of that total of nearly 30,000, fewer than 1,000 are women: as I have remarked before, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, it is men who are the delinquent sex, though I am sure she would agree that it is perhaps the women—mothers, wives, sisters and daughters—who suffer most intensely through the crimes of the men.
To put the matter shortly, as a nation we have refused to face the fact that the post-war prison problem is far larger, vastly larger, than the pre-war problem. We have continued as a nation to make a pre-war effort to cope

555
with a post-war problem. May I quote a striking passage in the speech which was delivered by the Minister of Health, Mr. Enoch Powell, to the Conservative Political Centre, last Thursday in Brighton, in connection with the Conservative Conference. Mr. Powell said:
"I am not referring to the debate on methods …"
he was referring to a debate that had been taking place; and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who I am glad to see is going to speak to-day, played a most valuable part in it.
"The disagreements of the floggers and anti-floggers are dwarfed by the appalling facts of prison provision and the deficiencies of our penal system. I will dare to say that our prisons are our most important and our most deficient social service."
It may have been harder for the Home Secretary to put it quite so bluntly, but I hardly think that Mr. Powell would speak without the consent of his colleague and the other members of the Cabinet. I will repeat what he said. According to the Minister of Health:
"… our prisons are our most important and our most deficient social service."
A few minutes ago I called the facts appalling, and now here we find a greater authority than I am, the Minister of Health, Mr. Powell, using the same words. And no one would suspect him of having the same sort of bias as I might be supposed to possess.
May I say one word on crime—and it will be one word, because this is not a general debate on the causes, prevention and treatment of crime (that kind of debate I hope we shall have before long), but a debate on prisons. It is a part of the wider topic of the debate on crime, and the growth of crime is, of course, an essential element in the background of this discussion to-day. In 1938, there were 283,000 indictable crimes known to the police. In 1945, there were nearly 480,000; in 1951, 525,000; in 1960, 744,000. That is three times as many as in 1938. And I understand that already the figures for 1961 are higher than the figures for 1960. With crime at three times the pre-war figure it is not surprising, though of course the sentencing policy affects it also, that there are nearly three times as many people in prison.
Is there any connection between our modern penal methods and the growth of crime? Few will deny that the growth of crime since the war is a world-wide phenomenon, or a phenomenon common to all, or nearly all, industrialised societies. Few will deny that it springs, or largely springs, from deep-set causes, among which our direct approach to the convicted delinquent is only one factor, for good or ill. I entirely applaud, as I am sure we all do, the heavy emphasis laid by the Home Secretary last week on the need for increasing the police force. But that and other methods of preventing crime are outside our province to-day.
If anyone tells me that our official policy, the policy agreed by the Government, and certainly by my own Party, of penal reform is itself a cause of the great increase in crime, I would vehemently deny it. I would urge rather, and certainly on this side we should all agree, that the trouble has not been that we have gone too fast but that we have not gone fast enough. The choice to-day is not between more discipline and less discipline, but between, on the one hand, taking sufficient trouble over delinquents and ex-delinquents, and, on the other, skimping or neglecting our duty towards them; and it is the latter course we have pursued. It is quite false to say that penal reform has failed. Penal reform has not yet been given a proper chance.
Let me become a little more concrete. When he became Home Secretary, Mr. Butler singled out three targets to be attacked; overcrowding, shortage of work, and understaffing. The overcrowding I have touched on, when I gave the figures of the extraordinary increase in the numbers sleeping three in a cell. Mr. Powell went on, in the speech I have quoted, to speak about that matter in no uncertain terms. But at least let us give the Government credit for mounting the biggest prison-building programme for a century. The estimates for new building of prisons were about £1 million in 1956–57 and for the current year they are about £4½ million. I have no doubt that the Minister, who I am glad to see is to reply to the debate, will wish to give details about the building programme.
Then work. If I remember rightly, the situation in respect of work in most of our prisons was in the Government White Paper of 1959 said to be not only bad but deteriorating. To-day, it appears to he no better, judging from the Report of the Advisory Council on the Employment of Prisoners which was published quite recently. I am going to leave the whole of this vital topic of work to Lord Stonham who has specialised on it, except in so far as it is the result of a shortage of staff, to which I shall come in a moment. I should, however, like to put this one question to the Government—I have given them at any rate some notice of it.
In paragraph 79 of their Report the Advisory Council recommend what can only be called relatively minor improvements in prisoners' pay, about which we shall no doubt hear more from the Minister and others; but they felt that at this stage it was not possible for them to go into any fundamental alteration in the scale of earnings. I am one of those—I expect there are many in the House—who believe that the problem of prison labour will never begin to be solved until we have a completely different approach to pay—a proper wage for a full working week.
I realise that the Advisory Council felt that the other task was still more urgent, but may we take it that the Advisory Council are now investigating the wider question? Or do they reckon it beyond their powers—something, as one might say, above their level? If so, will the Government make sure that some other body qualified to deal with it investigates the question of principle? A number of countries including Sweden and Finland have experimented, not perhaps in all their prisons but in some institutions, by paying the normal rate for the job. Why should not we in this country at least make a start in that direction? As I say, I leave the Minister to answer that point.
I come now to what is my main topic. It will be my last topic, but it will be quite a long one. It concerns the staffing position. As I said earlier, I have recently been in touch with that admirable body, the Prison Officers' Association. The facts which I shall be submitting to the House have been mainly derived from them, though I have
558
tried to check them with the official authorities. That does not mean that I accept the views of the prison officers on all points—far from it. It is a free country; they have their views, and I have mine. But the facts I am submitting are mainly derived from them.
I begin by reminding the House of what I said in June on the authority of their General Secretary, the highly regarded Mr. Cronin. He said that he had never known the morale of the staff so low—and one must not be surprised if there has been no improvement since. During 1960, for example (and things were pretty bad by the end of 1959), the net increase was 11 male officers. The number of women officers decreased by 22. But let us confine ourselves to the men, because it is here that the problem is most acute.
The number of male officers increased by 11, while women officers decreased by 22 in 1960. At the end of 1960 there were 4,705 male officers and 220 female officers. At the end of September, 1961, the respective figures were 4,788 and 221, which was an increase, if I may be permitted to leave out the women, of 83 men. That was after fairly strenuous exertions, though I think those exertions could have been greater. An increase of 83 male officers since last December may not sound too bad to the House, until we notice—this is the significant point—that the prisoners increased, between the end of last year and the end of September, by 2,000. Accepting that there ought to be about six prisoners to one officer, that means that since the end of December, last year, the prisoners have increased about four times as fast as the officers should have increased if the same ratio was to be preserved. That is the actual position which I am placing before the House this afternoon—an increase of 83 officers and 2,000 prisoners since last year.
More than that, the prison officers are convinced—and it is hard to resist the argument—that every reform (and most of us, at any rate, support these reforms) means more work for the prison officers, and requires a higher and not a lower ratio of officers to prisoners. This is obviously true of the building programme, which on other grounds we applaud and demand, and which is

559
indeed long overdue. For example, the opening of the new remand centre at Ashford requires about 58 officers. Though it may be said that the prisoners at Ashford will come from somewhere else, the opening of the new centre does involve the officers in a higher burden. Of course (I am sorry to repeat this, but I do so in case there is some misunderstanding) no one on this side of the House is anything but anxious to see the present programme brought forward as fast as possible.
There is not, I am informed, a penal establishment in the country which is up to the agreed complement in staff, and the position will be worsened when Hindley, Lancashire, is opened at the end of the year. Grendon, Buckinghamshire, the long-delayed and long-desired psychiatric prison, is due to open early in 1962; and this again will require a large staff. I do not think anybody doubts that the building programme, which of course, as I have said, we support to the uttermost, will in the immediate future make the staffing position graver and graver. I am informed that at Birmingham recently the remand and trial prisoners, and all the young prisoners, were kept in their cells for 23 out of 24 hours for over a week, because there was not sufficient staff to supervise them out of their cells. Other instances can be provided.
My Lords, there is no doubt that, while the shortage of staff is not the only factor in the short hours worked, it is one of the main reasons why the hours worked in prison are so low. Prisoners in the local prisons rarely work for more than four hours each day. At Pentonville the work period is as low as 2½ hours daily. In their Report, published recently, the Advisory Council say that in some local prisons the hours worked are about 16 a week. It has been agreed between the Prison Commission and the staff that sufficient staff must be forthcoming in the next few years to enable early and late shifts to be worked. But at the present rate of recruitment, according to the calculation of the prison officers, which I am ready to accept provisionally, this ideal will not be reached during the present century.
What is the remedy? First, there is the question of conditions; and then
560
there is the question of pay. At present, I am told, prison officers perform, on the average, about 20 hours per fortnight in overtime. They are completely unable to plan their social lives with any certainty, owing to their liability for evening duties following a normal day's attendance. Apparently notice for these duties is often very short. It is intended that officers should be off duty each alternate Saturday or Sunday, but the shortage of staff is such that an officer is very lucky indeed if he ever gets the two consecutive days. Cases have occurred in which men have worked for six weeks without getting a day off duty.
The remedy here is admittedly much easier to indicate than to apply. Hours should certainly be reduced from 84 to 80 per fortnight. Attendances should be based on the eleven-day fortnight, as recommended by the Wynn-Parry Committee in October, 1948, instead of the twelve-day fortnight as at present. I have no wish to question the good will of the Prison Commissioners or their desire to bring about such changes, but, of course, they and all the authorities are caught in a vicious circle. The conditions are very bad because of a staffing shortage, and one factor, at least, responsible for the shortage is these somewhat unattractive conditions. Somewhere we have to break through this vicious circle, and I myself have no doubt whatever that an increase in pay up to the level of the police is essential.
At present there is no doubt the police are better off. A constable starts at a somewhat higher rate than a prison officer, and in the tenth year he is receiving, according to my information, £2 6s. a week more than a prison officer receives. It is true that a policeman has to contribute to his pension, which a prison officer does not, but there are other advantages on the side of the policeman. For example, he gets two later increments after the tenth year, which the prison officer does not, and the housing allowance appears to be somewhat more favourable in the case of policemen. I do not think that anyone seriously denies to-day as a matter of actual fact that, since the last pay rise of the police, which of course was entirely justified, the police are better

561
paid, are better off, than the prison officers.
There is much else that I could say about the reforms that could be introduced into the service which would increase its attractions. This division, which is hard to overcome in a hurry, between the so-called uniform and nonuniform sides must be tackled eventually. But let me take my stand fairly and squarely on the proposition that a prison officer is at least as essential as a police officer in the struggle for the prevention and treatment of crime. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, will agree with this, because I have heard him pay tribute to the prison officers before now.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, might I, as the noble Earl referred to me, ask him whether he would deal with this point? It is a very delicate one and I ask him to do so only because for some time I represented in another place the Prison Officers' Association. I am not taking sides one way or the other, but there is undoubtedly a feeling among prison officers, quite apart from the question of pay, that the system of control in prisons as a result of various reforms, while making it easier for the prisoner, has made it harder for the warders; and in some way that difference, which is not publicly stated, will have to be resolved.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, the noble Earl, who is an accomplished Parliamentary debater, will forgive me if I point out that it is now many years since prison officers were referred to as warders, and he has introduced a somewhat archaic approach, so, on the test of that particular use of words, I do not think he has represented them lately. But coming seriously to his point, as I said earlier—the noble Earl could not be with us to hear the earlier passages of my speech—I do not agree with all their views, but I do agree that these reforms (I said this to the House) make their job harder. But those of use who support reforms—and certainly the Government do and the Opposition do—have a special responsibility for seeing that the service is made attractive enough to obtain new recruits. So I think that the noble Earl and I are on that point at one.
562
I would venture to submit very strongly that a prison officer is at least as indispensable as a police officer, who is, of course, quite indispensable in the struggle for the prevention and treatment of crime. And in these days, now that the prison officer has ceased to be just a custodian, a sort of "Bung 'em in and lock 'em up gentleman", now that he is supposed to be a social servant, I would submit that the duties of the prison officers are at least as demanding as those of the police officer in terms of training, mind and character.
EARL WINTERTON: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am very glad the noble Earl agrees with me there. I was astonished—and I stand to be corrected here—that, so far as I could see, Mr. Butler, in that comprehensive and rather noble speech at Brighton, never even referred to the shortage of prison officers. He laid the greatest stress on the need to strengthen the police. Why did he not mention prison officers? That is a point which I have submitted in advance to the noble Earl who is to reply, and perhaps we shall hear him and we may hear the views of Mr. Butler on this subject this afternoon.
That brings me to my final submission. I cannot escape the feeling that too much complacency is being displayed by the Home Office on this whole question of the prison staff, and the whole subject is not being given the kind of priority it deserves. There has been, it is true, a recruitment campaign in the North-West. But it should have been led and conducted not only there but throughout the country by the Home Secretary and his colleagues at the Home Office. But far from doing that, the Home Secretary goes to Brighton and deals with crime and the building programme and everything else and misses an unrivalled opportunity—there is something peculiar about it—of dealing with the staff shortage. Is it permissible to think that there is a policy of deliberate silence here, a calculation that fewer recruits will be obtained if the true state of things is revealed? One can argue that way; I think it is very foolish, but it could be argued that people would be put off if they heard any speech such as I am inflicting on your Lordships this afternoon. Shall I be thought to

563
have done a real disservice to recruitment by "blowing the gaff", "spilling the beans" in front of your Lordships to-day? I cannot help thinking that the House will not take that view; I cannot help thinking that the House will wish, as always, to see all the cards on the table.
Let us make no mistake about it, there is a real crisis. In the view of the prison officers, I accept against a mounting background of crime—2,000 more prisoners than last year—the situation is more in need of drastic action now than at any time since the war. It is supposed by some, but not those who are best informed, I think, that the choice before our country to-day is a choice between a philosophy of reform and a philosophy of reaction. I do not consider that that is the real issue. The philosophy of reform has come to stay, and Mr. Butler must not be denied a great deal of the share of credit. But the real choice to-day is between reform on paper and reform on the ground; between reform in theory and reform in practice.
At present we are in danger of paying lip service to the idea of reform without providing the material means, certainly, but still more, the human means which alone make it possible. I have in mind the human means which would enable us to combine discipline on the one side and compassion on the other and which would make of reform not an attitude of laissez-faire and just indiscriminating leniency, but a constructive character-building force. I implore the Government, whose motives I do not doubt, to realise that a building programme, long overdue though it is, is not the whole answer or, indeed, the main part of the answer. What we require is a programme pursued with passionate determination to raise the status and strength of our prison staff. Without a programme of that kind, pushed through just as one would push through a programme for recruitment for the armed forces in time of danger, the high and laudable ideas of the Government will be more of a fiction than a reality; and whether we are more concerned with prevention or treatment of crime, with the victims or the delinquents, we shall continue to fail in our Christian duty.
564
Once again, I implore the Government to recognise this truth at last and to give effect to it. I beg to move for Papers.
3.30 p.m.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, I am very glad to see so large an attendance in your Lordships' House to-day; for, after all, none of us can know his fate exactly, and it is well that we should be interested in what may be our future residences, for shorter or for longer periods. My Lords, I cannot pretend to know anything like as much as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, does about prison, borstals and the problem of after-care, but I have been to a number of these places as a visitor and have endeavoured to make myself familiar with some of their most pressing problems. Also, I served for a good many years on the committee administering a Home Office approved school. I know the difficulties that the noble Earl has referred to in regard to the prison staff, but, after my own observations, I should like to pay tribute to the prison governors, the chaplains and the prison officers. They are short-handed, as we have heard, and they are very hard-worked. Recruiting is not satisfactory (that has been dealt with by the noble Earl), and I most certainly hope that their conditions will improve and that their pay becomes no less than that of police officers, because they deserve it.
My Lords, local prisons shock me. There is not only overcrowding, which means that they may be a breeding ground for future crime, but there seems to be lack of space for modern machinery and equipment to enable men to learn trades which will be of use to them on their discharge. Another type of prison, like Wakefield, is so different. There was no three in a cell when I was there, and every man can learn up-to-date methods in a number of trades. The men looked cheerful, and appeared to be on excellent terms with the Governor and staff.
My Lords, there is one class of prisoners, men and some women, who deliberately court prison sentences because they like being in prison. I used to meet such people in Hull Prison before it was bombed in the last war. The men told me that they were well fed, were warm and comfortable in winter, and had no worries and not too much work. I was informed that some time

565
after they had been discharged they smashed windows or knocked policemen's hats off, or did things of that kind, and back they went to prison. We taxpayers have Ito pay for their keep, and I wonder whether means could not be found to make prison a little less attractive to them.
As we have been told this afternoon, of the 29,600 incarcerated, only a very small fraction is women. Whether this means that women are mare virtuous or more cunning, I do not know; possibly they are not exposed to the same temptations. I have been struck by the very, small number of women in open prisons who have failed to make good afterwards. They learn to be good housewives, and this accomplishment must help them in their lives afterwards. The problem is different in closed prisons for women serving short sentences. There is not time to influence them in the same way. Furthermore, the number of women sentenced since the Street Offences Act came into operation has shown a very big increase: from 98 to 352 admitted to Holloway. Few of these respond in any way to rehabilitation. They do not like work, and they have no intention of settling down to respectable employment.
I must not say much about borstals, because I know that another noble Lord is going to say a good deal more on that subject, but what is so depressing about borstals is the very high percentage of those who return to crime after discharge. The reasons are various. On a recent visit I asked about one rather nice-looking boy, and the Governor told me that when he interviewed him on his arrival the boy said, "Father is in prison, my four brothers are in prison, and I was not going to be the black sheep of the family". That is a pretty bad one. The acquisition of expensive tastes is another cause. A boy in that same borstal told the Governor, "I had a good enough wage, but I could not keep a car and a girl on it, so I had to steal". My Lords, I only wish that parents who fail to bring up their offspring properly could be penalised. At present, they seem to suffer only when fines are imposed.
I must not say much about after-care work, since the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, is going to deal more fully with that, but it is of the very
566
highest importance to help to keep people in the middle of the road when they leave prison; and a start should be made as soon as they are received in prison. There should be far more welfare officers than there are at present, working hand in hand with probation officers, who are often so hard pressed that they are quite unable to do anything like what they would wish to do in that direction. Then, surely there should be an amalgamation of all societies dealing with discharged prisoners. I think the noble Lady will be dealing with this, but I will just make this remark. On reading the annual report of one organisation I saw that the after-care work of one prison was undertaken by 29 local societies. It is therefore inevitable that there should be overlapping and confusion.
One hopes very much that the Government will favour a scheme of amalgamation, much on the lines adopted for this work by the W.V.S., under its wonderful leader. That has worked so efficiently that I hope very much it will be a model on which to work. I am sure that such an organisation dealing with discharged prisoners could do a great deal of good, and could save the taxpayers' money very substantially. I, like others, feel very strongly that it would be a great mistake to have anything of this nature completely controlled as a branch of the Home Office. Government Departments are, perhaps necessarily, hedged in with regulations, which makes it so difficult to deal with unforeseen circumstances, and decisions from Government Departments come so slowly.
My Lords, there is one more matter: the Prison Commission being swallowed up by the Home Office. I know of one prison Governor who is not unduly worried, but others dread this change from a personal acquaintance with officials of the Prison Commission to something impersonal, and dealing with those who are not specialists in a very complicated business. The noble Earl has dealt fully with the question of increased prison acccommodation, and it is equally necessary to increase the prison staff and give them better conditions. We know that Holloway, which is only half full now, is to be closed for women and made available for men—some day. New prisons are planned—we have seen

567
the plans of one in the Prince's Chamber—and we only hope that these plans will go through quickly and that the new detention centres which also have been planned can be accomplished soon. In the name of St. Leonard, the Patron Saint of prisoners and captives, I urge the Government to speed things up to the utmost extent and mitigate the appalling evils of overcrowding.
3.38 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, once more we are grateful to the noble Earl for initiating this debate on what is a vast and very important subject. He talked of six years ago, and more. I think it is rather regrettable, but if your Lordships were paid by results achieved purely in the reduction of crime, then we should all be very poor men. One of the unfortunate positions of to-day is that we are not paid by results; and, therefore, in our case, we are probably being given three times as much as we should be worth for about twice the amount of work. It is also regrettable that, at a time when so many people in all Parties agree that the accent in prisons should be on rehabilitation and not on punishment, we are getting so little progress. I sincerely hope that none of us is going to be so downhearted about this as to think that we are on the wrong lines, because I am quite sure that we are not.
This is not an economics debate, but I feel strongly that one of the chief reasons for crime among the young is that, through full employment and high wages, these young boys, as soon as they leave school, can get well-paid jobs without any help from their families. The result of this is that during their school years discipline in the home is lax, and the father—son relationship, which is so vastly important for the welfare of children, just does not exist any more. The young are growing up these days with a very exaggerated idea of their own importance and their own worth. In fact, the old belief that the worse the conditions are at home, the more likely it will lead to crime, is no longer true, if in fact it ever was true. Now it would appear that the better the conditions in the home, the more chance there is of crime.
My Lords, I would even go a little further than that and say that, in the
568
present conditions of high wages far more girls go out to work, and so they make money earlier. They can marry earlier and now with the evil of hire-purchase we have the position which exists to-day. What has happened in the field of hire-purchase in the last two years is now well known. It shows how very easy it is to become dishonest and to get away with it. Once you are dishonest about one thing, you may very well become dishonest about others.
I have said that this is not an economics debate; nor is it an educational debate. But without discussing in any way the rights or wrongs of the case, I think the recent teachers' strikes—although I was very pleased this morning to see what had happened—will show that these strikes and these threats have damaged to a very considerable extent the minds of young children. Damage done at this age is very often irreparable. I think, looking to the future, that this again will make the criminal statistics of the future possibly very much higher than they might well have been otherwise, All this, my Lords, shows a continuing lack of high moral standards.
Although I do not want to disturb the noble Lords who represent the Church this afternoon, they are such an important part of this tremendous problem that I am rather sorry that they are not taking part to-day, because I do feel it is their responsibility and their example that can do as much as, if not more than, any of us here to help to solve this very difficult problem.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I might just interrupt to say that there is quite a prospect of one of the leading members of the Church taking part.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I am very delighted to hear it. He is not on the list of speakers, but the noble Earl will know that I am only too pleased that that should happen.
We have heard from both the noble Lords who have spoken so far about the question of prison officers, and I should like again to reinforce the point because I think we all should. They have had a welcome rise since the Wynn-Parry Report was published in 1958, but the experience and the character that is necessarily required of these people is

569
such that I greatly query whether they are anything like well enough paid to-day. I think most of us who are looking back over the last several years have fought hardest for a complete rethinking of the present problem, and we are determined to make re-education, rather than punishment, what we are fighting for. But, my Lords, how can we really do this with over 7,000 prisoners three in a cell? Some have been lucky enough not to be one of the three. But a great many of us have been in those cells, and one has only to look around to feel exactly what it would be like to be there. With that kind of thing still in very many places, with such sanitary arrangements as there are, and with the very limited training given, how can we really fight hard for re-education and expect to succeed?
My Lords, we have heard one or two answers to this problem. There is one very simple answer. It may not be possible, but a simple answer is that if the prisons, as re-educational centres, cannot cope with the numbers, then we must reduce the numbers. Or, to put it another way, are there not many people in prison to-day who should not be there at all? If in the very near future (I do not mean three or four years, but I do mean in the very near future) we could bring down the number of those in prison so that the ideals we believe in could be practised, perhaps we could keep the number down and it would not rise again.
If your Lordships will look at the Report of 1960 you will see the following figures. There were 27,824 untried prisoners at the end of 1959, of whom 10.993 were not sent to prison on conviction when tried. There were 6,868 sentenced in default of payment of fines. There were 8,231, many of whom, I believe, were "hire-purchase prisoners", who were under the heading of "civil" prisoners. Very many of these need not have gone to prison at all. Even with the vast numbers in prison to-day that would be quite a good saving.
Then, my Lords, there is that subject which has been raised on many occasions by many of us before: the question of the treatment of first offenders. In a great number of cases could not a second chance be given to these
570
people? Then if that second chance were not taken, it might mean a very considerably harsher punishment or sentence; but give them the chance. That would again be a very good way of reducing the number of people who are now in prison. A risk of some kind has to be taken, and in no case that I have suggested are we dealing with dangerous criminals.
As the noble Earl said, we have a vicious circle, but we have a vicious circle in another way. The present law says that people must go to prison for certain crimes. If they do, then there just are not enough prisons for them, and so there is overcrowding. The staffs which would be quite adequate if the prisons were not 'overcrowded become too small, so the only possible solution is to change the laws to prevent some of these people going to prison, and to instill on magistrates the need to be far more lenient in certain cases of first offenders. I would always except, of course, cases of violence.
My Lords, I rather appreciate the handing out of various portions of this debate this afternoon to certain people who are speaking after the noble Earl, and I welcome the fact that I have been allotted the young. I have always talked about them, for the simple reason that if we can cure crime in the young, then in ten or twenty years' there is not going to be any crime. So I always try and emphasise that side of the debate more than any other. Young criminals and prospective criminals revel in their own importance. They hero-worship only those who are more clever than they are in crime. They are cowards at heart, and they are brave only when the odds are at least three to one in their favour. Any association with adults who are criminals makes their chance of reform, even after full borstal sentence, that much the smaller. So, my Lords, the first priority for the young must be vocational centres, so that they can begin training at once, in no way associated with adults.
The whole point of borstal training is to bring the boy up to a standard of living which in most cases he has never had before or, if he has had it in the past, he has forgotten, so that when he comes out, he comes out with the possibility of tackling life as a normal boy should do. I am not

571
thinking of detention centres but of a sort of medium-term course of rehabilitation. But none of this is any good, if there is prior association with adults or if a boy goes to a centre for some six or eight weeks where there is no training, because it is contact with adults or a long period of waiting without anything to do which kills any desire a boy may ever have had of pulling himself together.
We have been told that the reception centre at Ashford took all those boys who were at Wormwood Scrubs, and so one would assume now that there are not any boys at Wormwood Scrubs; but I understand that there are still some 300 to 450 boys at the prison associating with adults. You can go round there and still be told that this is not true; that they do not associate with the adults. They are kept quite separate. But I am absolutely certain in my own mind that that is just not correct. Somehow, in the clever way these people have, they do associate with the adults, to their very great disadvantage. And we shall not get a real answer to the borstal question or to the question of young in prison unless we know with absolute certainty that at no time whatsoever do the boys associate with any adult confirmed criminal.
I believe that new ideas are coming out for dealing with certain of these borstal boys after they have left. I will not go into the question of after-care, but I think that we must remember that we can train boys in a borstal for eighteen months or two-and-a-half years or whatever it may be, but the whole training is gone completely unless they are welcomed into life afterwards as normal young men should be. I am pleased to hear that some of the worst types of borstal boys who have not anywhere to go are being treated on a voluntary basis in the way in which they should be treated.
I should like to say one word on detention centres, because I still believe that this is one of the best things that has been thought of for many years. They do wonderful work, and I think that the falling curve of failures during the last three years is very encouraging. These centres are doing a splendid job and the whole theory behind them should be welcomed. It is what is called the "short, sharp shock", the insistence on
572
discipline and on cleanliness, which I think is very important, and on the up-building of character. I have been to these centres and have noticed the number of times these boys are made to change. They get into P.T. kit, then change for breakfast, then into working clothes and change again for lunch. I think it makes them realise that there is somehing worth while in being clean and honest and part of a team. I cannot speak too highly of these centres.
I am delighted to see that many more are envisaged and I think that, when we do get more, we shall really have broken the back of teenage crime. But it is going to take a long time. The building programme is excellent. We may think it is slow, but in actual practice can it go any faster than it is doing? In theory, we all want to see it finished next year, but it is not only a question of money but of the practical possibility of building at a certain rate, which will require many years before we can say that we have enough buildings. It is in this pause between the overcrowding we have now and the time when we get all these buildings, that I wish the Government to consider seriously the reduction of prison reception in the ways I have suggested.
3.55 p.m.
BARONESS SWANBOROUGH: My Lords, I have sat watching your Lordships ever since entering into this House, and I do not recollect a single time when a more sympathetic attendance has been in the House giving their attention to what is being discussed. Inasmuch as I can only touch on the after-care side of this question, I am conscious of the fact that much has to be left out so as not to weary your Lordships and that as concise as possible an approach should be made to the subject in order that your Lordships may appreciate the line that many voluntary organisations would like to see considered in regard to after-care.
After-care should not be only a means of re-establishing a human being; it should be a way of his re-entry into normal life so that the person concerned will not wish once more to return to crime. This is the line that I should like to take in discussing after-care. The absolutely essential feature of any aftercare work, especially for persons coming from prison and from borstal must be

573
continuity. Therefore it is necessary that any after-care envisaged must be well planned, well organised and well carried through to its ultimate end. This is what we all must consider very deeply when we examine the methods of after-care which can be used in future.
A tremendous contribution to the whole problem could be achieved if it were possible to start after-care in prison and in borstal, as has already been mentioned, and continue it on release consecutively right through until complete re-establishment has been achieved. To me it seems clear that after-care should be available where needed and not be linked in any way with the prison sentence given. Anyone who has been detained, whether in prison, in borstal or in a detention centre should have after-care available to him. Positive after-care should be related to actual needs and not restricted to those who are subject to statutory after-care on release. I believe this to be a basically important point, which ought to be considered fundamentally.
To my mind it is clear that statutory and voluntary after-care should be one service, especially now that so many more persons will be subject to statutory after-care, and I believe that the participation of the voluntary worker in such a service would benefit the community as a whole, if a method were evolved by which the voluntary worker, within an agreed framework, could work with the person carrying out the statutory authority. In saying that I think it would benefit the community as a whole, I mean that members working within the community on this subject would begin to realise that they have to try to prevent entry into crime rather than merely to help after crime has been perpetrated.
I have thought about this a great deal and I am convinced that if any suggestion is to be of any use, it should be one acceptable in the country as a whole. It should be possible to work it easily, without too much red tape and must be easily understood by all concerned. Too much appears too often to be misunderstood by one person or another and in consequence work gets retarded or completely fogged. The suggestion I should like to make is that a central body for the provision of after-care should be set up by the Government and financed by
574
the Government, this body to have the responsibility of taking over existing statutory and voluntary obligations and increasing the number of officers doing welfare work in the prisons, as well as outside, so as to establish throughout the whole country a skeleton network on which the operation can be based.
It would, in my view, be a mistake to set up a new organisation to undertake statutory after-care at central or local level, with the consequent risk of duplicating work on the ground. Too often the work of responsible social agencies is ruined by either the politeness of wondering who is going to step on whose toes or by internecine warfare. I believe that if the probation service were widened and strengthened so that its officers could take care of this work as a whole, a tremendous amount of overlapping would be avoided and a real and excellent result obtained.
I am as sick as many of your Lordships of hearing people talk about juvenile offenders, crime and punishment, without accepting any responsibility themselves in their community for any part of the question. I should like to be sure that an opportunity can be provided for those really disturbed by and truly interested in the whole question, so that they can play a part, however small, at the local level. My experience is, however (and I have had a good deal of experience in this field), that merely being interested in the subject is not enough. It is necessary, if one is going to undertake any part whatsoever in the whole, to fit oneself for that part by simple training, and maybe a test, so that one can be sure that one is in possession of what one needs to undertake the aim that one has ahead.
Usually in envisaging after-care the two determining factors, and often the two breaking points, are those of finance to meet the cost and the persons available to do the after-care. In this respect it would be necessary, of course, to enlarge and strengthen, and, indeed, widen, the present probation service make-up. It would naturally call for more expenditure, but it would be money spent in helping to prevent further trouble rather than incurring a heavy new budget, and it should eventually save money. It is essential that the responsible people—and by those I mean the probation

575
officers—be paid on a scale which is right for the job and which establishes them in a strong personal situation to be able to pursue the job rather than be constantly looking about for something with better remuneration, which obviously is not good for the job in hand. I should like to see the voluntary worker brought into such an aftercare service to work to the person carrying the full responsibility; and I know from experience that such a scheme is both possible and advantageous.
Since the war many of us working with the statutory bodies in social services have learned much. Many new ways of operating the machinery of such services have been developed, and for those of us who spend our lives in this field the machinery of the National Assistance Board has a great attraction. It is a small body of independent members, constituted, on the basis of a British jury, of reputable and respected men and women. Its terms of reference are wide enough to permit of quick action and the easing of red tape. Its officers throughout Great Britain are known, admired and respected for the way in which they handle difficult and often terribly complicated cases. I should hone that if we could have a national after-care service for those who have been in borstal and in prison, it might well be modelled, as to its control, on the basis of the National Assistance Board, with a board in charge and with its members appointed by the Home Secretary.
I should wish this, because within my experience (and that of countless others) I have found that this method has the advantage of being quick in action, without the delays of departmental procedure; and it also has the great merit of having people of varying natures in charge, and therefore there is no ultimate dependence upon any one individual, which can be a difficulty as well as a retard. Retard and delay have been our bugbears in this work for too long, and if this suggestion I am putting forward were to be examined, there would be the additional virtue in it that both the probation service and the voluntary bodies are already in existence.
From the point of view of voluntary bodies, small things done locally on a
576
national scale can be a great contribution, and I should like to quote two experiments that have been in operation for a short time, both of which seem to me to have a bearing on the case. Many of us have heard of a good deal of trouble through borstal boys coming out from borstal having difficulty in finding anybody to befriend them. Ex-borstal boys, as your Lordships well know, are normally licensed by the After-Care Association to the probation officer. Owing to pressure of work, the responsible officers do not have sufficient time to devote as much as they would like to each boy. Therefore, the homeless boy is often left to his own resources and has little choice between loneliness and bad companionship. In order to try to overcome this, the W.V.S., with which I am associated, tried to see whether it could get voluntary men friends to befriend the boys coming out of borstal, and with the approval of the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners voluntary men friends were established, in the first place, in Manchester.
Each voluntary man friend undertakes to befriend one boy, or more than one, coming out of borstal. So far as the lad is concerned, the scheme is entirely voluntary. The scheme started with people who were very carefully chosen and to whom it was explained that in order to fight the evil that is so often inherent in this type of thing three references would be required, and two of them would be taken up personally by the probation officer. This has been done, and in the time that has expired the men, twenty in number, ranging from a man driving a bus to a man who is a solicitor, have made a considerable success of the undertaking. The undertaking on the part of the men entails a good deal of personal self-sacrifice. That must be understood from the very start. They have to be ready to meet endless difficulties and to understand frustrations; they have to give much of their leisure in order to befriend the boy, so that he looks upon them as a real friend; and they also have to steep themselves in the boy himself, so that they can understand not only his aspirations but his depressions. I should like to pay the greatest tribute to the men who started this scheme. Since then it

577
has been copied in other centres. The probation officers seem to think it is a very good idea.
The second scheme, which stems from the first, is a scheme to have houses to which these boys can go, if they have no homes or only bad homes, on their discharge from borstal. The undertaking of the second scheme stems from the first one because it was found that the reason most often dominating, in boys going back to borstal, was the lodgings in which they were. The boys were mostly lodged with landladies who were thankful to get rid of them and did not want them in the house more than just to sleep; they were impersonal and created no feeling of home for the boys. An undertaking has been started by which small houses will be provided in five or six major cities to house borstal boys of the type that cannot go home and need a real home for themselves. A woman will be in charge of each house and the house will aim to make a home for the boys, who will pay for their keep. As the boy develops into being "home-broken," a link will be kept with him as he is placed with a landlady, who in turn will be tied to the parent house, the parent house being a club to which the boys go.
A great deal of this scheme will depend on enthusing the landladies and helping them to try to be a "Mum" to the boys, so that in turn the community itself is participating in the scheme. This and other schemes are easily run by organisations working locally, but working to the responsible person. I will not burden your Lordships with further evidence that things can be done, but I know—and I think this is very important—that if a scheme is successful then other organisations will quickly copy it, and value would come to those who want to help on a local basis. It is known that within voluntary societies who may not at present be engaged on after-care work, there are members who would be deeply interested in this fresh outlet for their energies.
A board or after-care body could not of itself overcome the difficulty of recruiting and looking after a sufficient number of voluntary helpers to befriend all the discharged prisoners who would obviously need to be looked after, and a method of organisation to recruit,
578
train and hold them, and to make them effective, would be necessary. The suggestion I would make, therefore, is that the statutory body, through its Board, should ask for the help of existing national organisations and ascertain whether they would be willing to enter into such a scheme. The working of this scheme should not involve heavy financial expenditure. The Board would have to pay a salary for a person in each of the national organisations with which agreement has been reached, and the Board would benefit as a result by acquiring a nation-wide number of trained and tested volunteers, activated and strengthened within their own organisation by the designated person. They would, however, be working at the local level to the statutory responsible officer.
A strong and efficient after-care service could be built up throughout the whole of the country, and the help could be enlisted of many who are both interested in the problem of re-establishment of ex-prisoners and willing to give voluntary service. Auxiliaries to do all kinds of supplementary work would result and could be of very real value. They could work to the local probation service and deal with those things which the responsible officer could delegate to them. Not only would the probation service have a number of persons to rely on for extra help, but within the community the individual doing the work would be of real value, making known to other people the part they could play in fighting crime in some shape or another. It is, after all, in the nature of a precedent that our magistrates' service is a voluntary one, and it should be possible, to my mind, to have a body of men and women who would work for ex-prisoners in a way which would meet the needs of to-day, and could well set a pattern for to-morrow, for yet another form of voluntary service integrated into statutory responsibility.
4.13 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, once more we have my noble friend Lord Longford to thank for an opportunity to consider the position in Her Majesty's prisons. Once more we have had from him a speech on a very serious subject, enthused with a personal kindliness in a way of which only he, perhaps, is capable.

579
Once more we have had a speech in which the sharpest shafts have been sweetened by all he has been able to say of a kindly character about his intended victim. But this mixture, and the pleasant words with which his shafts have been covered, have failed to disguise the fact that, however praiseworthy the Government's intentions are with regard to the Prison Service, it is at present, as Mr. Enoch Powell, the Minister of Health, said the other day, a position where the appalling facts and deficiencies of the prison conditions thrust themselves on to our minds and our consciences. I think it is undeniable that these conditions, with their depressing, frustrating and brutalising effects, actually add to our prison population. I do not think there can be any question that that is one of the factors.
My noble friend, I thought, put forward unanswerable arguments for an increase in the pay of prison officers as one of the factors necessary in order to bring about an improvement. It will be within your Lordships' recollections that my noble friends and I raised the question of police pay. At that time we were met with the argument—a true argument—"it is not only a question of pay". I am quite sure that the Government will use this argument with regard to pay of prison officers. But we know to-day, so far as the police force is concerned, that whereas we had a situation in which the numbers were steadily declining, only a few months after the increases in pay the numbers have increased by more than 2,000 men. That surely indicates the effectiveness of the increases. I am quite certain that if prison officers were given a sensible increase in pay; if we put the pay and conditions right, we should get the men. In the same way, if we get prison conditions right we shall reduce the number of prisoners.
We are also greatly indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, for her words on after-care. The noble Lady has crystallised the views which my noble friends and I put forward on the discussions on this subject at all stages of the Criminal Justice Bill. I firmly support every word she has said, and I am extremely grateful for the details she gave of the experience she has had through the W.V.S. with the borstal boys.
580
Unquestionably, quite apart from the need for a different and improved organisation, and for much better financing, one of the greatest needs is for a suitable home for ex-prisoners of all ages to go to if they have not a home of their own. I was with my noble friend Lord Longford at Leicester yesterday, and we paid a brief visit to Leicester Prison. There they are starting a private enterprise hostel for ex-prisoners. The number of men to be catered for will be only six. It is a wonderful and praiseworthy effort, but in relation to the need for such places, of course, it is very small indeed.
I most strongly support the noble Lady's suggestion for a combination of a statutory body, financed by the Government, and specialised, trained volunteers from existing organisations. Indeed, I echo, and accept, her suggestion for a body on the lines of the National Assistance Board, but certainly not part of that Board. This implies no criticism of Government Departments, because the National Assistance Board is different. Those of us who have been constituency M.P.s during the last ten years realise what a wonderful thing the N.A.B. piece of elastic is, and how it can be adjusted within the Board's terms of reference. We want a similar type of semi-independent but statutory organisation as the directing body for our after-care. In any case, although, of course, it is recognised that the Home Secretary must appoint the members of such a body, it is above all essential to keep after-care away from the Home Office. I hope that very early consideration will be given to the setting up of this body, and I believe that there can be no question that among the officers of such a future body there will be those who have already given, and are still giving, excellent service in existing bodies.
I would also support the point made by the noble Lady that there must be no difference in the method of treatment of prisoners or in supervision of statutory after-care. Not only would it be unnecessarily expensive but quite ludicrous, because those dealing with ex-prisoners, need not know whether it was given under one section or another. There are prisoners who need advice and assistance and I am sure that it is

581
possible in this way, if the suggested method is adopted, to harness the great and growing volume of public interest and to provide every ex-prisoner with what he needs—a friend.
Those of us who have had experience with prisoners and ex-prisoners realise that in many ways that is the most important element of all. I myself have made friends, in the main of habitual criminals, those with long sentences, because I felt that not only were they the ones in greatest need and the most hopeless but they were the ones with whom it was possible to attempt to prove something. I have particularly in mind a man who is serving a 10-year sentence. When I first met him four or five years ago he was bitterly angry, frustrated, completely anti-social and wearing specially distinctive prison garb of an escapee—he was on the "A" list. The first and most urgent need was to get him to see that there was someone who believed in him. So he began to believe in himself.
One has to be frank and talk bluntly to a man like that, but certainly within a few months he was off the "A" list. Six months ago a quite remarkable change was apparent. He was given the third stage and third remission. He was, of course, in a hostel. He came to see me on his holidays in August—he was navvying, of course. He showed me his hands with the pride of a man working. He will not finish his hostel six months until about Christmastime, but he will go straight into a job. I am absolutely certain that that man is going to make good.
Work in prison is a major part of the solution, but in prison real satisfying work with a purpose is one of the most difficult and hardest things to get, and I believe that it is the cause of all the aspects of prison life of which there is most reason to complain. It is in the provision of work that the Prison Commissioners have failed most dismally. The reason, I think, is made clear, so far as it can be made clear, in the documents in the Report of the Council on the Employment of Prisoners. In paragraph 31 you can read this quite damning sentence—I quote:
"We do not say that the present approach is deliberately half-hearted."
582
My Lords, I say it is far less even than half-hearted. In the matter of work, in my view, the Prison Commissioners are not trying a yard. Either they do not believe in it or they do not believe in their ability to organise it. In case your Lordships feel that that criticism is too strong I will try to prove my point.
During 1959 I introduced a Motion in your Lordships' House—the first Motion that I ever moved here—which submitted a policy calculated to provide full employment for blind and badly disabled people, and to increase the amount of work available to the inmates of Her Majesty's prisons. All the blind workshops are members of an employers' organisation of which I am President, and I was able at that time to point to the fact that, owing to the decline in Government orders they were receiving, many blind workshops were working only two or three days a week. I made a number of suggestions for improvement, and expressed the view that if they were adopted not only would there be plenty of work for the blind and disabled but we should eventually reach the position where most prisoners would be able to work for real wages, pay for their keep and help in support of their dependants.
The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who replied to that debate, promised that these suggestions would be given consideration by the Supply Departments and by the newly-constituted Priority Suppliers' Committee, which was to sit under Ministry of Labour chairmanship. The priority suppliers are, of course, the blind and disabled workshops and the Prison Commissioners. Lord Dundee's promise was faithfully kept, and only recently the present Minister of Labour, Mr. John Hare, wrote to tell me how well this scheme is working. These blind workshops now have all the work they can possibly handle and, as your Lordships are doubtless aware, the turnover of Remploy has increased very considerably indeed.
But not so the prisons, on whose behalf I was also pleading at the same time, and the reason is to be clearly found in a letter I received a month or two back from the General Secretary of the National League of the Blind, which is the blind people's trade union.

583
He informed me that the Prison Commission had given up tendering to Government Departments for the supply of baskets and brushes, and had given up tendering to nationalised industries, hospital boards, and local authorities for the supply of mats. The letter concluded:
"Please accept my warmest thanks on behalf of my members and myself for the valuable contribution you have made to this achievement."
My Lords, I disown the achievement. The discredit belongs entirely to the Prison Commissioners. My entire plea was for an enlargement of the field of Government orders so as to provide enough work for all. In fact the Committee has been constituted. It is doing the job that we proposed it should do, but only two sections of the priority suppliers are benefiting.
In the course of the debate to which I referred I pointed out that the Service Departments alone have inventories amounting to the staggering figure of 700,000 different items, many of which they are ordering every year. Very large quantities of many of these items are, of course, light engineering products, which are essential for prison workshops but which the handicapped workers and blind workers do not wish to make; and with proper selection there need be no clash of interests with the disabled.
In a fully employed society the problem of finding work for prisoners is microscopic. As the Report to which I have just referred mentions, only about 20,000 men in prison are capable of working, and many of these are on domestic tasks, and always will be. So the size of the problem, the real need, is to find regular employment for about 10,000 men—that is, one two-thousandth part of our working population; one-tenth of a penny in the pound on our whole industrial output. That is the size of the problem. Any businessman of modest experience, given the assistance of two typists and two medium-grade civil servants, and the backing of the Government and Government goodwill, could within two years see that the prisoners were fully employed.
Of course we need more prison workshops, and there were about 24 new prison workshops due in the year 1959
584
to 1960. I should be glad to know from the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, whether they were completed, and why they are not working to full capacity. I know why they are not working to full capacity. I have just given the reason. But why should we have gone on in this stupid way and built workshops without taking care that there would be work available for the men, and the necessary supplies? Why is it that the Prison Commissioners have ceased to tender for their traditional types of work without first making sure of regular orders for these other types?
We are always being told that there are difficulties with regard to the employment of prisoners, difficulties with the trade unions. But there would, and there could, be no difficulties with the trade unions if the prisoners were paid the rate for the job, instead of these miserable few shillings they now receive. Even the recent tiny increase to which my noble friend referred has relieved a lot of the tension in many prisons where there was trouble or likely to be trouble. How much better it would be if they were properly trained, fully employed, could earn their keep and, in the process, be prepared for a decent working life when they go into the world again!
Last year in August the United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders met in London and published two reports on the integration of prison labour with the national economy. The Congress accepted certain basic principles which I would briefly summarise. First, the principle of equal pay for equal work second, that a sentence of imprisonment as a protection of society against crime is only justified if on his return to society the offender is able to lead a law-abiding and self-supporting life. There must be after-care for that, of course. Thirdly, the treatment of offenders should emphasise not their exclusion from the community but their continuing part in it, and nothing could better demonstrate this than their continued paid employment. The fourth principle was that prison labour must not be of an afflictive nature but regarded as a means of rehabilitation of the prisoner and his training for work. Its organisation should be as much as possible like that

585
of free labour. They are the principles agreed by the United Nations Congress. They are the principles to which we, as members of that Congress, as indeed hosts of that Congress, subscribed and paid lip service.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I believe that equal pay for equal work there means equal pay with civilian employees.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I was trying to summarise. It is, of course, a reference to the question of human rights, but it is a reference of that principle in the Charter of Human Rights to the employment of prisoners, and it means that they should have a right to equal pay with those working in a free society.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. Is it his contention that if prisoners received equal pay with those free workers outside, any form of trade union objection would subside? Is that his contention?
LORD STONHAM: It is my contention, based on experience, that the major form of trade union objection, and indeed the objection of employers of labour in competing with prisons, is that the workers in prisons are not paid the rate for the job, and indeed that the selling prices from prisons are not comparable with those in ordinary industry. My contention is that if men in prison were paid the rate for the job the major part of that objection would vanish. I would very much like to have the job of discussing this with trade union leaders, if the point were granted, and I am certain there would be no objections on the part of trade unions at all, any more than there were when I had to do a comparable job on behalf of the blind and disabled. I know there is a difference of sentiment. But I have had sufficient experience of these negotiations with employers and in connection with prison labour to think that if these objections were removed the job could be done.
I was referring to our participation in these United Nations decisions. I would submit that although we were sub
586
scribers to that Congress our present system of prison labour cruelly and stupidly violates every one of those principles. Indeed in this matter we are a very long way behind many countries very much poorer and smaller than we are. This is quite apparent from the second report, which was written by Mr. Carlos Basalo, the Inspector General of the National Penal Institute of Argentina. He instances many countries where prisoners are paid the whole or a substantial percentage of the wages paid for similar work to free employees. In most cases a deduction is made for board and lodging, some money is set aside for the maintenance of dependants, and, apart from a pocket money allowance, the balance is retained as compulsory savings until the prisoner's release.
In principle there is no difference between that system and the one we have in this country now, where perhaps for the last six months of his sentence a man goes to a hostel and goes out to work freely with other people, and perhaps when he comes out after doing his six months he has £100 left after paying his whole dues. There is no difference in principle with that at all. There is in fact quoted by Mr. Basalo an example of a full pay experiment in Sweden which was greatly favoured by the prisoners, who expressed the view that recidivism was fostered by the hopeless indebtedness of many prisoners on release. They declared that reasonable wages were an incentive and that it was most important to a prisoner to be able to help his family, as indeed it is. They found the earnings, performance and morale of prisoners under this system were tremendously improved. That is the system to which we pay lip service in international conferences. It is the system. I submit, we should adopt without delay.
Availability of work is not a problem. It can be made available just as easily as it was for the blind and disabled. In my submission, the real problem in this particular matter—and I hate to have to say this—is that the Government lacks the will, and the Prison Commissioners lack both the will and the know-how. It is my contention that if we adopted a policy of full prison employment with

587
pay, and coupled this with the aftercare administration outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, we should before long make a substantial and permanent reduction in the prison population, and thus obviate the need for new prisons other than as replacements for obsolete ones. Incidentally, if we had a sufficiently large and sufficiently enlightened youth service we should not need so many approved schools and borstals, but that is a matter for another debate which I hope we may have before very long.
I am conscious of the fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, is equally conscious, that I have had to gloss over quite a lot of details. But I have in this matter of prison work spoken from a working lifetime of experience of negotiations in such matters. I have for 28 years been president of an employers' federation in a prison industry which has virtually been under attack all the time and is so no longer. I know what can be done both with employers and with trade unions; and certainly, although I would not wish to go into any further detail now (I am conscious I have spoken over long), if I can later speak to the noble Earl on these points and be in any way helpful I shall be very glad to do so.
4.40 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, we are deeply indebted, as we very often are, to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising this subject in your Lordships' House, and enabling many of us who are keenly interested in the subject to listen to a number of interesting speeches, and also to try, as I shall try, as one of your Lordships, to make a small contribution to this debate.
This is a matter of tremendous importance. As Lord Longford rightly said, it does not involve a discussion on crime, although I think it would be quite interesting if we could have such a discussion, because we might, somehow or other, find out how it is that, in this era of prosperity and of people having in many ways a much higher standard of living, we have such a terribly high crime rate. Lord Longford has already said that we must regard it not as a problem which is confined to the United Kingdom, but as an international problem and one
588
which all nations in the world, judging by the conference to which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has just referred, the United Nations Conference, are at the moment trying to solve.
But to-day we are dealing with a specific subject, one which has many facets and one on which many of your Lordships have made a contribution. If I may go back even further than anyone else, I should like to say that the Home Office, in 1946, I think (I shall be corrected if I am wrong) when the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, was Home Secretary, appointed the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. In those days we were much concerned to try to finds new ways and new ideas, somehow or other to deal with this great problem. I have been a humble member of that Council, since it started and have been delighted, listening here to-day, to hear people praising the detention centres which were a direct outcome of our deliberations. Nobody has mentioned the attendance centres. They, too, were suggested by us, and I think are working quite successfully in a number of places. A good many of the reforms that have gone into the prison service at the present time arose directly out of our deliberations.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, might I interrupt the noble Baroness? She is quite right in saying that I had the honour of first appointing that Committee; but it was not in 1946, it was during the war. I had become Lord President of the Council by 1946.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: It is a long time ago. I have been on it since the beginning, but I could not remember when it was first appointed. The noble Lord says it was in the middle of the war. At any rate, we have one member of that committee who is in another place and who is a great expert on these matters—I refer to Sir George Benson. He is a great statistician. He is continually trying to prove to us that, whatever you do and whatever changes and improvements you make in the prison system, you come to the same result—namely, that between ten and twenty per cent. of the people who go to prison come back again once or twice, or are recidivists, and nothing makes any difference. I have argued with him many times on

589
that point. I think that statistics can be made to prove anything. And I still do not believe that that is any argument for not trying to find ways of improving and bettering the system under which our penal reform is being directed.
I should like to pay a tribute to the Prison Commissioners. Lord Stonham made a great many attacks on them. I have worked now for a number of years in close association with the Prison Commissioners, and I would pay a tribute to that body of men and women who give most devoted service to the subject of prisons. They are a splendid body of people. They are the people who take the risks—often there are risks in these reforms. They are the people who have to put them through and are in every way a most remarkable and expert body of experienced people. I should like to say here how deeply I regret the death of Sir Lionel Fox who was a Prison Commissioner for a great many years and who became Chairman of the Prison Commission, He died only recently, but he was a most remarkable man. I should like to pay my tribute to him here, in your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Baroness, just to say that I am sure everyone in the House would wish to echo those sentiments? I should certainly have paid such a tribute myself. It is an omission of mine, and I am extremely glad that the noble Baroness has said what she has said.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to take up one or two points that have arisen during the debate. I shall not delay your Lordships long. Let me refer in the first place to the building programme. As we know, the Home Office is engaged on one of the biggest building programmes in connection with prisons, borstal, detention centres, attendance centres and so on, that have ever been undertaken by any Government. There is one great obstacle in all this. Every time the Prison Commissioners try to find a new site or place to put up one or other of these penal institutions—they are not all prisons; sometimes they are other institutions—instantly there is the most tremendous opposition from everybody in the particular area concerned. I
590
appreciate that the ordinary public is terrified at the idea of having anything in the nature of a prison or similar institution, near their home. But I am quite sure that all that is unnecessary and that we ought to encourage people to realise that there is no danger in living within range of one or other of the prison institutions, any more than there is in living far away. In fact, I think that if you are far away you are much more likely to become a victim following upon an escape than if you are nearby, because a person who escapes is going to try to get as far away as possible from the prison. These things are not serious objections, and I wish that we could persuade the public and local authorities to co-operate more with the Prison Commissioners, so that they might find it easier to obtain places to put up these new establishments.
Nobody, I think, has mentioned what is an improvement, although perhaps not the most important of improvements —namely, the improvements that have gone on inside existing prisons. During the war, when we started the Advisory Council, I visited a great number of prisons throughout the country. Although in wartime they were nothing like as full as they are now, they were quite unmodernised and undecorated, compared with prisons to-day. If your Lordships will look in the Prince's Chamber you will see a model of one of the new prisons which are now being built. In addition to putting up new prisons. Even the deep green dadoes older prisons, the curse of all our lives, the chocolate paint which used to be spread about in many of our institutions, I am glad to say has been thrown down the drain. It is not painted all over prisons. Even the deep green dados which I particularly dislike have gone. Although these are small things, they still brighten slightly the atmosphere in regard to the arrangements which are being made in prisons, many admittedly old and out of date.
Then I am glad to say that there has been improvement in many of the sanitary arrangements in the older prisons. In the newer prisons they are completely modernised. Another small but important thing, is in regard to the clothing in women's prisons. The Advisory Council

591
were always pressing that there should not be such hideous clothing. That is improving; a choice of clothing is being allowed and generally a more humane and acceptable attitude is taken towards women's clothing. That is another thing which is going on in the prisons. I suppose these are not very large and new improvements, but we must go by degrees. Considering the enormous building programme which is outlined in the Report of the Commissioners, if we can get that through it will be of tremendous help. In regard to building we must obtain good relations with local authorities and we must try to make people co-operative towards and not opposed to the idea of these new prisons.
Lord Moynihan has praised the detention centres. I am most interested to hear that, because when we recommended detention centres quite a number of people were much against them; they thought they would not be suitable or successful. They have been a success, particularly with a certain type of prisoner—that is to say, a boy who has not already served a sentence either in an approved school or in a borstal institution. It has been what we had always intended it to be: a short, sharp shock which has pulled them to their senses and made them say. "We are going to give up the idea of a life of crime". Those centres have been a success. As I have indicated, they are a failure with the type of boy who has already had a number of experiences in a borstal or in an approved school; but with those who have not had this experience they have been a success, and the Home Office is going to enlarge them and build considerably more.
It is a possibility that there may be one for girls, and I should like to assure your Lordships that the idea of a detention centre for girls is not to produce something of a similar nature, with a similar kind of training, to detention centres for boys. Far from it; the idea is to provide something quite different, with firm discipline and with as much training as possible, but something which is in the nature of a short, sharp shock effective for girls. There are, as your Lordships know, far fewer girls than boys concerned, and the problem will therefore be a very much smaller one.
592
A great many people have drawn attention to the real importance of staff, and to the payment of staff. I do not know, because I am not in the Home Office (although I work very closely with them), what the Home Secretary's ideas on the subject of staff are likely to be. But he has shown such drive, such imagination and such advanced views about the police that I cannot believe, having heard him make a really great speech at Brighton the other day, that he does not also have ideas about the staff and staffing of prisons and borstal institutions.
I should like to pursue something mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—and I am sorry he is not here. He spoke just now at some length about the question of work for prisoners, and my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who was for many years at the Home Office and who knows a great deal about it, challenged him about this. I remember very well that some years ago there was a Commission—I do know whether it was a Royal Commission or not—on the question of work in prisons which produced a very extensive Report. It so happens that I was in touch with the Home Office this morning, before this debate, in fact with the Prison Commissioners, and I asked them this very question on the subject of work in prisons. I was told that, at the present time, they have far more work than they are able to execute. They have reintroduced machinery where for some time, because they had not had enough work, they had been using hand labour. The position in prisons today is not that there is not enough work—there is plenty of work—but there is a shortage of staff and a consequent inability to organise that work.
I am sure your Lordships will realise that in overcrowded prisons the movement of prisoners is naturally a very difficult problem. To move a great number of prisoners from one section of a prison to another, into workshops or away from workshops, with an inadequate supply of prison officers is a very difficult thing. It is just a vicious circle. If we could get more staff, and if we could get more workshops—I do not know how great is the shortage of workshops, but there may be a shortage of them—there would be plenty of work for the prisoners to do. But

593
the fact is, as I say, it is a vicious circle, and it is very difficult to get the work, the prisoners, the machines and all the rest of it geared up to take in so many people for so many hours during the day. I strongly support the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the other Members of your Lordships' House who have stressed the importance of improving the conditions and the pay of the prison officers, so that we may have a sufficient number to solve this problem of the staffing of prisons.
Lastly, I should like to back up my noble friend Lady Swanborough in her suggestion with regard to mobilising the voluntary interests among the public to co-operate with either the probation or the prison staffs—the professionals, as it were—in this work. I am sure that she is quite right: we could do a tremendous amount to help the prison service and the after-care service by mobilising the interests of the voluntary societies as she has done on many occasions very successfully in the past. She instanced two very interesting schemes of after-care which are at the present moment working. From my experience in my own area I know of a probation officer who has a great deal of help from voluntary probation officers whom he supervises and trains, and they relieve him of individual cases and look after the boy or the girl. It has worked very well indeed. I think there is a lot we could do there.
Here again, I would remind your Lordships that the Home Secretary has set up a part of the Advisory Council as a small committee to go into the question of after-care, and I am sure that the suggestions put forward by the noble Baroness this afternoon will be read by them with great interest, because they are of great importance and also because they work; and that is one of the acid tests of any scheme.
I will not detain your Lordships any longer, but I should like to say that I think this whole problem of crime, of prisons and other institutions, of probation, borstal and so on is something which affects every single person in the community. If we could only get the whole community really aware of this. For my part, I am glad that we have had all these facts and figures brought out by the noble Earl, Lord Longford.
594
It can do nothing but good. It is no good being frightened about these things; these things could be overcome. After all, to take juvenile delinquency, which has been mentioned by many noble Lords this afternoon, at the end of the day it is only 3 per cent. of the school population of the country which comes before the courts and the total number of criminals, although it is very high, is not as great a percentage of the population as that.
But the problem does need the help of everybody, and I hope that if we in your Lordships' House have done nothing else to-day we have at least aired this problem in its simple form, saying what is fact and what the Home Office is up against. I am perfectly certain that, with the present Home Secretary, with his representative who is going to reply here, Lord Bathurst, and with all the people who work in the Home Office—not forgetting the Prison Commissioners, a splendid body of people who have been anxious to undertake any work they possibly could and to experiment in any way they could—this problem can be solved; but it requires the help of every single one of us in the country.
4.58 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am an original member of what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, once described as the "Crime Club"—or words to that effect. Incidentally, I am sorry that his name is not on the list of speakers. When he was in his place a few minutes ago, I hoped for a minute or two that he would be joining us in this discussion, because his contributions are always of great interest and originality.
I confess that I often feel very discouraged in connection with this particular problem. The number of prisoners in the prisons since the "Crime Club" started these debates in your Lordships' House, I suppose quite ten years ago, has more than doubled—a great deal more than doubled—and there is no sign that the progressive increase is coming to an end. If our arrangements were better, no doubt there would be improvements. I appreciate what the noble Lady who has just resumed her seat said—that it is still a very small percentage of the population; but it is a very much larger

595
percentage than it ought to be. And that, despite a much greater amount of sincere, informed and very able work which has been done by a large number of people on all sorts of different aspects of this problem over these last years.
I was very glad that the noble Lady paid such a high tribute to the Prison Commission. I entirely agree with her views. Some Members of your Lordships' House will remember that we did our best to prevent their possible dissolution under the Government's Bill. And I still feel that that would be a very great mistake. I was particularly glad that she took the opportunity of paying a tribute to the late Sir Lionel Fox, one of the greatest criminal reformers, I think, we have had. It always gives me great pleasure to feel that this country has produced a number of prison reformers who have captured the attention of the world—men such as John Howard.
I am told by people who were there (unfortunately I had not the pleasure of being present myself) that when Sir Lionel Fox rose from a bed of sickness to appear at the meeting of the International Conference on Penal Problems a year or two ago, he was held in such high honour by all those people who attended, from every country of the world pretty well, that the whole meeting rose to their feet and acclaimed him—a touching and most wonderful tribute to a great man. He was there as a reformer rather than as an official. It is interesting to realise that, although he was a great official and Chairman of the Prison Commission during a very crucial period, he was being honoured on that occasion as a reformer, not as an official. It is interesting to remember that, although he was in charge of the prisons, his great ambition was to see prisons come to an end, because he did not believe that prison was the best way of dealing with the criminal. And that is, of course, the view of almost everybody who has spent a great deal of time and taken a great deal of trouble over this particular problem.
My Lords, there are always on these occasions a number of contributions made to these discussions which give one encouragement and renew one's courage to go on with the battle; and this afternoon we have had a number of speeches of that kind. If I may say so, one which was
596
particularly encouraging was that of the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough. Everybody who has seen her work in the W.V.S. during the war, as I had the opportunity of doing rather intimately, has a great love, regard and admiration for her; and I am quite sure that if she can get this superb organisation engaged on its job, we shall begin to see things happen. I entirely agree with everything that has been said about the importance of after-care. I should just like to refer to two points which she mentioned.
One was in regard to the improvement in the position of probation officers, particularly having regard to the absurdly small remuneration which they receive. When one considers how much the probation officers save for the country every year, it really is heartbreaking to see how little they are regarded and honoured, so to speak, in the sense of their position in society. I know several probation officers who save the community ten or twenty times their salary every year in regard to the lads and young men they keep out of prison, and whom they keep at work doing good work for the community. Therefore, I support very strongly all that the noble Baroness said on that side.
I think, too, that there is a great deal in what she said about the need for looking to the whole problem of the overlapping which, from what I have seen, I am sure exists with regard to the different social services concerned with this particular problem. I mean the probation officers, the children's officers, and all sorts of other social officers, who are all doing good work but often overlapping and criss-crossing with each other. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, asked me, when he was organising this debate, in that thorough fashion of his which is so useful, to deal particularly with research. I should like to suggest that one very sensible piece of research would be into this overlapping. It should be carried out by somebody who was skilled in judging on matters of this sort—possibly somebody from outside the Civil Service. I am sure that that might lead to a very considerable improvement.
The noble Earl said that this is not a general debate on crime, and it is a little difficult, perhaps, to fit in the question of research. I appreciate that there

597
may be research just into prisons and borstals, but research is a general subject. Even in the excellent Report of the Prison Commission for 1960, which contains one or two paragraphs dealing with the subject, and also an Appendix, the Commissioners themselves tend to stray a little outside research into prisons and borstals, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I stray with them, and perhaps stray rather further than they have strayed.
It is interesting and encouraging to see that a great deal of useful psychological research is going on inside the Prison Service. Obviously, one of the researches referred to in the Report is already producing pretty good value; that is, the research into the sort of mentalities which are benefited by corrective training and those which are not. If we can eliminate at an early stage the sort of lad who is not going to benefit by corrective training, there is obviously going to be a considerable saving. I am not, as I say, clear how far the Appendix, which sets out some fifteen researches which are going on, is intended to give a complete picture of current research into delinquency. I do not think it is quite complete, although it certainly goes rather wider than researches into prisons and borstals. In particular, it contains very little to show what is being done in the way of research into juvenile delinquency which, of course, is really at the basis of the whole problem.
It certainly does not mention one important research which has been going on for a year or two at the Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency. I have been associated with that Institute for a long time. We particularly miss Sir Lionel, who on his retirement from the Chairmanship of the Prison Commission had taken over the Chairmanship of our Council, and from whose knowledge and interest in research we were expecting to derive very great advantage. That is another reason why we mourn him particularly. But during the last two or three years we have been doing a very useful piece of research, which will soon be published, on shoplifting. That is not mentioned in the Prison Commission's Report, and perhaps the Commissioners would say that it was a little outside the area of prisons and borstals. However, I feel that
598
further research into juvenile delinquency is highly important.
In our Institute, over the last ten years or so, we have carried through three most important researches into various aspects of juvenile delinquency, but we are, as are so many other institutes, hampered all the time by lack of finance. The truth is that the amount of serious research which is going on into these matters is still woefully small. As I said, I think there are only about thirteen mentioned in the Appendix to the Prison Commission's Report; I have no doubt that there are a certain number of others. But when one considers the amount of public money which is poured week by week, month by month, year by year, into researches into nuclear fission, and into physical scientific problems of one kind or another, and the minute fraction of public money going into research in social sciences, particularly into research into the fundamental problems of crime—because they are fundamental to any civilised society—it is very discouraging.
I do not want to appear ungrateful to the Home Secretary, whose work has had high tribute paid to it by several speakers this afternoon. He has been undoubtedly a pioneer of Government research work into criminal matters. There was a sort of rudimentary arrangement for research in the Home Office before he arrived, but it did not really get going until during his tenure of office. It has begun to show that valuable work can be done and that the Home Secretary's encouragement—indeed, his personal interest in what is going on—has been a very considerable factor. From the little I have heard, I understand that he has himself made suggestions of a valuable character for certain aspects of research which might be carried through. But the Home Secretary really must persuade his colleagues at the Treasury to be more liberal in the supply of finance, because we cannot do valuable research without a good deal of money. Money is needed not only for the Home Office Research Unit but also for outside organisations. My Institute could certainly pull a great deal more weight if more money could be made available for it.

599
It is not for me to make a detailed examination of this problem, but I should like to say a word or two in regard to some matters into which I think useful researches could be made. After fifteen years of intensive effort on the problem of crime since the war, research into what has been going on and the comparative value of the different new methods introduced under the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, and by the Prison Commissioners themselves is needed. There is a real need for original research into the causation of crime and also into what is going on in the way of handling prisoners and organising prisons. It is important that we should have a much clearer picture of these matters before we embark on new experiments, otherwise we may find ourselves wasting a good deal of money and, more important, skilled ability.
Among the questions which I think should be looked at is the value of institutional treatment itself, particularly of such innovations as probation centres and hostels, especially when the work which is being done there is combined with probation orders. We want to look at the results and also the comparable results, so that, for instance, we may know whether small or large hostels are the more useful—indeed, so that we may know what value, if any, has resulted from the setting up of this system. There has been a good deal of talk recently about Boston and whether we should imitate what appear, on the face of it, to be the valuable results which are being achieved there. But I feel that before we rush off in that direction, researches into the results of what we ourselves have been doing, over recent years, might well be carried through as quickly as possible. I think that that is the view of many people who have a considerable knowledge of this problem.
At the Institute, we feel that there is a special need to study, perhaps by the method of prediction but also by other methods, how particular types of offender respond to particular types of treatment, such as probation, detention centre and borstal. I think that something on these lines is already being contemplated in the Home Office Research Unit, if it is not already in preparation. From the point of view of the, Institute,
600
researches into what is actually going on in the penal field are just as important as more basic researches into such questions as the causation of crime.
With regard to the borstal age group, 16 to 21, and the rather older boys in the approved schools, there is also need to study the sort of disorders and the proportions of them which are found particularly in those institutions. This is especially important in regard to psychopathic cases. We are only at the beginning of our knowledge of the problem of the psychopath, which we were discussing in connection with the Mental Health Act not so long ago. It is certainly the view of the psychiatrists at the Institute that there is need for a good deal more research work into this problem. The Institute has used its limited resources in specialising in researches into juvenile delinquency. A tremendous amount more work can be done in this important field, particularly in the study of the early maladjustment of children, from the time they first begin to go to school.
I have given a few illustrations of the fields of intensely important work in which hardly any research, or certainly not enough research, is going on at the present time, and which call for an intensive effort, if we are to deal with these problems successfully. I hope that the Home Secretary, whose heart is certainly in this, will not give up his efforts to get the necessary money and will continue to encourage not only the Home Office Research Unit but also the universities, the Institute at Cambridge and our own little Institute, and enable us to press on with the work which we have been attempting to carry through during these past years.
5.20 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: My Lords, first of all, I should like to explain why I did not put my name on the list of speakers. I had fully intended to do so until yesterday, but after discussing the Motion with some Members of your Lordships' House, I came to the conclusion that it was primarily concerned with the more material side of this problem, such as bricks and mortar, the improvement of prisons, better equipment for prisons, the building and equipping of detention centres and providing equipment for the personnel. It was so restricted that I felt it was not a

601
subject on which I should intervene, for other noble Lords will know about that as much as, and more, than I can possibly hope to learn. But when in the House earlier in the debate the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, challenged me to speak by saying he was sorry that no representative of the Church in the House was taking part in the debate, I felt that I should intervene. Fortunately, I had been preparing a little, and although this speech is not as well prepared as I should like, it has, nevertheless, received a fair amount of attention.
In the preparation I turned to read again carefully the White Paper, Penal Practice in a Changing Society, presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in February, 1959. In the course of reading this Paper I came across something that seems to me to be of great importance if we are to give adequate attention to this subject of the penal code. I have also read the very instructive book by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, The Idea of Punishment, and I can warmly commend it. I am not advertising the book—it is free for anyone to read in the Library—but it is a very good one and most illuminating. I hope that the noble Earl will give us some more of it in this House. In this White Paper I read:
"A fundamental re-examination of penal methods, based on studies of the causes of crime, or rather of the factors which foster or inhibit crime, and supported by a reliable assessment of the results achieved by existing methods, could be a landmark in penal history and illuminate the course ahead for a generation. Such a re-examination, though based on practical studies, need not—and indeed should not—be purely pragmatic. If it were not merely to assess past progress, but also to point the way forward, it must concern itself with the philosophy as well as the practice of punishment."
It goes on to say, later:
"Indeed in, the public mind the interests of the offender may not infrequently seem to be placed before those of his victim."
The next paragraph says:
"This is certainly not the correct emphasis. It may well be that our penal system would not only provide a more effective deterrent to crime, but would also find a greater moral value, if the concept of personal reparation to the victim were added to the concepts of deterrence by punishment and of reform by training."
I apologise for quoting such a long passage, but it seems to me to be basic to the whole consideration of this subject.
602
What is the basic purpose of prison, or of a sentence of detention? Until we have a clear answer to that, I do not think we can find our way to a satisfactory solution.
Let me put it briefly in this way. I should like to quote from a distinguished Professor at Oxford, Dr. Goodhart. In dealing with this subject of the basic idea of punishment, he says:
"There is a great danger that without a sense of retribution we may lose our sense of wrong."
I noticed to-day that one speaker seemed to regard punishment as some form of sadism. But it ought to be emphasised that there is a strong and respectable body of opinion which believes that basically in all punishment there must be some element of retribution as well as an element of reformation and deterrence. Dr. Good-hart sums it up in this way:
"A community which is too ready to forgive the wrong-doer may end by condoning the crime."
I am not going to comment on that statement, beyond saying that I believe what Dr. Goodhart is saying there needs to be seriously considered. The Church has been interested in this subject all its life. The Church's Lord was crucified between two prisoners, and the Church down the ages has never been far away from the prisons. We have in this country chaplains appointed by our Church to serve in prisons. Only last year the Church Assembly produced a small Report on the Church and the prisoner, urging that chaplains needed greater preparation and better equipment for their important work; and the Church Assembly encouraged a Motion to that effect. I mention this lest anyone should think that the Church is in any way indifferent to the problem of the prisons or careless about its duty in this matter.
Going back to the question of the aim of a penalty, when I worked in East London I was brought into contact with a number of prisoners. I had two particular men who came to me every time almost as soon as they came out of prison. One was an elderly man who had been in prison for half of his life, and every time he came out he was delighted. He came to see me full of

603
remorse for what he had done and full of confidence that he would never do it again. All would be well for about a month, and then, poor man!he would begin to feel lost and lonely, and unable to adjust himself to life in freedom. He always reached the point when he would come and say to me: "I must do it again"; he would, and he would go back to prison. I do not know whether there is any way in which we could help such a man to adjust himself to the environment of freedom after a long period of imprisonment. I am all in favour of methods designed for the after-care of prisoners, and I support them to the utmost.
The other man who used to come to me was quite different from the first: he was much more defiant. I do not know why he used to come to me, but he did. I once found him a job, which he kept for about a month, but then he went wrong again. The next time he came out of prison he came back to me and I said to him, "Would you like me to try to find you a job again?" He said, "Yes". I said, "I will do so if you will promise me to go straight". At that he rebelled very strongly. It was an emotional reaction to an attempt to reform him by pressure. I understood it—he was not going to be bribed into going straight. This is an element in human nature which needs to be understood. It is said that you cannot compel people to be honest or moral by Act of Parliament. Quite true. It is true to a point that you cannot reform some prisoners by any kind of imprisonment, because there is a continuous reaction against the forceful method. You have something like it in society in general. I do not know whether your Lordships would agree with me, but there seems to-day to be a kind of cynical attitude on the part of society, or sections of society, to people who are engaged in welfare work. They are called "Do-gooders" and cynically commented upon. It is society reacting against attempts to improve people.
We have to be rather careful that in all our attempts for after-care and reform we should not give the impression that the only thing we are concerned about is the reform of the individual by some kind of gentle, compelling force, because
604
I am sure that with some prisoners it brings out the exact opposite reaction to the one we expect. Having said that, I do not want anyone to conclude that I am not in favour of providing for aftercare. But it requires tremendous sensitivity on the part of people engaged in this work, or else they will do as much harm as good.
I talked about the basic purpose of punishment. I could talk a long time about that, but it is not as relevant as it ought to be to this debate. Nevertheless, I bring it in because I feel that we cannot make much headway without a fresh consideration of it. What I should like to do is to ask a question. I do not expect an answer from the noble Earl who is to reply on behalf of the Home Office. The question is based upon an article I read about a year ago. The contention of this article was that the proportion of first offenders who became second offenders was pretty much the same whatever the punishment inflicted, whether it was remand, borstal, prison or something else; the same proportion of first offenders became second offenders. It may not be easy to find an answer to this question, but it bears on the subject and is deserving of considerable research. I do not expect an answer this evening, but I would hope that an answer might one day be found to it, because if there is any truth in that, we have to look again at the forms of punishment. If one form is as effective as another, we have to think again.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the right reverend Prelate allow me to interrupt? I am not quite sure what his question is. I know he is referring to the article written by Sir George Benson, but what is the nature of his question arising from that article?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CARLISLE: Let me try to put it in this way. I am quoting from an article. The contention in the article was that if you had 100 prisoners and you sent them all to prison, a proportion of them would offend again. If you had prescribed some other penalty, about the same proportion would have offended again. My question is whether there has been any research into the effect of the various forms of penalty imposed to discover whether any

605
one is more effective than another in reforming the offender. I hope that puts the question very clearly.
The last point I want to make I raise with a sense of my own responsibility, as well as a sense of responsibility imposed upon others. It may be a bit severe to say that the state of crime in this country is a reflection of the state of our society. The boil on my neck is an indication of something poisonous going right through the system. I should not like to assert, but I sometimes wonder whether the increase in crime is not due to a large extent to a greatly diminished sense of responsibility on the part of the whole nation. Let me put it very bluntly. The distinction between right and wrong is becoming blurred. When I spoke to a schoolmaster not long ago, he told me that he put this question to a number of young boys: "What is wrong with stealing? "He got the answer, "Oh. sir, it's dangerous; you might get caught." We do not speak very much to-day about right and wrong in respect of thieving and that sort of thing. We tend to speak of it as being "anti-social". That is quite a good description, but "anti-social" does not convey anything like the same sense of guilt that the word "wrong" conveys to an offender. The amount of petty pilfering that goes on in this country is very great. There is a diminished sense of respect for law, and there is a great deal of dishonesty. Some people might call it petty dishonesty, but it goes by the more or less respectable name of "fiddling". There is a lot of it, and you cannot have fiddles without a great deal of other offences developing as a consequence.
I believe that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, emphasised, we shall not be able to deal with this whole problem unless we are able to make the community feel that it has a tremendous responsibility for it, and I think we ought to get that realisation that only a society which respects truth, honesty and integrity right through from top to bottom is a society that can hope to escape an increase in crime. I believe that if we made more use of the words "right" and "wrong", "truth" and "falsehoods", and used them with conviction, we might inspire an attitude which would do much for the wellbeing of our country. Because dishonesty can go
606
right through. Stealing is not just taking something that is there which does not belong to you; it includes stealing other people's time, failing to give of our best, and that kind of thing, which can infect the whole body corporeal.
Consequently we need to identify ourselves with the prisoners and the offenders. The Church is concerned with the prisoner because Our Lord identified Himself with two prisoners, one on either side of Him, and because that was done He shared some of their guilt, and he said to one:
"To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise".
A Christian society, a Christian nation, must identify itself with the unfortunate criminals and prisoners and must be prepared, in suffering and sacrifice, to share and enter into their lives and conditions.
While I am going to say that I want to support the noble Earl in all his pleas for more financial support for improvement of prisons and for the building of detention centres and for the equipment, and while I want to press upon the Government the need for spending money, let it be said that it is our money. We give it even when it hurts because in that way we can identify ourselves with the less fortunate members of society and thereby we shall probably do a great deal of good to our own souls.
5.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we are all waiting to hear the reply from the noble Earl to to-day's most interesting debate to which I have listened all the afternoon. I have no intention of delaying that reply, and I rise just for one moment to refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, in the course of which he pointed out the responsibility of parents where delinquency was concerned in young people, boys and girls. He referred to this so rightly, and I agree with him so completely.
It is all very well to point to the church or schoolteachers, and to expect them to take responsibility for these things; but of course it is parents who matter, and I should like to ask the noble Earl whether Her Majesty's Government are aware—probably they are —that in the capital city of Vienna it is the practice that when a young person

607
is brought to court for delinquency the parents must be there too. They have to be there in the dock with the accused, and the court questions the parents extensively as to the upbringing of that boy or girl. In fact, they are asked more questions than the accused, because the view is that they hold the primary responsibility. When the question of penalty arises, quite obviously, if it is a question of a fine, again the parents are involved; if it is anything else, probably not. That is a point of law into which I should not like to delve, but it puts the spotlight on the people who are primarily responsible. I cannot help feeling that that attitude is most sound and correct, and I therefore put it to the noble Earl, just in case Her Majesty's Government do not know about it, or have never fully appreciated it. For what it is worth, I am putting it forward now for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
5.45 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, once again we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for bringing this complicated but intensely interesting subject before your Lordships this afternoon. All your Lordships who have been speaking are experts in this particular field and, as we have already understood to-day, it is an enormous field to consider, as indeed the noble Earl pointed out at the very beginning of his speech.
I particularly want to thank the noble Earl for the handsome compliments that he paid in the course of his speech to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I should like to ask him if he would also include in these compliments, compliments to my right honourable friend, the former Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr. Dennis Vosper, who played a tremendous part in tackling the very problems the noble Earl has been discussing. I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who paid particularly kind comments to the late Sir Lionel Fox, and also to all his comrades in the Prison Commission who carry out such service on behalf of the public.
608
My Lords, we have had the noble Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle speak in our deliberations this afternoon, and we are most pleased that a Church of England representative should have spoken. I feel that I should like to commend his words to all members of the Church of England. I should also like forthwith to say how much we in the Home Office appreciate the work that is done by all Churches. It would be unfair to favour one particular Church, but suffice it to say that all those members of the Church and other societies and bodies carry out great work, both inside and outside the prisons. Not only individuals but particular sects of the noble Earl's Church carry out tremendous service inside and outside prisons. I want to pay compliments to these devoted people.
As the noble Earl, Lord Longford, has said, this discussion takes place against a background of yet a further increase of crime. I accept all the noble Earl's figures, and they are not very encouraging. I admit that there is a chronic and serious overcrowding in our local prisons. As the noble Earl has mentioned, there are some 7,500 men sleeping three in a cell. The administrative machine is overloaded to a degree that must give rise to concern. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and of course the noble Earl, the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, all referred to this state of affairs.
As your Lordships are aware, there have this year been a number of demonstrations of concerted indiscipline. Though most of them were trivial and foolish, none of them was allowed to get out of hand, and the fact that they happened at all is an indication of the heavy responsibilities borne by the prison staffs at the present time. It is an indication of that overcrowding to which I have referred and to which the noble Earl particularly referred. The right reverend Prelate gave us a graphic description of this problem. I should like to tell your Lordships, too, that among those 7,500 men there are not only men who suddenly find an urge to go back into prison, as the right reverend Prelate described, but there are also men—and a large number of them, I regret to state —who find themselves broke and find

609
that prison is not quite such a bad place to go when in such circumstances. I must, with regret, draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that within those 7,500, and particularly so in certain prisons, many are not residents of the United Kingdom. Further than that I will not go, my Lords, but it does have considerable bearing upon the problem of the 7,500 men who are sleeping three in a cell.
Despite the incidents to which I referred before that, the standard of discipline in general has remained remarkably high in view of the tremendous difficulties under which the prison officer works, and there has never been, and there is not now, any indication that discipline in general is in danger of breaking down. I am sorry to say that the same high record of achievement has not been attained in the matter of security. The number of prisoners who escaped from prisons and from prison escorts showed a marked increase in the first half of this year. There have been indications of more careful planning of some of these escapes, such as the escape of ten prisoners from Wandsworth in June. The escape of any prisoner is a most serious matter. It adds to the burden of the police at a time when they are already over-stretched. It causes anxiety to the public, and all too often means that a prisoner, who is unable to return home with safety, resorts to further crime to maintain himself. This anxiety to the public was referred to by my noble friend, Lady Elliot of Harwood.
My right honourable friend has accordingly given urgent directions for special preventive measures to be taken —that is, special escorts, special wings in Durham and Hull prisons, and many other measures. These measures are distasteful to some degree. Security measures generally are, since they are normally oppressive upon the man who has escaped. But it is a primary truth that the first duty of any prison administration is to retain in custody those committed to their care by the courts. This consideration is in no way inconsistent with a programme of penal reform; indeed, it is an essential part of it, as I am quite certain that the noble Earl would agree.
610
The first requisite in the reformation of a prisoner is to establish his confidence in the security, good order and discipline in the prison. I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, on this point that there is no softness in the régime of a prison; and, as I have mentioned the noble Lord's name, I should also like to tell him that there are now 50 resident welfare officers appointed in prisons and establishments.
LORD MIDDLETON: My Lords, may I suggest that that figure be multiplied by four or five very soon?
EARL BATHURST: Let me now turn to some of the other points which have been raised in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, both talked of the particular problems concerned with crime, as also did the right reverend Prelate. I assure the noble Lords that there is a Home Office research team, and they are carrying out research into the particular kinds of problems noble Lords mentioned, but I think this debate would be no place to describe the work of that particular body, or the teams who are outside the Home Office but working under the auspices of the unit. The right reverend Prelate asked me a particular question about percentages and figures. I rather suspect that, when his question is carefully analysed, it will be a somewhat hypothetical question; nevertheless, it is just the sort of question that we should examine, and I will send the right reverend Prelate an answer in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Swan-borough, put forward some most interesting ideas about the future organisation of after-care, and all your Lordships were most impressed with what she said. In particular, noble Lords will appreciate everything that the noble Lady has done for the Women's Voluntary Service. I cannot comment very far upon the subject of after-care because, as your Lordships know, the whole matter is being considered by a sub-committee of my right honourable friend's Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders. That is lucky for me and it is also lucky for your Lordships, because it is an enormous subject, and I hope that the noble Earl will raise a debate upon this subject when the time comes.

611
The sub-committee are receiving a great deal of evidence from various sources and I have no doubt that the noble Lady and her friends will bring their views to it. I invite her to do so now, together with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, if they have not already put their expert views before this sub-committee. I would tell the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, that for every one view that is held there are half-a-dozen other views. In fact, I have had the privilege of inviting the noble and gallant Field Marshal, who assured me that he will come to this sub-committee and knock everybody's heads together in this particular field. Well, my Lords, we shall see what happens after one of these sessions. I say that to the noble Baroness only because I know she is well aware of the false steps that can be taken with regard to this enormous subject.
The noble Earl referred especially to the prison building programme, which, as he said, is the largest which has been undertaken in this country for over a century. Although the programme is designed to relieve overcrowding, I should like to emphasise that that is not its most immediate aim. It has much wider objects, of which perhaps the most important is to provide additional accommodation, which will enable us to get youths and boys out of the local prisons; and that was a particular point that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, raised. It is impossible for these local prisons to provide the exacting and stimulating régime which they require.
The first important group is that of the unconvicted prisoners, who have at the moment to be held in prison because there is nowhere else to put them. The Government's intention is that remand centres shall be provided urgently to receive this category of inmate, and a programme for nine such remand centres has been approved and begun. The first one for boys is already open at Ashford in Middlesex, and I am glad to be able to tell the noble Lord that it has already very considerably relieved the pressure on Wormwood Scrubs. I would also assure him that, in fact, young prisoners, borstal boys and other boys are not mixed up with old prisoners at Wormwood Scrubs. The
612
second remand centre is at Risley in Lancashire, and tenders have been received and are under consideration. These nine centres should suffice for the whole of the country, but they can be expanded if necessary.
The next important group of establishments is that of the detention centres, which again the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, described and is particularly interested in. It is surprising how quickly lads become disciplined, and even take pride in their attainments at these centres. We believe that these detention centres are a vital part, as described in the White Paper, of our penal programme. There are now nine and three more will be ready by next summer. There is to be a detention centre for girls, and this also will be ready next year. I must emphasise that this will not be a copy of a boys' detention centre but will have its own specially designed régime. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, for bringing that subject before your Lordships.
LORD STONHAM: Is the noble Earl yet in a position to say where that detention centre for girls will be built?
EARL BATHURST: I cannot at the moment recall its name, but it is to be attached to a women's prison somewhere near Manchester, I think. I will let the noble Lord know the answer later.
We are also pressing on with the provision of borstals. At the moment we are very short of borstals for boys, particularly closed ones, and this not merely hampers training but leads to boys sentenced to borstal training having to wait too long in the local prisons before they can be accepted at an allocation centre. The new satellite borstal for boys was opened last November, and a further open borstal will be ready next summer. A new closed borstal is under construction; tenders for a second are being considered, and the site for a third is settled. A new closed borstal for girls will be opened next March, and a site for another in the North is being sought. These measures for getting young offenders out of prison will provide further accommodation for adults in local prisons; that is self-evident.
I now turn to the further measures directly designed to relieve overcrowding

613
in the men's prisons. Three new open prisons for men have been opened since the publication of the White Paper, and a fourth will be ready early next year. There are to be two new prisons for women, which will release for use by men security accommodation at present reserved for women. One of these will be completed next summer. The principal relief of overcrowding is the programme for eight new security prisons for men. The location of these prisons is important. First, they must be so disposed regionally as to make it possible to keep the majority of prisoners in the same part of the country as their homes. Seccond, they must not be too isolated. Third, they must be accessible to visiting teachers and to prisoners' families. Those are some of the reasons why the rebuilding of Dartmoor prison has been given up, and why we do not propose to build a new prison in that area. I know that that is of particular interest to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
Two of the new prisons will be in the North, three in the Midlands, including East Anglia, two in the South, and one in the Bristol-South Wales-Black Country triangle. Of that total, three are built, or building; three further sites are settled, and two proposed sites await planning clearance. Next spring we shall open the psychiatric prison at Grendon Underwood, in Buckinghamshire, and this prison will make a special study of all the points which were brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley.
The object of the programme is to provide not only more prisons but better prisons. In May this year my right honourable friend laid the foundation stone of the new prison at Blundeston, in Suffolk. It is a model of this that is in the Prince's Chamber, and was referred to by the noble Lady. We believe that this is a major breakthrough in the design of secure prisons. I cannot say when the building programme will be finished, since sites for a number of establishments have not yet been settled, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, indicated some of the problems we are up against when acquiring sites for these prisons. We are fully aware of the importance of this programme and are pressing on with it at all possible speed.
614
The problem of providing prisoners with suitable work is probably the most important factor in modern prison life to-day, and was dwelt upon with great expertise, as always, by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who has such experience in this particular problem and in the allied problems of sheltered workshops. In spite of the overcrowding and other difficulties, to which I will refer in a moment, I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that there has been a great improvement. There was sufficient work last year to occupy all prisoners during the available working hours, and we were spared the shame of having mailbag machines idle while prisoners sewed mailbags by hand to spin out the work. This improvement is reflected in the value of goods and labour provided either for prison use or to outside customers, mostly, obviously, Government Departments. In 1960, the total was £½ million, which was an increase of £100,000 on 1959.
Gratifying though it is to be able to report on the slight progress in the face of such immense difficulties, I do not wish to suggest that the situation in local prisons is satisfactory. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, mentioned the difficulties that we are up against, and if your Lordships will look at the photograph in the Prince's Chamber of Leeds Prison (possibly your Lordships took the advantage to have it explained before this debate), I think all these problems will be self-evident.
The most important recent development in connection with prisoners' work has been the publication of the first Report of the Advisory Council on the Employment of Prisoners. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, this Report was published some two months ago and deals with work in the prison workshops. In the Report Sir Wilfrid Anson and his colleagues have made a most valuable contribution to the study of these problems, for which we are most grateful. And here I would assure the noble Lord that we are grateful to Sir Wilfrid for this Report and not, as I think he put it, that we begrudge the Report and are not willing to carry out its recommendations. I do assure the noble Lord we acknowledge the

615
Report, and that the Prison Commissioners are doing all possible to implement its recommendations.
It is most helpful, for example, to have had the authoritative view of the Council, which represents both employers and the unions, that prison industries should be regarded as part of the industries of the country, and that the highly desirable expansion of prison industries can be achieved without any appreciable effect on the interests of employers or workers outside the prisons. I am most glad to have had that authoritative view reinforced by the noble Lord and the noble Earl opposite. On this question of a possible clash between the interests of prison industries and those of other suppliers (the noble Lord referred to this matter) I may say, in regard to work suitable for the blind workshops, that the Prison Commissioners have undertaken to run down basket-making and brush-making until the end of 1962. Then they will be making these items for prison use only. With effect from January 1 this year, 1961, they have ceased tendering for mats, except for other Government Departments. This, so far as we can judge, leaves no significant field in which prison industries might deprive the sheltered workshops of work. I think that it is a credit to the Prison Commissioners, and I think that is what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, meant, though I am not sure that your Lordships understood him to mean it as a credit to the Prison Commissioners.
Secondly, as priority suppliers to other Government Departments the prison industries are in the same position as other priority suppliers—that is, the noble Lord's sheltered workshops. The scheme is not intended to give any price preference to the Prison Commissioners over the outside suppliers. Thirdly, when undertaking any kind of work for an outside employer, whether by way of manufacture or otherwise, the Department invariably consult the Ministry of Labour to ensure that there is no detriment to the interests of outside workers. The Report makes the important point that, even in the overcrowded conditions and with the shorter working hours (the noble Earl particularly referred to these), the activities of
616
prison workshops can be stepped up so as to achieve the double objective of obtaining a higher output from prison labour and making employment in prison a better preparation for discharge. The Report points out that while trade training may have its place, most jobs in modern industry which may be open to prisoners on discharge are jobs requiring not so much specific skill in a trade as general experience in modern industrial techniques and conditions and the aim should be to give industrial experience to the great majority of prisoners by employing them on fairly simple repetitive work, at a brisk tempo, on efficiently organised line production in the prison workshop. The Council's recommendation on improving production management and job training can be implemented only gradually, but a beginning has already been made.
One recommendation relating to prisoners' earnings has been immediately implemented. Some disappointment has been expressed about the limited scope of the Council's recommendation on this matter, and in your Lordships' debate that was particularly brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. The Council's main recommendation was that the range of prisoners' earnings should be extended and put on a piece work basis, so far as possible, in order to give more opportunities to the industrious prisoner to earn extra pocket money. A new earnings scheme, based on the Council's recommendation, was introduced in prisons in the early part of August. It is too early to arrive at any considered judgment of the results, which must be carefully studied over a period before firm conclusions can be reached. But, with this important reservation, it is fair to say that the first indications encourage us to hope that the scheme may achieve the Council's object in producing in prison workshops a tempo more like that found in a well-run workshop outside. To take a sample of work in nine workshops, four of them increased their production by from 64 per cent. to 114 per cent. I will not go on to weary your Lordships with further figures, but as you will see there has been a quite considerable increase in production.
This new scheme of prisoners' earnings, useful though it promises to

617
be, is not intended to represent a major revolution. In particular, it makes no attempt to achieve the goal advocated by some penologists to pay prisoners "the rate for the job". I admit that we are on a pocket-money basis. We have already made known our views on this proposal, which was so graphically described by the noble Lord, in paragraph 74 of the White Paper, Penal Practice in a Changing Society.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Would the noble Earl be good enough to read out the passage?
EARL BATHURST: I was just going to do so. I will not read the whole paragraph, because the noble Earl probably has it in front of him. In it certain difficulties of principle are referred to, arid it is also pointed out that, whatever view may be taken of these difficulties, a prisoner could hardly be paid the wages of a free employee until the productivity and efficiency of the prisoner's work can be raised to something nearer the standards of outside industry. That is stated in the White Paper; and we find that the broad conclusion of the 1960 United Nations Congress in London, also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, supports this point of view. I admit, with the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that we must find a way to improve matters. We must find some method of allowing the hours of work to be increased.
LORD STONHAM: Before the noble Earl leaves the question of work, could he please answer my question about the 24 new workshops promised in 1960—whether they are in operation; and, if so, why output increased by only £100,000–6 per cent.? That is really derisory and underlines more than any words that I can use how ineffective the present system is.
EARL BATHURST: It is possible to put up workshops—we have seen them. The noble Lord knows that they are being put up. I do not know how many there are, but there is an impressive number of workshops. In the picture of Leeds prison you can see them squeezed into odd corners. But the difficulties of getting the men and women to and from the workshops, and of keeping a supply of suitable work going, are very nearly insuperable, as I have already indicated.
618
The problem has been most graphically described by my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood. Nevertheless, we must tackle the problems. I assure the noble Lord that the Prison Commissioners are doing everything possible, and will be doing still more as this building programme gathers momentum, to increase the efficiency of these workshops.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: Is the noble Earl leaving work at this point, as I have a question to ask?
EARL BATHURST: Yes; I was just about to leave work.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: We are most grateful for what the noble Earl has told us—and very depressed, let me add, by this part of his answer. I asked the question whether the Advisory Council were investigating the possibility, in some institutions at least, of paying a full working wage. Do I gather from the noble Earl that that idea has definitely been turned down; that the Government have closed their minds to the possibility of that?
EARL BATHURST: No, my Lords. I assure the noble Earl that the Government have not closed their mind on this matter. But the Advisory Council have many other problems with which to concern themselves, as the noble Earl knows: they have work in borstals, vocational training, and so forth. They will study these problems, and no doubt, at some time, they will be able to turn their mind to this particular problem. I think the noble Earl will agree that that is a much bigger problem and a more difficult one. The noble Earl said that my answer was most depressing. I wish that it was more impressive. Nevertheless, a great deal has been done, and I can only say that the increase in morale and spirit, and the increase in tempo in a prison workshop as a result of the Anson proposal for increased pocket money—I will not say wages, but the increased opportunities for earning pocket-money—have made an electric difference upon the prison workshop.
In the last five years the population of our penal establishments has risen by over 9,000—an increase of nearly 45 per cent. on the 1956 figure. During the

619
same period, there has been a rise of 26 per cent. in prison officer grades. I admit that, as the noble Earl has said, this has not kept pace with the unprecedented increase in the prison population. It is true that the ratio of prisoners to staff has increased, as the noble Earl indicated. In 1956, the overall figures were 46 prisoners for every 10 officers. It is now 51 prisoners for every 10 officers. That means, my Lords, that, in 1956, one officer would have had four prisoners and pretty well two-thirds of a prisoner to look after, whereas now he would have five prisoners and one-tenth of a prisoner to look after. I do not quite know how one would work on those fractions, but I hope the figures show that, in spite of what the noble Earl has said—and I admit all that he has said—it is not, in fact, on average, a very big increase in the ratio.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am sorry to keep breaking in, but it is a very interesting point. Surely the noble Earl agrees with what I said earlier—indeed, it is common sense—that the duties of a prison officer are becoming more exacting as prison reform advances.
EARL BATHURST: Yes, my Lords, and I believe that in two or three pages' time I shall have an opportunity to agree with the noble Earl upon that. I do agree; but these are the ratios of prisoners to officers at present, compared to 1956.
Our penal establishments are at the moment 170 below their authorised strength. This is serious enough, but if one sets this against the present number of male officers in prison officer grades, which is 5,600 (I am sorry to leave out the female prison officers but, as the noble Earl has explained, this chronic shortage does not really apply to the female grades), and then distributes this deficiency of 170 among the 70 to 80 establishments, the position can hardly be described as catastrophic. I go all the way with what the noble Earl has said, but I do ask your Lordships also to bear in mind these figures. We are 170 short of our authorised establishment, and that shortage is spread among 70 to 80 establishments.
The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has mentioned the number of prison officer
620
grades needed to staff certain establishments which he named. I do not think the noble Earl would wish me to go into all of them: suffice it to say that these establishments will gradually get under way. They will not require all their grades at the same time. It is true that the remand centre at Ashford, which he mentioned, and which was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, had to be started at full strength straight away. This will not be the case with Hindley or Grendon. We do not expect the staff needed to man these establishments to be as many as the noble Earl feels; and, whatever the ultimate number will be, they will not all be needed at once. In fact, staffing will be spread over a considerable period of time, and will be built up as the population is built up.
The noble Earl also mentioned specific conditions in certain prisons where prisoners are kept locked up for considerable periods because of shortages of staff. Those prisons were Birmingham, Leicester and Brixton.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I am sorry to interrupt again. I supplied the noble Earl with rather full notes, but if he had followed my speech closely he would have seen that I did not in all places adhere to those notes—on some points I had second thoughts. I think I must ask to be taken on what I said to the House, and not on an advance copy of notes.
EARL BATHURST: But the noble Earl specifically referred to these particular prisons. I will check it most carefully in Hansard, but he specifically said that prisoners had been locked up for a considerable time. I am certain of it. I fully admit he was most kind and most courteous in sending notes. The only reason I mentioned it was because I did not want to weary your Lordships with the full list which he gave. However, I will explain that it was because of specific shortages due to heavy case-loading, as they call it; of taking prisoners to the Assize and Quarter Sessions. But I shall be very pleased to let him know the details in all those cases. I am quite sure the noble Earl did mention them.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I mentioned only one. I left out two or three.
EARL BATHURST: The noble Earl specifically mentioned the point that prisoners were kept in their cells for a long time.
The Prison Commission have recently concluded a series of regional conferences which have been held in local prisons all over the country between the members of the staffs of local prisons drawn from all grades. These conferences show that the staffs have a high morale, in spite of the exceptional pressure of work. I go all the way with the noble Earl in What he says as to the exceptional pressure of work, but I will not go all the way with him (I think it was) and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, when they say that morale is low. My Lords, it is not low. I do assure the noble Earl that that is not so, and that his information is not right. New and useful ideas have been obtained from the staff members at these regional conferences, and all these ideas are being considered by the Prison Commissioners.
The need for additional staff arises not only from the situation of overcrowding in prisons to-day but from three other factors, the importance of which I do not want to underestimate. They are, first, the need to reduce the excessive overtime which is being worked by many officers; secondly, the need to improve conditions in existing establishments in such matters as prisoners' working hours, to Which the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has referred; and, thirdly, the need to meet staffing demands which, as has been pointed out, will result from an expansion of the Prison Service as the new establishments come into operation. That was the point on which the noble Earl interrupted me a little while ago, and I assure him that we do not expect these establishments to require such large numbers of staff as quickly as he fears.
He has suggested that insufficient attention has been given to the means of stimulating recruitment. Your Lordships will wish to know what has been done in this matter, and what has been proposed. I will not go into all that we have done in recruiting, as time is going on; but because the noble Earl is so insistent that recruiting is going so slowly, and is so behindhand, I think I must refer to it at least to some extent.
622
I want to make it clear that the Prison Commissioners pay special regard to all the representatives of the Navy, Army and Air Force resettlement panels, and to their re-employment officers. That, of course, is a particular ground for finding recruits to the Prison Service. There are pamphlets available at all public libraries; there are new posters being designed and being put in more prominent places; articles on recruitment in the Press and in other journals have been revised; and radio and television have been used. A special effort is being made to recruit candidates from Northern Ireland, and one prison Governor, by special arrangement, attends interview boards at Belfast.
The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, were most depressing about the numbers of recruits coming forward to the service, but I assure him again that the figures are not quite so bad as they would lead your Lordships to believe. I admit that it was bad in 1960. In April, 1960, 79 men passed through the training course at Wakefield. In January, 1961, that figure had fallen to only 38. I go all the way with the noble Earl there. But from then on the trend is reversed. In March, 1961, the number was 43, and in September it had risen to 72. That shows an improvement, a considerable reverse in the trend. Beyond the month of September I can only guess. However, 98 persons joined the current training course, which is expected to disband this November.
We know that the class to disband next January will be even larger. Following this course about 280 men who have passed their preliminary tests have been inivited to attend, and on the basis of past experience this could produce a class of about 170 to 180. I have had to put that point forward at some length because the noble Earl and the noble Lord have painted such a very distressing and really false picture of the falling away in recruitment to this service.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am sorry to break in, as it is very late, but I never painted a false picture so far as I am aware. I never said that recruiting was falling away. The noble Earl must withdraw that, please.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. But the only reference I made to the subject was that

623
if you paid the men more money, you would get more men.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Earl if I attributed it to him; it must have been said by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I certainly thought we were given the impression—and it is a false impression—that the recruiting figures were so bad that this great service was wasting away. Maybe the noble Lord did not use that expression, but that is certainly the idea he put over, and it just is not true.
The noble Lord has now brought me to the question of pay, which I was about to deal with. He has suggested that an increase in pay for prison officers would provide an immediate solution, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, suggested that their pay should be related to that of the police. Many of your Lordships have brought forward the subject of equating police with prison officers. There is much to be said, I have no doubt, on both sides, but suffice it to say now that it is not the same job. I hope I can also show why my right honourable friend did not in fact mention prison officers in the course of his speech at Brighton. The noble Earl, except for that particular point, has most kindly paid tribute to him.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl—I hope he will not think it impertinent—but we have an important debate following this which also affects law and order. I had hoped—and I say this with the greatest respect—that it would be possible for the noble Earl to go into these matters rather cursorily.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I have certainly taken note of what the noble Earl has said, and nothing he would say could I ever consider impertinent. Nevertheless, my Lords, I am in your Lordships' hands. The noble Earl has made many points about this vital service to the country, and I think I should say something with regard to the pay of our prison staff. I think if the noble Earl will just bear with me a few more moments—
EARL WINTERTON: I was thinking of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the House.
EARL BATHURST: Will the noble Earl be so kind as to allow me to continue?
EARL WINTERTON: Yes, certainly.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, if we were to equate prison officers' pay with police pay this would involve a radical departure from principles recommended by the Wynn-Parry Committee, which reviewed the pay and conditions of the prison service three years ago. The noble Earl has referred to this Committee. This Committee made recommendations for increased scales of pay which were related to the nature of the prison officer's job, and they were accepted by the Government. They also recommended that future movements of pay of prison officer grades should be linked to the movement of pay of other civil servants in pay ranges similar to those recommended for officer grades. In accordance with this recommendation, prison officers received further agreed increases in pay in January of this year. These amounted to a 12½ per cent. addition to the scales recommended by the Wynn-Parry Committee. No further request has come from the Prison Officers' Association. The present starting rate of pay of prison officers is £10 16s. 6d. a week. After passing a probationary period, usually of about a year, an officer gets an increase of just over £1 a week; after that, annual increments of 8s. a week, up to £15 3s., which is the maximum for the basic grade, are granted. In addition there is free accommodation and uniform or allowance in lieu. Overtime rates are generous, and, above all, prison officers may retire at 55 on very generous pension terms which are noncontributory, as has been mentioned by the noble Earl.
I must put that before your Lordships because of what the noble Earl has said with regard to pay. The Prison Officers' Association have not put forward any proposals that the principles recommended by the Committee three years ago regarding pay rates should now be abandoned. They are, of course, perfectly at liberty to do so—it is done in the case of all other grades of civil servants. It was for that reason that my right honourable friend could not bring any one particular category of civil servant into his speech, because, of course,

625
had he done so, it would completely have upset all pay arrangements within those grades of the Civil Service. But, my Lords, I would say this. One cannot help but be impressed, as I think the noble Earl must have been, too, with the number of young men and young women who are in the Prison Service, as he would see in his visits to the prisons. I think that is a point worth stating.
My Lords, in ending, I wish again to thank the noble Earl, because this debate has let it be known that recruits, both men and women, for this important public service are needed, not because it is in danger of collapse, but because of the great opportunities and the constructive social work which are being created by the expansion of the prison system to carry out the objectives of the White Paper on Penal Practice in a Changing Society.
I wish to pay tribute to those men and women of all grades of the service, whether uniformed or civilian, and to congratulate them on the manner in which they carry out their duties under the difficulties which have been described. I want to thank, too, all the voluntary organisations mentioned, in particular, by the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, for all their help; and all the individuals, both official and voluntary; and in particular the prison visitors, of whom I think the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, is one, who have given, and give, and will give still more, vital assistance to my right honourable friend, both inside and outside prison walls. Lastly, I beg your Lordships' forgiveness for a long speech, but there have been so many points covered by noble Lords who are experts on this subject that I have had to deal with matters at some length. Above all, I want your Lordships to know that my right honourable friend has this problem very much in his mind at the present time. Again I thank the noble Earl for his great courtesy and kindness in the course of this debate.
6.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House long in any case, but with the pistol of the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, levelled at my head I shall cut my remarks down to the absolute minimum. I should like to thank all speakers, including noticeably the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, who has
626
been so undeservedly kind about me. I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Middleton, Lord Moynihan, Lord Chorley and Lord Stonham, my comrade in so many enterprises of this kind, and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, not only for her own important contribution but also for recalling to me the fact that I had not paid tribute to Sir Lionel Fox. As we all remember, he was a great servant of humanity and of this country. Many a time he sat in that box and listened to this sort of speech from me and he was only concerned with whether the facts were right. It did not matter how his own personal position was affected. So I am glad to be able to participate in a tribute of this kind to-day.
As to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Swanborough, it may well be that, when all these things are finally sorted out, and when the Advisory Committee have reported and legislation has, as I hope, been passed, her speech will prove to be the most significant of all the speeches made in the course of the series of debates on penal reform. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for joining what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has called the "Crime Club" and for being a most stimulating member at once.
I find it hard to comment properly on the reply which the noble Earl has made to us. I certainly do not complain of its length. Indeed, it would be ignoble if I did so, because I interrupted him repeatedly and must be thought to have lengthened his speech. I would thank him for the great trouble he has taken, for his courtesy and for the delightful way in which he put his points. I remember years ago, when I was an Under-Secretary, I made a reply on behalf of the Government which seemed to me to be pretty good, but a noble Lord who had a unique standing in the House said that it was the most intolerable reply he had ever heard from the Government Front Bench, and that made me feel quite ill. I do not intend to say anything of that sort about the noble Earl's speech.
I am very disappointed that the Home Secretary and the Home Office did not take the opportunity of indicating a fresh approach to these problems. We were told what they are doing sand were given

627
the impression that that was all that was possible. I do not myself take that view. One point to which I must allude was put in quite a fantastic way. The noble Earl said that the reason why Mr. Butler, in that fine speech of his at Brighton, could not refer to the shortage of staff was that in some way it would have involved the pay position of other civil servants. He might well have refrained from discussing the question of pay, but so far as I can discover he did not even allude to the question of shortage, and that has made a painful impression on some prison officers at least. I hope that when he next speaks at Brighton or Scarborough, anyway before the next Party conference, he will put that right. The noble Earl's speech was not a moment too long, but I hope that the next time he speaks he will have a better story to tell us. I am most grateful to the noble Earl and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

POLICE ACTION AT TRAFALGAR SQUARE DEMONSTRATION
6.45 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that in the opinion of many observers the Metropoltan Police seriously exceeded their powers on the night of 17th-18th September last; whether they have any statement to make on the matter; and what steps they will take to prevent a recurrence. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Unstarred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Because this Question has to do with the demonstration at Trafalgar Square, I want to make it clear at the outset that I have no personal sympathy whatever with the tactics or with the convictions of the organising Committee of 100, nor do I wish it to be thought that my strictures are directed against that monumental figure, the ordinary London "bobby".
I was in Trafalgar Square or its vicinity from about 3 p.m. on the Sunday until 12.45 a.m. on the Monday morning, and I want to make it clear that in my
628
opinion the conduct, bearing and behaviour of the great majority of the police in public until midnight were exemplary and that they were dealing with great tact and good humour with an extremely trying and difficult situation. Of course, there were exceptions. On many occasions before midnight I saw unnecessary violence. Peaceful, seated demonstrators would be violently and repeatedly kicked or picked up and thrown headlong against a wall or into the serried ranks of seated demonstrators. But I suppose that behaviour of this kind nowadays must be considered acceptable, particularly when so many constables were operating in such very difficult circumstances. And it is certainly true that, if I had left the Square before midnight, as I very nearly did, I would have made no public protest whatever—at any rate, not on the question of police violence.
The first of the four specific matters which I want to raise, of which I have given advance notice, is not connected with violence at all. Round about a quarter past ten, the police made a loudspeaker announcement which, as I heard it, implied that the order banning processions, which had been made by the Commissioner with the required consent of the Home Secretary under the Public Order Act, 1936, had been extended by the Commissioner for a further 24 hours. It has been admitted by the Home Secretary, in a letter to Mrs. Joyce Butler, M.P., that his approval had not been given for any such extension. In his letter to Mrs. Butler, the Home Secretary has stated that this referred not to the Public Order Act but to directions given to constables under Section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839.
I wish respectfully to submit that that explanation cannot be upheld. The announcement made was reported as follows in The Times next morning, on a report from the Press Association:
"The Commissioner of Police has decided to extend the order banning processions and assemblies until midnight on the 18th. The ban will cover the same area as today's"
Later in the evening, Scotland Yard made an official announcement of what had been put out by the loudspeakers. It was as follows:
"As it is understood that a march is being planned for after midnight to Parliament Square, the Commissioner of Police has

629
extended his order of September 17 to 12 midnight, September 18, in the same area and under the same conditions."
The points I want to make are that both the report in The Times and the official report issued by Scotland Yard referred to the extension of an order. No order was made, or can be made, under the Metropolitan Police Act, nor can there be any extension, because the Metropolitan Police Act is always in force. No time limit is mentioned in the case of directions given to constables under the 1839 Act. They are made,
"as may be necessary"
or
"as occasion shall require".
Furthermore, in any case, it is clear that the Metropolitan Police Act cannot be used to ban processions, as was implied in this announcement, because if it could why was it necessary to invoke the Public Order Act at all? It therefore seems to me that the Commissioner himself exceeded his powers, in the words of my Question, in purporting to extend that Order without the approval of the Home Secretary.
When the Committee of 100 realised, or believed, that they would be unable to wait until midnight and march down Whitehall to Parliament Square, they held a council of war as to what they should do instead, and it was decided that they would remain seated in the Square until five minutes past midnight. The Committee themselves intended to remain through the night until ten o'clock in the morning when Lord Russell was due to be released, and they invited any supporters to spend the night there in the Square with them. But those who could not stay were asked to get up at five-past twelve and to leave the Square in an orderly and dignified manner. Perhaps I should mention here that when this matter was raised in another place the Minister said that this announcement about getting up and leaving at midnight was made by the Mayor of Woolwich. I have made inquiries in Woolwich and find that the Mayor was at that time in bed.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: He is a very good Mayor.
LORD KILBRACKEN: He was wise enough on this occasion to be in bed. I have checked also on the Mayor of
630
Greenwich—it has been suggested that it was she who was being referred to—and I am informed that at no time that evening was she inside the Square itself.
This brings me to the second specific matter I wish to raise—namely, that in the course of the next fifteen or twenty minutes the police either arrested, or threatened with arrest unless they left the area, all, or virtually all, representatives of Parliament, Press and television in Trafalgar Square itself or in its close vicinity. I realise that this is a serious charge and that it has already been denied in another place, but I am prepared to substantiate it—and as a Pressman I am very much concerned to do so. At this time already entrance to Trafalgar Square had been barred since ten o'clock, so that any reporters who had gone out to telephone their copy, or for any other purpose, could not get back into the Square, and there were few left in the area. Of the six Members of Parliament there as observers, five had already gone home. The sixth, Mr. Fenner Brockway was arrested at 12.15 a.m., just before the assault on the demonstrators started. As we all know, the case against Mr. Fenner Brockway was dismissed.
When this matter came up in another place the Minister was asked whether any television operators or Pressmen had been arrested in the Square. He replied that he could not without notice say, but he had to confess that, although he had been through a great many reports on the matter, he did not recall a report of that happening. I should like to bring these cases to his attention. Mr. Ronald Norris of the Daily Sketch was arrested while taking notes in the Square. The case against him was dismissed. Mr. William Baglin, a cameraman, and Mr. James Taylor, his assistant, of B.B.C. television, were arrested in the Square. Their case is sub judice; the B.B.C. are defending it. Mr. David Mason, a cameraman of Granada T.V. network, was arrested under the 1839 Act. His case is sub judice; the Granada Television Company are defending it.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask what these gentlemen of the Press and television were charged with?
LORD KILBRACKEN: I think in all cases they were charged under the 1839 Act for refusing to conform with the Inspector's direction: in other words, they were asked to leave the area. Those are the only ones actually arrested, but I have some other examples which I think I should quote. Norman Luck of the Daily Herald was telephoning his copy from Charing Cross station. He was in a telephone box there. He was approached by an inspector, who pulled him out of the telephone box, informed him that he had been in there for more than three minutes and he therefore had to leave the station and depart from the area and not come back. Mr. Brian Groves of the Daily Mail showed his Press card to a constable and requested readmission to the Square. The constable punched him in his stomach and told him to leave the area. Mr. Stanley Williams of the Daily Herald was threatened with arrest unless he left the area of the Square.
Finally, as the police advanced on the demonstrators, I myself saw a television crew who attempted to shoot the sequence. Immediately a constable approached and, in my hearing, said that they had already been warned, and if they attempted to shoot a foot of film they would be arrested. This was a crew from Independent Television. I have spoken to Mr. Geoffrey Cox, the Editor in Chief, who has confirmed this. He said that they had full co-operation until 12.25, but then were told by the police that they could use no lights, and although they complied with these instructions they were escorted off the Square by police officers.
I have to describe the event the reporting of which I submit the Commissioner wished to inhibit. I was there myself and I am speaking from personal experience. A large force of constables—which the Minister has put at 300, but which I myself think was greatly in excess of that figure—closed in and took up menacing positions around the remaining demonstrators. This brings me to the third minor point that I wish to raise. I want to ask why it suddenly became an offence to sit down in Trafalgar Square at 12.25 a.m., unless it was because by then everyone else had gone. It seems to me that these demonstrators were doing no more—in
632
fact, they were doing considerably less—than several thousand demonstrators had been doing for more than seven hours, and these had been completely unmolested, except in special cases. Moreover—and I think this is an important matter—a report was published in the first editions of both the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, which were on sale in Trafalgar Square before midnight, quoting a senior police officer as saying that the demonstrators could stay there all night if they wished.
This large force of constables fell upon the few hundred remaining demonstrators. They acted in a collective, organised way, and therefore obviously I think with orders from above, which makes it that much more serious. I observed that there was no warning of any kind, and no word was spoken; indeed, there was no intention of arresting any of these demonstrators if they could possibly help it. What happened was that police lorries and vans were drawn up on the south side of the square, that is to say, at the top of Whitehall. Constables would grab hold of demonstrators by an arm or a leg or by the scruff of the neck and drag them at the double the full length of the Square in the opposite direction to where the police vans and trucks were waiting for them; that is to say, they would drag them the whole length of the Square to the wall underneath the National Gallery and then very often throw them up against this wall and leave them lying there. Whatever one thinks about the demonstrators, it is not an edifying spectacle to see a married woman, let us say of middle age, of 40 or 45, being dragged by one leg, face downwards at the double, the entire length of the Square, and then left lying in water after being thrown against the wall at that end of the Square. There was no attempt whatsoever to arrest her. But that sight was commonplace; that was going on all over the Square during the whole of this period.
The final sight that I saw—I then left the Square—was when two ladies and one man were brought by the constables at the double, unresisting and passive, to one of the fountains and thrown into the deep water round one of the fountains. One of these ladies was Miss Oonagh Lahr of London, N.10.

633
She is 31, and her report of the events shows her sense of humour as well as her spirit of forbearance and forgiveness. In reporting it, she says as follows:
"I would like to thank the three constables who took me out of the fountain, and in particular the one who was very concerned for me in my soaking wet condition, and who did his very best to get me as quickly as possible into a police coach. … I would like to thank the police matron at Stoke-Newington Court who gave me a blanket and a hot drink fourteen hours after I was thrown into the fountain."
I have interviewed this lady, and I am convinced that she is a witness of truth. It was fourteen hours, half-past-two the next afternoon, before she got so much as a cup of tea. She was still in her wet clothes—she had no facilities for drying herself. She was given nothing to eat and nothing to drink, and it was not until the Tuesday morning, when she was due to come up before the Governor of Holloway, that she got any dry clothes at all. So it was very nearly 48 hours before this lady, a respectable woman of 31 and a sincere woman, was given any dry clothes to wear.
The National Council of Civil Liberties have published the report that I have in my hand which gives, among other things, the particulars of 31 cases of alleged serious violence in Trafalgar Square and in the courts. Copies of it are available in the Printed Paper Office if any noble Lord wishes to consult it. These have been chosen from a far larger number and individually selected as being the most important. I want to mention here that neither the Council solicited complaints nor did I, although I have received a similar number from people who knew that I was interested in this matter. The worst cases in this report have already been quoted in another place, and I will not repeat them here. They include the case of Adam Roberts, who is an undergraduate of Magdalen College, Oxford, whose account was printed in the New Statesman and may have been read by some of your Lordships. He was very seriously beaten up, kicked, and has a doctor's certificate which says that he was bleeding internally three days after the event. It is one of those ironic twists that this gentleman is a first cousin of the Home Secretary.
634
Finally, as an example, I wish to quote the case of a 16-year old girl—and I have given advance notice of this. I have given her name and address, although I have undertaken not to reveal it publicly or in your Lordships' House. This 16-year old girl I have also personally interviewed. I want to emphasise that she is not a precocious 16-year old—she is not a "beatnik." She is a modest and rather shy girl. I was impressed both by her sincerity and her integrity. When she was arrested she co-operated to the extent that she walked and did not have to be carried. She was arrested at 5.45 p.m. She was then taken to the West End Central Police Station, where she gave her name, her age and her college, but refused to give her address because she was instructed accordingly by the Committee of 100. She was then taken alone down a corridor, and she was to be alone for the next six hours. She was again asked her name, her address and her school. She was then asked if she was pregnant. She was asked if she knew that everyone had gone and she was the only one left, which, of course, was not true. She was then asked if she had ever been in a remand home, whether she had slept with men and whether she had slept rough. She does not know what that means, and nor do I. She was asked if she had any scars.
She now reports:
"I was getting frightened, but I did not cry until I got home"
She just sat still and said nothing. She was then asked to take her hair down. She did not know why, and I do not know why. She was then asked to take off her jacket—a child of 16, my Lords. She was wearing her brother's watch, a man's watch, and this was noticed by a clever police constable who accused her of stealing it, and also accused her of stealing the jacket which she was wearing. A matron then came in to search her—this 16-year old girl. She said:
"She lifted my jumper and brassiere and felt underneath and round my hips under my skirt. She told me to take off my shoes so that she could look inside them. This was when they began to tell me that I should be sent to a remand home with thieves and prostitutes."
She was told that she would be kept there until Wednesday or Thursday. It was at this moment that she gave them her address, and she was finally charged

635
at 11.15, which was some five hours after her arrival at the police station. She was never given any paper of any kind while she was there, but received the summons by registered post about ten days later, charging her under the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839. She was fined 15s. and 15s. costs. That was the extent of her offence.
We have to recognise that all these people in the Square were criminals. Their crime was so serious that they were fined anything from 15s. to two guineas. I believe that is less than for a parking offence. What they were doing was considered by the law to be less important than you and I leaving our car on the wrong side of the street. Whatever we think of them, they were sincere people acting in accordance with sincere principles, and willing to face the threat of three months' imprisonment, which had been publicly announced, under the Public Order Act. Although they were wrongdoers, I suggest that even wrongdoers have rights in this community—important rights. I suggest that the police action that night struck deep at the roots of democracy in this country.
I therefore wish to support the plea already made in another place that an independent tribunal be set up to investigate all the facts. I say that it cannot be satisfactory that the police conduct their own inquiry, especially because, in my submission, the principal fault lies with those in the highest places, and not with the subordinates who carried out their orders. In the words Herman Melville put into the mouth of Captain Ahab:
"Who's to doom when the judge himself is dragged before the Bar?"
7.9 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I have not been over 50 years in public life without recognising complete sincerity when I hear it. If I may pay a tribute to the noble Lord, with whose speech I entirely disagree, he showed that he was completely sincere in what he said, and that he really believes that these so-called outrages occurred.
I do not want to detain the House because we have had a hard week and the Lord Chancellor is going to speak, but I have a number of comments to make on the noble Lord's contentions
636
and on some of the things he said. He said in the closing part of his speech that these people were fined only 15s. or £2. I understand that the maximum fine for an obstruction of this kind is £2. I am going to put a question to the Government later on—not of course on this occasion, as it does not arise—to ask them whether they would increase the penalty for wilfully obstructing the passage of the public, as these people have done, to £25 for the first offence, and £50 and three months' imprisonment for the second. Because, believe me! the public are getting very tired of the antics of these people and of the nuisance caused by them, and also of the immense strain placed upon the police.
The first point that I want to make—and I hope the noble Lord will interrupt me if there is anything he wishes to criticise in what I am saying—is this: that in almost any other country in the world, not merely behind the Iron Curtain, these people would have been treated to tear gas or hoses, or what is called in America, "Cops' night stick" charges (truncheon charges) or blows from the policemen's rolled capes. I do not think there is a single country in Western Europe where the police would have behaved with the tolerance which they do here for most of the time.
I would suggest to these so-called "civil disobedience" people that they go to Paris and take Lord Russell with them and see what happens to them if they lie down in the streets there. They will have very rough treatment; and I should think Lord Russell would probably be returned to England. The Sureté would ring up Scotland Yard and say, "Here is an old gentleman who says he is a famous scientist by name of 'Roossel'. He appears to be suffering from senile decay, and as we have got plenty of those people already in our own country we are sending him back on the next 'plane". This is the sort of treatment these people would get in Paris; and it would happen in New York, as well.
My second point is this. It is all very well to talk of the sincerity of these people and to say that they do it from a sense of duty. But I wonder whether they realise the ill-effect they have on public order generally. We have just had a most interesting debate concerning

637
prisons, in which the question of crime arose. What sort of effect do they have on the criminal population, because it is an encouragement to them? Civil disobedience, as it is called, is really a breach of the law, and there is no other way in which it can be described. It is a breach of law which causes great inconvenience—and might have caused even greater inconvenience except for police action on two occasions—and which the law is perfectly right to punish.
The noble Lord has quoted a number of cases of alleged assault on members of the public. I do not remember reading anywhere a single case of any person being taken to hospital as a result of being assaulted by police. It is true that the noble Lord quoted one case of an Oxford don whose doctor alleges that, as a result of his treatment, he suffered from internal bleeding; but whether there are any cases of people being taken to hospital perhaps the noble Lord would answer me.
LORD KILBRACKEN: So far as I know, there was none taken to hospital. There was one broken nose, and the Oxford man—an undergraduate, not a don—had to have medical treatment, but he was not detained in hospital. I think that one of the nice points about maltreating by police is how to cause just enough physical discomfort without necessitating medical treatment.
EARL WINTERTON: That, if I may say so, was not the case made by the noble Lord at all, or by Members of another place. The allegations—which were very serious, and which all of us who have a great regard for the police resent unless they are true—were that the police behaved with great roughness. If there were only two cases of anybody being injured and requiring medical treatment, it does not make any sort of sense.
Now I come to other points about what happened in the Square. The police at that time, after midnight, had had a very hard day. Many of them were probably very tired, and it may have been that they used greater force than is usual in this country. But, my Lords, is force against people who break the law a very bad thing? Surely the police are entitled to use force if people will not go away? All these people had to do was go away; and there is no
638
reason why the B.B.C. or Independent Television or a reporter should have any more rights than anybody else. If told to move on, they should move on. Is it suggested that whenever there is trouble reporters and television people and flashlight photographers have a right to remain there when the police, in their judgment, consider that a place should be cleared? That does not seem to me to make any sense at all. Such people have no more rights than any other people.
If somebody accuses me of being reactionary because I think there are occasions when force has to be used, let me quote to him a somewhat similar situation in Middlesbrough, when there were serious riots. The police on the second night got tired of them, and the Chief Constable was very alarmed. There was a slight colour tincture, so to speak: it was alleged that the riot had something to do with the number of coloured men in Middlesbrough. What happened? Thirty police made a baton charge. I do not know what the noble Lord opposite would have said if he had seen a baton charge in Trafalgar Square. A good many people got a crack on the head—not very serious; one or two were knocked out. But there was no more trouble in Middlesbrough after that. That charge completely stopped it. I believe that the idea that the police must never, in any circumstances, use force, even though of a rough character, against people who break the law is an entirely wrong one.
The criterion to judge on is surely the state of the casualties, and the noble Lord has admitted, I understand, that, except for two people, nobody required any hospital treatment. I find it hard to believe—I must, of course, accept what he told us—that the police actually threw anybody into one of the fountains. Maybe they did; but I find it very difficult to believe.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I did myself witness this event, and testify to it from personal experience. May I also say that I personally would far rather be thrown into a fountain than dragged 50 yards on my face across the Square, which I saw on at least 50 separate occasions.
EARL WINTERTON: I must ask the noble Lord a question. I am sorry to

639
have this controversy, because, as I have already said, I admit his sincerity. How can a person be dragged across the Square on his face and not require hospital treatment? Will he answer that question?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, may I help my noble friend for a moment, and my other noble friend here who belongs to the medical profession? The noble Earl has asked a question, and the answer can be given quite easily. You can certainly be dragged a long way without receiving any serious injury—laceration, yes; injury, yes; but not serious. The noble Earl is trying to force the matter of serious injury, but he is not getting anywhere. Everybody who has heard my noble friend's speech knows that not only is he sincere but he was personally present, which the noble Earl was not. If the noble Earl is prepared to say that my noble friend is making up the whole story, let him get up and say so.
EARL WINTERTON: I never said anything of the sort, and the noble Lord, who always intervenes in matters which do not concern him, has no reason for saying that. I paid a tribute to his noble friend's sincerity, but I should prefer him to answer my question, not the noble Lord who has just interrupted. I say that you cannot drag a person across a square for 100 yards on his face, without doing him some injury. It is quite obvious that you cannot, and that such injury would require hospital treatment.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, may I interrupt? I am afraid that you can drag a person on his front and his face for quite a long way without doing an injury which needs treatment at hospital. Possibly, the noble Earl could come outside and let me experiment on him.
EARL WINTERTON: We do not want to get into a frivolous state.
LORD AMULREE: No; but it would be better if the noble Earl confined his remarks to things which he does know something about.
EARL WINTERTON: I rather resent that remark. I am an ex-Serviceman, and I have seen a great many wounded people.
640
I have never seen anybody dragged 50 yards on his face without requiring hospital treatment. It may be that the noble Lord knows, but I should have thought it was very unlikely that it would happen.
I should like to ask the noble Lord another question. If he saw, as I am sure he did (because he would not have told us that he had unless he had seen it), three constables, I think he said, dragging a lady into the fountain, why did he not take their numbers.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I shall be very glad to answer that question. It so happened that at this time a chief inspector was standing within three yards of me, and when I saw this I approached the chief inspector. I informed him that I was a Member of your Lordships' House, and that I should be raising the matter at the earliest opportunity, as I now am, and the chief inspector turned on his heels and walked away. Further, my Lords, may I add this: that I had to be very careful that night. I do not quite know how I myself avoided being arrested, although I did manage to march through Red Square disguised as a Communist demonstrator, in order to get a story, without being arrested, and this was rather easier than that. But one had to be very careful how one behaved if one was going to avoid being arrested. I had to keep moving, and it was very noticeable that a number of people, who were seen writing down numbers of constables, were immediately arrested for that reason. I did not want that to happen, and that is why I did not succeed.
EARL WINTERTON: May I ask the noble Lord one more question, before I give way to the Lord Chancellor to answer, in a much more authoritative way than I can? Have any of these people, who took down the constables' names or alleged that they were assaulted, brought actions against the police?
LORD KILBRACKEN: I think that three points arise here. The first is that it is a policy of these people not to prosecute or to make complaints against the police, because they want to keep on as friendly terms as possible with the police. Secondly, I think it is the case that they are mostly not extremely wealthy people, and for an undergraduate, or an arts student, to prosecute, in effect, the Commissioner of Police, is asking quite a bit too much of the student's financial

641
resources. The third thing is that it is not very easy to take down the number of a police constable when you are being dragged by one limb the length of the Square.
EARL WINTERTON: My only comment on that is that I assume from what the noble Lord said—and of course I accept that—that all of those people who were arrested were members of this organisation, and not members of the public. I understood him earlier to say that some of them were members of the public.
LORD KILBRACKEN: To which organisation is the noble Earl referring?
EARL WINTERTON: I mean the Committee of 100.
LORD KILBRACKEN: No; by no means. A great minority of those arrested were members of the Committee.
EARL WINTERTON: Only a minority?
LORD KILBRACKEN: A great minority.
EARL WINTERTON: Then what does the noble Lord mean by saying that they could lake down the constables' names and were not prepared to prosecute them, because they were members of the Committee and did not want to give their names? I do not understand his point.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Although they were not actually members of the Committee of 100, they adhered to the beliefs of the Committee. They were not members of the Committee itself.
EARL WINTERTON: I see.
My Lords, I have nothing more to say on the Question. I would only end by saying this. I have the utmost admiration for the Metropolitan Police, and I agree with the article in the Daily Express today, that there has grown up in this country a tendency—and I am not accusing the noble Lord opposite of this—to ignore the fact that police have been stabbed, shot and blinded, and the Press say very little about it; but whenever there is any sort of demonstration someone immediately gets up—sometimes in another place—or writes in the Press, and accuses the police of rough conduct. All I can say is that in my
642
opinion we have in this country—it is a trite remark, but it is true—both in the Metropolitan Police and in the provincial police, the finest police force in the world. And while, of course, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to bring this point forward, I very much hope that we shall not get in the habit in your Lordships' House of attacking the police when they are merely carrying out what they believe to be their duty.
7.27 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I gave notice to the Table earlier in the evening that I should like to intervene in this debate for a moment or two, before the Lord Chancellor replies to the Question asked by my noble friend. I am sorry that the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat considers that I am interfering in things that have nothing to do with me. I should have thought that any matter which is raised in your Lordships' House has to do with all the Members of your Lordships' House. I am surprised if he feels otherwise.
EARL WINTERTON: I am sorry if the noble Lord misunderstood me. I was trying to get an answer to a question which I put to the noble Lord, to whose sincerity I paid a tribute. The noble Lord then got up before the matter was completed by either of us.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I accept that. I did so, because I was trying to help another of my noble friends who is a member of the medical profession, who was trying to put a point forward, and the uproar was such that he had some difficulty in making himself heard.
My Lords, I rise only to say that I agree entirely with the noble Earl that we should support the police in their difficult task. We are all agreed about that. But I think that, having said that, we must take heed of what my noble friend Lord Kilbracken has said. He has gone to great lengths to produce a great deal of detailed evidence on this matter. He has painted a picture which is perhaps a little lurid, because he was there and it must have been very unpleasant; but he has gone to a great deal of trouble to produce facts and figures, of which he has given notice, and which will be answered in due course, I have no doubt, and I hope

643
satisfactorily. But I defend his right to raise this matter in the way he has done, and I am sure that your Lordships feel the same way about that.
I would add that many of us who cannot come to this House as often as we should like to, very much resent the idea that if we do not quite follow in the usual stream of saying what everybody else is saying, we may get browbeaten by the older Members, on both sides of the House, who may feel that we ought not to be speaking like that. We try to put our points courteously and reasonably, but we do not propose to be browbeaten. We think—particularly speaking from the Benches of a very small Party, though I am glad to be able to inform you that it is growing—that we have a right to do that and to be treated like anybody else.
I am sorry to say that it is only twenty-four hours since in this Chamber the noble Earl who has just addressed us used the most extraordinary language in respect of a senior member of the United Nations Organisation, to whom he referred as the "worst type of filibustering braggart". That was reported on the "ticker" as the "worst type of silly, blustering blackguard". Which version is correct I am not sure; perhaps the noble Earl would like to tell us. In either case I think it was the most unhelpful use of language at the present tricky stage of our negotiations in the Congo. But that is irrelevant to what we are talking about now. I hope that we can come and say as shortly as possible what we want to say without the virtual certainty of being pulled up short by the noble Earl, who has many years' experience behind him, and that he will treat us from the great height of his experience as doing our best and being sincere.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I think he could not have listened to my speech. I paid a great tribute to the sincerity of his colleague. I said I believed he was completely sincere in what he said. One is entitled in your Lordships' House, whatever one's position, to controvert something said by another Member. The noble Lord seems to think it wrong ever to contradict anyone.
7.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I propose to answer the four questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will not suspect me of browbeating him or either of them. If I put the answers strongly, he will realise it is because I believe the case is strong, but I question neither the sincerity nor the accuracy of Lord Kilbracken, nor have I any intention of objecting to his raising the point. I only say this: that I ask noble Lords always to consider that we have in Parliament the licence of our privilege, the permission of our privilege to raise these points. That is something which every Member of Parliament must always consider: whether he is justified on the strength of his evidence in using that privilege to make charges against other people. That is something upon the responsibility of Members of Parliament which I think must be carefully considered.
I want to begin, before dealing with the detailed complaints, to put in perspective the action that was required to deal with this particular demonstration by the Committee of 100. I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Winterton, for making one or two important points, but I want to make this clear: the last thing the Government and the police wish to do is to interfere with the free expression of opinion or with the freedom of assembly so long as the law is not broken. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, takes a very light view of breaking the law. I would ask him to remember that democratic society, among other things, is built on respect for the law, and it is not a light thing deliberately to break the law.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, with great respect, I do not take a light view of it and I do not think it can be said that I gave that impression.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The impression, of course, is a subjective matter, but I must say that I construed the noble Lord's remarks about the extent of the fines as endeavouring to show that a light view should be taken of this offence. If I am wrong I am sorry.
But just let us go on. The police here had to deal with a deliberate attempt to break the law in order to draw attention

645
to the views of the Committee of 100 about nuclear disarmament. The demonstrators who came to Trafalgar Square on September 17, did so knowing that the holding of the meeting arranged by the Committee of 100 in the Square on that day had been forbidden. The Committee made clear that their intention was to break the law. That is the first point.
The facts as to what took place up to midnight are not in dispute. There were thousands of people in and around the Square before five o'clock and it was not finally cleared until about two o'clock on the following morning. The complaints against the action of the police are almost entirely—I think this is putting fairly what the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, said—directed to the short period after midnight, between a few minutes after twelve and 12.45. I want your Lordships to look at the position then. The police report that at midnight there were still about 1,000 people left in the Square. About half of them dispersed but the remainder stayed on. It was at this stage that the Commissioner of Police decided to bring the proceedings to a conclusion; that is, after seven hours of vast crowds with virtually no complaint at all.
I know the Metropolitan Police too well to think that any of them would ask for sympathy in the job from the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, or the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, but I think that most people who were considering that position would have said that that seven hours constituted a good job of which ordinary, reasonable people would be proud. At midnight, as I said, there were still about 1,000 people left in the Square. About half of them dispersed but the remainder stayed on. It was at this stage that the Commissioner of the Police decided to bring the proceedings to a conclusion, and to clear the Square after allowing a reasonable interval in which those who wished to leave voluntarily could do so.
That is one of the main complaints of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken: that the Commissioner came to that conclusion. I submit to your Lordships that it is not an unreasonable conclusion to come to after midnight, when they had had seven hours in which to (if I may use a colloquial expression) "mill around". The police then on duty in and around
646
the Square were about 300 in all. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has said that there were 800 to 1,000. He said that in the television interview which he gave criticising the police. I am not suggesting that the noble Lord is not giving us his sincere view, but may I point out to him how easily he himself could be mistaken?
One of my noble friends referred me to an article which the noble Lord wrote for the Evening Standard on Wednesday, October 4, on quite a different subject, on matters connected with this House. I only want to show how easy it is for anyone to make a mistake about a subject which one would think they would know very well. The noble Lord said, describing an introduction into this House:
"Then, conducted by Black Rod, General Sir Brian Horrocks, with his Black Rod held the same way as a conductor conducts an orchestra, the three of them, …"—
that is the new Peer about whom the noble Lord was writing and his two sponsors—
"… will go through the thrice repeated rigmarole, often most comical, of putting on their cocked hats, sitting down, standing up, and taking off their cocked hats and bowing to the Lord Chancellor."
That is one of the things we have seen. We have all seen Garter conduct the Peer and his sponsors in that introduction, and yet the noble Lord, writing for an enormous public, attributes something he must have seen very often to the wrong officer. If the noble Lord can do that, how easy it is to make a mistake; and, without suggesting anything but complete sincerity, I suggest that he is entirely mistaken and that he has exaggerated by three times the number of police. That is how we start.
What happened was that the police, the three hundred, moved into the well of the Square and arrested those demonstrators who were not willing to leave. They were taken to the South-East side of the Square to await removal to places where they could be charged. The clearance of the Square was completed by about 12.45, but many of those who had been arrested had to stay for some time on the pavement waiting for transport. Demonstrators then started coming back into the Square, and by 1.25 in the morning of

647
September 18 about 200 people were again sitting in the Square. It was then finally cleared. The general procedure was for an individual who was removed from the Square to be carried to the pavement by two officers who then left the individual to await transport. In other cases, removal had to be done by one police officer. Of course not all the demonstrators were passive or cooperative; a few of them resisted strenuously, and others did what they could, by stiffening themselves and so on, without resistance, to make their removal difficult.
In a moment I shall come to the inquiries that have been made. But whatever may emerge from the inquiries, I must make it quite clear that on the information before my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, there are no grounds whatsoever for any suggestion that those in charge of the operation either ordered or would have condoned the use of any unnecessary force. Senior officers were on duty throughout and kept a close control over the whole operation. They are satisfied that in general no unnecessary force was used.
I should now like to say a word about the methods of dealing with the specific allegations which have been made. In accordance with statutory disciplinary arrangements, each complaint is thoroughly investigated by an officer who was not concerned with the incident in question. That is essential. I think I was Home Secretary at the time that the procedure was put into operation on the new basis. What has to happen if a complaint is made against the police is that it is investigated by an officer to decide whether there is the fundamental of a disciplinary charge. The noble Lord must remember that it has been the glory of our country that the police are also citizens and are ready to help citizens.
I do not for a moment want to put it too high, but he must really consider what is a fair method of dealing with a complaint against any disciplined force. It goes to an officer who investigates the complaint. These investigations necessarily depend very much on the precision of the information given. If the report made by the investigating officer indicates that there is a prima facie case
648
for thinking that the disciplinary code may have been infringed, a charge is formulated and is heard under the disciplinary procedure laid down for the Metropolitan Police. The Commissioner, not the Home Secretary, is the disciplinary authority, but there is a right of appeal to the Home Secretary by an officer against whom any serious penalties are imposed.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is informed by the Commissioner that so far some thirty specific complaints in relation to the Trafalgar Square demonstration have been, or are being, investigated. In those cases where inquiries have been completed, insufficient evidence has been forthcoming to substantiate the allegation; but inquiries in about half the cases are still going on, and of course, quite apart from that, it is, as was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Winterton, open to anyone to bring an action against a constable or to take other proceedings. I hope your Lordships will agree that it would be quite wrong of me, in view of the arrangements I have described, to deal this afternoon with individual cases such as those listed. I should, however, like to urge anyone who has first hand information bearing on any complaints to give the police details of what they have seen.
So far as can be seen from the information given in the Council's report to which the noble Lord referred, only a minority of these cases have so far been made the subject of complaint to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is prepared in the case of all complaints to make a most detailed and thorough inquiry in order to establish the facts, and disciplinary action will be taken if it is found necessary. I am glad that some of those who feel there are grounds for complaint about certain individual officers have made it clear that they have no complaint against the behaviour of the vast majority of the very considerable force of police who were on duty, and I have no doubt from the report I have seen that the conduct of the police, operating as they did for such a considerable period under very difficult conditions, should be commended. Nothing that has been said so far convinces my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that there is any case for departing

649
from the established procedure for investigating complaints or to set up any general inquiries. May I just put to the noble Lord one difficulty? I ask, even now, if he will not help to solve it. The noble Lord went on a T.V. programme on September 22 and made his attack on the police. I am not denying him his right to do that, but I do say this to him: when the noble Lord made his attack in the Press and on T.V., the Chief Commissioner sent a superintendent to get a statement from the noble Lord. The noble Lord, I think having this debate in mind—I do not want to say anything unfair—has refused to give a statement to the superintendent and to provide any further witnesses or information. I ask him, now that he has had the opportunity of stating this in the House, and I have explained that the question whether any further action is required must depend on the results of the inquiries that are being made, whether he will now be prepared to see a senior police officer and provide the information and so help on the inquiries.
My Lords, I want to deal shortly with the other three questions. I do not want the noble Lord to think that I am avoiding any of them. That is the last thing in my life that I want to do. The next point of the noble Lord was the arrest or threatened arrest soon after midnight of all, or nearly all, the representatives of Parliament—the noble Lord said it was only one apart from himself—the Press and television. Again, some of these cases are sub judice, as he has said, and it would be particularly unfortunate if I were to comment on a matter that is sub judice. But I want to make clear—I do not think this has any bearing on the individual cases—that there was no question of any special clearance of the Press and television observers from the Square to enable the operation to take place without being observed. Press and television representatives had no exemption from the Commissioner's direction, and if they refused to move when asked to do so at the time that the Square was being cleared, they would be liable to arrest because they were unwilling to go. That is really the point; and while I have the greatest respect for the Press, including the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, I do not think they are en-
650
titled to claim exemption from general Orders that are made with regard to keeping order in the streets.
The next point was really a double one. The noble Lord said that there was an illegality because my right honourable friend's approval had not been given to an extension of the Order under the Public Order Act. I think the noble Lord appreciated (but, in case he did not, I want to make it clear) that there are two matters. There is the Order under Section 3 (3) of the Public Order Act, and there is also the direction given under Section 52 of the Metropolitan Police Act, 1839, and both were given in relation to Sunday, September 17. The direction—and I do not think the noble Lord appreciated this—in paragraph 4, was:
"No organised procession shall be allowed to pass along the streets joining to or leading to Trafalgar Square or Parliament Square".
Then, No. 1 was:
"No person shall be permitted to obstruct Trafalgar Square",
followed by a long series of streets.
The noble Lord had got near the point, but I do not think he had it quite accurately. There were the two; and the one I quoted secondly, the one under the Metropolitan Police Act, was the one that was also put into operation on Monday, September 18.
The noble Lord put to me the dilemma—and I quite see it: If you could do it under the Metropolitan Police Act, why bring in the Public Order Act at all? The reason for that is that the penalties under the Public Order Act are greater. The penalties for infringement under the Act are much more severe than the penalties for failure to comply with the direction; and it was thought that it was necessary to have a larger gun for the first day. That is the explanation. I have put it very shortly, and I hope that if I have not made it clear the noble Lord will let me know.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, will the noble and learned Viscount forgive me for intervening? In that case, why was it necessary to employ the machinery of the Public Order Act? If everything could have been done under the Metropolitan Police Act, why bring

651
in the other one and complicate the situation? The second point is: If the Order under the Public Order Act was timed to expire at midnight, was it competent—I am not arguing one way or the other—for the Commissioner to extend that period beyond midnight, when he found that the people were not going home?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am very sorry; I have not made myself clear. The reason why not only a direction was given under the Metropolitan Police Act, but an Order was made under the Public Order Act, was because the penalties under the Public Order Act are more severe. It was thought that in these circumstances, the bringing in of the Public Order Act, with its more severe penalties, would be a more effective deterrent. The second point is this: that no-one did extend, or, as I am told, purport to extend, the Order under the Public Order Act. On Monday, September 18, it was a direction of the Chief Commissioner under the Metropolitan Police Act. So at 12 o'clock on the Sunday night, as it turned into Monday, the Public Order Act moved out of the question and you were dealing with the direction. I hope that is clear to the noble Lord.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It is quite clear. It is a funny affair, but it is quite clear.
LORD KILBRACKEN: According to Scotland Yard's version of the loudspeaker announcements, the official version, it was that the Commissioner of Police had extended his order of September 17. I do not quite understand how that announcement—that he had extended an Order—can be taken as implying that it refers to his directions.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that if you put the emphasis on the word "his"—"he has extended his order"—it is the direction under the Act—which, of course, are in the words, "I hereby direct". It amounts to an order not to do the four things prohibited by the direction. That is why. But certainly, unless the person in question had a considerable but very inexact knowledge of the law, he would have known that what was said over the loudspeaker was telling him that he should not act on the next day.
652
My Lords, that, I think, deals with the third point. I have dealt with the general position and with the question of the Press. The noble Lord put it rather this way: Why was action taken against a few hundred that were left? I think I have dealt with that. It is a matter of opinion, but the Chief Commissioner thought—the noble Lord takes a different view—that, having let them have seven hours to go at it, the matter ought to be made subject to a clearing operation of the Square.
Now the noble Lord has asked me about two specific cases, of which he gave me notice. With regard to the girl, there is, of course, as generally occurs in these cases, a considerable conflict of evidence. According to the police reports that I have, the girl was dirty and unkempt when she was arrested, and was wearing a man's lumber jacket. She said that she was nineteen, and she told a story, afterwards found to be quite untrue, of having been sleeping out under rough conditions. Later, she admitted that her age was only sixteen, but she still refused to give her address. Having been given this account, the police were for some time doubtful about her background.
I put it to the noble Lord again—I do not want to be argumentative, or merely to make debating points—that it is extremely difficult, if you take someone in for disobeying a direction, or for anything else, and then, when you ask her for her name and address, she refuses it. Everything could have been settled much earlier—as soon as they realised that she was a younger girl—if she had given her address. The police could have telephoned. In fact, she gave it only at 8.50, according to my account. The police in her home area were then asked to verify her address, and that she was living at home. As soon as there was an officer available, a visit was paid to her house. It was then confirmed that she was living there and that her parents were aware that she was joining the demonstration; and arrangements were made to send her home in a police car. I have 11.10 as the time she was sent home, but the noble Lord said 11.15.
With regard to the other lady the noble Lord mentioned, the one who was

653
said to have been thrown into the fountain—I say "was said", because the matter has not been decided in any way; and, in fact, I am trying not to reflect on anyone—the problem there, as the noble Lord knows, is that the lady herself has not been willing to pursue her complaint, although she has been seen by a senior police officer. Although there was some delay, she was one of 65 who arrived at roughly the same time at the station. Those prisoners had been received at various times, and dealt with without a break between 6.20 and 11.05, and if there was a delay in giving her a blanket or some tea, then I am very sorry. Again, it was not possible to send home for a change of clothes, because she would not give her name and address.
I have tried deliberately to shorten these matters, and I have tried, and I hope the noble Lord thinks I have been successful, to put this moderately, according to what has been said to me. But I would remind him of the point which the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, made: that so far as he knows, from all the research and all the information he has collected, nobody was detained in hospital; and I think, if my memory is right, only two people of whom he
654
knows had to go to a doctor. Lord Windlesham made the point that that only rules out serious cases. I am not going to argue with him and prolong the debate, but he knows that if you get a bad scratch or a bad bruise or a bad sprain which is quite obvious, especially if skin is broken, you do go to hospital and have it dealt with. I think that is a remarkable fact. And I think the other remarkable fact is that, so far as I know, and so far as Lord Kilbracken knows, no one has commenced proceedings, either in the magistrates' court, or in the county court in a civil action.
Well, my Lords, that is the position. Except in the two cases about which the noble Lord asked me, I have not said anything about individual cases, because, as I say, I do not want to do anything to prejudice the matter. But I do feel that if you look at the whole question, then I think it would be wise to be very slow to make what will go out to the world as sweeping criticism, after the police behaved in that way in that very difficult situation.
House adjourned at four minutes past eight o'clock.