HL Deb 24 July 1952 vol 178 cc247-65

2.41 p.m.

LORD RENNELL rose to call attention to recent constitutional developments in the Gold Coast, and their implications and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put this Motion on the Order Paper because developments in the Gold Coast during the last six years have been moving with such astonishing rapidity that it seemed to me appropriate at this stage to take stock of where these constitutional developments have led us, and what is the present situation arising out of it. If I may remind your Lordships briefly of what has taken place in the last six years, I feel I cannot do better than quote what Judge Coussey says in his Report, which, as your Lordships will be aware, followed upon the Report of the Watson Commission which was sent to investigate the troubles and the riots in the Gold Coast in 1948. In the Coussey Report of 1949 it is written—and here I think everyone in your Lordships' House will be in agreement: It is here appropriate to mention only two of the most significant landmarks of the [Gold Coast] constitutions, those of 1925 and of 1946. The Constitution of 1925 made provision for the appointment of nine Africans as unofficial members of the Legislative Council. A second important feature of this Constitution was its recognition through the creation of the Provincial Councils of the status and importance of Chiefs. That last is a subject to which I should like to return later. Judge Coussey further wrote in that Report—and this has a bearing on what is taking place: Contrary to the view expressed in the Watson Report we believe that there is still a place for the Chief in a new constitutional set-up. We will see how that is developed.

The features of the 1946 Constitution out of which the present situation directly arose were the unification of the Colony and Ashanti in a single Legislative Council. Which was followed by the incorporation of the Northern Territories and a little later the establishment of an African unofficial majority (partly nominated and partly elected) which was a step forward in the direction of representative government. At the opening of the session of the Coussey Committee which led to the drawing up of the present Constitution of the Gold Coast, Judge Coussey said: Indeed, in 1946, the Gold Coast made in constitutional law the most important advance that a Crown Colony can make before it reaches the frontiers of responsible government. That was the situation in 1947, and it is probable that but for the events of 1948 that Constitution would have had more than the comparatively short run of life which was its lot. As your Lordships know, in 1948 there broke out a series of troubles in the Gold Coast which culminated in the Accra riots. Those riots, in part, of course, were the outcome of post-war difficulties in the Gold Coast, and not only in the Gold Coast but else-where in the world. But from the evidence of the Watson Commission (to, which I shall come in a minute) there is no shadow of doubt that those riots were not, in the magnitude which they assumed, the spontaneous outburst of public opinion against economic and other difficulties in the Gold Coast. They had been actively fomented by persons with ulterior motives. That is clearly borne out in the findings of the Watson Commission—with a number of which many of your Lordships were not at that time in agreement. But it is quite clear that the Watson Commission considered that the riots were not a spontaneous expression of dissatisfaction at economic conditions.

The Watson Commission wrote, in paragraph 85 of their Report, that the disturbances at Accra were not brought about primarily by the shooting incident at Christianburg Cross Roads. They concluded that these disturbances were planned. The Report then goes on to discuss how they were planned and the purpose for which they were planned. It is clear from correspondence which was captured that these riots were designed to create a situation in which a coup d' état could take place, in which the power of the Government was to be seized by persons who were not in the Government.

The outcome of the riots was the appointment of the Watson Commission to inquire into the causes of Intl the manner of handling these riots. The Watson Commission went a great deal further in their recommendations than merely dealing with the causes of the riots and the modification of the situation which had led to them. In fact, the Commission recommended the institution of a new Constitution. The inevitable consequence of their Report was the appointment of the Coussey Committee to consider constitutional developments in the Gold Coast. Their findings are contained in the famous Coussey Report, which has been discussed at considerable length in your Lordships' House. The result of that report was the promulgation by Order in Council of the new Constitution of the Gold Coast. In the course of the debate in your Lordships' House, my noble friends on this side of the House asked that before the Constitution was promulgated by Order in Council the House should have an opportunity of discussing the form of the Constitution. As it turned out, an opportunity for discussing the Constitution in detail did not present itself. The Gold Coast Constitution was promulgated by Order in Council No. 2094 of 1950. After elections were held, the present Government of the Gold Coast took office as an African Government elected by the franchise of the country as a whole.

Some may consider that progress from 1946 to 1950 was so rapid as to warrant the elapse of a certain length of time to see how the Constitution was working. Nevertheless, by 1952 modification of that Constitution has already taken place, in the appointment of the Leader of the House as Prime Minister of the Gold Coast. The four years from 1946 to 1950 led to a Constitution which gave a large measure of local self-government. The years from 1950 to 1952 have seen that Constitution modified by a further enlargement of power of the local Government. I think the time has come to take stock, to see where we have got to, what the situation is and what is the apparent direction in which we are going in the Gold Coast.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord for some information? Did he speak of a Royal Commission, or did I misunderstand him? What form of "taking stock" had he in mind?

LORD RENNELL

I did not mention a Royal Commission and I have no intention of doing so. I said that I hoped your Lordships' House will take stock of the situation in which we find ourselves.

The present situation can be described under two main headings—the present constitutional situation and the economic situation which arises out of it. If I may take the constitutional aspect first, I should like to review the situation, as I see it from outside and as fairly as I can. In the Gold Coast we have a Government in power which depends for their support upon one Party. Until lately there has been virtually no Opposition to that Party. That is a situation which, in other countries and in recent years, has led to dangerous and serious developments. The value of an Opposition in keeping in check the more extreme elements in any Party and in keeping in check personal ambition is too well known to your Lordships for me to need to elaborate upon it. Power breeds ambition, and ambition seeks more absolute power. I, for one, am perturbed to find that the Prime Minister of the Gold Coast, Mr. Kwami Nkrumah, is reported in the Press as having said on May 24, on what in the Gold Coast is called Anti-Imperialist Day, that anyone who identified himself with Opposition forces was a traitor to his race and to his country. He complained that Opposition Parties were trying to divide the country, and he added that the country was not going to tolerate a new Party and that until self-government was achieved he would not tolerate any other Party in the Gold Coast besides the C.P.P. I submit that that is a dangerous attitude of mind.

I come next to the present form which the Administration takes. I do not want to discuss the terms upon which members are elected, or the fact that British representatives in the Legislative Council of the great economic interests which built up the present prosperity of the Gold Coast—three from the commercial element and three from the mining element—are allowed only one vote in each group for the three of them. I turn to the question of administration. It is difficult for those who know the Gold Coast to believe that anyone can think that in the brief period of time which has elapsed since 1946 a sufficient staff of administrators could have been built to enable people even to consider being able to terminate the use and assistance of what are called expatriate functionaries and officials. Your Lordships will know that the constitutional developments which have taken place have had one result administratively—namely, that the recruiting for the permanent service in the Gold Coast has been brought to a close and expatriate employees in the Gold Coast are to be taken on only under contract.

It will also be well known to most of your Lordships that the Gold Coast Government are experiencing considerable difficulties in recruiting expatriate employees to take the place of the wastage, by resignation and retirement, of those from this country who have served in that country for many years. I understand (perhaps the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government will be able to provide some information on this subject) that the number of vacancies which ought to be filled by the appointment of officers from abroad is quite considerable, not only in the direct administrative service but also in the many technical departments without which a modern Government cannot be carried on. I should also like the noble Earl to say, if the matter is within his knowledge, whether it is not true that the terms offered for the recruiting of such staff from abroad are so low as to make it very unlikely that that staff will, in fact, be found. It may be that the terms which are offered, and which are not attracting the volume of recruits which they should, are designed to economise in expenditure. It may also be that they have been put so low so as to ensure that expatriate officers shall not be taken on under contract. I should like the noble Earl, if he can, to express the view of Her Majesty's Government on that, to me, most important point.

I understand that attempts have been made by members of the Gold Coast Government to seek staff for these vacancies from European countries other than the United Kingdom, also with indifferent success; that perhaps the greatest interest was displayed in Switzerland, but that the terms offered were so unattractive that nothing came of the attempt. I detect—and this is the disquieting feature—in the pronouncements of leaders of the Gold Coast Government about foreign staff a divided attitude of mind. On the one hand, the Prime Minister, Mr. Nkrumah, in a recent meeting did his best to reassure the British staff in the Gold Coast of the value which his Government attached to their services. He did whatever he could to ensure that those who were there should not resign but should continue to serve a country in which they had served for so many years. But I also understand from the Press—and affairs in the Gold Coast have been reported considerably in the last few months, particularly by the Daily Telegraph—that the utterances of political leaders in the Gold Coast about European staff are not consistent with the expressed desire of the Prime Minister to see that a large nucleus of British staff should continue serving there. Political leaders, the local Press and public opinion are constantly being inflamed against the domination of expatriate officials.

What is the Gold Coast Government's view about staff? Do they, or do they not, want European staff? If they do not, and if they think that they are able to dispense with that staff, would it not be a sensible attitude to say to the Prime Minister and his Government: "All right. Let us try the experiment of having such-and-such Departments entirely staffed by African officers. Let us, by arrangement, decide in which Departments the experiment shall start; and let us then, by arrangement, withdraw from, say, the Departments of Forestry, Education and Medicine all expatriate officers, and see how it works out. If it works out, that is fine; we can then do the same with two or three more Departments. If it does not work out, then perhaps we all ought to think again about the campaign of considerable vilification that has taken place against officers who have done their best to serve the Gold Coast." We know and accept that, constitutionally, this experiment, which was started in 1947 and continued in its next instalment in 1950, is the great experiment that we in this country have always tried in all parts of the world, of eventually stimulating local autonomy and self-government. We know that that is the way things are going; we know that that is the purpose of these Constitutions; and, broadly speaking, we are in agreement with it. The only point I have at the hack of my mind is the speed at which this is being done: I feel a certain lurking anxiety that the direction in which we in this country think constitutional development should go is not necessarily the same as that in which certain leaders in the Gold Coast would appear to think it should go.

It is, therefore, at this point that I am particularly puzzled about the implications of the statement of the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the Gold Coast, during the course of his recent visit early in June. What did he intend to imply? We may be going towards Dominion self-government. When, and at what pace? What did Mr. Lyttelton's statement mean precisely? It has already been the subject of a variety of different interpretations in the Gold Coast itself. I hope that the noble Earl when he replies will be able to elucidate that particular point, because there are certain things happening which do not seem to me to be consistent. Even if we leave out of account the rather exuberant speeches which are made on public platforms; and if we leave out of account the rather blasphemous adulation to which the Prime Minister is still subject, I am still puzzled to know whether the leaders in the Gold Coast are, in fact, going towards the same goal towards which we in this country think we are going. The past which we all have is one of the few things that always remains with us—it is one of those inescapable things. The past of leaders in the Gold Coast remains with them, as it does with us. I am not sure that the intent which they have and we have is the same.

I notice, in particular, one small example—but although small it is one which I cannot refrain from drawing to your Lordships' attention, because it formed the subject of some animated debates in your Lordships' House, which the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, will no doubt well remember, about the immigration ordnances in the Gold Coast. There were one or two administrative "slipups" in the Gold Coast Government which were duly rectified, but an attempt was made at that time to introduce a regulation of immigration affecting not only representatives and employees of commercial firms but also expatriate officers which appeared to be very undesirable. Without recapitulating everything that happened, I would say only that an agreement was reached which modified the so-called "directive," or statement, which had appeared in the Gold Coast Gazette, which, your Lordships may remember, was both unsigned and appeared to have no authority. Agreement was reached whereby the necessary staff would always be allowed to come in to direct the enterprises, within the limits of what appeared to be reasonable and of what those enterprises required in order to be carried on.

It appears, however, that the agreement reached between the Gold Coast Government and very prominent firms and concerns in this country did not last much longer than the terms of the 1950 Constitution, because on June 26 this year the Gazette published a new notice relating to immigration procedure, of which the noble Earl is no doubt seized and with which he is entirely familiar, but which does not carry out, or which at any rate modifies, the agreement reached in 1949—in particular, on two points. One was that concerns engaged in the retail trade—and that does not just mean the little shop round the corner; it means these immense stores which, as a matter of fact, retail a large proportion of the imports of the Gold Coast—were to have the staff necessary to carry them on. The new directive, or whatever it is —I do not quite know, but I refer to the notice in the Gazette—says: It is hereby notified for general information that a Committee has been set up.… Like the last notice, this one does not say under whose authority. It does not quote either an order or a law, but says, "We like to tell you that we have set up a Committee and procedure will be governed by these rules." One of those rules is that: Applications to establish new or to extend existing retail trading concerns will not be considered unless there are … unusual circumstances.… That is a modification of the agreement reached in 1949 as a result of a great deal of debate in your Lordships' House and in another place. Again at that time it was understood that when an officer employed by a concern went on leave a replacement could come in. This notice says: The provisions relating to reliefs have now been cancelled and in future the allocation granted to a … concern will be regarded as including provision for leave reliefs. That, again, is a modification. Do Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom consider that these immigration restrictions which have been reintroduced are justifiable, wise or, indeed, friendly?

Finally, I come to a very difficult subject. It appears that the control and administration of the police in the Gold Coast has undergone a recent modification, whereby certain police powers which were formerly in the hands of district officers or regional officers have been taken away from them and are now held in the hands of the Central Government. That is the machinery which has been adopted in so many countries to ensure that a local agitation against the Central Government shall be dealt with only by the Central Government for its own purposes and by its own methods—in other words, to ensure that there shall not be opposition; and we have had (according to the local Press) from the mouth of the Prime Minister that there is to be no Opposition. Furthermore, the constitutional safeguard which existed—that of the hereditary chiefs—has been so whittled away by local self-government machinery to replace it that that great safeguard against sudden change which the chiefdom meant in the Gold Coast, and means in Africa, and which was so highly commended by Judge Coursey in his Report disagreeing with the Watson Commission, is also being attenuated in such a way as to leave power more and more in the hands of a one-Party Government.

I will pass on for a few minutes from the constitutional side to the economic situation as I see it. Here I have given notice to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, that I should like some information if he is in a position to supply it. I come back to a subject which has been discussed time and time again in your Lordships' House—and rightly so, because it is the most important subject in the whole of the Gold Coast; that is, the cocoa industry. What has been happening in the cocoa industry is extremely interesting. Your Lordships will remember that the "swollen shoot" disease—for which, so far, no remedy has been found, apart from cutting out and replanting—was the subject of compulsory cutting out orders and compensation before the 1950 Constitution was brought in. The compulsory cutting out formed the subject of a considerable political plank in the elections after the 1950 Constitution, and when the present Government came in one of the earliest measures which they instituted was to suspend the compulsory cutting out of diseased cocoa. That compulsory cutting out was suspended on April 3, 1951—and, as I say, was practically one of the first measures which the new Government took. Nevertheless, the Government did institute and carry on a propaganda campaign in favour of voluntary cutting out, which has been fairly successful.

I have seen reports by technical visitors to the Gold Coast which go to show that, in the fifteen months that have elapsed since then, by persuasion and propaganda a very large number of cocoa farmers have been induced to accept cutting out of their cocoa as the only remedy against the ravages of this disease. It is most creditable that this propaganda has succeeded so well, and that it has been carried on so energetically. It would be unfair to say that anything except the highest praise is deserved by all the officers responsible, in the Government and in the research organisations, to achieve what has been achieved.

LORD OGMORE

And the Ministers.

LORD RENNELL

And the Ministers. However, I will come to the Minister in a minute.

It is said that 90 per cent. of the farmers in the most ravaged areas have agreed to cutting out and replanting. Ninety per cent. sounds as if the campaign is reasonably substantially completely, successful. But I wonder whether that is so, because it was announced a few weeks ago that compulsory cutting out was to be reinstituted by the Government. That was announced the Press (I expect your Lordships have seen it) at the end of June by Mr. Caseley-Heyford. He spoke of the success of the propaganda; he spoke of the confidence which the Government had that they were beginning to win the battle against diseased trees. When, however, Dr. Danquah asked the Government when legislation was to be introduced into the Legislative Assembly to enforce compulsory cutting out, a lively discussion followed. The Minister said that the majority of people had agreed to cutting out; he made a call for a political truce and burked the question about whether compulsory cutting out was to be reintroduced by legislation.

Either cutting out is necessary, or it is not necessary. If the campaign was successful, compulsory cutting out was unnecessary. If compulsory cutting out was necessary, as the Minister said, why has the issue been bucked? I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he has any figures to show how far the ravages of this disease have spread in the year since compulsory cutting out came to an end, and also whether he can give a forecast of what the ravages of this disease are likely to be. Your Lordships know that, even with compulsory cutting out, the disease is not likely to be eradicated for many years. This is of the utmost importance. It is important to the Commonwealth, in which the Gold Coast is such an important element, but it is absolutely vital to the Gold Coast itself. Without the cocoa industry the finances of the Gold Coast will go into ruin. Cocoa is still outstandingly the most important crop; it is still outstandingly the livelihood of the major part, at any rate, of the prosperous side of the Gold Coast.

My Lords, I do not want to go further into the economic situation. Your Lordships know that the prosperity of the Gold Coast is assured if the world is convinced, or can be convinced, that there is going to be a stable Government. There are schemes for the investment of vast sums of money in the Gold Coast, by the Gold Coast and by interests from abroad—I am not talking only of the Volta River scheme. There are mining developments in the gold-mining area, which remains one of the great gold mining areas of the world, provided that the goose that lays the golden egg is not killed by excessive taxation or labour difficulties. There are mining developments of bauxite. There is other agriculture besides cocoa.

All these developments depend on one thing: the confidence of people in an orderly future, where foreign capital, and indeed domestic capital, will be able to enjoy the fruits of its planning and the labour which it employs. I fear that, without that confidence, this great Volta scheme will not go beyond the planning stage of the paper on which the memoranda are written Is it likely that the best part of £100,000,000 will be invested in the Gold Coast, from this country and from North America, to develop one of the greatest hydro-electric schemes in the world, and one of the largest single producing units of aluminium in the world, unless the sponsors of that scheme are satisfied that the direction in which constitutional development is going is one with which they are in agreement, one in which they can have confidence, and not one which, in two or three years time, is going to produce unpleasant surprises? I beg to move for Papers.

3.26 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, has introduced this Motion today, partly because I always welcome any Colonial debate. I think it is very important in this House and in another place that we should have a large number of Colonial debates because, as your Lordships know, we represent not only the fifty million people in this country but also the sixty-odd million people in Colonial territories overseas. Even as it is, the allocation of time which we give to their needs is not very great when we have regard to the amount we give to our own. For that reason alone I am very glad that the noble Lord has raised this matter to-day. But this question of the Gold Coast is itself intrinsically very important. It is a fascinating study Here, in a lifetime, from a purely tribal system, a series of tribes, the Ashanti confederacy and the others, we are seeing under our eyes the evolution of a modern State. As I understood the noble Lord's interesting speech, he did not take any fundamental objection to what has been happening; he raised the question only of whether the speed and the direction were all that they might be. Those were his two main points.

My Lords, I would say that that is a matter upon which it is at the moment very difficult to make any pronouncement. It is very difficult for an alien Power, as we found in India and elsewhere, in religious and social matters, and even in economic matters ("swollen shoot" is a case in point) to interfere in cases in which it ought to do so. One of the tests which I would put to your Lordships is this: whether, since they have been in power, the Gold Coast Government have tackled the sort of matters which we found difficult to tackle and which they ought to tackle. In other words, have they been concerned with the real, fundamental problems of the Gold Coast? In order to decide that, I have dived into the mine of information to be found in the Report of the Secretary of State for the Colonies for 1951–52, and there in paragraphs 89 to 95 is very briefly a description of what the Gold Coast Government have been doing.

We find that since they have been in office they have been devoting attention to the economic development of the territory and to an expansion in the social services. They have revised the development plan. They have considered the reform of local government and they have passed a Bill which reorganises the representation of local government in the country. They have considered the position of the Civil Service, and they have had a commission of inquiry into its structure and remuneration. They have also taken an important step, so says the Report, in the development of local trades and industries, and have established a scheme whereby 100 Gold Coast artisans and tradesmen are to be trained in the United Kingdom in Ministry of Labour establishments and various factories and workshops. The first group of trainees arrived here in January, 1952. Then there was the tackling of the important problem of "swollen shoot," which the noble Lord himself says has been pretty successful. Now, having regard to these facts, as described in the cold language of the official Report of the present Government, I do not think one can say that their work has been anything but down to earth: they have not been up in the clouds. They have dealt with the really important problems which these territories—

LORD RENNELL

I should not like the noble Lord to think I said that the campaign against "swollen shoot" has been successful. I was wondering how successful it had been. Prima facie it looked as if the propaganda had been successful, but I wondered why, if it had been so successful, resort had been made to compulsion. I wondered what the exact facts were.

LORD OGMORE

I realise that at the end of his speech the noble Lord threw some cold water on the beginning. But I took down his words and he did sad that it had been "pretty successful." What I took him to mean was that it had not been entirely successful. That may be, but it certainly has been "pretty successful"—probably more successful than we were able to be when we were in office.

In my opinion, the noble Lord has exaggerated the situation in the Gold Coast. He has laid a charge against the Government of the Gold Coast, in effect. that it is a Government which believes not only that the dominating Party should rule—most States believe in that—but that there should be only one Party, and that the Party in power. If I understood the noble Lord aright, that was what he said. But the facts do not bear that out. It may be that allegations have been made in the heat of an election; I could, if I wanted to, quote a number of speeches, not quite in that way, perhaps, but rather alarmist speeches, made at times by members on the other side of this House before they came into office. Politicians speaking in the heat of an election do not always speak on affidavit. One recalls the well-known judge, who said once that "Truth will out, even in an affidavit." Well, my Lords, the fact is that since they have been in office there has been an important case which we will call The Lamptey Case. Here is the test: how have they dealt with a practical issue? Not, how has some politician speaking on a soap box spoken about the matter, but how have the Government, as a Government, acted.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I believe the reference was to the Prime Minister, and I do not think it is quite accurate to describe him as "a politician speaking on a soap box."

LORD OGMORE

Something could be said about other pronouncements of the Party opposite, if it conies to that. But what I say is that a politician at election time is not speaking on affidavit. Sometimes he says things he does not like to remember when it comes to the clear light of day-to-day government. The test is what the Gold Coast Government have done. Mr. Lamptey was a former member of the Government Party which has been described by the noble Lord, and he was expelled from that Party in 1951 for violent divergence from the bosses—in other words, he did not follow the Party line. There are some people in this country who have had that experience as my noble friend, Lord Strabolgi, reminds me. In the Gold Coast Legislature Mr. Lamptey recently had a motion down: That this House approves of the setting up of a Committee to investigate corruption in the Government. Your Lordships could hardly imagine any resolution that a one-Party Government, a totalitarian Government, would like less than that. But Mr. Lamptey put it down and argued it, and quoted a number of English papers to support his claim that there was corruption in the Gold Coast Government. Mr. Ofori Atta, a member of one of the best known families in the Gold Coast, seconded that Motion, and Dr. Danquah, who is a member of the same family, supported it. They had a long debate, at the end of which they reached a compromise Motion: That this House recommends the setting up of a Committee to investigate corruption in the Gold Coast and consider what means can be taken to prevent or eliminate bribery and corruption in the Gold Coast. Now, that is not evidence at all that the Gold Coast Government and Party—the main Party in the Gold Coast—regards itself as one which is going to "steamroller" opposition. It has agreed, although it has this overwhelming vote in the Assembly, to set up this Committee to consider all these matters of corruption.

As to police, the noble Lord says they are going to have a centralised police, and that the old system of police is no longer to exist. The system of police in most West African territories, in my experience, was this. In the Colony and around the original trading station, there is a comparatively small area which is British territory. In the Colony itself, there was a police force under the commissioner of police. But in the protectorate, the vast area behind the Colony, in most cases, certainly in Sierra Leone and I believe in the Gold Coast and possibly even in Nigeria—the noble Lord, Lord Milverton will correct me if I am wrong—the police force was not under the commissioner of police; it was a sort of native-administration police, something little better than the old watch in London or the parish constable. That force was under either the local chief or the district officer—usually the local chief. That was the position. When we were in office we suggested to the Government there that in modern times and in the stress and strain of these clays they should have a system of police coming under the commissioner, or at any rate that the commissioner should have some responsibility for the training and administration of the police. Discipline might have been left, if desirable, under the chief or the local district officer or district commissioner. So it is not fair to say that this is another move towards totalitarianism. When we were in power we started it because we felt it was highly desirable to have a more efficient police force and that the police force should be under the commissioner of police.

Then there is the problem of "swollen shoot," which they have so far dealt with fairly successfully. The noble Lord has said that the "swollen shoot" agitation was one which was stimulated by public opinion or by some political opinion in the background. Well, I have no doubt that that was so. The Gold Coast is not the only country where economic conditions become useful to a political Party out of office. We have all heard, I suppose, about the "red meat" agitation in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Woolton, has left the House, unfortunately; I was going to ask him his views on this point. I wonder whether he thinks that an agitation on economic grounds is an improper or irregular thing in a Party out of office.

In 1948, at the height of this agitation, I myself went to Kumasi, to the centre of it. I met the farmers and discussed with them this question of cutting out diseased trees and "swollen shoot." It is true that there was an agitator, if you like to call him that, or a politician out of office there; but I became quite convinced, after hearing the farmers, who appeared to take very little notice of this fellow, that they were thoroughly perturbed about the whole question. One can understand that. If you go to a farmer in this country and tell him that you are going to cut down his trees, his livelihood, he will take it rather amiss and be perturbed about it. We know what agitation there is here about slaughtering stock during foot and mouth disease. It is only natural that the farmers should be agitated, and they were agitated. I said to them: "Supposing that one of you here had smallpox, would not the rest of you hurry him off to hospital?" They thought about it and said: "Yes, but you would not cut off his head"—which I thought was a pretty smart "come-back."

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I think that that was rather a silly question.

LORD OGMORE

I do not think it was a silly question at all. It was an attempt to describe to the farmers, by an analogy they could understand, what the position was. We are not all as intelligent as the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, and we have to act according to the few brains that God has given us. We stand always to be corrected by one who is very anxious to correct us. I feel that this is a delicate situation and what we need to give to these people is sympathy and understanding. There is needed a spiritual quality, but there is also the physical side. The British officials to-day are in a very difficult position indeed. They used to be the representatives of a Power, an alien Power, but one which could give orders. To-day, to a large extent, they are in the position of being advisers and, more and more, in my view, it will be necessary to have a different type of adviser. More and more I think we shall need the technical man, and particularly the type of person who in this country is experienced in local government, in the town clerk's office, in the county clerk's office and such like. We need to give them the "know-how," the sort of experience, ability and contribution that the Colonial Development Corporation could have made if it had not been put into cold storage by the present United Kingdom Government.

I feel that the object of the Gold Coast Government, which has been described as "full membership within the Commonwealth" is one which we should welcome. I feel that the Asian Dominions, which have become Dominions since the war, have been of immense assistance, not only to this country but to the cause of world peace. They are a bridge between the East and the West. I look forward to the day when Nigeria, the Gold Coast, the Malayan Federation and the Federation of the West Indies will all be full and independent members of the Commonwealth. The British Government and British firms were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell. In the past, in my view, they have grossly lacked the element of public relations, because people want circuses as well as bread; they want to make government a joyous thing, as well as a rather dull and drab affair. If I were a director of any of these companies or corporations, or had been years ago, I should have seen that in every one of these big towns, there was something which people regarded as having been given to them by that particular company or corporation. Whether it was a playing field, a school, a hospital, a clinic, a fountain, a bandstand, or whatever it was, the people would say: "That was given us by that big corporation." The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, smiles at that. That is not the usual way in which business is done, and it is because of that fact that there is such a lack of appreciation of these benefits by these countries.

THE EARL OF MUNSTER

Is that the only reason?

LORD OGMORE

Not the only reason, but I should say that that is one of the reasons. Although, in many cases, these firms have made big contributions to the progress of the country, they have not been associated in the minds of the people with the benefits which they have given to the country, as well as with the money they have taken out. I make no allegation against these companies at all, because in many cases they have added tremendously to the prosperity of the country in trade. But they have neglected public relations very sadly indeed. Burma was a classic example of that. I hope that the present Government of the Gold Coast will listen to what the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, said about their need to obtain the confidence of the outside world. That need is often not understood in the early stages by a Government such as there is in the Gold Coast. We saw that in Burma, as a case in point, and much tribulation is caused and much loss is sustained owing to that fact. So, as I say, I hope they will listen to the noble Lord, because this is most important.

We know that to-day the word "Colonies" does not stand for Colonialism, in the old sense. I believe that the people in the Colonies in the early clays of self-government are prepared to put up with a certain loss of efficiency, and even with some corruption, because they realise that it is a phase through which they have to go. We have to see whether we can help them to ensure that this is only a phase, and that any loss of efficiency or any corruption does not become a permanent feature of the life of the country. That is all I have to say on this subject this afternoon. I am sure that we all wish the Gold Coast, and the Government of the Gold Coast, well. We hope that it will be a model for other territories of the Colonial Empire which, in due course, will undoubtedly travel along the same road.