Lords Sitting of 12 March 1952

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers

EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS
Field-Marshal the Right Honourable Harold Rupert Leofric George, Viscount Alexander of Tunis, K.G., G.C.B., G.C.M.G., C.S.I., D.S.O., M.C., having been created Baron Rideau of Ottawa and of Castlederg in the County of Tyrone and Earl Alexander of Tunis—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

PROPOSED PORTMAN SQUARE HOTEL
2.50 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether permission has been sought for the construction of a fourteen-storey hotel on the Montagu House site in Portman Square and, if so, what stage has been reached in the negotiations.]
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I am informed that an application was made on July 14, 1951, to the London County Council, as local planning authority, for permission to erect a fourteen-storey hotel on the island site to the north-west of Portman Square, which includes the site of Montagu House and is bounded by Upper Berkeley Street, Montagu Street, Upper George Street and Gloucester Place. Permission was refused on November 5, 1951. I understand that the reason for the refusal was that while the County Council do not object in principle to hotel development on this site, they do object to the proposed incorporation in the building of an air
660
passenger terminal facing Upper Berkeley Street, as being out of keeping with the residential character of the surrounding area. I believe that no further application has yet been made, but that informal consultations have been taking place between the developers and representatives of the County Council.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I should like to ask him the following supplementary question. If the further negotiations to which he referred should prove successful and permission is eventually given to build the hotel, would the fact that the steel and other materials are to come from outside this country take the proposal outside the present restrictions on buildings of this type?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I really cannot anticipate the situation, because no planning permission has yet been given. However, I should have thought that if steel were supplied by an American company without any foreign exchange being involved, that would not be a deterrent to building the hotel.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government are aware, first, that the air terminal scheme has been dropped, and secondly, that it is calculated that 3,000,000 dollars' worth of tourist trade will be attracted by this hotel.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware that the hotel might attract a good deal of tourist trade. But the matter is not yet one for the Government. It is still a matter for the local authority, and negotiations are still taking place. I do not think I can anticipate what those negotiations will produce.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord, but, further to the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I should like to ask whether the Government are aware that not only all the steel but also all the other equipment is being brought from outside, so that our own programme will not be affected.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the Government are aware of that.

FUTURE OF THE CANAL SYSTEM
2.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name an the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to abandon the canal system of this country or sell it to local authorities and to transfer its goods traffic to the railways.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE CO-ORDINATION OF TRANSPORT, FUEL AND POWER (LORD LEATHERS): My Lords, there are some 2,600 miles of canals and navigable rivers in this country, of which about 2,000 miles were transferred to the British Transport Commission by the Transport Act, 1947. This 2,000 miles includes most of the inland waterways still used commercially for navigation, which carry about 12,000,000 tons of commercial traffic and play a useful part in the transport system of the country. About half the tonnage carried is coal, and the Commission have no intention of abandoning or disposing of their system of waterways as a whole. A number of canals, however (accounting for approximately one-third of the total mileage transferred to the Commission) were little or not at all used commercially or had already become derelict, and the Commission are satisfied that many are no longer required as a means of transport. It may be decided that some should be abandoned as no longer needed others, if not required for purposes of navigation, may yet serve a useful purpose as drainage channels, as sources of water supply to agriculture and industries along their banks, or as amenities for pleasure boating. I understand that in several such cases the Commission have opened negotiations with the authorities particularly concerned for the transfer of parts of canals to them. The remaining canals of the country are in private hands.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for a full and informative reply, will he see that lectures such as those recently given to a number of students of town and country planning, which were roughly in the terms of the Question I put on the Order Paper, are not given?
LORD LEATHERS: My Lords, I was not aware of any such lectures, but I will inquire and see what can be done.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Second Report from the Select Committee.
The Committee reported as follows:
1.—LIBRARY.
The Committee approved the Report of the Sub-Committee on the Library.
The Committee authorised an extension of service to Mr. Charles Travis Clay, C.B., the Librarian, for one year from the 30th July, 1952.
The Committee sanctioned a revised scale of salary for the Assistant Librarian.
2.—HISTORICAL RECORDS.
The Clerk of the Parliaments informed the Committee of further progress by the Ministry of Works in the air conditioning of the manuscript repository in the Victoria Tower and the provision of improve d means of access to the rooms.
The Committee approved a revised scale of salary for the Clerk in charge of the Historical records, and the application of the senior scale of salary to the post of Office Assistant.
3.—CUSTODIANS.
The Committee were informed of the result of the negotiations with the Treasury and approved revised rates of pay for the Custodian staff.
4.—REVISED SCALES OF PAY.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Establishment Circulars:—
83/51 (Pay of Women Cleaners)
85/51 (Pay of Messengers and Paperkeepers)
86/51 (Pay of Senior Messengers, Senior Paperkeepers and Chief Paperkeepers) to analogous grades of the staff of the House of Lords.
5.—PAY ADDITIONS.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Establishment Circulars No. 5/52 dated 23rd January, 1952, and No. 9/52 dated 6th February, 1952, to the Staff of the House of Lords to whom it may be applied.
The Committee authorised the consequential increase in the Estimates for the House of Lords for 1952–53.
6.—SUPERANNUATION.
The Committee sanctioned the application of Treasury Establishment Circulars:—
7/52 The Injury Warrant, 1952
10/52 The Superannuation (Reserve and Auxiliary Forces) Rules, 1952
13/52 Pensionable Value of Uniform to any staff of the House of Lords to whom it may be applied.
7.—GRATUITY TO LEGAL PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF CUSTODIAN.
The Committee approved the payment of a gratuity under the Superannuation Acts to the legal personal representative of Custodian J. J. Farrell, who died on 20th December, 1951.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report of the House of Lords Offices Committee be now considered.
Moved, That the Report be now considered—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: My Lords, there is no particular point in this Report to which I need draw your Lordships' attention. I therefore beg formally to move that the Report be now approved.
Moved, That the Report be now approved—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONWEALTH STUDENTS IN BRITAIN
2.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN rose to call attention to the difficulties experienced by students from the Commonwealth, and especially by those from Colonial territories, on arriving and during their stay in this country; to ascertain from Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to make towards a solution of these difficulties; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may be thought at first sight that the subject of this Motion is not one with which your Lordships should be concerned at a time when there are many important matters on a world scale engaging attention. However, I make no apology for introducing this Motion at this time. Intercourse between the countries of the Commonwealth and the United Kingdom is one of the strongest links that binds the Commonwealth together. The countries of the Commonwealth are growing up. The effects of some generations of education are being felt; and the pace of political and other development in all the Commonwealth countries has greatly increased in the last few years. The majority of those who come to this country from the Commonwealth are young men and women training for their
664
careers. In ten or twenty years' time those people will be rising to the top of their professions; they will become the leaders of opinion in their own country, and possibly even on a bigger scale—it is not impossible that one of the students in London to-day may be a future President of the General Assembly of the United Nations. That is the sort of thing we must have in mind, and our efforts should be directed to providing a contribution to the solution of a permanent problem of this world—namely, the problem of relations between races. Budgets come and go year by year, but the problem of race relations remains. Therefore, it is necessary that the subject should be discussed in public from time to time; and I would ask your Lordships to follow the problem as I try to outline it.
The question of these students is largely a matter of arithmetic, and fortunately the arithmetic is simple. There are about 15,000 overseas students in this country: 5,000 of them are from foreign countries and the United States; 5,000 are from the self-governing countries—India, Pakistan, Ceylon and others; and the remaining 5,000 are from the Colonial territories. Your Lordships may like to know that the greater number of the Colonial students come from West Africa. Another large body come from the West Indies; smaller numbers from East and Central Africa and the Far East; some from the Mediterranean and a couple of hundred from other territories, such as Mauritius and Fiji.
Of these 5,000 students, 2,000 are taking university degrees and 3,000 are taking other courses in law at non-university colleges. Two thousand of them come over with Government scholarships from their own countries, and 3,000 come over as private students. There are 2,500 working in London and 2,500 in the Provinces, in Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic and Wales. Those figures take no account of a class of student who present a certain problem, what I may call the free-lance students, those who come with no Government assistance and often without notifying any authorities. They just come, as it were, seeking their fortunes. There are a number also doing postgraduate work in the professions, and the list of subjects which are being taken is most illuminating. Students are working

665
on anything from accountancy to veterinary science; from boot making to theology. But the greatest single number are taking nursing; and, after that, medicine, law and engineering are the most popular subjects.
In the case of the older Commonwealth countries we may say that there is no problem at all. Students from Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are following well-trodden paths. There is no language difficulty; they have adequate arrangements made by their own High Commissioners and they represent no problem. Similarly, the self-governing countries of India, Pakistan and Ceylon also have their High Commissioner stills in London, and they make adequate arrangements. What it comes to, therefore, is that the problem of the student is primarily the problem of the West African student.
Now what is that problem? I suggest that our aim must be to ensure that the Commonwealth students get the maximum benefit from their stay here, so that they return home, not only having achieved their aim scholastically but also having sampled our life and, we hope, carrying away something which will be of value to them when they get home. It is a serious problem. I suppose that there is no one born and bred in London, and whose home is in London, who has not at some time or other realised, with something, of an unpleasant shock, what it must mean to arrive from abroad in a vast city like this, alone and without a friend. They are strangers in a strange land. This applies, of course, to all young people starting life in a foreign country. They feel loneliness and insecurity, and they need help in settling in and adapting themselves to their new surroundings. That is just where the danger lies. If these people are roughly handled, or if they are injured, they will carry the scars with them through life. If they meet with friendliness and sympathy, and are fully accepted into our life, they will take home with them something of the qualities of which we are proud; and their character and outlook will be profoundly influenced by their experiences in their most impressionable years.
That much is probably common to all students. But here we come to the factor which makes this problem of such particular difficulty; that is, the colour
666
question. If coloured students from overseas countries are refused admittance on the same terms as white people to hotels, lodging-houses, restaurants and dances, or if they are made to feel that they are looked upon here as inferior or unfit to associate with white people, they will feel natural resentment and anger and will be deeply hurt. Those who have been taught—and there are many of them—that England is a Christian country will be disillusioned. Those who believe that England is the home of democracy will develop a cynicism which can do nothing but harm when they return home. I will not pretend that this question of colour prejudice is a simple problem. There are, and there have been, faults on both sides. Everybody knows that there are good and bad coloured men, the same as there are good and bad white men. The trouble is that among certain people in this country there is a tendency to regard all black men as bad and all white men as good, instead of taking people on their merits.
In fact, of course, misunderstandings are bound to arise when we try to assimilate into our society here, highly developed, highly sophisticated, and with long traditions, people from a wide range of societies abroad—anything from a primitive tribal society to a highly civilised city like Lagos. There are bound to be misunderstandings with a strange language, climate and people. Your Lordships may remember that some years ago there was a book written by a distinguished Frenchman or Dutchman, entitled The English—Are They Human? Foreigners, even Western European foreigners, look upon the English as a very strange people. How much more strange do they appear to a boy or girl from Africa or the West Indies? These misunderstandings which have gone on for many years have left a legacy from which we cannot escape, a legacy of suspicion in the minds of every coloured man who comes to this country.
I am afraid that there is sometimes a tendency for young coloured men to be rather on the look-out for insults, so it is all the more important that they should be treated with civility and friendliness. Every isolated case that happens is magnified by publicity and by this latent

667
Suspicion; and, of course, it does an infinity of harm to relations between this country and the Commonwealth. I do not say that these practices are on a wide scale, but I would urge upon your Lordships that even if they are only on a small scale they do enormous harm. I should like Her Majesty's Government (I have given notice of this request to my noble friend who is to reply) to make it quite clear that they disapprove of any such actions, and that in their opinion those who practise those things are doing, even if unwittingly, most serious harm to Commonwealth relations.
There is one other difficulty in the relations between students in this country and the general population, and that is the question of Communism. Many people, whenever they think of Colonial students, almost automatically think of Communism: they assume that these students are Communists, or that the Communists are making converts on a large scale. I do not know whether anybody knows how many young students become converts to Communism while they are in this country. What I do know is that there are only two ways of combating that. One would be to have a censorship, and a denial of liberty of thought—which is quite unacceptable in this country, and I hope always will be. The other is by treating these students with sympathy and understanding, welcoming them and making sure that they are contented.
Now, my Lords, what are the basic needs of students in this country? They want a welcome on arrival; they want to feel that someone is taking an interest in them when they disembark; they want temporary accommodation; and then they want permanent arrangements for lodging, and an introduction to normal English life. After that, I suggest, they only want helping (the help kept in the background) as their problems arise. I am sure it is important that once a student has found his feet on coming to this country he should be nursed as little as possible. It is even more important that any help given to him should be free from any flavour of charity or condescension. From the first he should be encouraged to enter fully into the life of his colleagues at the university. He should live and work and play with his fellow students of the same age and of
668
other nationalities. Finally, he should not be segregated and live in an academic world exclusively; he should enter, as far as possible, into the widest range of activities in the ordinary life of this country.
The most important and the most difficult need to satisfy is that of accommodation. It is generally agreed that the ideal solution for a student is to live in the hall of residence of his college or university, where he will be with other students of all nationalities and share their life and the corporate life of the university. For his leisure and his vacations he should be able to make English friends with whom he can spend some of his leisure. That solution, unfortunately, is impossible in London, at any rate for more than a very small fraction of the number of students. That applies equally to British students, as well as to those from overseas. The accommodation available in hostels and halls of residence, is enough for only a fraction of the students on the books.
Failing this solution, there are three possibilities—I am talking now of permanent lodging throughout the years that a student spends here. There is the hostel for Colonial students: that is one possibility. There is life in a private family as a paying guest. Lastly, there is the ordinary lodging house or boarding house where the student is one of a number of guests. As regards the hostel, your Lordships may remember that last year there was a disagreement, an account of which appeared in the newspapers, over the hostel at Hans Crescent run by the British Council. That is the largest hostel in London. In many ways, life in these hostels is the most popular amongst students. One can well understand that, because life is easier and less effort is required when a student is living among his own contemporaries and people of his own nationality than when he is staying in a foreign home. Moreover, the hostel can be so arranged as to be less unfamiliar than the ordinary English home: various amenities can be put in to remind the student of his home.
The disadvantage of this sort of accommodation is that the student is segregated and lives among students only. His opportunities for any wider acquaintance are limited, and the ordinary student in the university is deprived of the benefit of rubbing

669
shoulders with all these Colonial students. One remedy for the last disadvantage is that these hostels should be deliberately mixed and should include a number of British students living with the West Africans in the hostel. I suggest that for the first year or so of a student's life there is a great deal to be said for these hostels—but there again, the numbers are too small. Going into an English family as a paying guest is a very good way for a student to gain a knowledge of English life and English people. It is very much to be preferred. The last solution, the boarding house, is almost proverbially the lot of all those who conic to London to seek their fortune. It conduces to a sense of loneliness and isolation, and undoubtedly is the least satisfactory of the solutions I have mentioned for the students.
I have sketched out the problem. What is being done to deal with it? A number of voluntary bodies, of all sorts, too numerous to mention, religious bodies and others, have been active for a good many years in this field, but their resources are limited arid so the extent of the work they can do is limited also. In the last two years there has been much more public awareness of the problem, and within the last year several steps have been taken, the first and most important of which being that the Colonial Office handed over responsibility to the British Council for Colonial Students. That agreement dated from January 1, 1950. To cope with those responsibilities the British Council expanded their student welfare department and have taken certain other measures which I will outline.
First, they meet students on arrival, wherever they may arrive—at airport, seaport or railway station—at any hour of the day, night or week-end. That, in itself, is a considerable task and a great contribution to softening the rigours of the arrival of the student here. I may say that it must throw a considerable strain on the staff of the British Council. They meet the students, they bring them up to London, they accommodate them for a night or two and they put them on the way to their destinations. Nearly 2,400 students were met last year under this arrangement, and the Council were fortunate in being given the use of a house called Moray Lodge, on Camden Hill, for the purpose of what might be called a transit camp for the students. Some-
670
thing like 1,000 students passed through in the peak period of arrival, which is August, September and October. But I am told that Mora3, Lodge may not be available to the Council this year. I do not know what other schemes are under consideration, but I am convinced that the British Council will need a great deal of Government help rather urgently if they are to find accommodation to meet the summer rush of students this year. I commend that matter to the Government for their urgent consideration.
I heard of one instance of private initiative in the welcoming of students which may interest your Lordships. The Students' Union of University College of the University of London some time ago decided on their own to get a list of all the Colonial students who were entered for the College for the coming year. They wrote to each a personal letter welcoming them and offering advise and assistance. They met them individually when they arrived and brought them to London, and they introduced them to university life in a way that could not be bettered. That is an example of what individual bodies and colleges can do. It is not a question for the Government; it depends on individuals. I have heard also that the legal profession have taken steps recently to help overseas students. They have not only introduced provisions so that the first examination can be taken outside the United Kingdom and the first year's work can be done in the student's home, but they have appointed a students' advisory officer in London, who assists students when they arrive and to whom they can take all their problems.
A friendly welcome on disembarkation is all very well; that is a very good start: but the accommodation of students still needs attention. Permanent accommodation other than in students' hostels is mostly arranged by the British Council in private families. They have a register of lodgings, all of which have been inspected, to which they direct the students. I understand that there is a great reluctance on the part of the students to go to the outer parts of London where, as against the disadvantages of higher fares and more travelling, the rents are considerably cheaper. However, there is a great tendency to try to live as near the centre of London as possible. Last year the Council placed over 800 Colonial students in lodgings in London, and

671
nearly 800 in the Provinces. I should explain that the Council are empowered to spend money only on Government scholars and students recommended by their Governments. In the case of other students—the private and the free-lance students—they can meet them on arrival, put them up for a night or two and offer them advice on permanent accommodation, but they cannot spend money on them.
Lastly, there is the question of introducing the students to English life. The British Council have their centres. The biggest is in London in Hanover Street. There are smaller ones in other cities in the Provinces. All overseas students are made welcome in those centres and are encouraged to look upon them as a home. In 1951, there were 1,800 enrolled members, representing 104 different countries, at the London centre The average daily attendance was over 200. The programme includes week-end courses, vacation courses, visits to factories and farms and the like, and lectures and discussions. These centres also provide an opportunity to put students in touch with all manner of voluntary organisations, such as youth organisations, sport clubs, Rotary clubs and trade unions, and also with members of the general public. Seventeen hundred students were invited to private homes from this centre. That is not an entirely simple matter. There are a good many inhibitions to break down. It is not everybody who has the genius for making friends with young people or putting them at their ease, and it is not always those people who are in a position to offer hospitality. That is a large subject in itself.
In order to carry out these responsibilities the British Council, as I have said, have centres in London and elsewhere. There are other clubs, apart from those of the British Council, run by numerous private bodies and by one or two Colonial Governments, of which those for Malaya and East Africa are but two. At the same time, I am sure there is still a need for one or more places where a student can go as of right, as a member; where he can meet his fellow students, entertain his friends and generally feel he is at home. It
672
has been suggested to me that the Imperial Institute in South Kensington has the space and the situation to make it very suitable for this purpose. I should be glad if the Government would let us know whether they have any information on the possible use of the Imperial Institute for this purpose. London University has in the planning stage a most inspiring scheme for a students' international hostel, and when it materialises it will be of great value as a centre of academic life, not only for London but for almost the whole world. Visiting students and professors from all countries will be welcome there. I am glad to hear that the late Government undertook to contribute a proportion of the total cost. A number of Commonwealth countries have already made payments towards the cost, and some others have promised contributions. There is one small and specialised class of student about whom I feel some anxiety—namely, the officers, other ranks, ratings and boys, in particular, from India, Pakistan and Ceylon, who are in this country on attachments, courses or apprenticeships with the three Services. The schools close down for the holiday periods and the English soldiers, sailors and airmen go home on leave. This presents a problem as to where these overseas people should go. I suggest to the Government that the Service Departments might look into this question, because it seems to me that they should take responsibility for these men at these periods.
From what I have said of the various needs and of the number of people offering to meet those needs, it is obvious that a good deal of co-ordinating has to be done if there is not to be duplication. Two valuable steps have been taken in the last year. One is that the Colonial Office set up a consultative committee on the welfare of Colonial students. This committee, of which I understand the noble Earl who is to reply is Chairman, has associated with it Members of Parliament, representatives of the British Council and London University and, most important of all, the heads or representatives of all the Colonial student unions—Malayan, West African, West Indian, and so on. They have direct contact with the Minister, which seems an admirable arrangement, and I hope the noble Earl will tell us something about how it is

673
working. One other co-ordinating body set up by the British Council is called the Standing Committee of Voluntary Societies, and the chairman, a distinguished lady, Miss Trevelyan, holds the post of Adviser on Overseas Students at the University of London. One of the first definite achievements of this committee has been the successful launching of a scheme among London boroughs, the object of which is to introduce students living in those boroughs to every aspect of life. The first to start on this work has been the Borough of Kensington. I am told that a very active committee is in being and has already gathered the threads together, putting the students, wherever they may come from, into touch with every conceivable side of life in the borough—the local authority, religious societies, voluntary societies, youth organisations, trade unions, political parties, sports clubs and so on. That seems to be an example that might well be followed by other London boroughs. Kensington has led the way. I believe Hampstead is on the point of forming a similar committee. That seems to be a means of ensuring not only that the student sees the surface of but that he really gets into English life.
My Lords, I have sketched out the problem and the steps that are being taken to deal with it. Before I wind up I should like to mention one other matter in regard to which I think some Government action could be taken to alleviate, to some extent, the problem of the student. A number of young people—an unknown number, because they do not register with anybody and very often nobody knows about them—come over to this country, hoping to study for some profession or to enter some teaching institution. Whether front a spirit of adventure or just a lack of foresight, they do not find out before they come whether there will be a vacancy for them. When they arrive they have nothing to do, their money runs out, and it may be the start of a lot of trouble. I should be the last to suggest that we should introduce any compulsion on, bar to or screening of students coming into this country. The more that come the better, We do not want to discourage them in their ambitions, cm from coming to learn in this country. But I do think it should be made quite certain that those young people and their parents in the Colonies
674
are made aware of the true situation. Possibly, an improvement or an enlargement of the information services would do some good. I believe information is already sent regularly from the Colonial Office to the Colonial Governments. What is wanted is that the information should get out to the colleges, the schools, the populations and the parents. If that were done there might be a few, but only a very few, who would be deterred from coming here—but they would be just those people who would be most likely to become problem cases if they did.
My Lords, I have kept you a very long time. May I say, in conclusion, that we are proud of our schools and our universities and the way we live here—what is sometimes called the "British way of life"? We are glad that men and women from the Commonwealth should look to this country for training for their careers, and we want them to go home with pleasant memories of this country, having acquired something useful and of value from their training. Whether they do so or not depends not on the Government, but on the general public. The British people, I am sure, value their reputation for tolerance and good manners. It is only a small minority who have not yet grasped the fact that bad manners to a man because he is black is a sign of barbarism. Francis Bacon said truly:
"if a man he gracious and courteous to strangers, it shows he is a citizen of the world."
The last year has seen very useful steps taken to co-ordinate the various agencies working for the welfare of the students, and I hope that Her Majesty's Government will have something to tell us about their ideas for the future. I beg to move for Papers.
3.43 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, for setting down this Motion today. I am sure there was no need whatsoever for him to apologise for putting it on the Order Paper at a time when the other House is concerned with other matters. In my view, we could discuss no more important topic than this. It is, I think, vital to our whole future. I know that this is a subject which is very close to the hearts of many of your Lordships here to-day, and of some who are not, and I am sure that those of us who feel strongly about these matters have an

675
ally in the noble and gallant Earl, the Minister of Defence, whom I am glad to see sitting on the Bench opposite for the first time. I am sure we all agree that the keynote of race relations is mutual sympathy and trust, and in order to establish good personal relationships and friendships we have to take positive action. The establishment of good personal relationships and friendships will do more than anything else to reduce the differences of colour and race which now exist. But unfortunately, we do not, for a number of reasons, get to know one another as we should do.
I think that in the Colonies and in the Colonial territories, in the first place, races are still to a large extent separated socially. Perhaps that is not the case to the same extent as it was when I lived in the Colonies, but even to-day there is a great deal of separation between races so far as social matters are concerned. There is a problem arising out of the different backgrounds and different habits, and those who knew the Colonies shortly before my time, in what I call the old days, prior to the First World War (I remember some of the survivals of the old days but I do not remember the state of affairs which existed then) attribute a good deal of the trouble to the advent of European wives to the Colonies. They said that whereas the admission of European wives in large numbers had undoubtedly improved the health and, equally, the morals of Europeans in the Colonies, it had also to a large extent resulted in driving something of a wedge between their husbands and the local native populations. That was a view that was very generally held when I first went to live in the Colonies, and I think that, to some extent, there was some truth in it. Undoubtedly, women coming from this country, where we have mainly an urban life and an urban population, tended to create the sort of society which they had here, where the classes are fairly rigidly segregated, and they brought their own interests and formed their own circles. This was accentuated, because until recently the women of the Colonial peoples did not mix socially at all—very often not even with their own menfolk, and certainly not with menfolk from any other country.
I am glad to see that this state of affairs is changing now and that there is far
676
greater mixing between races than there was twenty or thirty years ago. Yet it is still a fact that in many instances young Colonial men and women do not have many opportunities in their own countries of mixing on a social level with people from this country. They meet them in court, at their offices and in shops, but they do not often meet them outside those places. In this country, I regret to say, the bulk of the population is still very little interested in either Commonwealth countries in general or in the Colonies in particular. There are a few people who are intensely interested in these matters and who are doing a fine job of work. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has referred to them because they get very few tributes paid to them, either in Parliament or elsewhere. I, myself, meet many Colonial students socially, and have been doing so for years past, and not only Colonial students but business men from the Colonies, especially from Malaya. I find that one of the things that strikes them especially when they come here is the lack of interest displayed by the people of this country in the Colonial territories. They themselves have been brought up to have a very good knowledge of this country and of the facts concerning it. They know our rivers, our ports, our towns and our industries better than they do their own. They need to do, since they have to pass examinations in them and not in their own. These people are surprised and saddened when they come here by the fact that few people know anything at all about them or their countries.
Two or three years ago when I was in Malaya a dinner was given in my honour by some old Malay friends. My host was a well-known man in Malaya. He is very well disposed to this country—indeed, Britain has no greater friend. After dinner he told this story, which saddened the Malays who heard it very much and also saddened me and made me feel rather ashamed. He said that when he came over here about three years ago to visit this country for the first time in his life, he had a conversation with a small group of people. They were persons of substance and, apparently, well educated. They asked him where he came from and he replied: "Malaya." Then they said to him: "What do you produce in Malaya?" He replied: "Tin." As he spoke with a Malayan

677
accent, they did not catch his answer clearly and they said, "Tea?". My friend replied: "No, tin." They said: "Good neavens! do you produce tin in Malaya?". Considering that the standard! of living in this country and, therefore, of that man's questioners, has been largely supported since the end of the war by Malayan tin and rubber, he had some reason to feel aggrieved at the lack of knowledge and interest displayed by those people. It is just that sort of folly, that lack of interest in the Colonial territories, which does more harm than anything else.
In this respect I want to say a word about the Press. It is not often that tributes to the Press are paid from this side of the House, but I do say that the Press of this country is far ahead of public opinion with regard to Colonial matters. When I was at the Colonial Office I was constantly in touch with the Press. I always found them most helpful and anxious to further Colonial causes in every way. In fact, so much so that the circulation manager of one popular paper told the editor that if he kept on running so many photographs and stories about the Colonies, the circulation might drop. I think we have to realise that we are not the citizens of some minor European republic; we are the heart of a great Empire and a vast Commonwealth. The sooner we realise that, the better. If any of your Lordships lias had the opportunity, as I have often had, of trying to talk to an ordinary audience about Colonial matters, he will see, however brilliant a speaker he may be (and I make no claim to brilliance), how quickly the eyes of his hearers will glaze over when the word "Colonies" is mentioned. From then on he has lost their interest, until he gets back to the subject of bus fares or other matters of greater importance.
This lack of interest all leads to misunderstandings, as my noble friend Lord Lucan has indicated. It reinforces the tendency of Colonials to be suspicious. A short time ago a West African spoke to me on this matter. He had not long arrived in this country, and was feeling very hurt about what had happened. He took a trip on one of our suburban railway lines, which was quite an experience in itself. He went into a carriage full of people, every person with a newspaper up before his eyes. No one lowered his paper when he came in. No one asked
678
him where he came from, or asked his name or where he was going. He thought at once that they took this attitude because he was black, and he was upset. I said to him, "My dear fellow, if the Archangel Gabriel had come into the compartment no one would have lowered his newspaper. No one would have asked his name, or where he came from or where he was going. You were treated no differently from anybody else." But it is difficult for coloured people to realise that.
There is one subject which is always in the minds of Colonial peoples and they always raise it—that is, Russia. They see through a great deal of the great Russian myth, but Russia has gained great kudos by passing a law making the colour bar illegal. One can tell them, of course, that there has been no great evidence of consideration in the actions of the Soviet Government, and that, if all the tales we hear are true, they have inflicted some terrible sufferings upon their Colonial peoples. I believe that one tribe has disappeared altogether, except for a few remnants who happened to be away when the purge was on. But they say that the banning of the colour bar is something which we in this country have not done. We can point out that under common law colour discrimination is not legal, but they find restrictive covenants in leases and other matters of that kind. It may be held by a court of law that a covenant restricting the admission of coloured people in house premises is voidable or void, but perhaps it would be a wise thing for the Government to consider whether we should not have some kind of declaratory Bill in this matter. To make certain that the Colonial people understand the situation we should have a Bill declaring that colour discrimination is illegal. I know the arguments against such a measure, but I am sure we shall never convince these Colonial people of our sincerity until something of this kind is done.
These matters affect all visitors, but especially students who live here for years. As my noble friend Lord Lucan has said, they are vitally important. Our relations with them are of increasing importance in these days, and they have tremendous influence in their own countries. As leaders in the future their interest will be overwhelming, and no

679
pains should be spared to remedy matters. This calls for an all-out effort by everybody, and not merely by the Government. The Colonial Office and the British Council have done very well. In Mr. Keith, the Director of Commonwealth students, they have an official whose heart is in his job. I know that when I was a Colonial Minister he would come to me almost frothing at the mouth when he thought something had happened which affected his students in any way. He and his department are doing their best, as are the liaison officers from the various Colonies. They must be encouraged to continue their good work. We must find good lodgings and hostels where other British students live and where there is no segregation, as occurs at Hans Crescent. I think it is a good thing to try to persuade some of the people who can afford it to send their boys to public schools here. I have persuaded one or two of my friends to do that, and the experiment is proving well worth while. The boys go there at an early age, when there is no question of colour bar or any nonsense of that kind.
I am glad that the Students' Consultative Committee have been formed. They have held two meetings, and I am sure that the Colonial Office will listen to their advice. I think, however, that Colonial Governments can do a great deal more, and perhaps the noble Earl the Under-Secretary will be able to persuade them to do more than they are doing. In my view it is important that, wherever possible, the Colonies should send over post-graduate students, rather than undergraduates, for there are universities in most of the Colonial regions. They should also send over with them the wives of married students. The Emirs in Northern Nigeria, who seem to have more knowledge of human nature than some Governments, always do this. They send over not more than one wife with every married student who comes here. My noble friend Lord Lucan has given the House some idea of the number of technical students. There are 863 law students, which seems to me to be rather a large number. Far be it from me to be derogatory of the law or lawyers, but it seems to me that the Colonies themselves will find that this is far too great a number when there
680
are only 220 science students, 500 engineering students and few teachers. One interesting development is that there are 300 teachers from Malaya, and 86 artisans from the Gold Coast, so that there is some progress towards what is wanted—a balanced student population.
I have long suggested that in places like Northern Nigeria, which the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, knows well, it would be a good thing to have tied scholarships. I know that educationists will jump down my throat for making that suggestion, but it is a difficult thing to arrange university scholarships in places where there are few secondary schools and where people cannot afford to send their sons to secondary schools. In these cases it is necessary to give university scholarships to elementary school pupils, so that they will carry boys right through secondary school to the university. When I visited Northern Nigeria I found the complaint that in many cases boys from Northern Nigeria, who would make the sort of students we want in agriculture and veterinary surgery, were unable to afford to go to secondary school, whereas boys from the Eastern province, from the Ibo people, who have no experience of animals, were able to go through secondary school and take university scholarships. So that we have the absurd position of boys who did not know how to put a halter on a horse taking their final examinations as veterinary officers. They had the whole thing in theory, but had no practical experience whatsoever. In this respect I am afraid that some Colonies themselves have been to blame. I once visited a post-war school for Askari ex-Service men, where they paid far more attention to scholarship boys going in for teaching than to those training as agricultural officers. That seems to me all wrong,. I suggest, too, that the Colonial Governments should take more interest in students here: that they should do what some Governments have done and set up institutions such as East Africa House and Malaya House.
Then there are the universities and the Inns of Court. They are doing a great deal and, as my noble friend has said, we are grateful to them for that. But they do take a number of these private scholars, who are financed by their

681
parents, or by friends or societies. There has been a great increase in the number of these scholars in the last year or so, and I wonder whether the universities and the Inns of Court are careful enough in the selection of these people. Do they inquire into their financial backing? As a rule, it is these private students who get into trouble. They come here without sufficient financial backing, often without the necessary educational qualification, and the result is that they fall into bad hands. They are a prey to political harpies and other harpies; and that is what we do not want. Then I would ask: Are the political Parties doing as much as they could in this country? The Communists are doing a great dell; but are the others? That is a matter in which we should all search our consciences. The Conservative Party have a department dealing with this problem, and so have the Labour Party, and I am not at all sure that we should not extend that work. Those who are doing it are doing their best, and they are doing a good job; but I am not sure that they have enough staff to cope with the volume of work. I feel that all the societies in this country—the trade unions, the co-operative movement, the Federation of British Industries, the Rotary Clubs, the National Farmers' Union, and others—should consider this matter as one of their duties. I know that the Rotary Club in one London borough used to invite two students to their meeting every Monday, an invitation which was well received.
I suggest that this is not merely a matter for the Government, but one for the individual British citizen, in his associations and clubs. I do not think the Press and the B.B.C. could do more than they are doing. We would simply ask them to carry on their good work. Most important of all, I appeal to the great British public. In my view, many people in London and the other cities are in a position to invite two or three students, girls or boys, to their homes. They will find them intelligent, well-mannered, cheerful and appreciative. There is nothing they want more than to get to know British people, to be invited to their homes, and to get to know them in their homes. I do not suggest that people should spend a great deal of money. Boys and girls do not want that. They just want to feel that there is one fireside
682
in this country by which they can sit any time they feel lonely or unhappy, and one motherly or fatherly sort of person to whom they can tell their troubles. When we have done that, then we shall have done a great deal. I feel that in this matter, above all else, we are all our "brother's keeper."
4.5 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I intervene for a few moments in this debate in order to give some information of what has been done for these students and to make certain suggestions. My interest arises from a visit I paid. to China and West Africa, where I met a number of young men and women who had been students in our universities and teaching schools. I am also on the governing bodies of the London School of Economics and Dulwich College, both of which have a large number of overseas students. Moreover, I get certain information as to what is being done from people who are doing the largest amount of work—namely, the churches. There are only three of our churches which have independent officers appointed to deal with this work: they are, the Methodist Church, the Anglican Church (through the Church Missionary Society) and the Roman Catholic Church. So far as the Methodists are concerned, largely through the generosity of the Joseph Rank Trust they have in Inverness Terrace a large house where they accommodate seventy-eight students, who live together as one large family—as they put it themselves, with no regard to creed, differences of colour or race, or anything of that sort. In addition, there are two other residential places run under the same auspices, both situated in South Kensington. One of these makes provision for about forty-seven students, and the other for twenty-six.
There are 2,531 students in London or in the country with whom the Methodist organisation have kept in touch. There are 1,844 who are at present in this country. It is interesting to note that the majority of these come from our own Colonies. Kingsway Hall have two student residential hostels in London, one in Cleveland Street, in the West End, and the other in Norland Square. In addition, they have people meeting all the incoming boats, and representatives in the different ports. Largely they are provided with information from the particular churches in the Colonies whence these

683
people come, and the Colonial Office also pass on information to them. It is worthy of note that the Colonial Office try to persuade Colonial students who have been here for some time to bring their wives with them; but the difficulty is to find accommodation for married couples when they do come. However, in the last two or three years arrangements have been made for several hundred Christian homes in the London area to accept overseas students to live with them as their sons and daughters, without regard to race or colour. That is one of the best things that can be done.
The Colonial Office are responsible only for students sponsored by their respective Governments, and there are numbers of unsponsored and unannounced students who arrive here, financed more or less by their own families. These people are an easy prey to the Communists, because often they have insufficient money; they have to get work as soon as they can and themselves seek accommodation, under the most difficult conditions. Curiously enough, so far as this denomination is concerned, we find that the people who suffer most from the colour bar are those who are studying to be solicitors and accountants. They find it most difficult to get into private homes. In that connection, the Methodist Church makes arrangements with people who are willing to take them into their homes, and for them to associate with people who will be helpful to them. I should like to give a few figures relating to these students. So far as those in Britain are concerned, 1,471 are from the Colonies, 229 from the Dominions, and 144 from other countries.
I now pass on to give some information in regard to the Church Missionary Society. They have been in touch with some 1,870 overseas students from Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The majority of them come from Africa, and in this country we have 1,150 students from that continent. The Church Missionary Society's chief source of information as to the arrival of students is through the Colonial Office, but advices of some arrivals are received from the Society's own fields, through their Bishops. The Overseas Council of the Church Assembly have recently acquired premises at the
684
William Temple House in South Kensington, and they have another hostel in Philbeach Gardens. They provide for thirty-eight students in one, and fifteen in the other, who are living their permanently. So far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, they have no separate or distinct hostels giving priority to overseas students, but they accommodate students in their ordinary hostels. They are in touch with 1,400 students from various parts of the world. Owing to the absence from London of Father McClement, who is responsible for this work, I have not been able to obtain much information. The Newman Association of National Graduates endeavours to bring graduates into their fellowship.
What is being done in this connection is worth noting, but a most dangerous aspect of this problem is that the students who are without connections become easy victims to the Communists. So far as credit is due, the Communists are to be commended, inasmuch as they are active, alert and vigilant in their endeavours to get into touch with these students. The only method in which this danger can be defeated is by the other Churches taking their stand in the same way. We could then deal with the large pool of students who are not directly associated with them. At any rate, we can derive some satisfaction from the knowledge that there definite work is going on; that offices have been set apart specifically to deal with these students and that in large numbers of homes they are given a very warm and cordial welcome. When I was in China I came into contact with a large number of students who had been in touch with the Communists in this country. On the other hand, I met many who had been associated with our Churches on this side. Of course, that is the work the Churches should do. I think the noble Earl who introduced this Motion is to be congratulated. He has done something which will help to the very much more strongly than it is the bond of friendly relations between the Mother Country and her Dominions.
4.14 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a most important subject, and I hope your Lordships will forgive my intervening for a few minutes. As a university teacher of nearly twenty-five years standing, I have had this problem brought

685
frequently to my attention. Its importance was brought home to me most effectively on the occasion when I had the honour to be one of the representatives of your Lordships' House in the Parliamentary Mission to India, shortly after the last war—and in that Mission the noble Earl who sits opposite was a comrade. It was interesting, encouraging, and indeed inspiring, to find how much the good will, which undoubtedly existed towards this country throughout India at that time, depended on friendships which had been created years before on the part of the leaders of India when the were students in England. If, among the many elements which enabled us to bring India through that great constitutional crisis and enabled her to secure her independence amidst feelings of good will and to maintain her position in the Commonwealth, there is one which is of special significance, that is undoubtedly the one.
On one occasion we had the advantage of a long talk with Mahatma Gandhi, and he emphasised that some of the happiest years of his life had been those which he had spent in London. He mentioned the great friendship which he had received from people in London, particularly from families into which he had been received. With a smile he said that when London was being bombarded he felt in a way as if it were his native city that was being subjected to attack from the enemy. That was a remarkable statement from one often considered a foe, and it was obviously not produced for the occasion, because when one reads that fascinating book of his, My Experiments with Truth, he deals in detail with his life in London. And it is quite obvious that it left a profound impression upon him. From that interview with the Leader of the Hindu Congress Movement we went to see the late Mr. Jinnah, who said almost the same thing: that he had never had a happier time than when he was a student for the Bar, living in Hampstead. Indeed, he confessed that on one occasion he had almost retired from Indian politics to settle down in Hampstead as a private citizen, because that was the part of the world where he felt he could be most happy.
Can there be any question that the good will with which that tremendous constitutional revolution took place—be-
686
cause it was no less—and the success with which it was carried through was based to a considerable extent on friendship and good will, dating back from the student years of these outstanding political leaders in India and Pakistan? I have taken those two only its typical examples, but it would be equally true of many of the other eminent Indian and Pakistani statesmen who at the present time are in charge of the political destinies of those great countries. A similar situation now exists. The statesmen of the future, not only from the Commonwealth but from the Colonies in Africa—which to-day are where India was a generation ago—the men who will be the leaders of those countries, are students in our universities and technical colleges in this country at the present time. The friendships and impressions which they take back to their countries depend on what is going on now in homes and institutions in this country.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has done a great service in bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships' House, and, I hope, to the attention of the public. The British Council and the religious bodies which have been referred to by the noble Earl and by my noble friend Lord Ammon are undoubtedly doing most valuable work Valuable as the organisational work of these bodies is, the really essential thing is to get these students into families was encouraged when the noble Earl said that some 1,700 introductions to families had been obtained by the British Council. That was, I thought, the most encouraging feature in his speech, because it is in our family life that those really enduring friendships are formed. It is there that these people whose skins are a different colour from our own realise that in this country there are very large numbers of men and women who are prepared to throw the colour bar out of the window, and to treat these young men and woolen on equal terms. And that is what really counts. It is on that basis that we shall build up the ramparts of the free world against Communism; on no other basis can it be successfully done. I hope the Press will report this debate, so that the newspapers which go out into the homes of England can show that here is a work which everybody can do if only a little effort is put into this matter. It is not an expensive business to take an occasional student into one's home. Their needs are small

687
and their tastes frugal. If we can bring this home to our own people we shall, as I say, have done a great day's work towards building up the ramparts of the free world against the attacks of the Communists.
4.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I suppose there is no member of your Lordships' House who will deny that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has introduced this afternoon a Motion which is of considerable interest to noble Lords in all parts of the House. I am glad that he has seen fit to bring forward this matter, because it gives me an opportunity to indicate to the House some of the measures that have been or are being taken for the benefit of Colonial students in this country. If I wished to be remarkably short in some of my observations (and indeed I shall not delay the House for very long) I could reply to the debate in one sentence, by saying that Her Majesty's Government are in agreement with all the utterances that have been made by the noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. But I think the House would expect me to enter in some further detail, to try to give an outline of the measures we are taking in order to make the position of Colonial students in this country easier in every way.
I have for long maintained that the responsibility which rests upon my right honourable friend for the government of the Colonial territories is not limited solely to securing good government. Its object extends, as I see it, a great deal further than that. Over the years there have been advances towards self-government in many territories. Each extension has been gained only after the individual territory has had experience in the management of its own affairs. But that management has depended in almost every single case on the steady improvement in all kinds and types of education. It is therefore important that the facilities which have been made available in this country, and that the services which are given by the universities, colleges, training institutions and trades and professions, should be utilised, as they are, by men and women from the Colonial territories.
688
Now, it is not only the student's actual studies which are important while he is in this country. The welfare of the student during his stay must play a vital and important part. In this direction so much can be won and so much can be lost. As I believe, we in this land are still the leaders of modern thought and expression in the world; and, that being so, there is a duty incumbent upon us to offer a sincere and genuine welcome to students from the Commonwealth and Empire who are, as the noble Earl said, strangers within our midst. I think your Lordships will agree that most noble Lords on their visits to foreign countries are more often than not affected strongly by their first impressions. If that be so, how much greater must be the force of the impressions of this country left upon the minds of Colonial peoples?
Her Majesty's Government, as I think most noble Lords readily recognise, have no direct responsibility for Commonwealth students as such. The position of Colonial students is, of course. somewhat different. I have no desire to delay the House on this point, but I will say that the responsibility for students from the Commonwealth countries rests almost entirely on the High Commissioners. It is true that many Commonwealth students benefit from the facilities which are provided by the British Council, who are always ready to give Commonwealth students every assistance. There are also the many voluntary organisations (they have already been mentioned during the course of this discussion) which make a valuable contribution to the welfare of the Commonwealth students.
If I may give your Lordships a few figures of the growth in the numbers of Colonial students in this country, you will see how they have grown in recent years. In 1939 there were only 300 Colonial students in this country. To-day there are 5,154. About 1,200 of these are scholarship students, and the remainder are financed privately. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, nearly 50 per cent. of these come from West Africa, and the remainder from places scattered about through the rest of the Colonial territories. Of that number, about one-third have undertaken all forms of medical training, including nursing, optics, and veterinary science. It is true that a very large number are engaged in law,

689
although I feel that a large number of them have little chance of making a career for themselves in this profession when they go back to their respective countries. The remainder are engaged on every variety of activity, which can become, over a short or a long period of time, of the utmost benefit to the Colonial territories concerned.
It is also true, as was said by all three speakers from the Opposition Benches, that many of these students engaged in studies in this country to-day are the future leaders in their own particular territories The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, mentioned that in January, 1950, the former Secretary of State for the Colonies invited the British Council to undertake certain responsibilities for the welfare of Colonial students. As a result, the British Council are now responsible, subject, of course, at all times to the responsibility of the Colonial Secretary to Parliament, for the reception, accommodation and welfare of Colonial students. A grant of £455,000 was made available from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, and it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reduce tint figure in any way whatever.
Up to date, I understand, the British Council have met some 99 per cent. of Colonial students who have arrived in this country. The students are met personally by the British Council representatives at the seaport, at the airport or at the railhead, wherever the arrival may be, and arrangements are made to find them first-night accommodation on their arrival at the town concerned. After arrival, these students are found accommodation in the university halls of residence, in hostels, or in lodgings. And here I agree at once with the noble Earl that, if it were possible (unhappily, it is not at the present time) it would be valuable to have an increased number these students within the university halls of residence. In addition, the British Council have a register of about 1,000 recommended addresses in the London area alone where Colonial students are welcome to stay. Generally speaking, the British Council have never found any difficulty in finding accommodation for every recommended student who comes to them for assistance.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who emphasised to your Lordships his belief that it would be far more convenient and better for the welfare of
690
the student concerned if he found accommodation within British family life. There, undoubtedly, the noble Lord is perfectly correct: we on this side of the House are in wholehearted agreement with him that the more students we can get into British families and into British homes, the better it will be for the welfare of the students themselves. The British Council at the moment have two hostels in London at which Colonial students can live, and I hope that at some time in the future it may be possible for a third hostel to be provided within the Metropolitan area. I understand, however, that Moray Lodge, which was made available to students last year, is unfortunately no longer available.
I turn to deal briefly with the Consultative Committee on the Welfare of Colonial Students which was set up by the present Secretary of State, in fulfilment of a pledge given by the former Secretary of State in another place. That Committee affords a means for the Colonial Office to be kept in touch with students and their opinions, for most of the Colonial student unions in this country are represented on that body. In addition, we have one member from each of the political Parties in another place. We also have a representative of London University. It happens to fall to my lot to preside over that Committee. So far, we have held three meetings, and I can assure y our Lordships that the students have not hesitated to voice their opinions freely, frankly and fully. I think we have done a certain amount of good work, but a great deal more lies ahead which I think we could usefully accomplish.
I want to deal next with one point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on the question of political education. Undoubtedly, there is evidence to show that there an; undesirable political elements in this country which have been endeavouring to influence Colonial students; but, so far as I can trace, there is very little evidence to show that they have been successful in any degree on a wide scale. I myself think, if I may be hold enough to suggest it, that it is very important, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, rightly pointed out, that the main political Parties in this country should interest themselves in the students and help them to understand fully the

691
British way of life and, more particularly, the British form of government.
I come now to deal with other points which noble Lords were good enough to raise. There is the question which always comes to the fore in any discussion upon Colonial students—namely, the sponsorship of recommended students vis-à-vis private students. I understand that in every large Colony machinery has been set up, and is in operation, whereby the students can be recommended by their respective Governments. It cannot be made compulsory for all students to use that particular existing machinery. Therefore, it does happen from time to time that private students arrive in this country without any previous preparation and without knowledge of the conditions which are likely to prevail over here. It follows almost automatically that there are difficulties of admission to universities and elsewhere. That difficulty might not occur if the private student would make full use of the procedure provided within the Colonial territories. Wide publicity for this procedure has been given in all the Colonial territories, but I think that as a result of the discussions which we have had here this afternoon there may still be room for further improvement. I will certainly ask my right honourable friend to call the attention of the Colonial Governments to this particular question again.
I now wish to answer a question addressed to me by the noble Earl about the views of Her Majesty's Government on restrictive covenants in leases and discrimination against coloured people. I think your Lordships will agree with me that, if we desire close and intimate bonds of friendship between each and every member of the Commonwealth and Empire, it is necessary, in the first place, to inculcate the spirit of good relationship among us all. I therefore believe that it is undesirable for a landlord of any premises to attach a restrictive covenant to a lease which debars a tenant from affording accommodation to coloured persons. This question is closely connected with the racial discrimination which, unhappily, is practised (and we all know it is practised) by certain persons in this country. That discrimination we equally deplore, but,
692
as in the particular case of the restrictive covenants, I believe that it can be removed only by close association between all creeds and all colours, by friendship and by understanding.
I am informed by those better able to judge than I am that there has undoubtedly been an improvement recently in the breaking down of colour prejudices. Nevertheless, much still remains to be done. I feel, however, that noble Lords would not in any way wish to exaggerate the story, nor indeed to overlook the fact that Colonial students in this country, in a vast number of cases, are receiving a welcome into English homes. At the same time, I am pretty certain that, in many cases, legislation on the lines of prohibiting restrictive covenants in leases would prove more of an embarrassment than an advantage; in any event, in my humble judgment it would not be enforceable. I cannot help feeling that the best safeguard must lie in a healthy state of public opinion which discountenances such practices—and that can be assisted and won only by a wider and more intimate knowledge of what common citizenship really means.
LORD OGMORE: I can assure the noble Earl that this question of restrictive covenants is very important, not only to Colonial, but also to Commonwealth people over here. If what he has said on the subject represents the view of Her Majesty's Government, I hope that he will make it known to students, and to the Commonwealth representatives, that there are reasons for our acting as we are, and that it is not due merely to the fact that we are too idle to pass legislation through Parliament.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I will certainly do that. What is more, I will add to it. I would point out, with great respect to the noble Lord, that the opinion of Her Majesty's Government on this particular point is absolutely and precisely identical with the opinion of the late Government, as expressed by Sir Hartley Shawcross himself in the House of Commons.
My Lords, I will just briefly make one point of which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, reminded me. There are, as your Lordships know, a large number of overseas students who are at the moment studying law in the

693
Inns of Court, and I am glad to say that the Inns of Court jointly have appointed an adviser to overseas students who also acts as a welfare officer. The welfare officer has a small fund available at his disposal for assisting students as necessary, and he is prepared at all times to give advice on matters concerning studies and lodgings. There are two further points which I should like to mention before I conclude. The majority of Colonials in the Services in this country today, some 400 to 500, are serving in the Royal Air Force, and are afforded the same welfare facilities as all the other men within the Armed Services. Within the Colonial Office we have appointed a Jamaican Royal Air Force liaison officer, who is attached to the Service, and who periodically visits the Royal Air Force stations throughout the country to see the men, and to have personal interviews and discissions with them on any domestic or personal matters that may arise.
Lastly, I would turn to the point which was made, I think, by the noble Earl who moved this Motion, concerning the importance of further club facilities for Colonial students in London and, I suppose, elsewhere as well. I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl that it is necessary for further clubs to be formed within London and the large towns and cities throughout the country. It is also encouraging to find that many of the Colonial Governments have already provided establishments for their own students in London—such as Malaya Hall and East Africa House. We have every reason to hope that other Colonial Governments will follow the example which has already been set by Malaya and East Africa, and that further clubs will be opened for the benefit of students who are temporarily resident in this country. The noble Earl also asked me about the Imperial Institute, which I understand is making available club facilities which it is anxious to expand. I can only say that every possible assistance will be given to them. I hope that I have answered most of the questions which noble Lords who have spoken have addressed to me. I think this debate has been of immense value in assisting your Lordships generally to ascertain and
694
understand all that is being done for Colonial students by Her Majesty's Government. At the same time, it is of interest to note that the views and expressions of noble Lords on both sides of the House are very similar, and that we are all equally anxious to do everything possible for the younger generation who, before many years are out, may well hold in their hands the future destinies of their respective territories.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, as I expected, there was no atmosphere of controversy about this debate, although I hardly thought that I should hear the spokesman for Her Majesty's Government say that he agreed with every word that had been said from these Benches. I am very grateful to the noble Earl for the answers he has given, which are entirely satisfactory. Possibly I had not made clear my point with regard to the club in the Imperial Institute. I understand that there is now a lounge available for use, but the suggestion I made was for a much more ambitious scheme —for a club with facilities for entertainment. I entirely agree that colour prejudice is not a thing in regard to which one can legislate. I would not offer an opinion on the legal side concerning restrictive covenants, but a decision regarding colour prejudice is one for the ordinary man and woman of this country, and I think I can say this afternoon that we in this House have done all we can to give proper guidance in relation to that decision. We have ventilated this subject and we have drawn attention to the directions in which further work can be done. Her Majesty's Government have given their assurance, which I was delighted to hear, alit they have no intention of reducing the grant. My Lords, the rest lies outside this House. I should like it emphasised that this is a sphere in which every man and woman in this country can play his or her part in cementing the bon is of the Commonwealth. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

AGRICULTURE (FERTILISERS) BILL
4.47 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the origin of this Bill lies in the undertaking that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture gave in November last that he would introduce a subsidy for phosphatic fertilisers. The need for this subsidy has arisen as a result of the continued steep rise in the prices of all fertilisers and particularly phosphates. The last half of the war-time subsidy ended on June 30 last year, and it was calculated that this would increase farmers' expenditure by about £10,000,000 annually. This was known during the Annual Review which took place at the beginning of 1951, and these increases were taken into account in the settlement which was reached. Between the time of the review and last November, there were further big increases in freight rates and the cost of imported materials; consequently, fertiliser prices rose again by rather over £9,000,000 and on November 29 my right honourable friend the Minister announced in another place the results of the Special Review which had taken place during November. He said that although there was this steep increase in the price of fertilisers which could have been taken into account at the review, he felt that the most effective way of dealing, with it was by introducing a subsidy which would encourage the proper use of fertilisers.
Since then, however, there have been still further increases—though on a much smaller scale—and these were included in an order made by my noble friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that came into force on February 1, 1952. The result of this was that the farmers' fertiliser costs—on the assumption that they would use approximately the same as in 1950—would have been about £10,000,000 more than the additional cost included in the Annual Review of 1951. It is therefore to help the farmer in coping with this increase in fertiliser costs that I am asking your Lordships to give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.
696
The Government, having decided that a Bill to authorise a fertiliser subsidy was necessary, thought it prudent to prepare it in such a way that it would provide the necessary authority for any other assistance of this kind which might from time to time be necessary. This, in effect, means that the powers under the Bill are not limited to specific sanction for a particular subsidy for one year, although this was all that had actually been promised when the Minister of Agriculture made his announcement in November. I should make it clear now that no undertaking beyond that made by the Minister of Agriculture has been given or is being given, and what may happen in the future will depend on the needs of agriculture as they arise. But, if this Bill is passed, the Government will have the necessary powers to introduce any type of fertiliser subsidy that may prove to be necessary.
The Bill provides for contributions to be made to the cost of fertilisers acquired by farmers, horticulturists, allotment holders, smallholders and associations of such persons in accordance with schemes made under the Bill. Separate schemes may be made for England and Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland, or joint schemes for any two of these countries or all of them. These contributions would be made in the form of direct payments to farmers and others as in the lime subsidy scheme or, alternatively, if there were special circumstances making it desirable, payments could be made at the source—that is, paid through the manufacturers, importers or distributors of the fertilisers. The Bill sets a limit to the contributions that could be paid for any or all fertilisers, and this is fixed at one half of the expenditure on the fertilisers by the farmers or other persons benefiting. The Bill provides that the first scheme may extend from July 1, 1951 to June 30, 1952 only; this, of course, is because the fertiliser year runs from July 1 to June 30. Any subsequent scheme might have a maximum life of two years, unless it were extended by a varying scheme, in which case the extension would also be limited to a period of not more than two years. The life of the first scheme is to be limited to one year in order to implement, immediately the Bill is passed, the promise that was given of a special

697
phosphatic fertiliser subsidy for the year July 1, 1951, to June 30, 1952.
Noble Lords will observe that any scheme under the Bill will be made by statutory instrument, and that the Affirmative Resolution procedure will be employed in every case. The Government proposes that the first scheme to be made when the Bill is passed should be limited to phosphatic fertilisers, and that, broadly speaking, the contributions would be on a scale that would relieve farmers and others of approximately one-third of their expenditure on these fertilisers. The scheme will also cover to the same extent the phosphatic element in compound fertilisers. In order that the smallest farmers may have the advantage of the subsidy, it is intended that the minimum quantity for which contributions will be paid will be as small as possible, and it is likely that the limit will be as low as four or five cwt. of fertiliser Users of even smaller quantities will be able to obtain their share of the subsidy if they are members of appropriate bodies. The choice of phosphatic fertilisers for inclusion in the first scheme is due mainly to the heavy increase in phosphates as compared with other types. The increase in nitrogen and potash has been approximately 20 per cent. whilst phosphates have increased by almost 80 per cent.
LORD LLEWELLIN: In cost?
LORD CARRINGT'ON: Yes, in cost. Since we intend when the Bill is passed to subsidise phosphates by a third, it will be possible to equalise the price increase over the three main classes of fertilisers. The Government is satisfied that any increase in the use of phosphatic fertilisers that this scheme will bring about can be met from available supplies. Noble Lords may like to know what alterations were made in this Bill during its passage through another place. A definition of "agricultural land" was added in order to make it quite clear that market gardens, nursery grounds and such like are included within the scope of the Bill. The original period of five years in respect of which statutory instruments may be made—in default of extensions—was replaced by a first period of one year and subsequent two-year periods. Also, the Affirmative Resolution procedure re-
698
placed the Negative Resolution procedure for securing Parliamentary approval of all schemes to be made under the Bill.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for the speed with which we are asking your Lordships to pass this Bill through all its stages. Noble Lords will be aware, however, of the reasons why the Bill has taken rather longer than was expected to come up from another place, and it is most important that we should get the Bill on the Statute Book as soon as possible. The Bill has a retrospective effect in that the subsidy under the first scheme will be payable on fertilisers bought since July 1, 1951. This means that there will be a large number of outstanding claims to be met for past purchases. Unless those elegible have in early opportunity of making their application for purchases made during the last nine months, there is a danger that they may mislay their receipts and accounts which it is necessary they should keep in order to receive the subsidy. Although, in normal circumstances, we should not ask the House to pass this Bill in only two days, I think your Lordships will agree that it is in the interests of agriculture that the first scheme should be made as quickly as possible and therefore that the Bill should receive the Royal Assent tomorrow. This is, I think, a non-controversial measure which does justice to the farmers in a way most calculated to increase production of food, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Carrington.)
4.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Carrington, whose speech we have just heard—and with which even my professional instinct as a fault-finder has been unable to find anything wrong—forestalled a complaint which was on the tip of my tongue and which I should certainly otherwise have made about the haste with which this Bill is being taken through all its stages in this House. But I am perfectly satisfied by the reasons which the noble Lord gave for the urgency of the Bill. I am certain that the Government will not treat this Bill as a precedent and that we shall have in the future as much time as that to which we are accustomed

699
to consider legislative proposals which are submitted to us. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that this is a good Bill. It is so, in the first place, because it will stimulate production of crops and livestock. Without the subsidy proposed in the Bill, I have no doubt at all that there would have been a serious decline in the productivity of both grass and arable land.
There has been a sharp fall in the use of every type of fertiliser since the subsidy was removed, a fall which was accentuated when the price went up so sharply last year. Going round the country last year, I noticed that farmers complained more about the price they were paying for fertilisers than they did about any of the other recent increases in their costs. In many cases, I found that they were cutting their costs by using a smaller quantity of fertilisers on the land. This is far too easy a method of economy and I am sure it is a short-sighted one, because the value of the produce would have more than compensated them for the increased price of the fertilisers they usually bought. In one area I remember finding that fertiliser merchants had accumulated large stocks which they did not know how to dispose of, because the orders they were getting from local farmers were often only half of what they had been the year before. I am talking of 1951, when I was at the Ministry of Agriculture. That experience made me feel forcibly the position in the country as a whole. Another useful point about this fertiliser subsidy is that poor soil takes the largest amount of fertilisers. The pasture and rough grazing in the hill and upland areas, to which we are looking for more sheep and cattle, will not carry the large number of animals we require without a very great improvement in the quality of the grass. Most of the hill and upland farmers are small men who could not afford to carry through this improvement, even with the help of the Livestock Rearing and Hill Farming Acts, if they had to pay the present market prices for fertilisers.
The second reason why I think this is a useful Bill is because I believe the form of the subsidy will give the public value for their money. The Government might have dealt with the rise in the price of fertilisers in another way. They might have added
700
£10,000,000 to the increased costs of farmers in 1951, and have taken this additional sum into account in the course of the annual price review in fixing farm prices for the current year. But an increase in farm prices, desirable as it may be, in many cases benefits equally the man who either will not, or cannot, produce more from his land and the man who grows more in response to the price incentive. I am sure that the payment of the subsidy in this way will be highly productive—much more than a subsidy of the same amount on the price of farm products, because it will help the small farmer who would not otherwise use fertilisers in sufficient quantities. I am glad that in the course of his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, explained the reason for limiting the first scheme under the Bill to phosphatic fertilisers. The use of a particular fertiliser obviously should depend on the character of the soil and not on the relative price of different fertilisers. It is important that farmers should realise that, in spite of the subsidy, phosphatic fertilisers will not be cheaper than nitrogenous fertilisers or balanced artificial manures, which are far more suitable on certain types of land. I hope that the Minister will consider the desirability of making schemes to cover other fertilisers in time to come, should the need arise. The Bill gives him power to do so.
The aim of the Bill is to encourage the use of fertilisers. There is one matter I should like to mention in the hope that the Government will consider it and, if they think it a good suggestion, will be willing to help the farmers. I remember visiting a hill-top in Wales where the farmer told me that his grass had been greatly improved over a wide area, which could not possibly be reached by a surface route, by the spreading of a fertiliser from the air. I should like the Minister to find out—and I am sure he could—how many hill areas there are in Wales, in Scotland and in Northern England, which are inaccessible by road or track, where rough grazing could be much improved by the dropping of a suitable fertiliser from the air. I have no doubt that this information could be obtained from the local advisers of the Minister's Department. There must be many other hill-tops similar to the one I saw in Wales. The farmer I spoke to was a farmer in a very big way, but, of course, the ordinary farmer could not

701
afford the expense of manuring his land by this method. I have sometimes wondered whether the Government might not secure the co-operation of the R.A.F. for this operation. It may seem a fanciful speculation, but if we really mean business about increasing home supplies of meat we must examine every possible method of getting it. This system has worked well in New Zealand, where it has been widely used, and I cannot see on the face of it any reason why it should not be used far more widely in this country.
Finally, I should like to congratulate the Minister on subsection (5) of Clause 4, to which the noble Lord referred in his speech. I am sorry to refer to the Bill without mentioning the specific matter. It is the question of the use of the positive procedure in dealing with orders for schemes. This change took place during the passage of the Bill through another place. The Minister had second thoughts while the Bill was under way, and I am sure he was right to change his mind. It is not unusual for the Opposition to prefer the positive procedure, because it offers more targets for criticism, and for the Government to prefer the negative procedure, because it is administratively convenient. If I may say so, the Minister behaved as a good Parliamentarian in saying that these arguments were trifling and that his position must be based solely on the ground of Parliamentary procedure. The choice between these two methods depends upon the character of a Bill. This is not a Bill to give the Minister specific powers, requiring only administrative orders in matters of detail connected with their discharge, but a Bill to give the Minister a general power to make schemes and fix the contribution from public funds towards them. Parliament should have the opportunity of considering the content of every scheme made under this enabling power. I am very glad that that is what has happened, and I look forward to the time when the Minister will submit those schemes. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we shall do all we can to facilitate the Bill during its remaining stages. We entirely concur with him in regarding it as a non-controversial and extremely useful measure.
5.9 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I should like to give my support to this measure, because I believe that it is right to give this subsidy and that this is the right way to do it. If there is an agreement about prices it is obviously right to take steps to cover any additional factor that could not have been taken into account when the price review was held. We want to get as much produce as possible from our land, and to bring under cultivation extra marginal land. If we encourage people by paying one-third of the cost of fertilisers, they are more likely to buy them than if we increase prices a little more in the price review. Therefore I think this is the right way to proceed. At the beginning of the war, when we wanted all the food we could get from our own country, we started with the lime subsidy, with the object of getting some of our land into better fettle for the war that eventually came. To-day, of course, war or no war, we need this extra produce from our own soil because of the difficulties of our international financial position. For this reason, I am certain that we ought to give farmers every encouragement to use these fertilisers on the land, and especially the proper ones, even though they are more expensive, and to give them this help to do so.
The noble Earl who has just sat down referred to the practice in parts of New Zealand of spraying these fertilisers from the air. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, was with me in New Zealand on one occasion when we saw an aircraft performing that particular function. It is an expensive way of spraying the ground, but it may be impossible to get over the ground it is desired to fertilise in any other way than by aeroplane. There is the cost of maintenance of the aircraft, and the cost of the vast amount of petrol it takes to run an aircraft for two or three hours going up and down. Moreover, you must choose your day, because if there is a strong wind blowing when spraying is done from the air the fertiliser will not be spread evenly. I fancy that the Royal Air Force would completely turn down the noble Earl's suggestion that they should be employed on this particular project. It may interest the House to know, however, that in the early days of the war, when we feared that the Germans might start using poison gas, either on ourselves or on our Russian

703
Allies, appliances were made to be attached to some of our bomber aircraft, and we tried to disguise their purpose by pretending that they were for spreading fertilisers and other things over the ground. I doubt whether the Royal Air Force would be very helpful, although the noble Earl's suggestion is an ingenious one. There are, of course, some places where machines are used for training pilots, and they might well be used for this other purpose at the same time. I would commend the Under-Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture to take up this suggestion with the Royal Air Force to see whether some of these training machines cannot give a helping hand. I am only sorry that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Air is not in the House to hear this suggestion.
5.14 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I desire on this occasion to be quite brief, because on both sides of the House there is general agreement on this small Bill. It has already been said that the Bill was improved during its passage through another place, and I do not think it will be necessary for noble Lords on this side of the House to suggest many Amendments. When the Bill was discussed in another place, certainly on the Second Reading, a considerable amount of latitude was given to the Members there to wander round and round all over the agricultural field. Remarks were passed on that occasion which we on this side of the House should not let pass without comment. I think it is recognised by the farming community as a whole, and certainly by members of your Lordships' House, that those remarks did not represent a true picture of what we believe the agricultural position to be. I, for one, who have been interested all my life in practising agriculture and land matters of that sort, disagree entirely with what was said generally about the farming community, and what has been said in the last few months. I would say, here and now, that I hope that sort of speech will stop for ever.
There are one or two matters in the Bill to which I should like to refer. I must say to the Government that I am not at all happy about the wording of Clause 1. Part of that clause is excellent. But if your Lordships read the
704
clause, leaving out certain words, you see that it says:
"Contributions out of moneys provided by Parliament may be made"—
and here is the point—
"… for relieving occupiers of agricultural land of a part of the expenditure.…"
I do not like the word "relieving." I feel that some other form of words could have been found, because the use of the word "relief" or "relieving" opens the door to comment upon the inefficiency of the farming industry, and on the doles which have been meted out to that industry in days gone by. In my view, it would be much better to use some such word as "repayment." The Bill has reached such a stage that probably we could not amend it, but for future guidance I think the word "relief" in connection with farmers, who are, indeed, playing a great part in the life of this nation, might be left out of our Bills. The end of the sentence I have quoted from Clause 1 shows the need and the use of the Bill—namely,
"to improve the fertility of the soil."
I believe that what we all have in mind, in this House and throughout the country, is that we must take every possible step to improve the fertility of our soil and the productive efforts of our farming community in order to augment the food supply of the nation.
A further point in the Bill of which I do not really approve is that it deals rather piecemeal with the needs of the agricultural industry. In a desire to stabilise our agricultural prosperity I would far rather that we produced all-embracing and comprehensive schemes. To my mind, it is not a good thing that we are now dealing with one portion of the industry and one expenditure of the farmers. I believe that it is necessary for the future to produce a comprehensive scheme for a balanced agriculture on a long-term basis. We shall then be doing what is necessary by giving to the farmers of the country a knowledge of what they may expect over a long period of years. I do not think we should deal with this matter piecemeal and introduce what I would term stopgap legislation. There is another difficulty in regard to this. By this Bill we are paying a direct subsidy to the farmer for a portion of his artificial manure. The expenditure on his other artificial manures is dealt with in the

705
February Review of Prices, if my knowledge on that particular point is correct. I hope that if we. pay an amount to the farmer, either directly or through his merchants, as is suggested in this Bill, then the other expenditure on artificial manures which the farmer has to undergo will be taken completely out of the February Review of Prices, so that there is no question of duplicating the matter of the expenditure on artificial manures.
I wish to ask the Government a question which I felt was not entirely satisfactorily dealt with in another place; that is, whether there is a sufficiency or phosphatic manures. I believe that that is important, because I have no doubt that by reason of this Bill there will be a fairly heavy run on phosphatic manures, and on compounds of which phosphates form a part, and we must be certain that a supply of those manures is available to meet the demand which must arise. Without detaining your Lordships further, I want to say to the Government that I hope they will keep an eye—and a very critical eye—on the question of the rising cost of manures. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the need for this Bill arose primarily from the fact that phosphates have increased in cost—by, I believe, 80 per cent., as against a 20 per cent. rise in the cost of other artificial manures. It is within our knowledge that the manufacturers and suppliers of artificial manures have been batting on quite a good wicket since the subsidy was removed a few months ago. It is necessary, therefore, not only from the point of view of this Bill and the public purse—because we may have to pay an extra price by reason of the increase in prices—but also from the point of view of the farming industry itself, that a very definite control should be exercised in regard to the rising costs of these artificial manures, whether they are phosphate or some other kind. From our point of view, as has already been said by my noble friend on the front Bench, we on this side of the House shall facilitate the passage of the Bill. I know that it is necessary to bring the scheme into operation, and I hope that it will serve the purpose, as it sets out to do, of improving the fertility of the soil of Britain.
5.24 p.m.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, like previous noble Lords, I give this Bill a very hearty welcome. One knows from experience how important for the increasing of production from our land is the proper use of fertilisers. Indeed, I am informed that in the last twelve years the use of fertilisers has increased threefold. Part of that is, of course, accounted for by the increased area which is under cultivation, but in the main I think it is owing to farmers becoming more fertiliser conscious. Unfortunately, there has been a tendency recently to reduce the amount of money spent on fertilisers, and that has been caused largely by the prospective and the actual increase in price.
I would agree that at the present juncture the utmost production is necessary from our land. Indeed, so far as one can see, the food situation, so far as home production is concerned, is nearly as serious as it was during the war. I do not want to go into great detail on the Bill, because I am speaking more as the Chairman of Rothamsted Experimental Station which, as your Lordships are no doubt aware, is the home of the fertiliser and has, through its 100 years or more of existence, acquired a great deal of knowledge upon the subject of the use of fertilisers. What I have to say has come largely from conversations with members of the staff of that Institute. I wish to say a word or two about the direction in which the subsidy is to go—that is to say, in regard to the type of fertiliser on which there should be a subsidy. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill informed us that the first scheme will be applied to the use of phosphatic fertilisers, and he has given us extremely sound reasons for that decision—partly in fulfilment of a pledge and, of course, on account of the extra cost of phosphatic fertilisers as compared with other forms of fertiliser, which makes it quite clear that that is for the time being the right direction in which to apply the subsidy. There are other reasons, to which I will come later, as to why phosphates should be the fertiliser to be considered.
Before I go any further, I think a few relevant facts might be of interest to your Lordships, and they have a bearing on the arguments I wish to use in a minute or two. First of all, with regard to phosphates. It is a fact that only 20 per cent.

707
of the water soluble phosphates in phosphatic manures are recovered in the next few years in the subsequent crops. The remainder of the water soluble phosphate up to comparatively recently was thought to remain in an unavailable condition in the soil. As a matter of fact, that is not so. It has now been realised that it becomes slowly available over a long period of years. In fact, there is one plot at Rothamsted where there can still be seen in the crop—it is an exhaustion crop; that is to say, no fertiliser is put on—the results from phosphates applied fifty years ago. Therefore there is a slow release from the soil over a very long period of that otherwise unavailable phosphate, and in any soils which have had phosphates applied there is a small reserve available all the time. To some extent the same remarks apply to potash. Quite an appreciable quantity of the potash which is applied as fertiliser is carried over from year to year. So far as nitrogen is concerned—I want to emphasise this—with the nitrogen applied as fertiliser there is no carry-over from year to year. Those are the facts with regard to the three main fertilisers which are required by plants.
Now there are one or two other facts which I think are of importance. The first is that the response in increased crops from the application of nitrogenous fertiliser is far greater than it is from the application of phosphatic fertiliser. Early in the war a careful survey was made of all fertiliser experiments in this country and in Northern Europe from the year 1900 until. I think, 1940, and from that were extracted certain very interesting figures. So far as cereals were concerned, with sulphate of ammonia the increased crop from the application of the first cwt. was three cwt., and from the second cwt. it was two cwt. The increase from the first cwt. of superphosphate applied was one-half cwt. of grain, and from the second cwt. one-third cwt. With potatoes the figures are somewhat different. Potatoes are grown on more highly fertilised land and therefore the figures are not so striking, But, even so, the figures for potatoes show up very much in favour of sulphate of ammonia. Clearly, money spent on nitrogenous manures will bring a quicker and greater return than money spent on any other fertiliser.
708
Another relevant fact is a calculation made by some of the people who carried out the survey to which I referred. It showed that an additional 100,000 tons of nitrogen properly used in this country would give an overall increase in our total production from the land of 5 per cent., and that was worked out with 20,000 tons on cereals and 80,000 tons on grass. That, at the time the calculation was made, was, broadly speaking, the proportion of the two crops. That is important, and I will come back to this question of grass in a few moments. But I am informed that the extra quantities of nitrogen could certainly be used on the land for four or five years without any necessity for the increased use of phosphates or potash, because there are adequate reserves in the soil to stand up to it for that time at the very least. The extra use, therefore, would not do any harm to the actual soil for the time being—especially if the phosphates or potash were applied in small and frequent doses from a combine-drill, so that the fertiliser is placed near the seed where the seed can get hold of it easily.
As to the question of nitrogen and its use, more particularly on grass, I think this is an important matter; and I shall now leave the question of the cereal crop because that is simple. Grass in one form or another is the largest crop in this country. From the Survey of Fertiliser Practice which was carried out at Rothamsted in conjunction with the National Agricultural Advisory Service, it would appear that only about 15 per cent. of grass cut for hay and 10 per cent. of the grazed land in this country at present receives any nitrogen at all. There is, therefore, a field for increased production in that direction which might be extremely fruitful, provided there are the animals to make use of that additional production or the facilities for preserving in some form or another the extra production—either silage or dried grass, or something of that sort. This is rather a striking figure, showing how little a great many farmers realise the importance of getting the most out of their grassland. It is, I think, clear that at the appropriate moment the Ministry of Agriculture ought to turn their mind to some form of subsidy, and therefore of encouragement, of the greater use of nitrogen, in order to obtain in the easiest

709
possible way, without harm—I emphasise that—a great increase in production from our land.
I am well aware that there are many difficulties. I have given a figure of 100,000 tons of additional nitrogen which would produce a 5 per cent. overall increase in our production. An additional 100,000 tons of nitrogen is just under 30 per cent. more than we are producing now. It is true that of our present-day production a certain amount is being exported, and I am not going to suggest that exports should be cut down for the benefit of British farmers, because if I did I should be embarking on extremely tempestuous seas. The matter is, I realise, very difficult. One knows that we have to export much of our produce to-day in order to pay for our imports. Over and above that, I believe that there are other difficulties regarding an increase of production to the extent which I suggest it ought to be increased. We have to face these grave difficulties, and all I can say is that I hope that Her Majesty's Government will seriously consider these points and see whether steps cannot be taken in the interests of increased production of foodstuffs in this country. I ask whether the Government should not consider taking vigorous steps to increase the manufacturing capacity of nitrogenous manure. I am sure that without an increase of that nature we shall not get the increased production which is so very necessary, and which, I think before many months are out, will be seen to be even more necessary than now.
5.39 p.m.
LORD BROCKET: My Lords, debates in this House on agriculture are not only profitable to those who listen to them but are often much more united than debates in another place. This debate appears much more united than the discussion in another place yesterday on food subsidies. I should like to make a few remarks on the question of fertiliser subsidy. It is rather interesting that shortly after the General Election I had two lunches for farm tenants when they paid their rents. I asked them if they could make any suggestion as to how production on the estates could be increased. Their first suggestion was that there ought again to be a fertiliser subsidy because the prices of fertilisers
710
were then so high that they felt that production would go down. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wise, mention this question of the word "relief." We farmers are quite used to being told we are "feather-bedded," but I must say I personally have not noticed it. I think that the joint Parliamentary Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, might give attention to the substituting for the word "relief" of some such word as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wise—the word "repay" or even the word "reimburse." I cannot help feeling that the word "relief" appearing in this Bill is rather objectionable.
I particularly welcome this fertiliser subsidy because it applies to all land. We have heard this afternoon that the poor and marginal land requires more fertiliser than the good land, and we have even heard that hill land can be fertilised by aeroplanes. I myself have heard of that sort of land being fertilised by aeroplane. I think it would be expensive to do it by aeroplane, but when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, replies perhaps he will reassure me on that and subsidise the aeroplane as well as the fertiliser. In regard to hill land, marginal land and good or fiat land, I think it is a fact that the repayment of the benefits of the subsidy on the good land will produce a much larger overall volume of food than the repayment of the benefits of the subsidy on the marginal land or even the hill land. Therefore I am glad to think that this subsidy will apply to all the different types of land. I think we cart look for the largest volume of increase from the good land. Arising from that point, I was also pleased to hear the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, ask a question about nitrogenous fertilisers, because he speaks with such great authority, not only as a large farmer himself but as Chair-man of the Rothamsted Agricultural Station. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to his remarks—although no doubt they will not require their attention to be called to it.
Another point in regard to farmers is that very often I find that they buy fertilisers and leave them lying in bags about their farm buildings and do not put them on to the land. I do tot know whether it is possible to see that the fertilisers

711
provided partly by this subsidy will actually be put on the land. That reminds me of a story I was told by a gentleman who came back from Tanganyika during the currency of the ground-nuts scheme. He told me that just before he left, a train load of cement arrived for building houses. When this train load of cement arrived, they put it on the ground-nuts in order to fertilise them. Another train load was shortly due to arrive, this time of fertilisers. I asked him whether they built houses with that. He said that luckily he came on holiday back to England before the second train load arrived. I am glad that the definition of "agricultural land" in Clause 5 (2) does not include houses! I would not suggest that it should be extended in that way.
I have very little more to say. I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that the Bill should be put through all its stages quickly, because during the last few days we have had such springlike weather that sowing will be starting or going on all the time, and farmers must know their exact financial position in regard to fertilisers. Therefore I will not stand between other noble Lords and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who is to reply to the debate. I welcome the advent of this Bill and I hope that it will pass through quickly, before tomorrow evening.
5.44 p.m.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: My Lords, I am happy to join in the general welcome which has been extended to this Bill from this side of the House. Of course, one welcomes it, but with regard to these small measures (they are admitted to be small) we always get a feeling that they savour of being sops and palliatives, rather like those the industry suffered from in the years before the war. In some way, we get the feeling that these measures which take so much time are standing in the way of the grand strategy that is needed at this vital moment in the history of our food production. Nobody doubts the tremendous importance of the need for maximum production at the moment. Of course, in the near future, there will have to be a revision of the whole system of guaranteed prices and incentives, which certainly is unsatisfactory. I mean, why do we have to
712
have this indirect subsidy? Why cannot a farmer get the right prices for all sorts of products and then plan his top dressing accordingly? That is what happens in a country like New Zealand, where there is a subsidy on the transport of fertilisers but not on the application itself. This subsidy, actually, is partly recoverable from the farmers in New Zealand; they have to pay it back.
Why do we have this considerable inequality of efficiency to a greater extent than in countries like New Zealand and Denmark? I think it is all a "hangover" of not being wanted, and it would be much easier to get rid of these subsidies as soon as this question of equality and inequality of efficiency is put right. Mr. Philips Price, in the Second Reading debate in another place, put very well the fact that we do at the moment need an indirect subsidy. He stated the case for that in this way (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; Vol. 496, Col. 289):
"The non-progressive farmer would much prefer to receive the help in his prices and not bother about his method of cultivation, but those of us who know something about the industry know that the planning and systematic use of fertilisers takes a lot of trouble but it does bring about, in the long run, much greater returns than direct subsidies. …"
We shall catch up in this respect of equality of excellence, as the Dominions, and these other primary producing countries, have done. I hope the noble Lord who is to reply will agree that it is far simpler to do the business through prices than through measures like this, which after all occupy a great deal of the time of Parliament and the county committees and so forth. We could then concentrate much better on this magnificent grand strategy that is needed. For instance, there is the point that a measure like this is fuel to the fire for people like Mr. Stanley Evans, who regards it as just another proof that the industry is not able to stand on its own feet. Of course it is able, but the introduction of measures like this—"another £20,000,000 to agriculture" or whatever it is—does afford fuel to the fire for people like that, who are enemies in our midst—really, rather curiously, William Cobbetts in reverse. That is another argument against this sort of measure which was well brought out in another place by Mr. George Brown.

713
May I conclude by asking the noble Lord a question which I suppose it will be hard for him to answer fully at the moment? I hope it is not out of place to ask him whether measures to increase production are being conceived by the Government on what one might call a "for ever" basis or "until the world situation do change," as it were, because I am sure that the intention that it is "for ever," stated by the present Government and reiterated by future Governments, would do more good than would a hundred measures, however large. It is against this background of "for ever" that we can best see the nature of the various measures which must come about. Therefore, I welcome the Bill—with these reservations: that we must look always to the grand strategy and somehow see things in relation one to the other; we must not become obsessed by particular measures that ought not to come about if there were no need, as obviously there is not at the moment, for this indirect subsidy.
5.50 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, you have received this Bill so kindly that I think there is very little I need say. There are, however, two points which have been mentioned, which I think it would be right for me to answer. The first point which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned, and which was taken up by my noble friend Lord Radnor, was the question: why are we intending to put this subsidy on phosphatic fertilisers and not on nitrogenous fertilisers? In addition to the reasons which I gave in my opening remarks (I did not want to make them too long, and therefore I did not include any further reasons) such as, the price of phosphatic fertilisers increasing disproportionately to that of potash and nitrogen, there is the question of the supply of nitrogen.
The total production of nitrogen for agriculture in this country at the moment is approximately 250,000 tons, of which about 50,000 tons are exported, mainly to the Commonwealth and to the Colonies. It will be seen, therefore, that about 200,000 tons are actually used by the farmers of this country. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, said that he felt that another 100,000 tons was necessary. I think he may have meant 100,000 tons of sulphate of ammonia, which of course
714
would be only about 20,000 tons of nitrogen. As your Lordships will see, as the allocations have already been made for this year and we have agreed to export 50,000 tons, and as the greater part of the 200,000 tons which is used by the farmers of this country has been taken up, if we put a subsidy on nitrogenous fertilisers, inevitably we should find ourselves quite unable to fulfil the demand. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Radnor has said, and if I may say so, I think it is another example of how useful your Lordships' House can be when we have speeches of such excellence and interest on a subject of this kind. We are at the moment looking into the question of raising the production of nitrogen, although it is rather a long-term business.
The other question which was raised by several noble Lords who have spoken—in particular, Lord Llewellin, Lord Brocket and Lord Listowel—was that of spraying fertilisers from the air. Of course, this is not a new idea. It has been done for some time experimentally in this country and, as the noble Earl said, in New Zealand. I know of three firms which are at the moment carrying out tests in spraying fertilisers from the air. They have done this in some parts of Wales, in Lancashire and on the marshes in East Anglia. Of course, the method has its drawbacks and difficulties. One of them was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brocket—namely, that the spraying of lime from the air in any great density would be a very expensive business indeed, because the aeroplane can carry only a limited quantity, and has to keep coming down and taking off again. If there is any question of a shortage of fertilisers one also has to take into account whether or not the materials concerned would be better used elsewhere than on the top of mountains. There are all sorts of problems of that kind to be taken into account. My Department is going into this question of spraying from the air. We are very interested in it, and I assure the noble Lord that we will let him know from time to time how things are going on.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, did not seem to like the word "relieving" in Clause 1 of the Bill. I do not know, but I imagine that the Parliamentary draftsman had something to do with the word "relieving." I think it would be

715
fair to say that relief was certainly the feeling of the farmer when he learned about this Bill, because he was getting extremely worried about the cost of fertilisers. If the noble Lord feels very strongly about this we will remember what he says in any future measures of this kind. The last thing that Her Majesty's Government want to do is to encourage speeches of the type that the noble Lord mentioned earlier in his remarks. Both he and the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, seemed to think that this is rather a piecemeal way of doing a good thing. I agree with them wholeheartedly, that the right thing in agriculture is to produce a long-term policy, but I think the right place to do it is in the Annual Review which is taking place at this time. As your Lordships will realise, we cannot pay a fertiliser subsidy unless we have a Bill to enable us to make a scheme. After all, this is only one part of what is going to be a larger and grander scheme, about which I hope the noble Lord will hear in the not too distant future.
LORD NOEL-BUXTON: When the noble Lord says "long-term policy" would he explain what he means? Is it literally for ever—or for any long number of years? I think that is of psychological importance.
LORD CARRINGTON: I wonder how much the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would like to be committed for ever. Perhaps the noble Lord can wait until the Annual Review and the agricultural policy of Her Majesty's Government is published, and then if he is not satisfied with what we have done, he can make a speech in the debate which my noble friend Lord Llewellin is introducing some time next month. The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked me one other question—namely, whether there was a sufficiency of phosphatic fertiliser. I can assure him categorically that we believe there will
716
be enough for any demand which is likely to arise as a result of the scheme which will be introduced when the Bill becomes law. Another question which the noble Lord asked was whether we would look at the prices which manufacturers were charging for their fertilisers. He will know that the price of fertilisers is very strictly controlled by the Minister of Materials, but, of course, a substantial proportion of the phosphates which we use in this country are imported, and over that matter we have very little control.
Finally, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Noel-Buxton, I thought, blessed this Bill with faint praise. He seemed to think that the better thing would have been to put the money which we are spending on this subsidy on the end product. He seemed to feel that that course would have all sorts of advantages and, in particular, would confound Mr. Evans and his followers. But the trouble with that idea is, that if we gave the subsidy on the end product (which, on the face of it, I agree is the best thing to do), there would be no guarantee whatever that the farmer would put any fertiliser on his land at all. In the circumstances, and with the urgent need for greater production, Her Majesty's Government felt that the right thing to do in this case was to put the subsidy on fertilisers, thereby making sure that it was used for that purpose. I should like to thank all noble Lords for the kind way in which they have received this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL
5.57 p.m.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
House adjourned at two minutes before six o'clock.