Lords Sitting of 16 November 1954

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

  PENSIONS OF FORMER INDIAN SERVICES
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to state whether it is their intention to make statutory provision for the grant of compensation to pensioned officers of the former Indian Services for any additional taxation in which they may be involved on account of the, imposition of Indian income tax on their pensions.]
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (VISCOUNT SWINTON): My Lords, the question whether such statutory provision should be made depends on the outcome of the discussions to which I refer in my reply to the next Question by the noble Lord. In the meantime, provision has been made in the Estimates and in the Appropriation Act to cover expenditure in 1954–55.
  LORD HAILEY: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have arrived at any decision on the claim put forward by the Service Associations concerned that Her Majesty's Government should now arrange to assume responsibility for the disbursement of the sterling pensions, in place of the arrangement by which they are now disbursed by the agents of the Government of India.]
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, as I think the noble Lord is aware, discussions with the Governments of India and Pakistan concerning the responsibility in future for Indian and Pakistan sterling
  1486
  pensions have been proceeding, but I am not yet in a position to make a statement on the subject.

COPYRIGHT LEGISLATION
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have come to any conclusion upon, and propose to take any action to implement, the legislative proposals contained in the report of the Copyright Committee published in 1952, which recommended, among many other amendments to the Copyright Act, 1911, those enabling the ratification of the Brussels Convention which was signed by this country, and also the Universal Copyright Convention.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the proposals for legislation in this not uncomplicated field have been carefully studied. The two Conventions mentioned by the noble Lord are mainly of interest to our authors and publishers, but these are by no means the only persons interested in the recommendations made by the Committee. Many of these recommendations will merit favourable consideration when an opportunity for legislation presents itself.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, quite apart from the Brussels and the Universal Copyright Conventions, Her Majesty's Government are aware that the present provisions of the Copyright Act, 1911, are totally inadequate to protect the interests of the public, the author, the publisher and the composer in the expanding field of broadcasting, both for sound and vision?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I think the general intent of the noble Lord's supplementary question is well understood by everybody, including Her Majesty's Government. This is a very complicated matter and I think it would

1487
be unfortunate if we rushed into premature legislation before all the interests concerned have been adequately consulted.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, undoubtedly this is a complicated matter, but I would ask the noble Lord to convey to Her Majesty's Government the feeling on this side of the House that this matter needs most urgent attention. It will not get any easier if we let it rest. May I tell the noble Lord that in the field of television which, as he knows, is a somewhat controversial matter, I believe that on this point he would find a large measure of general agreement? I hope he will take the earliest opportunity of dealing with this matter.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I am glad to hear what the noble and learned Earl said about the lack of controversy on television. I certainly shall convey that sentiment and the others which he naturally and understandably expressed to my right honourable friend.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY CHARGES
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given them private notice.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the proposed legislation validating past charges for licences issued under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts, 1904–1926 will prevent further actions against the Post Office for repayment of charges paid by licensees under those Acts.]
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, the answer to the noble and learned Earl's Question is definitely "Yes." Any new action started after the date of my announcement on November 11 will be invalidated.

NATIONAL GALLERY AND TATE GALLERY BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Amendment.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill 100 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Clause 4, page 3, line 18, at end insert—
("(3) The number of paintings or other works of art which are at any time on loan under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section shall not exceed—

(a) in the case of the National Gallery, one-twentieth of the total number of works of art then vested in the Trustees of that Gallery, and

(b) in the case of the Tate Gallery, one-tenth of the total number of works of art then vested in the Trustees of that Gallery,

but the Treasury may from time to time by order increase or reduce either of the fractions mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
An order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument a draft of which has been laid before Parliament, and an order increasing either of the said fractions shall not be made unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
2.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, in moving that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Bill, may I add a word, as we had a considerable discussion on this subject last winter. I think it is fair to say that the other place generally agreed with the terms of the Bill which we passed at the time. However, they felt that in exercising the new powers the Trustees should have some guidance from Parliament. Accordingly, the Amendment which they have made has fixed a limit to the number of pictures which can be lent by the Galleries for display under Clause 4 (1) (b) of the Bill. Whether the powers are used or not remains in the unfettered discretion of the Trustees. The figures have been set at 5 per cent. for the National Gallery and 10 per cent. for the Tate Gallery, and, on the present numbers, this works out at ninety-four works of art for the National Gallery and 430 for the Tate Gallery. It should be noted perhaps that these figures

1489
do not cover pictures lent for exhibition, which fall under Clause 4 (1) (a).
The Amendment further provides that these percentages can be varied by statutory instrument. Such instrument has to be laid before Parliament. If the percentages are to be increased, the Affirmative Resolution procedure is necessary; if reduced, then the Negative Resolution procedure will suffice. In providing for the means to vary these percentages, we have particularly in mind the sort of development which is now taking place at Lancaster House, which I think your Lordships will agree is admirably suited to showing some of the best works of art in the National Gallery. A development of a similar nature may arise in the future, and we think it fitting that this opportunity should be taken to enable this procedure to be carried out. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
LORD REA: My Lords, I think your Lordships will remember that at an early stage of the Bill an Amendment was put down in this House very much on the lines of that which now comes from another place. It so happened that that Amendment came from these Benches, from my noble friends, Lord Methuen and Lord Strabolgi. My noble friend Lord Strabolgi, who is sorry he is not able to be here to-day, asked me to express his great appreciation of the fact that the idea which these two noble Lords started has taken such a fruitful line in another place. This Amendment, it seems, is even better than the one proposed in this House, and from these Benches we welcome it sincerely.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (ARMED FORCES) BILL [H.L.]
2.43 p.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of Commons Amendments.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Man-croft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[The references are to Bill 152 as first printed for the House of Commons.]
Clause 1, page 2, line, 11, leave out subsections (5) and (6).
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the three Amendments to this Bill made in another place, which it now falls to your Lordships to consider, are little more than drafting Amendments. Accordingly, I hope that your Lordships will see no difficulty in agreeing to them. They are closely interlinked, and perhaps I may be allowed, for the convenience of your Lordships, to explain in a sentence what they seek to do. As I say, they are really nothing more than drafting Amendments, and they are designed to place greater emphasis on the fact that the duties of the Armed Forces include Civil Defence. These, Amendments were inserted in another place at the request of the Opposition, and I hope your Lordships will agree that they are an improvement to the Bill. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Duties of armed forces to include civil defence and training therefore
("2. It is hereby declared that the duties which members of the armed forces of the Crown may be called upon to undertake as members of those forces include civil defence and the undergoing of training therein, and nothing in the provisions, of this Act shall be construed as limiting the generality of this section.")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the first: Amendment. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("(2) In this Act the expression 'civil defence' includes any measures not amounting to actual combat for affording defence against

1491
any form of hostile attack by a foreign power or for depriving any form of hostile attack by a foreign power of the whole or part of its effect, whether the measures are taken before, at or after the time of the attack, and the expression 'designated Minister' has the same meaning as in the Civil Defence Act, 1948.")
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, this, too, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Mancroft.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I beg to move formally that this Bill be now read a second time. I understand that the Second Reading is to be taken after the Third Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill, and that this is being done for the convenience of certain noble Lords.
Moved that the Bill be now read 2a;.—(Earl Fortescue.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not object to this course, but I should like to say that there was an agreement, to which I was a party, for at least a fortnight, and probably more, that the first business to-day should be the Overseas Resources Development Bill. I regard that as an important Bill—it affects 65 million of our fellow citizens in the Colonial Empire—and I do not see why, without explanation, it should have been put off. I do not object if it meets the convenience of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor. My consent is not necessary, but perhaps courtesy should have dictated that I should have been approached on the matter. I have never been asked, and this announcement has come to my notice during the last half hour. I should like to say, further, that I feel that Government business of this
1492
kind should take into account the convenience of Members. One often hears from Members who live a long way away that they are inconvenienced by chop-pings and changings at the last moment in Government Bills and in Government business. I certainly feel that a little more notice than this should have been given to noble Lords who may have taken a great deal of trouble in preparing their speeches.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I feel it only right that I should say that I think the Government have taken the right course—indeed, the course that I asked them to take. I am sorry that conflicting promises were made here. It was understood that if we were going to take the Third Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill on the day after the Report stage it was on condition that it was first business. The trouble is that another conflicting promise was made. As arrangements had been made by some of my noble friends, on that basis I put the position to the Government; and they have responded and taken this course at my request. I am grateful to the Government for the course that they have taken.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, I can only say that I am extremely sorry that, owing to an oversight, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has been inconvenienced. I can truthfully say that it was only in the last quarter of an hour that I knew that any undertaking had been given to the noble Lord that the Overseas Resources Development Bill would be taken first. I am very sorry, and hope that it will not happen again.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, in view of the statements that have been made about the convenience of the House, I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until after the Third Reading of the Town and Country Planning Bill has been taken.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Town and Country Planning Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill. I now move that the Bill be read a third time. I understand that it will be for the convenience of your Lordships if the Third Reading is taken formally. I will then move the Amendments which stand in my name, and which carry out promises which I gave yesterday, and the general debate will follow on the Motion "That the Bill do now pass."
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a;—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 35 [Additional payments in cases where no claim has been established]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1) (b), after "opinion" to "insert:
",after giving the person entitled to the relevant interest an opportunity to present his case,"
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the Amendments standing in my name. This Amendment is designed to make it clear on the face of the Statute that, before issuing the certificate for which the clause provides, the person acting on behalf of the Treasury—that is, in fact, the district valuer—is to give the owner of the interest being acquired an opportunity of presenting his case. I have examined the matter overnight, and I am in no doubt that, even without the words of the Amendment, every opportunity would be given; but as it seemed to the Government that an Amendment on the point would allay anxiety, this Amendment has been put on the Paper. Your Lordships will see that it is substantially in the
1494
words suggested by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and I hope they will be found acceptable to both sides of the House. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 16, after ("opinion") insert the said words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are grateful to the Government for putting down this Amendment. The noble and learned Viscount will understand if I say that I do not agree with him that the words are not necessary. I think they are; but they are there now, and we need not say any more about it. This was what I had suggested, and what my noble and learned Leader had actually drafted in terms and, therefore, we have at any rate accomplished something.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, as one who had something to say on this clause yesterday, and speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hylton, who has, I think, been a victim of this rearrangement of our business, I should like to express our gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount for going some way to meet the views which we put forward. I do not know whether it will avoid my having to make a still further speech, but I should like to pay tribute, on behalf of my noble friends, to the great courtesy that we have received in this and other matters from the noble and learned Viscount, and to express our appreciation of the fact that in many of these matters the noble and learned Viscount has made a genuine effort to meet our views. I ant afraid he has not been able to go very far in that direction, and the apprehensions that we quite genuinely feared with regard to the results of this Bill have not been entirely allayed. Nevertheless, if those fears which still remain are found to be groundless, I can assure the noble and learned Viscount that nobody will be more pleased than those of us who have to try to administer this Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before I put the question, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to express my gratitude for what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and my noble friend Lord Gage. I should like to assure your Lordships that my services inside and outside the House are always at the disposal of your Lordships if I

1495
can do anything to help the business of the day. I am very grateful.
On, Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this Amendment is moved in order to implement the undertaking which I gave on behalf of the Government on the Report stage yesterday, in answer to the point made by my noble friend Lord Ridley on the Amendment which he withdrew. I hope your Lordships will agree that it accepts the spirit of my noble friend's Amendment by laying down that payment of the specified amount is to be made unless the appropriate authority thinks it is just and reasonable not to do so. It places heavily on the appropriate authority the onus of justifying a refusal to pay. The wording differs slightly from the wording of the Amendment which was withdrawn yesterday, but I hope that my noble friend Lord Ridley will feel that it covers the spirit of what he desired to see incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 22, leave out from ("afore-said") to end of line 30 and insert ("that amount shall be added to the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the relevant interest apart from the provisions of this section:
Provided that if, after taking into account all the circumstances, the appropriate authority is of opinion that it is not just and reasonable that the whole of that amount should be so added or, as the case may be, that any amount should be so added, the said authority may direct that such lesser amount as he may specify shall be so added or, as the case may be, that no addition to the compensation aforesaid shall be made.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley, I should like formally to acknowledge the good offices of the noble and learned Viscount in this matter.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to say one word, on behalf of a great many people, both in this House and outside it. I should like to express appreciation of the way in which this Amendment has been put forward by the noble and learned Viscount, for which I am sure we are all grateful. I cannot speak directly for others, but I know that this concession will be greatly appreciated and of great value throughout the country.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 50 [Exchequer grants to local authorities]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to subsection (4):
"Provided that, in relation to—

(i) land acquired for use as a public open space; or

(ii) such part, if any, of any land appropriated as mentioned in subsection (2) of this section as is intended for such use,

the regulations may provide that, if in any particular case the Minister is satisfied that, having regard to the expenditure in respect of which the grant is to be made and the financial circumstances of the local authority concerned, it is just that a higher grant should be made, the amount of the grant in that particular case shall be an amount equal to such percentage, exceeding fifty but not exceeding seventy-five per cent. of the costs, excess or expenditure aforesaid as the Minister may determine."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment is introduced in pursuance of the undertaking which I gave and, as I informed your Lordships yesterday, in deference to the very strong feeling which has been expressed in favour of increased Exchequer grant towards the provision of playing fields. In spite of my own views about the importance of an overall 50 per cent. grant to local authorities in relationships between the Exchequer and local authorities, I thought it right to provide for Ministerial discretion to pay a higher rate of grant for public open space in the circumstances which are set out. As I said yesterday, I felt that there was a universal feeling in your Lordships' House on this point. I think all your Lordships, and certainly I myself, attach so much importance to anything which will improve the position of playing fields, with its resultant good effect on the rising generation, that, despite my administrative misgivings, I have introduced this Amendment, which I now beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 32, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure the House will greatly appreciate the fact that the noble and learned Viscount, possibly against his better judgment, has accepted what I regard as the universal feeling in this House. I am sure that in this case his second thoughts are better than his first, and I am certain that he will not regret having made this concession. Of course, it all depends upon

1497
whether the local authorities take advantage of the increased grant and decide, because of that, to provide playing fields which otherwise they would not have done. It is the view of most noble Lords that the provision of an increased grant will, in fact, tend to cause local authorities to consider the provision of these playing fields. If they do not do so, in spite of the improved grant, then nobody will be the worse off financially, although I am sure that the country would be the worse off through the lack of playing fields. This Amendment has been given to me personally in pursuance of an undertaking in response to an Amendment which I moved on the Report stage yesterday, but the credit for it is entirely due to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, who unfortunately was not able to be present yesterday, but who raised the matter on the Committee stage. As we all know, the noble Lord has devoted himself enthusiastically to the cause of the provision of playing fields, and it is a great pleasure to me to have been associated with him in this matter. I think that between us we have achieved something, although it does not go as far as we would have liked.
LORD LUKE: My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, to whom I am extremely grateful for his support in this particular Amendment. I wish to thank the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and Her Majesty's Government, for this concession, which I think will be not only of great value but also of great encouragement to all local authorities throughout the country in this vital matter of the provision of playing fields.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.0 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill do now pass. We have now expended twenty-one and a half hours of oratory on this Bill in the course of its passage through your Lordships' House, and we have considered 232 Amendments. Therefore, this is no time for further oratory. I will content myself with saying very little. I think most of us sympathised last night with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, when he referred to the complexities of this Bill. It is indeed a terribly difficult Bill, and I feel in duty bound to try to say a word
1498
in defence of the draftsman, who has had many bricks thrown at him, not only in your Lordships' House but elsewhere, concerning the complexities of this Bill. He is by no means wholly to blame. This Bill, I suppose, will not be considered as one of the finest examples of the draftsman's art—that, I am afraid, must be admitted. It will not go down into history with Acts like the Partnership Act, the Sale of Goods Act, the Indian Independence Act, 1947 and, the best one of all, the Income Tax Act, 1948. Those are indeed fine examples of the draftsman's art.
Considering the task that we set him, I think the draftsman here has been very ingenious in carrying out what was required of him. That is the real reason for the complexity—not the draftsmanship but the nature of the task which has been set the draftsman. As those of your Lordships who are familiar with these problems realise, few things are more complicated than land law and town and country planning law. The initial task—to get rid of the development charge and suspend the distribution of the £300 million fund—was not difficult, but those objectives were achieved in the Act of 1953. What was more difficult was to adapt for use as a foundation for the compensation scheme of this Bill the claims for loss of development value which were made on the £300 million fund.
As your Lordships have realised only too well in the course of the debate, the difficulties have been twofold. The first was this. The claims on the fund were personal property which had to be converted into a form of realty in order to provide a basis for a scheme of ad hoc compensation. There was no precedent for such an undertaking. Novel problems, for which novel solutions had to be found, have been raised, some of them at an advanced stage in the Bill's career. The second point was this. The future compensation scheme alone would have been a source of plenty of substance for an ordinary Bill—and this is no ordinary Bill, as your Lordships realise, because it caters for past events as well as for future events. Hence, two whole Parts of the Bill deal with the past only, including many miscellaneous provisions which will not have very much future importance.

1499
The root of our difficulties which contributes so much to the complexity of the Bill is, of course, the Government's insistence on using the claims on the fund as their basis. There is no practical alternative that I can see. A great deal of money is owed to a lot of people in respect of their claims, and we want that paid out as soon as possible. At the same time, the incubus of development charge had to be removed. Those are the difficulties which the Government and the draftsman had to face. That is the reason for the very large number of Amendments with which we have had to deal, particularly on Committee stage and Report stage. I hope that the House does not think that the time has been wasted in this work. We have seen, certainly with this Bill, the House of Lords as a Revising Chamber at its most industrious. All the Amendments with which we have dealt have not been mere drafting Amendments, or Amendments of little consequence. Amendments of real importance, notably the "Pilgrim" Amendment, have been inserted in this Bill; and the Amendments to this Bill have not, as your Lordships may have noticed, come solely from one side of the House. If any of your Lordships may have wondered why it is that the association of noble Lords who sit on the Benches behind me goes by the rather cumbersome title of Association of Independent Unionist Peers, your Lordships will by now have observed just how independent they are. The title is no mere formality.
We are also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and his colleagues opposite for the great help that they have given, particularly in matters where their professional experience has been brought to bear. As the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has already pointed out, we are also very grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the skilful and most accommodating way in which he has addressed himself to genuine points of difficulty put to him from all sides of the House. As I ventured to observe on Second Reading—in the face of a certain contradiction from noble Lords opposite—I think this is a good Bill. I now think that it will leave us an even better Bill. There is now a matter of urgency that payments due under the Bill should be made as soon as possible. My
1500
right honourable friend the Minister and the Central Land Board want to begin making payments as soon as they are empowered to do so. The laying and approval of regulations will take some time, but I make this pledge: that, so far as the Government have any control in the matter—and they have—the time taken in these matters will now be reduced to the absolute minimum. Once again, I wish to thank your Lordships on all sides of the House for the industry and the enthusiasm with which this Bill has been considered and amended. I now hope that your Lordships, having left such a marked imprint upon it, will be good enough to send it on its way rejoicing. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mancroft.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has given this Bill rather fulsome praise. He, at any rate, has no criticisms or doubts about it. I should like to say that I thought it was a bad Bill when it was introduced, and I still think it is a bad Bill. I will not repeat all the reasons which I gave on Second Reading, or on the Second Reading of the Scottish Bill, but the fundamental defects of the Bill, as introduced, remain. Having said that, however, I am bound to admit that, during its passage through this House, some Amendments have been made which have, to a certain extent, mitigated some of the evils. The "Pilgrim clause" is certainly a substantial improvement. It is a far better clause as it leaves this House than it was when it was first introduced. That is due to the efforts of noble Lords from all parts of the House. They were not content with the clause as it arrived here; they were not content with the clause as it left the Committee stage or the Report stage, and to-day we believe that it is as good a clause as it is possible to have, having regard to the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
We have been helpful, I think, in getting something done, though not as much as we should have liked, in respect of playing fields and for the protection of purchasers. Clause 33 is a very much better clause now than when it arrived from another place. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in saying (and I think it is right that it should be

1501
said) that the way in which this Bill has been conducted through this House shows this House at its best. Having had occasion, on previous Bills, to say something very different, I think it only right that I should pay tribute to the way in which this Bill has been dealt with. It is largely due to the courtesy, the consideration and the conscientious way in which the noble and learned Viscount has handled it. Those of us who knew him in another place expected that he would deal with a complicated measure of this kind, or indeed with any measures, in the way in which he has done; and we are not disappointed. I believe that every undertaking which he gave to consider every point raised has been duly honoured. And if the results are not to the complete satisfaction of those who raised the matters, at any rate we are all satisfied that he did conscientiously apply his mind to any matters to which we directed him—and, after all, that is all we can ask.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft paid a tribute to the draftsman of the Bill. Those of us who have had any experience of drafting Bills know the great difficulties under which the draftsman labours. It is not his fault that a Bill emerges in a manner which makes it difficult for the ordinary person to understand it; it arises from the material with which the draftsman has to deal. The complexity inherent in any questions of law of land inevitably makes it difficult to draft a measure of this kind, and when one has regard to the great pressure under which the draftsman has to work, it is amazing to me that he should have been successful in getting this Bill on its feet, as he has done. We had 200 Amendments passed through this House on one day, and the next day we had a new print of the Bill, with all those Amendments incorporated. It really is an amazing piece of work, and I think we ought to pay the fullest tribute to the draftsman responsible for it.
Then I think we ought to pay a tribute to noble Lords who have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, time and time again moving an Amendment and saying "this is little more than drafting," or "this is consequential," and who, in all simplicity, took him absolutely at his word, challenging him only once. We have been very trustful, and we are
1502
hoping that our trust has not been misplaced.
LORD MANCROFT: So do I.
LORD SILKIN: Now, we part with this Bill. As I say in a good many respects, it is a better Bill than when it arrived here, but I cannot pretend that, fundamentally, it deals with any of the criticisms which I and certain of my noble friends levelled against it when it arrived. That was Government policy, and perhaps it was not to be expected that the Government would depart fundamentally from that policy; but in its drafting and in the way its language has been made easier for the subject to "swallow," it is a better Bill, and I hope that it will have an easy passage in another place.
3.13 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, like everybody else who has taken a major part in regard to this Bill, I should like to ally myself almost entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said, particularly in regard to what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack did. I think that the way in which he conducted this most complicated measure through the House was amazing, and I hope he will not feel that in what I am going to say I am in any way criticising the manner in which this Bill has been presented to the House. I feel, however, that it is necessary and advisable to refer to the general situation in the administration of our legislation. This seems to me to-day to be well-nigh chaotic. I am only an ordinary, common man, like everybody else in the street, and that is how I feel about the legislation of the present day. The distress and the anxiety caused by it is prevalent all over the country. I am certain that noble Lords in this House have the same experience as I have—that of receiving many letters from humble people, asking for help in regard to legislation which, in a great many cases, they describe as tyrannical in its treatment of the men and women of our country. I feel that that is very nearly the right word to use.
The Bill which we are about to pass is so complicated that even those who are responsible for it sometimes seem worried as to what it means and what its effect will be, not only on the authorities but, still more, on the individual

1503
citizen. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack has mentioned a circular. But that is to be sent to the authorities, including Government Departments. What about the ordinary man and woman in the street? Is there to be no circular to them? Are they to go on not realising what this Bill and many other Bills mean, and without getting some perfectly plain and simple indication of what they should do in certain circumstances? Many terrible cases appear in the Press almost daily, and have been quoted to us, showing the suffering and anxiety which has come into the lives of our people. I hope that the law will be couched in language that the ordinary citizen can understand without his having to go to the so-called expert, who, of course, wants his fee and is often just as fogged about the meaning of the legislation as we all are. I beg the Government to issue a statement in language which will enable common people to understand the meaning of the law.
3.15 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. I agree so much with all that my noble friend Lord Silkin has said that I do not need to repeat it. I should, however, like to be associated with what he said, and with what has been said from the other side of the House, in regard to the debt that we owe to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack for his considerate treatment of the various Amendments which have been put forward in connection with this Bill. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that this is an extremely complicated Bill. No one would be happier than the lawyers if it were possible to put it in a plain and simple form for the man in the street; but I very much doubt whether that would be possible because, like so many other matters of law, the question is one of interpretation, which depends not only on the written word but on the particular facts of each case. However, many noble Lords would be grateful if such a statement could be made. I am sure that we on this side—indeed all those who have any association with this matter, would be only too happy if that were done.
1504
I want to call attention to three matters which, to my mind and to the minds of those who are more expert than I am and who have given some study to this Bill, are still left in some considerable doubt. Your Lordships may remember Clause 34 under which, on application being made, a local authority has to indicate within 28 days whether it is proposed to acquire a particular piece of land, although that course may involve delay to any purchaser. That matter is still in doubt, in that the Bill is not at all clear as to whether the answer should be given at once on receipt of the application, whether it should be given at the end of 28 days, or whether, if the reply is given in the first instance and something comes to the knowledge of the local authority that some other authority, or that authority, intends to acquire the particular piece of land, a further reply should be sent, or exactly what action the local authority should take. The matter remains in doubt. I should have thought the best way was to give an answer on the last of the twenty-eight days, so as to cover all the intervening period. The matter ought not to be left in doubt so that one answer may be given at the beginning of twenty-eight days and another, possibly different, answer at the end of twenty-eight days. That is a point which will have to be altered by legislation or by some regulation one of these days.
Another point to which I would call attention is that the Bill as it comes before your Lordships to-day differs in the treatment it offers to public authorities on the one hand, and to the individual on the other hand. For example, a public authority may apply to the Central Land Board for information about the unexpended balance of established development value, and the Central Land Board is under an obligation to give information, not only as to the original established development value but also as to the unexpended portion of that established development value; whereas when an individual asks for information the Central Land Board is under an obligation merely to give information as to the original amount of the unexpended development value and such other information as it deems fit. There would not appear to be any need for that differentiation. If the information can be given

1505
to a public authority, one would have thought it could equally be given to a private individual.
There is considerable doubt also on a matter arising out of an Amendment made at the Committee stage of the Bill. Noble Lords will remember that Clause 20, subsection (1), provided that:
"Compensation … shall not be payable in respect of the refusal of permission for any development which does not consist in the carrying out of building, mining or other operations. …"
In Committee, on the Motion of the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, we amended that clause to read:
"Compensation… shall not be Payable in respect of the refusal of permission for any development which consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any buildings or other land. …
In moving this Amendment, the noble and learned Viscount described it as a "drafting" Amendment merely substituting a positive for a negative form of words. Some of us think the Amendment went a great deal further than mere drafting and may have the effect of excluding from compensation even the great majority of refusals of planning permission. This is due to the fact that the Amendment uses the words "or includes." Without those words the new form would have had the same meaning as the old.
The use of those two words has the result that wherever the use of a piece of land, after the physical development has taken place for which permission as sought differs materially from what it was at the time the application for permission was made, then the development would "include" a material change of user and no compensation would be payable upon the refusal of permission. This would be so even if the change of user were not expressly referred to in the application. Section 18 (3) of the 1947 Act provides that:
"Where permission … is granted under this Part of this Act for the erection of a building, the grant of permission may specify the purposes for which the building may be used; and if no purpose is so specified, the permission shall be construed as including permission to use the building for the purpose for which it is designed."
That is a little complicated, but it appears to mean that the grant of permission to erect a building includes permission to
1506
use it for a certain purpose, and under the Amendment inserted by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, if that purpose differs materially from that for which the land has previously been used a material change of use occurs. It follows, therefore, that if permission is refused, compensation will not then be payable.
May I take a simple example? The owner of a piece of farm land applies for permission to build dwellinghouses upon it. If permission were granted, it would, under Section 18 (3) of the 1947 Act, include permission to change from agricultural to residential use when the houses are erected. If permission is refused, therefore, there will be no compensation payable under the present clause, and that may have very wide application indeed. It may apply to farmland, the grant of applications to build in the Green Belt and so on, and may be a serious matter. The noble and learned Viscount may reply to my suggestion, as he did at the time it was made in Committee, that the difficulty is met by the definition of "use" in Section 119 of the 11947 Act. That definition reads:
"'use,' in relation to land, does not include the use of land by the carrying out of any building or other operations thereon."
With respect, I submit that that definition does not go far enough. It affords no assistance in a ease of the kind I have mentioned, because it does not touch the change of use which occurs after the 'building operations have been completed, when the buildings are put to the use for which they are designed. It is as well to have that point on the record, because I feel sure that, with other matters in this Bill, it will have to be dealt with at no distant date. With those few remarks, and thanking your Lordships for your patience in this rather complicated argument, I hope the Bill will now pass.
3.29 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I first say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the words he has said about my conduct of the Bill. In thanking him, I should like to express my gratitude to your Lordships for the great kindness, patience and indulgence you have shown me in this first Bill which I have had the honour to conduct in your House. I should like to say a word on the matter on which

1507
my noble friend, Lord Teviot, has spoken. The burden of his speech has been very much in the minds of us all during the hours that we have spent on this Bill, and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, last night suggested one approach which I should be very happy to consider; that is, the approach of consolidation and simplification in the course of that process. I cannot give any exact undertaking on so immense a task, but I can promise to consider it, and I hope that may do something to meet my friend's point. It is one of the great difficulties and responsibilities of 20th Century legislators that, as the State interferes and takes responsibility for an ever-growing complexity of the nation's activities, our legislation should be at once competent to cover the problems and something which ordinary people will be able to understand. All I can say is that our efforts in the alterations which we have asked your Lordships to make in this Bill have been efforts in that direction. But I should like my noble friend to know how conscious I am that we have not yet reached anything like the satisfaction which we should desire in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, raised three points. In regard to the first, that concerning the twenty-eight days, I hope that local authorities will deal with the matter—as I expect they will—with common sense and a desire to help the inquirer. I am sure they will want to give information as early as possible; but if, as I said during the Committee stage, information which they have given on the first day is falsified by information that comes to them on the second or third day, I am sure that, in their great tradition, they will see that they have a duty to keep the inquirer informed on that point. With respect to the second point, I do not think that I can help the noble Lord further. With regard to his third apprehension, may I say that, although the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, was kind enough and courteous enough to bring it to my attention as soon as he possibly could, that was only a short time before your Lordships' House sat. Therefore, if my explanation is not so extensive as it might have been, I am sure that the noble Lord will forgive me.
1508
I should like him to consider two aspects of this difficulty. The first, I think, may be summarised by considering what is the meaning of the word "consists," which, as he remembers, occurred in the original words to which he referred. Without tying either myself to finality, or your Lordships' House to agreement, I would suggest that "consists" means "co-extensive with"; and if it has that meaning, as I respectfully submit it has, then a refusal of permission for a scheme of development which included an element of change of use was excluded from compensation under the old wording as it would be under the new. In that sense, and on that view, I think I was right in saying that it was a drafting Amendment. But my comfort to the noble Lord is not quite so cold as that, and I suggest to him that the implications of the case are by no means so far-reaching as suggested. May I put this point to him? The form of words now in the Bill comes from the definition of "development" in Section 12 of the 1947 Act. I suggest to the noble Lord that the word "other" is, in fact, significant. There are two categories—building and other land—and we may have a change of use inside either. But, in my view, use of a building cannot be said to represent a use of the land different from the previous use of the site, because that involves a mixing of the two categories. As I say, I merely wish to bring that point before the noble Lord for his consideration. I think he will find it helpful in assuaging some of the doubts felt on the matter. I regret that, in the half-hour available, I have not been able to give him a lengthier discussion on the point.
May I, in conclusion, say just a word with regard to your Lordships' treatment of the Bill as a whole and your Lordships' performance of (if I may be allowed to mention them) the functions of your Lordships' House? The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, accepted—as indeed, I think anyone who considers the matter must—that on the major questions of policy involved in a Bill, a Government cannot accept alterations, because to do so would be to alter the major policy for which the Government stand; and the way to sustain an objection to that major policy is to change the Government. That is only one function of legislation. There are, in my view, two other important

1509
functions. The second is what I might call the secondary policy point. Within the framework of the broad policy of the legislation, there are many points in which a Bill can be improved or worsened. In that field, I respectfully believe that your Lordships' attention has greatly improved the Bill. Even where I have not agreed—as in the case in which I indicated my doubts about an important point introduced by my noble friend Lord Luke, with whose purpose I sympathised so much—the composite will and desire of the House has secured what your Lordships are convinced is an improvement, and what has, I am sure, given great pleasure to my noble friend. I think that we could go on—though I certainly shall not worry your Lordships by doing so—and find at least half a dozen instances where the Bill has been improved in that field.
The third aspect of legislation which is equally important, and is sometimes forgotten, is the adjusting of policy to the needs, wishes and daily round of the ordinary man and woman in this country. That is so important an aspect of legislation that I might almost have put it first in my trio. I think that in the many hours we have spent on this Bill we have tried, not only by improvements in the clarity but by improvements in the way the Bill will apply to ordinary life, to make it a better Bill and for the greater advantage of those who will be affected by it. Noble Lords have been good enough to express gratitude to me, and I should like most sincerely, on my own behalf, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, who has helped me so stoutly throughout the stages of this Bill, and on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, to express our respectful gratitude to the House for its co-operation in this task.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

THE SITUATION IN BUGANDA
3.40 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a statement on the situation in Buganda, similar to that which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In recent months two new factors have emerged: one is the
1510
judgment in the case brought in the Uganda High Court to test the validity of the action taken last year by Her Majesty's Government with regard to Kabaka Mutesa II; the other is the agreement reached on constitutional changes at the Conference presided over by Sir Keith Hancock, at the invitation of Lord Chandos. This agreement is being presented to-day to the Great Lukiko. At the same time the Governor is announcing certain proposed changes in the Executive and Legislative Councils of the Protectorate. Both the agreed recommendations and the Governor's proposals are acceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
A copy of the judgment was placed in the Library last week, and the text of the agreed recommendations and of the Governor's proposals is published in a White Paper, of which copies are now available in the Printed Paper Office. Noble Lords will no doubt wish to study it carefully. In his judgment in the case, the Chief Justice, in refusing the declarations and injunctions sought by the plaintiffs, expressed the view that the conduct of the Kabaka last year was such as to justify action by Her Majesty's Government under the 1900 Agreement, but that the action which they did take—with the greatest reluctance, as your Lordships will recall—was mistaken in that it was based on Article 6 of the Agreement.
This judgment and the constitutional proposals for Buganda (which, if accepted by the Lukiko, will settle satisfactorily the points of difference which arose last year) create a new situation in which there is both need and opportunity for a new approach to the question of the Kabaka. Her Majesty's Government have decided, therefore, that, subject to certain conditions and after a suitable interval, the Lukiko should be given the opportunity to choose whether a new Kabaka should be elected or whether Kabaka Mutesa II should return as Native Ruler of Buganda. These conditions are:

(1) The agreed constitutional recommendations to be accepted as a whole by the Lukiko.

(2) Her Majesty's Government and the Lukiko should agree the terms of the Solemn Engagement recommended by the Constitutional Conference to be

1511
entered into by the Kabaka. The amendments to the 1900 Agreement to give effect to the recommendations to be formally executed by the Governor on behalf of Her Majesty's Government and by the Regents and representatives of the Lukiko on behalf of Buganda and brought into effect.

(3) In order that the new arrangements may become well established before the Lukiko is called upon to make its decision in regard to the Kabaka, the choice of the Lukiko to be made nine months after the new arrangements have been brought into effect. Her Majesty's Government will, however, be glad to shorten this period if they are convinced before the end of it that the constitutional arrangements have become well established and are working satisfactorily. Her Majesty's Government will make every effort to ensure that they are brought into effect by March 31, next year.

The Kabaka chosen by the Lukiko will be required to enter into the Solemn Engagement and to sign and thereby confirm the Amending Agreement before he is recognised by Her Majesty's Government. These decisions are today being communicated by the Governor to the Great Lukiko.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I feel sure that any of us would be ill-advised to express an opinion on this announcement without much more careful study than in the nature of things we have been able to give it. I should like to content myself with two observations. In the first place, I think that Buganda and this country are greatly indebted to Sir Keith Hancock for the splendid work he has undertaken and carried through. Secondly, I think it is greatly to the credit of the people of Buganda that, speaking broadly, they have avoided extremism and violence. They have sought by legitimate and proper means to present their case and discuss their grievances. That is greatly to their credit, and it is much more likely to get them what they want than had they proceeded in other ways. I think that, too, might be said. For the rest, I should like an opportunity of looking at these papers most carefully and I think we should do so. I have no doubt the noble Marquess the Leader of the House
1512
will agree that this is the sort of matter which the House would probably desire to debate in the near future.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, Christian opinion, both in this country and in Buganda, and, indeed, farther afield than that, has been deeply and anxiously exercised about this unhappy matter ever since the Kabaka was deported. I have not been able to consult others about the statement now made, but for myself I should wish to express straight away a great sense of relief and a considerable degree of satisfaction. At the very beginning of this distressing business, as I think, mistakes were made on both sides. This statement enables both sides honourably and harmoniously to retrieve those mistakes on a firmly understood constitutional basis. The Government have felt bound to make conditions to be satisfied before the question of the return of the Kabaka is settled. So far as one can judge at an early view, they are reasonable conditions, designed to secure as the first requirement a firm constitutional settlement. I trust that all concerned will set to work to establish this settlement, already accepted by the Africans who worked so admirably with Sir Keith Hancock on the Commission. Then, within a year, and indeed it may be in a shorter time, the way is open for the return of the Kabaka, if his people so desire. As the noble Earl has said, there is still a great need for patience and restraint. I hope that the exemplary patience of the Lukiko and of the people of the Buganda will continue and will earn quickly, as I think now it may, its full reward in a satisfied country and a renewal of complete trust between them and ourselves. I feel that I should wish to say at least this: the statement does enable all to hope for and work for that end together.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question arising out of his statement? Can he say whether the translation into the vernacular of the agreed recommendations of the Hancock inquiry has been completed, and how soon it will be available for study in Buganda?
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I understand that it has been completed and I think it is available for study now.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question arising out of the remarks of the most reverend Primate, who referred to the possibility of a settlement within a year? I should like to know whether the nine months will date from March 31, or whether they will run from the present time. That may be important and it did not seem to be quite clear.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, the nine months date from the time the constitutional arrangements come into force, which we hope will be March 31. In these questions it is difficult always to predict precisely when the date will be, but if the noble Lord will look at the statement again in the OFFICIAL REPORT, I think he will observe that I said that our object is to get the Constitution working satisfactorily before the Kabaka goes back. Should that be possible in less than nine months, my right honourable friend has indicated in his statement that he would be prepared to abbreviate the period, should that seem desirable.

PESTS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, this is by no means the first time that the affairs of the Overseas Food Corporation have engaged the attention of your Lordships. The groundnuts scheme, as it became generally known, has in the past been the subject of much discussion in your Lordships' House and there have been considerable differences of opinion on the subject between noble Lords on these Benches and noble Lords opposite. Whatever past differences there may have been, in my opinion it would be most regrettable if such controversy were to be revived this afternoon. Apart from any lessons that may be learnt from it, we are no longer concerned with the past. Our concern is the future, and it is for the future of this scheme in Tanganyika that this Bill seeks to provide.
1514
Nevertheless, although it is with the future that I wish primarily to deal, I must, in order to present the Bill to your Lordships, make a brief excursion into past history. Your Lordships will recall that in 1951 there was published by the late Government Command Paper No. 8125. This Paper contained proposals for a revised policy in respect of the groundnuts project, and these proposals were implemented later in the same year by the late Government's Overseas Resources Development Act. The late Government decided at that time that the commercial production of groundnuts should finally be abandoned and that the Overseas Food Corporation's future activities should be confined to a scheme of large-scale experimental development, in order to establish the economics of clearing and of mechanised, or partially mechanised, agriculture under tropical conditions. It was also decided that responsibility for that scheme should be transferred from the Ministry of Food to the Colonial Office; and finally, as an indication of the new turn of events, the then Secretary of State took the opportunity to appoint a representative of the Tanganyika Government to the Corporation.
At that time the Corporation's activities were confined to three areas, Kongwa, Nachingwea and Urambo—all of which are in Tanganyika. The Command Paper set out the various proposals for each of these areas. Moreover, it was laid down at that time that the Corporation's experiments in mechanised agriculture were to be continued up till September, 1957, and that Her Majesty's Government should make available £6 million by Annual Votes to cover the Corporation's net expenses and the annual net loss on the Southern Province port and railway. The inevitable result of the decisions taken in 1951 (and I am sure that they were wise decisions) was a large-scale reduction in the scale of the whole enterprise. Certain of the fixed assets were taken over by the Government of Tanganyika. At Kongwa, for example, much of the township, including the hospital, the school, the airstrip and twenty-five miles of road were taken over by the Tanganyika Government. At Nachingwea the majority of the buildings and all the electricity and water stations remained with the Corporation, but the airstrip and the roads were taken over and the

1515
hospital was rented from the Corporation. At Urambo only the airstrip was taken over.
But, of course, a number of other assets, apart from these fixed assets, were rendered superfluous by this reduction in the size of the scheme, and the disposal of these surplus assets has been carried on steadily through the machinery of the East African Disposal Board. As your Lordships will realise, the task of disposing of these vast quantities of material has not been an easy one. In the first place, a proportion of the surplus plant, machinery and vehicles was in poor condition and had, in fact, to be sold as scrap. Moreover, the disposal of these assets was not simplified by the fact that it overlapped the disposal of considerable military surpluses of many competitive goods in East Africa. There were, for example, so many vehicles available that the East African market could not absorb them all at remunerative prices. Finally, it should be remembered that many of the buildings and installations were situated in remote areas, populated only by members of the Overseas Food Corporation and, as a result, had little or no realisable value.
The book value of all the assets declared surplus by the Corporation since 1951 comes to a little over £7 million, of which £2,100,000 represents buildings and installations. Up to the 31st March this year, £1,665,000 had been paid by the Corporation to the Exchequer in respect of the saleable material. Since that date another £410,000 has been realised, and it looks as if there ought to be about another £100,000 gross still to come in. On this basis, the Exchequer should receive something over £2 million. This is undoubtedly a heavy loss, but such a loss was unavoidable in the very nature of the winding up of the scheme.
On the personnel side there have been large-scale reductions in staff. Between 1st April, 1951, and the 31st March this year the number of Europeans employed by the Overseas Food Corporation has fallen from 1,276 to 193. The number of Asians employed has dropped from 174 to 14, and the number of Africans from 18,000 to 4,000. I am glad to say, however, that I understand that the large majority of Europeans originally employed have, in fact, settled down and
1516
made their homes in Africa. In view of the crying need for experienced and active people in East Africa, this is one of the happier features of the run-down and a very satisfactory development which will, in my opinion be of enduring value to Africa. It is a definite asset gained to be set against the losses which we have incurred.
After the late Government's Act, to which I have already referred, the next event was the setting up of a Working Party, prompted by the very energetic Governor of Tanganyika, with the full support of my noble friend Lord Chandos. The function of this Working Party was to study the possibility of closer collaboration in the field between the Overseas Food Corporation and the Tanganyika Government. It reported in January, 1953, and, with minor modifications, both Her Majesty's Government and the Tanganyika Government have accepted the Report. It is this Report that forms the basis of the new arrangements set out in Command Paper 9158 and of the Bill which is before your Lordships this afternoon. So much for the past history. Let me turn now to what the Bill does.
First, a new Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation will be set up to take over responsibility for carrying out the experimental works authorised under the Act of 1951. The Government of Tanganyika have already passed their enabling legislation, and the text of their Ordinance was published as Command Paper 9198. Originally, we hoped that the date of transfer to the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation would be October 1 of this year. Circumstances have made that impossible, and therefore, with the full agreement of the Overseas Food Corporation and the Government of Tanganyika, the date of transfer will now be April 1, 1955. On that date it is proposed that the Government of Tanganyika will appoint Mr. Gillett, the present Chairman of the Overseas Food Corporation, as Chairman of the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation.
Secondly, in order to equip the Tanganyika Agricultural Corporation for the task, all the assets of the Overseas Food Corporation will be vested in it, naturally, with the liabilities that go with them. Thirdly, in order to give recognition to the experimental nature of the Corporation's work, the opportunity is to be taken

1517
to turn it into a Colonial Development and Welfare scheme. The balance of the £6 million earmarked for it for the period from 1951 up to 1957, less a sum of £1¼ million earmarked in 1951 for the railway guarantee (and I will deal in a moment with the financial arrangements for the railway) will therefore be made available to the Tanganyika Corporation through Colonial Development and Welfare machinery. The balance at the 31st March, 1955, when the transfer is to take place, will be of the order of £1,300,000. Your Lordships may be slightly confused by this figure, because it is less than the figure we originally estimated and put in the Bill. The reason for that is that the date of transfer has been postponed to April 1, 1955, instead of October this year. The main feature to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention is the fact that these arrangements will not entail any new money being voted beyond what was foreseen in 1951.
So far as future agricultural development is concerned, it is proposed to develop the three centres of operation in the following way. First of all, Kongwa There, as your Lordships may be aware, the very uncertain rainfall has destroyed any hopes that we originally had about the possibility of developing arable agriculture on a large scale in this particular area. One small arable farm will be, retained, but apart from this it has been decided to concentrate entirely upon ranching, the improvement of cattle strains and research into improvement of pasture. At Nachingwea, where there is better soil than at Urambo, and better rainfall than at Kongwa, efforts will continue on the present lines and scale, with some 20,000 cleared acres. Increasing attention, however, will be paid to African tenant farms. Besides these there are three types of farms here: productive, farms, where the aim is to establish the more efficient method of farming and the most successful crops to grow, including the development of crops new to the district; costing farms, where the operations are carefully costed and timed; and, finally, one or two farms where, at Corporation expense, selected employees, acting in the rôle of pioneer farmers, clear the land and establish themselves as quasi-independent settlers. In this latter case, the object is to find out what
1518
it costs a new farmer to establish himself on his own. Here again, there will be very careful costing.
Nachingwea was the last of the three areas to be opened up, and while subsistence crops such as maize have done well, no economic crop of high value, such as tobacco at Urambo, has yet emerged there. Experiments with flue-cured tobacco are going on, and cashew, a tree crop, may be a valuable stand-by. On the whole, the prospects are encouraging, particularly for the African tenant farming scheme. In addition to that, cattle have been introduced gradually on the farms and have fared well so far. At Urambo, where tobacco growing has been a marked success over the past three or four seasons, the intention is to consolidate the area through settlement farming, with both large-and small-scale units and the long-term objective is to create conditions favourable to large-scale African farming. The intention is to develop up to thirty-eight large-scale farms of about 2,000 acres each. Running concurrently with this scheme will be an African tenant scheme whereby it is hoped to provide 320 tenant holdings occupying about 12,000 acres.
The importance of these plans lies in this fact. Both Urambo and Nachingwea are typical of extensive areas of East Africa, and the results of the experiments that are going on there can be of great importance in the future. The African farming schemes are of the first importance, and it is good to note that they have excited favourable comment from the local Africans, who see in them the way to rise beyond the bondage and penury of the peasant farm of four acres and a hoe.
So much, my Lords, for the agricultural projects. Let me turn now to the proposals for port and railway development. It is a commonplace that pioneer railways in Africa generally have a turbulent beginning, and the port and railway constructed for the original groundnut scheme in the Southern Province of Tanganyika is no exception. As your Lordships will remember, the reason why Her Majesty's Government decided to build a new port and a railway in that area is that the original plan foresaw an export of more than 400,000 tons of groundnuts from the Southern Province by 1952; and at the time there was no

1519
railway, and only a very limited port, in that part of Tanganyika. The construction contracts were let by the managing agents, and when the Overseas Food Corporation took over in 1948 it made arrangements with the East African Railways and Harbours Administration, who were the obvious people to do it, to supervise the construction on the basis of capital advances from the Corporation. It was further agreed that the Railways and Harbours should buy out the Corporation when the work was finished, as soon as they were in a position to find the money. In return, the Overseas Food Corporation, on behalf of the British Government, undertook to guarantee interest and sinking fund on the capital cost to the extent that these were not covered by revenue on local traffic. Naturally, no one expected in those days that the guarantee was likely to be invoked or that, if invoked, it would amount to very much for very long. This guarantee was later extended to cover operating losses.
In 1951, when the then Government decided to abandon the scheme, it was agreed with the East African authorities that, in view of the work already done, and Tanganyika's new development plans for the Southern Province, the port and railway should be completed. The financial arrangements then arrived at, which were incorporated in the tripartite agreement of March 10, 1952, provided for the sharing of the guarantee between Her Majesty's Government and the Tanganyika Government in the proportions of 4 to 1. The guarantee was to cover the net annual operating deficits and, except that it was to be reviewed in ten years, there was no term to it.
When we came to work out with the Tanganyika Government the arrangements for transferring the Overseas Food Corporation to the Tanganyika Corporation, we learned to our dismay from the Railways and Harbours Administration that the capital cost of the port and railway was going to be about £6 million—that is, nearly £1½ million more than the original estimate. The financial arrangements for the port and railway, after the transfer of the Overseas Food Corporation, were already a matter of acute concern; but clearly this increased cost emphasised the serious over-capitalisation of the project and the very heavy nature of the burden with which the
1520
Corporation were saddled under the guarantee arrangements. A conference was held in London, and it ended in agreement that the best way out would be for Her Majesty's Government to waive recovery of so much of the advances by the Overseas Food Corporation to the Railways and Harbours Administration as would reduce the capitalisation to a reasonable figure—that is, to something in the region of £2½ million. In return for this the British Government would be relieved of the liability to advance more money to complete the port and railway (the latter is still not properly finished) and, more important, of its guarantee of the annual operating deficits.
A new tripartite agreement has been prepared, but cannot, of course, be signed until this Bill becomes law. This agreement revokes the 1952 agreement and places on the Railways and Harbours Administration the onus of finding from their own resources the balance of the money required for the port and railway, and it places on the Tanganyika Government responsibility for meeting 100 per cent. of the net operating deficits, including interest and sinking fund, on the revised capitalisation. There is only one thing more that I need say about that matter. I would emphasise that these arrangements were freely negotiated with the East African representatives and have been readily accepted in East Africa, and I think everybody is quite happy about them. Clause 4 has therefore been inserted in the Bill to secure Parliament's approval for the waiver involved, which is the last step required before the new tripartite agreement can be signed.
So far, I have dealt exclusively with proposals relating to development in Tanganyika. I must now leave Tanganyika in order to deal with one clause of the Bill which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Overseas Food Corporation and which in fact concerns the financial affairs of the Colonial Development Corporation. In 1952, when the affairs of the Colonial Development Corporation were being discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, urged that the Corporation should be relieved of the financial burdens which had been imposed upon them by schemes which had had to be abandoned. The noble Lord suggested not only that the

1521
interest on the capital involved should be waived but that the capital losses themselves should be written off. At that time my noble friend Lord Munster agreed that it was unreasonable that the new administration of the Colonial Development Corporation should be required to pay interest for forty years on Exchequer advances lost on schemes which had been initiated by their predecessors, and which had had to be abandoned either by them or by the present administration of the Colonial Development Corporation. My noble friend on that occasion was, however, a little more cautious on the question of the writing off of the capital involved.
Since that date, various things have happened. First of all, my noble friend Lord Chandos discussed the whole of this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and agreement was reached between them on the question of the waiver of interest on Exchequer advances on abandoned schemes. Quite apart, however, from the question of interest, my noble friend Lord Chandos hoped at that time to be able to go further than this and to use the present Bill to write off the capital as well as the interest on some of the earlier schemes; and accordingly Lord Reith was told in August, 1952, that the Government would legislate at the same time not merely for the waiver of the interest but also for the once-for-all writing down of the capital lost on any scheme which had been inherited from the previous administration, and which it had already been (and I emphasise the words "had already been") decided to close down. Later, the closing date was fixed as December 31, 1953, on which date the sum involved would have been in the region of £4 million.
Unfortunately, Lord Reith and the Colonial Development Corporation did not feel that this went far enough. They wished also to write off the losses on some schemes which they felt were over-capitalised and also on some other schemes that had not been abandoned with approval by December 31, 1953. This would have meant, in effect, the writing off of a total amount of some £8 million, as opposed to the £4 million. Their argument was quite understandable. They said that the public would feel that any writing off of capital would mean that the Corporation were starting with a clean slate, whilst in their view this
1522
would not be in accordance with the facts. For our part, we did not feel that we could make this further concession. In our view, the losses on schemes still in operation must be a matter of speculation, and, in the interests of the taxpayer we do not feel that such a step would be justified. At this point I should like to remind the House that the Act does not lay down that the Corporation must meet their capital charges on every individual scheme, but that, taking one year with another, they must meet the service charges on their capital from the whole of their revenue. In other words, the Act envisaged that the unsuccessful schemes should be paid for by the successful schemes. The Government and Lord Reith, therefore, have had to agree to differ on that point but, as a result, Lord Reith and the Corporation declined our proposal to write down the capital by about £4 million and the only action we can therefore take is to remit the interest. That is what Clause 5 does.
I have dealt with the main provisions of the Bill and there is little more that I need say. I hope and believe that the new proposals will provide a sounder foundation for future development in Tanganyika. I am quite certain that the fact that these experiments will be run in future from Tanganyika, rather than from London, will be an advantage. In particular, the new arrangement will make it possible for the new Corporation's work to be co-ordinated much more closely with Tanganyika's own agricultural development projects. The provisions of this Bill, for example, will make it possible for the Tanganyika Government to employ the present field organisation of the Overseas Food Corporation on its own development projects and, by giving it a local status, will enable the Tanganyika Government to make direct use of its services. It will make it possible, also, for the Tanganyika Government to perpetuate the present experiments of the Overseas Food Corporation, if it so desires, beyond 1957.
On the other hand—and on this note I should like to end—the fact that there is to be this new Corporation will not mean that we shall lose the services of those who have gained such invaluable

1523
experience in these matters over the past years. I feel sure that no one could feel anything but confidence in the chairmanship of Mr. Gillett and those who are working with him in Tanganyika in the big enterprise in which they have faced extraordinarily difficult conditions. The loyalty which they have found in their staff, and their general courage and imagination, are all assets which will remain with us in the future; and of course the new railway and port will play an increasingly important part in the general development of the Southern Province of Tanganyika.
With these assets, and with what I believe is a sound scheme, I feel sure that those who are engaged on this great work can go forward with the feeling that they are now firmly established in a vital enterprise, based on careful planning; and we, for our part, can look forward to a steady increase in the development and prosperity of the territory. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Lloyd.)
4.17 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as this is the first occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, has addressed us in his present office, I should like to congratulate him on his transfer to his most interesting Department. I hope he will be as happy in it as I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Munster, was, and as indeed I was. I had a good deal to do with the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, over Welsh affairs, and, as always, found him, as he has shown himself to-day in the speech he has made, clear and honest—and one cannot expect more than that from anyone. He is now following in the Department in which his distinguished father took such a keen interest. Again, as this is the first Colonial debate we have had since the Ministerial change, I should also like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Munster, on his promotion, which in our opinion was very well deserved. He was always co-operative and he has considerable Parliamentary skill, as we often had occasion to observe, especially when he was presenting a weak case which had need of bolstering and pinioning up to make it look respectable.
1524
This Bill, as the noble Lord has just told us, is in two parts, and the two parts have really nothing whatever to do with one another except that they rub shoulders in the same measure. They are perhaps strange bedfellows to find together. The Bill deals with the broad terms of overseas resources, and it is for that reason, I presume, that they are together. Therefore, in a sense, what one has to say on one part is not completely different but is in a different context from what one has to say on the other. One has almost to make two speeches on a Bill of this kind.
As to the part dealing with overseas food, the change in the provisions regarding the duties performed previously by the Overseas Food Corporation and now to be performed by the Tanganyika Corporation, I would remark that we are here dealing with one of the great problems of our age. It is obvious that the traditional peasant agriculture, whether in Africa or in the Far East, with its lack of incentives or opportunity to raise the farmers' standard of living, when combined with Western health measures, cannot do more than it has done already—namely, to increase enormously the population without any corresponding increase in the growth of food to feed the hungry mouths thus produced. It means rural indebtedness; it means a lack of proteins in the diet; it means a constant drift from the country to the towns; it means famine in bad years and bare subsistence in good; it means, in the words of a poem once given to me by cultivators in the new Territories of Hong Kong:
"In the midday we hoe the soil,
There is no ending to our fated toil."
The people must therefore be helped to break out of their vicious circle. We have been trying to help them for years past. That was one of the objects of the original Overseas Food Corporation; it is the only object of the Colonial Development Corporation, and it will be the object of the Tanganyika Corporation.
What are the steps to be taken to this end? I would say that they must include the introduction of mixed farming, of mechanised farming in certain areas, of inland fish farms, of scientifically based sea fishing, of co-operative marketing societies and land banks, of State farms with satellite co-operative and private holdings, of modern methods of forestry,

1525
of a non-profit-making corporation to try out pilot schemes in agriculture, forestry and fisheries, of the encouragement of rural industries and, finally, of the precursor and handmaid of all these proposals—research. To-day, we have before us the Government's proposals with regard to the three areas which were opened up in Tanganyika, and, listening to the noble Lord who, as I say, stated the case very clearly, it was obvious that they had some of the objectives which I have just stated clearly in mind. We learn that in Nachingwea there is to be farming. I was not absolutely certain whether they were going to be very large farms, but presumably they are going to be comparatively small farms. I mention this because when he came to Urambo, the noble Lord said that they were going to be large-scale farms; so presumably in Nachingwea they are going to be comparatively small ones. If this is so, then I strongly suggest to the noble Lord that, both in Nachingwea and in Urambo, he will need a State corporation to provide services for the satellite or small African farmers who will be unable to provide them.
As your Lordships well know, for many years past in this country the services the farmers need have been provided by a number of authorities or private individuals. There are the landowners, the county agricultural committees, the county councils and, throughout the last century or more, a number of authorities who have provided services for farmers. A number of agricultural shows are held, where the farmer can see better methods of agriculture. In Africa there is little of all this, and I feel certain that unless there is in each of these centres a Government demonstration farm, so to speak, where the farmer can see how improved methods of agriculture can be applied to his holdings, from which he can obtain seeds and the services of good stock animals, and which will provide marketing arrangements, then in all probability these farming schemes will fail, or at all events will not be the success that they might have been. If we are going to set up a new system of farming somewhere we must have demonstration farms, and a scheme of marketing and the like, to make the proposal a success. The noble Lord will find that that is so.
1526
On more than one occasion I visited these Colonial territories and spoke to the farmers there. In some places, such as West Africa, there were existing farms with a considerable tradition; and when I suggested that they should introduce new crops or new methods of growing old crops, the answer was always, "You try it first, and if you make a success of it we will have a go. It is no use your coming here and telling us that we can do this, that and the other and then walking away; you do it first." I am perfectly certain that the Corporation will come up against that problem, and I hope that they will establish a central or State farm in each area for that purpose. I do not mean a State farm competing with the farmers, but a farm supplying them with the assistance that they need. Then we are told by the noble Lord that there is to be at Kongwa a ranching scheme. I am not sure whether it will be organised by Africans or by Europeans.
LORD LLOYD: Both. I will explain it in greater detail. It will be organised by both. But one of the most important points here is that there must be the European farming alongside the African, otherwise much of what the noble Lord recommends falls to the ground. The idea is to have European tenants next door to African tenants, and they will develop together, side by side.
LORD OGMORE: At all events. I understand that there are to be farmers. What they are going to be and who they are going to be seems a little uncertain at the moment. What I am getting at is that it is not going to be a State ranching scheme; it is going to be African or European, as the case may be. In that case, I think that the Government have to be most careful about the water level in the area covered by the new Tanganyika Corporation. When I had some responsibility for passing these schemes, I always took a good deal of care to find out what the water level was in the particular area concerned, because though a patch of country may look perfectly sound for grass growing, if the water table is too low beneath the surface, that is to say the calcrete layer is too low beneath the surface for the grass roots to get down into it, then when, the scrub is dug up all that is left is desert. That happened in Kongwa. All you will get is desert, because the grass roots are not nearly so

1527
long as the scrub roots; they will not get down into the water, and the grass plants will die. That is a very important point. Another important feature in Africa is transport. I would strongly advise this Corporation to establish its first ranches along or near the railways and not to push them right into the bush with, as a consequence, the need to establish new and expensive transport.
Leaving that matter, I turn now to the proposals of the Southern Province Port and Railway to which the noble Lord has referred. Much of what he said is true. There has been considerable expense here, as indeed there has been with all railway systems in their beginnings. If one looks at the various proposals of "King Hudson" (as they called him) in this country about 100 years ago, and those of the other railway financiers and pioneers, one discovers that there was a considerable amount of money lost in the early development of the railways here. Far more money was lost on the early developments of the railways in America—British money at that. I was reading the other day the life of J. P. Morgan, the great financier, who was much alarmed at one time at the enormous amount of money which British investors had lost on the United States railways. So one may say that there is nothing novel in the fact that a great deal of money has been spent in developing a port and a railway in this completely new area in Tanganyika. I am quite sure it will help to develop the area and that both port and railway will themselves open up the interior by providing transport to and from it.
Finally, there are the Colonial Development Corporation and the proposals in the Bill affecting that Corporation. The noble Lord has dealt extremely honestly with this part of the Bill and has exactly explained the difference of opinion between Her Majesty's Government and the Colonial Development Corporation. I am on the side of the angels—or on the other side, depending on one's viewpoint. I take the side of the Development Corporation, because I consider it unrealistic to expect the Corporation ever to be able to repay, out of their earnings, large sums of capital, capital not on existing schemes but on schemes which have been abandoned, although abandoned since 1953. We may as well face the facts and write off the amount involved, which in
1528
any case will never be repaid to us, rather than keep these large sums of capital on the Corporation's books and expect them, like Sinbad with the Old Man of the Sea on his shoulders, to stagger through the financial columns of the City with this appalling load. It would be much better and clearer if they were relieved of the burden of these various financial obligations on schemes which have been abandoned. I agree that where schemes are still in existence the Corporation must stand the capital losses—or the gains—that may accrue; but where schemes have been written off and abandoned, even though since 1953, they should be allowed to write off the capital, and Her Majesty's Government should give them that authority.
It may be said (I am sure the noble Lord will not say it, for he is too wise in these matters) by those who have not really thought about it: why should a Corporation of this kind be allowed to abandon capital? If this Corporation can do so, why should not an ordinary limited liability company be allowed to do so? Why should this Corporation not have the same obligations as an ordinary company? The whole point about the Colonial Development Corporation is that they have been undertaking schemes which no limited liability company was prepared to undertake. The Corporation were pioneering in a new field. In different parts of the world they were trying developments which had never been tried before. We must recognise the particular responsibilities and peculiar duties of the Corporation in that respect.
We have to realise, also, when dealing with the Colonial Development Corporation, or the Tanganyika Corporation, that there is no easy road to the development of undeveloped areas, whether Colonial or otherwise. For some Colonies with valuable natural resources remaining to be developed, the pattern in Uganda might be considered. There is there a development corporation, the Uganda Development Corporation, which combines with private enterprises, and sometimes with the Colonial Development Corporation, to carry out schemes which it considers to be for the benefit of the people of Uganda. In various other Colonies and Protectorates there are a few corporations of the same kind. Noble Lords may see particulars of them in

1529
paragraphs 351–357 of the Colonial Report for 1953–54 (Command 9169).
In other Colonies, those which either have no large untapped resources, or, if they have them, lack the financial resources to develop them, I suggest that the pattern has not been found and that serious consideration should be given to the proposal which I made in a speech in your Lordships' House in 1952 on the Colonial Development Corporation. I then suggested that the Corporation should be used as agents by Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, by Colonial Governments, municipalities, marketing boards and the like. I say this because I feel there is a tendency for Her Majesty's Government at present to treat the Corporation largely as a finance house set up to provide finance at comparatively low rates of interest to people who wish to develop the resources of the Colonies. But the Corporation was not intended to be merely a finance house at all. Its objectives are clearly laid down in the Act which brought it into being. If we treat it merely as a finance house, then much of its virtue will go out of it. It can be used in very important ways to provide the sort of managerial, administrative and technical skill which, just as much as finance, is so often required in undeveloped territories. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider that suggestion very seriously. The pattern will differ in various parts of the Colonial territories, but we must learn by our mistakes and not be discouraged by them. The search for success in this difficult but vitally important field mast be unceasing.
4.38 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I find myself in the unusual position of having nothing to disagree with, or to criticise, in the speeches which have preceded mine in this debate. Indeed, the little that I have to say will largely consist of trying to underline some of the morals which I, from my past experience as an administrator, would draw from what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. My intervention, therefore, will be brief. My reason for speaking at all is only to seize this opportunity of reiterating one or two principles which cannot be too often reiterated.
Looking back to January, 1948, it was on the Overseas Resources Development Bill (later the Act) of that year that I
1530
had the privilege of making my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I welcomed that Bill then with certain reservations. I welcome this Bill to-day wholeheartedly, because it represents an acknowledgment that the reservations made by some of us in supporting the Bill in 1948 have been justified by experience. In debate which took place elsewhere on this Bill there seems in some minds to have been a certain amount of confusion as to whether they were taking part in a funeral or a christening. I propose to follow the lead of the noble Lord who opened this debate and to treat it as a christening. As has been said, let us take from the past nothing but its fire, leaving the ashes of dead dreams to rest in peace.
The true beginning of Colonial economic policy is to be found, I suggest, in the speeches of that great Secretary of State, Joseph Chamberlain. It is comforting to know that all of us to-day have accepted the policy envisaged by him. It was as long ago as August, 1895, that he said in one of his speeches:
"I regard many of our Colonies as being in, the condition of undeveloped estates, and estates which never can be developed without Imperial assistance … I shall be prepared to consider very carefully any case which may occur in which, by judicious investment of British money, those estates may be developed for the benefit of their population and for the benefit of the greater population which is outside."
That was said nearly sixty years ago, and Mr. Chamberlain was then enunciating our most modern principles of Colonial development. We know now that to assure Colonial peoples of their right to self-determination is, in the economic sense, pure political "clap-trap." If one sees it, as I see it, in the economic sense, they have to become big enough and strong enough to fight their own economic battles, and the utmost we can do effectively is to help them to help themselves.
We have all learnt a lot since the first Overseas Resources Development Act. What is it that we are trying to achieve? I suppose it is a long-term continuity, a drawing-out—if I may use that term instead of the word "exploitation" which is sometimes misunderstood—of internal natural resources; the attraction of outside investment and so forth. The Colombo Plan method, probably, is the best that we have learnt; and that is to

1531
work with and through local governments (this was a point emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore), the responsibility for the initiation and carrying out of the schemes being theirs. The provision of roads, railways, harbours, water and so on, is essentially a Government responsibility, but I suggest that the local government should exercise control over economic development in order to prevent the undesirable social consequences usually associated with rapid economic change. That, of course, shows the illogicality of pressing on from outside political reforms and self-government too hastily, because if it outstrips economic and educational development the result must be disaster.
The nature, timing and methods of the development process must be in the hands of the local government. In itself, that is the best of training for them. In my opinion there is no hope whatever of successfully bringing to backward peoples the improved standards of living, the peace, prosperity and good government which all men crave for, unless it is recognised in practice that great speed in such a process is utterly impossible. Over the greater part of Asia and Africa, men multiply and land declines. Each year the dis-balance between land and people becomes more perilous. The idea that I want to emphasise is that true Colonial development consists as much in the conservation of resources—especially land—and in prevention of waste, as in new schemes. Food (and this again is a point made by the previous speaker), population and soil conservation are all bound up inextricably together. Study of what caused the downfall of once great countries shows that failure to conserve natural and renewable resources had much to do with their collapse. I know that there is not the same theatrical appeal in conservation of resources as there is in working schemes for miracles in a hurry; but in my opinion, without teaching the lessons of conservation all this Colonial development and expenditure is so much pouring of water into a sieve. The art of using, without using up, natural resources has yet to be learnt by the African. The triple problem which at present baffles the world, and especially the British Empire, is that of how food supplies can be produced for the rapidly
1532
growing population, and how soil conservation, requiring as it does the highest skill and public support, is to become as universal as the situation demands.
A great deal of nonsense is talked, and has always been talked, about the wide open spaces of Africa. The greatest disservice to Colonial development, as I see it, is to spread the idea that political progress and recklessly profuse expenditure of money can solve all problems. It can do nothing of the sort. The human element is the very foundation of every conservation programme, just as it is also the reason for it. And in Africa an almost malignant nature has to be humoured, and the lesson of working with it learned. However, I appreciate that this is not the occasion for a general discussion of Colonial development policy. I welcome this Bill, with its now limited objective and its principle of placing the local Government in charge of developments. In conclusion, may I say that I welcome, too, the measure of relief from interest on capital which has been lost which is given, by Clause 5 of the Bill, to the Colonial Development Corporation. It is not all that they or their sympathisers in this House would wish, but it is a desirable release from some of the intolerable financial burden of early schemes which have failed. My Lords, I support this Bill.
4.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I had intended to intervene only with a few words on the port and railway aspect of this Bill, but one or two things which the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said in his speech should, I think, be elaborated. He mentioned—twice I think—that it was desirable to have European farms alongside African farms, on the ground that, without the example of the European farmer, the African would never learn farming methods. That, I think, was the argument. That seems to me a most surprising doctrine, and, if I may say so with respect, it seems to differ from a great deal of the Colonial Office policy. Why, if that is so, is so much attention being paid in so many of the Colonies to community development? This tremendous effort that is being put into improving African agriculture is being made on the assumption that the African, if he is taught farming methods, will practise

1533
them. I should like the noble Lord to say whether that is accepted Colonial Office policy.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, may I intervene to say that I think the noble Earl has slightly misunderstood me? I did not in the least intend to convey that it was assumed that Africans could never do anything by themselves. I tried to convey that, if there was a European farmer next door, he would often help the African, and that the two would help each other. There is no cardinal principle laid down that we must always have European farmers; but it has always been accepted that a system in which they work alongside African tenant farmers works very well.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I think that doctrine is a very questionable one. It is news to me that it has ever been accepted in Colonial Office circles. It is true that the noble Lord mentioned that in the Urambo scheme there would be European tenants. Can he tell the House exactly what form of tenure he envisages for this scheme? It would be too long to go into a discussion of the land tenure system in Tanganyika and of the extent of the African trust lands and the conditions under which the Government can or would alienate land to Europeans on anything other than a short lease; but I think we should like to be assured that, when the noble Lord speaks of Europeans being allotted land, it is on a short lease and that there is no question of the allotment of freehold land to Europeans.
The noble Lord was very right when he said that a new port and railway could bring enormous and increasing impetus to the development of the Southern part of Tanganyika. I would go further and say that possibly there is no scheme in the eastern half of Africa that offers such possibilities of development in the interior as well as near the coast. Only a few weeks ago I was looking across Lake Nyasa at the mountains where the Colonial Development Corporation have a large coalfield. Tanganyika coalfields have 200 million tons of good coal proved, and the possibilities are that the coalfield contains double that quantity. Africa is deficient in fuels to a disastrous extent. One has only to travel anywhere away from the coast to see the appalling expense of importing oil fuel
1534
for railways and factories far from the sea, or to see wood-cutting on an enormous scale, whereby most vegetation is destroyed in order to find fuel for mines, industry and transport. If the railway ever gets to that coalfield—and I think there is no doubt that it must get there in time—it will make an enormous difference, not only to the southern part of Tanganyika but to the northern parts of Nyasaland and of Northern Rhodesia and all the country between Tanganyika and Northern Rhodesia. There is also the other Colonial Development Corporation scheme, the investigation of forestry development on the Nyika plateau, which was vividly described in the book by Colonel Lawrence van der Post. So far as investigations have gone, the possibility is that soft woods, conifers, can be grown on a large scale for eventual use as pulp for paper. The success of that would depend on ample supplies of fuel being easily obtainable.
There would be other advantages in the opening up of that coalfield. In any part of Africa where there is close settlement there is a land problem. The available land cannot be enlarged, but the population goes on growing at an increased rate. The land cannot be parcelled out among the increasing population indefinitely; therefore, the ultimate solution of overcrowding on the land is development of industries. A start has been made in many Colonial Office territories with light industries, particularly in Kenya, and if fuel and the means of communication were available, there would be opportunity and scope for processing of raw materials and light industries in one of the most undeveloped parts of an undeveloped Continent. I hope the Government realise that this railway and development is one of the things that will not pay, that cannot pay, but that it is essential if we are to make the fullest use of, and offer the fullest opportunities to the inhabitants of, the countries in Central Africa.
4.58 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, in introducing this admirable measure this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said that as a necessary prelude he must go a little into past history. I agree with him, but I assure your Lordships that I am not going to start my

1535
remarks by flogging a dead and odiferous horse through any pleasure in so doing, but simply because it will act as a necessary introduction to the main theme of my speech, which I shall not reach for some little time. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, in a sensible speech, if he will permit me to say so, warned of the necessity of various precautions before embarking on large-scale schemes. I could not help reflecting that those observations might have been applied with much greater justification to his own Government at the time of the passing of the original Act in 1948, because that Act, although admirable in its expressed intention of developing the hitherto untapped resources of Equatorial Africa, could have been, and should have been, even more strongly attacked, for two reasons. The first reason is that it was one of the most ill-conceived measures that has ever been brought before Parliament, inasmuch as it violated practically every tenet of good agriculture, and all those of tropical agriculture.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, spoke of the necessity for an improved system of transport. How right he is! Is it not unfortunate that his own Government did not think it better to enlarge the railway system of West Africa to remove hundreds of thousands of tons of groundnuts that were rotting at the railheads for lack of transport, rather than grow groundnuts in an area in which the soil was not particularly suitable, the climatic conditions, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has said, almost malignant, and the local population not adept in the growing of them? That scheme, however admirably intended, was an example of Socialist planning at its most extravagant, its most inefficient and its most disastrous.
But there is a second angle from which an attack was also justified. The figure of 400,000 tons of exported groundnuts was dangled before us as a bait. I, having no personal knowledge of African conditions, consulted a considerable number of friends and acquaintances who had, and they were all agreed that such a figure could be considered only as a moonbeam from the larger lunancy. But they were also agreed that, even were such exports possible, it would be morally wrong to take anything like that amount
1536
away from Africa, in view of the clamant need for a rise in the standard of living, and particularly in the standard of nutrition of the people there. Although I have no personal experience of the African in Africa, I have some considerable experience of him in the West Indies. I have watched him work, and I have listened to the usual complaints that he is idle. Careful observation has convinced me of the fact that the so-called idleness in nine cases out of ten is a combination of two things: first, the climate; and secondly, and much more important, the effects of malnutrition and undernourishment. There is, unfortunately, I fear, no reason to suppose that the conditions among the Africans in Africa are very different.
When one considers the great successes that have been achieved by African athletes, be they Jamaicans, citizens of the United States, or indigenous Africans, when they are provided with adequate diet, one can conclude only that the fact, which I believe has been proved, that even in Africa the African soldiers have only about two-thirds of the manual power of the white soldiers, is a sure proof that what is wrong is inadequacy of diet. Such inadequacy may be, and sometimes is, a lack of the actual necessary amount of food, but more often it is a question of the kind of food. In both Africa and the West Indies the main diet of the African is, I believe, of a carbohydrate nature, and he receives nothing like enough protein to give him a balanced diet and to provide the necessary energy. Therefore, the first thing that any development scheme should do is to try to raise the standard of living and the standard of nutrition. That is why I hope that our present Government will, when the time comes, insist on the Tanganyika Government not only continuing but intensifying their experiments, along, of course, sound lines, such sound lines being experimental power schemes, which were so sadly lacking in the original project.
If we are going to get that peaceful and successful development of Africa which we must all desire, we must realise that there are two factors which will imperil it. First, there is the continuance and, indeed, the expansion of the damnable doctrine of Apartheid. Secondly, there is the belief of the African that continued association with, and partial

1537
dominance by, the white man means that he can never hope for a genuine rise in his standard of living, but that the products of his country are going to be for all time coming exported for the benefit of those overseas. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, say that the schemes—the, more or less, pilot schemes—contemplated include cattle-rearing, which is most necessary. Those of your Lordships who have done big game hunting in Africa, or who have read books about it, will know of the apparently inordinate desire of the African for meat when the hunters make it available. There have been many somewhat humorous descriptions of their craving for it. Few, if any, of the authors have realised that such a craving is not due to actual greed, but to a biological urge for meat which they all too seldom receive. Therefore, if we are going to raise the standard of living and the standard of nutrition, we have to educate the Africans to the growing of crops and the raising of stock which will improve their diet.
It is, of course, true, as the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said, that the conservation of existing agriculture is at least as important as the development of new areas. But I think the noble Lord will agree with me that the existing areas cannot for long—if, indeed, they do at present—provide adequate nourishment for the ever-increasing population of Africa, the credit for which increase is almost entirely due to the white man, inasmuch as he has prevented inter-tribal wars and has introduced schemes of medical assistance and hygiene. But we are faced there, as in other parts of our Empire, with the tremendous problem of an ever-expanding population, and resources which up to the present have diminished rather than expanded equally. So the proposals under this Bill should not be considered merely as something that ought to be continued, and possibly slightly extended. I hope that Her Majesty's Government have resolved that there will be a considerable extension of these pilot schemes at an early date, so that we can see, within a measurable distance of time, a proper conservation of the existing known resources of Africa and a great development of those that remain still to be tackled, because only by so doing shall we bring about that progress that we all desire and show ourselves worthy of our trusteeship.
5.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, for his extremely clear explanation of the Bill and of the Government's reasons for it. His explanation does him special credit, because he has been only a few weeks in his new Department. This debate has been remarkable for one thing. Apart from the first part of the speech to which we have just listened—which, if I may say so, I thought was slightly out of tune with the rest of the debate—we have had a fairly long discussion of the operation of the Overseas Food Corporation in Africa without any "cracks" from either side about groundnuts. I am sure that we all agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said at the beginning of his remarks; that this is a stale controversy which should now be written off. For my part, I want to deal only with one matter in this Bill, and I should like to discuss it rather more fully than it has been discussed hitherto, though not at great length. I refer to the policy of the Government in regard to the financial liabilities of the Colonial Development Corporation. The intentions of the Government, which were clearly explained by the noble Lord, are set out in Clause 5 of the Bill, which remits payment of interest on undertakings which the Corporation have decided to abandon.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will agree that the attitude of the Government to the liabilities of the Corporation is a matter of the first importance because (and this is obviously the main reason) the work which the Corporation is able to do depends largely upon its financial position. At the moment it is heavily in debt to the Treasury. The obligation to repay these debts in full has prevented it for the last three years from doing the work which it was set up by Parliament to do. If the Government wish it to go on with this work, the promotion of undertakings of marginal profitability in the Colonies, they must start by removing the burden of debt accumulated in the earlier years of the Corporation's existence. This is not the occasion—and I certainly will not treat it as an occasion—to discuss the future of the Corporation, or even new methods of financing its business. I hope that we shall have an opportunity of discussing these

1539
matters of broad policy at an early and convenient date, possibly soon after the next Annual Report of the Corporation has been published.
This Bill has given the Government a chance of reducing the Corporation's indebtedness, and I am not at all satisfied that the Government have taken full advantage of this limited opportunity. Let us see what the Government have done, and how it compares with what they might have done. It was stated in another place—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, repeated the statement this afternoon—that the amount of interest to be remitted will be in the neighbourhood of £200,000 a year. I am not sure whether the noble Lord mentioned that figure, or whether he merely said that it was the interest on the capital sum of about £4 million. But he will agree that the amount will be in that neighbourhood.
LORD LLOYD: I should like to put the noble Earl straight on that point. I said the capital sum. We were talking of two separate things. There was a waiver of interest, and I did not mention any figure for that. I then said that, in addition to that, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, hoped to write off a certain amount of capital involved in schemes that had been abandoned before a certain date, and £4 million was the figure for that.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am obliged to the noble Lord for making his own position absolutely clear, and I apologise for having, quite unintentionally, misrepresented him. At the same time, I am sure he will find, if he studies the. Ministerial statements which were made in another place, that the figure of approximately £200,000 as the amount of interest was mentioned. Of course, I do not expect him to reply to that proposition until he has had time to look up the debate in another place.
The Government propose to waive the interest on this capital sum of about £4 million advanced by the Treasury, and the noble Lord admitted that this was not what the Corporation had, in the first instance, asked for. The noble Lord, and the Secretary of State before him, made it perfectly plain that the Corporation had hoped to be released from a much heavier obligation. It had asked first to
1540
have a capital loss of about £8 million written off. This sum, of course, included losses on over-capitalised schemes which are still going concerns and which may be remunerative later on, as well as losses on projects that have been wound up and abandoned. The Government, as the noble Lord has pointed out, would agree to write off only the interest due on the total failures. This offer would have written off only half the capital sum from which the Corporation needed release, and was not a very generous compromise; and I am not at all surprised that it was turned down by the Corporation. The Corporation does not want to give a false impression of being able to go on from here with a clean slate, and the noble Lord fairly stated the reason why the Corporation had not accepted the Government's offer. This is a perfectly understandable attitude on the part of the Corporation, but I am not at all sure that it is wise. It means that the capital lost in the total failures will still have to be repaid at a later date. I hope the Corporation will think again, if it is not too late.
I should like to ask the Government a question on this point. It would, of course, be too late for the Corporation to think again if the Government were unwilling to re-open this matter with them. I should like to ask the noble Lord now—and perhaps he will be able to answer me when he replies to the debate—whether, if the Corporation so desires, the Government would agree to further discussions about the remission of capital in schemes that have been finally wound up and abandoned. This difficulty would not have arisen at all if the Government had been a little more generous at the start. I cannot understand why they were not more helpful about the partial failures. The whole of the capital invested in these schemes—which are admittedly partial failures—will never be recovered, even if they continue to operate and eventually start earning.
In this respect, the Corporation is at a great disadvantage as compared with the private limited liability company. If the Corporation had been a private company it would have written down its ordinary shares by the amount of the capital depreciation. But it cannot do this with public money. Its rigid capital structure puts it at a considerable disadvantage as compared with private enterprise. I cannot see how the Corporation

1541
can ever hope to pay its way unless the Government enable it to do what commercial companies are able to do in the normal course of business—that is, to get rid of dead capital. The Government have not done this in the Bill. The Corporation will continue to carry at least £8 million of capital debt, plus the annual interest on half of this sum, for only half has been written off under the terms of the Bill.
I cannot help feeling that the Government sometimes lack a proper sense of proportion about their capital expenditure. That is not the fault of the noble Lord opposite—it is the fault of other and senior members of the Government who take these decisions. It appears that the Government are willing to spend several million pounds on providing the public at home with the visual equivalent of "Housewives' choice" or "Workers' playtime," but at the same time refuse to spend the same amount of money to give steady employment and decent wages to our fellow citizens overseas. In this matter of priorities and the question of the right proportions in the expenditure of public money, the Government should surely give public opinion a lead. They could do this by saying that they put necessities for the Colonies in front of luxuries at home. I cannot see how, if they fail to take this course, we can hope to keep the Commonwealth together. This seems to me to raise a fundamental issue of Commonwealth and Colonial policy in which we must all (and I am not blaming the Government alone for this), to whatever Party we belong, carefully scrutinise our own consciences.
5.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, the remarks of my noble friend Lord Mansfield on the necessity of animal products in the African diet emboldens, me to ask a few short questions of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary as to certain experiments which might be carried out by the Corporation in the introduction of new breeds of cattle to Africa, particularly those which have been developed in the desert part of America. In Texas, on lands where your Lordships would hesitate to pasture a camel, I saw the Santa Gertrudi breed, a breed which is three-eighths beef shorthorn and three-eighths Indian bramah. It is an extraordinary animal
1542
of vast size, good quality meat, tick-resistant, heat-resistant and which seems to live on absolutely nothing. That is a type which, if one could use it in Africa, would obviously revolutionise agriculture in certain areas. That type has been produced only because the King ranch out there has spent a generation of tremendous thought, time and money in producing the Santa Gertrudi true breeding type of cattle. When, under a former Government, I tried to bring these remarkable developments to the attention of the Colonial Office, the answer I received was: "We are doing very interesting experiments ourselves." But, of course, any of your Lordships who has indulged in animal breeding will know that, nature being what it is, it is impossible to set a new type of cattle to produce bulls which will breed true in under a generation. If we are going to make our own cross-breeds suitable for raising the standards of the cattle in Africa, we shall be delayed for a generation.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that at one place in Kenya there have been very successful experiments on the lines which he has indicated? The trouble there was that, when the animals Were passed out to the African farmer or smallholder, very often he did not look after them. The whole point of having the better type of animal was lost, because it readily became a prey to all sorts of troubles which were nothing to do with its breed but arose because it was not looked after in a proper manner.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Of course I am well aware of those extremely interesting experiments, but the point I am making is that we can catch up with a generation of experiments if we are prepared to spend some dollars on introducing these new breeds and then go in for intensive in-breeding. You cannot distribute a few cattle among ignorant farmers and just hope for the best. If has to be done, in the early days, under expert, probably European, auspices. When I say that the type of land in the part of Texas to which I have referred is such that in bad years they spray the cactus with blowlamps to kill the prickles, and then the cattle eat what is left, your Lordships will see that they are breeding a very hardy type. I am venturing to ask your Lordships to

1543
bring this matter to the attention of the Colonial Office in the hope that we can save a generation in improving the type of African cattle by using the results of experiments with these Santa Gertrudi and other breeds. I may say that, while I was impressed by what I saw on the spot, I could hardly believe what I was told when I took the trouble of visiting the Department of Agriculture in Washington, the department dealing with animal husbandry: that the claims for these breeds were absolutely true and had been closely supervised by the department.
5.23 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I think the debate that we have had on this Bill, which has ranged rather wide, as debates in your Lordships' House usually do, has been valuable in a number of ways. In particular, it has shown an almost universal appreciation of the problems that have to be tackled. If we cannot be unanimous on anything else, it is at any rate something to have unanimity about the difficulties that we are up against, even if we cannot always agree on how they should be overcome. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, dealt with these problems in a great deal of his speech. If I may say so, I agreed with nearly everything he said, though not quite everything, for that would be rather unusual. I think he was fair enough to admit that a good deal of what he wants to see done in Africa, not nearly as much as he wants but quite a bit, is already being done.
He spoke of the farming schemes, and particularly the tenant farming schemes that are going on. He suggested that, for example, they were much smaller in Nachingwea than they were at Urambo. I should like to explain to the noble Lord as best I can what the policy is and what the problem is—I know, of course, that he appreciates the problem, but this is the policy. Obviously, the whole object of this scheme is to improve African farming by introducing Western methods. I entirely agree with him on the point he made, that it is no good trying to hand it over to the Africans. Perhaps that is the point that was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. But my noble friend was on another point: that it is necessary to produce the cattle and train the Africans to look after them
1544
properly. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, if I understood him aright, is that it is essential to prove the methods first before we can hand over on any scale to the African people. I am sure that that is right. Even if it were not right, it would not be any use doing anything different, because the African will not take on anything unless it is something that is first proved, which he can carry on with.
The first stage was the groundnuts scheme and all that went with it—I hope noble Lords opposite will not mind my referring to that. The first stage was an attempt to solve the problem of what one could grow there, and to show that what one could grow there was not merely a subsistence crop but an economic crop which would bring prosperity to the African farmer. I do not pretend that that problem has been entirely solved, and even less that research is at an end, or that there is not an enormous field yet to be explored in plant research, grass research, cattle research and every kind of research to see whether we cannot produce, by cross-breeding and so on, crops that will grow better than the existing strains do. A certain amount has been achieved, in that we have discovered, for example, that we can grow tobacco for flue-curing, which has a considerable local market. If it can be developed, we hope that it will have an export market as well, though we have not got that yet.
The second stage is when a certain crop is introduced to the African, it having been proved that it will grow. Africans are shown how to grow it. Inevitably their holdings in the first place tend to be very small. I think the noble Lord opposite would like to have details of the sort of thing that is going on at the moment with these African tenant holdings. For example, in Nachingwea, where the O.F.C. is trying a Visiting Tenant Scheme, the tenants come for the agricultural season. They arrive after the rains and they see it through until the harvest. It started with thirty tenants on farms of between eight and sixteen acres of arable land. The number of holdings was later increased to sixty-one and some of the tenants in their second year were given double holdings of from twenty-five to thirty-seven acres. Twenty-five

1545
holdings made a profit on the first season and only five a loss.
LORD OGMORE: Is this tobacco only, or is the noble Lord speaking of other crops as well?
LORD LLOYD: No: I am speaking of Nachingwea, not of tobacco in Urambo. I will give the noble Lord, if he is interested, the actual figures of the profits and losses, but I will not weary your Lordships with all the figures in regard to Urambo. The pattern is a co-operative farming scheme in which the farmer and his family reside on the farm throughout the year. That is different from Nachingwea, because Nachingwea at the moment has a Visiting Tenant Scheme where tenants come only for the season. At Urambo the farmer and his family live there the whole year round. There, the scheme began with eleven farms, ranging in size from seventeen to sixty-seven acres of arable; and in the next season, when the size of farms was reduced to fifteen acres, twenty-seven farms were let. There again, the results show more profit than losses. However, all this is on a very small scale. Where I confused the noble Lord, or where perhaps the noble Lord confused himself, was when I was talking about the 2,000 acre farms at Urambo. But that is the ultimate objective; that is clearly in the future. I do not think it would be possible to expect Africans to take over farms on that scale until they have proved themselves on the smaller-scale farms. That is what is happening.
While I am on this matter, may I deal with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who seemed to think it was a revolutionary doctrine that any white or European farmer should be allowed near the farm of an African. I cannot understand the noble Earl's point there. He seemed to think that the Overseas Food Corporation was selling freeholds to European farmers. That is not so at all; they are purely leases. In point of fact, if it were not for European farmers, it would be almost impossible economically to carry on. As I have explained, most of the African farms must initially he very small, and it would be impossible to get the full area going unless there were European farms, because in Africa European farmers are able to take on a much greater acreage than the African farmers. There is no question of the
1546
European ousting the African; in point of fact, experience shows that the two work well together. The African likes to see what the European is doing, and I think it is essential economically that that should be so at this stage.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Could the noble Lord say what the length of lease is?
LORD LLOYD: The Overseas Food Corporation lease the farms—incidentally, with the consent of the Tanganyika Government—for a period of ninety-nine years, reviewed at intervals of thirty-three years. I do not think that is unreasonable. One could not expect any person to take on a farm unless he had a definite length of tenure, especially in conditions like these. I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords as to the general character of these African tenant schemes. Of course they will differ in various areas, and they will, one hopes, expand as the Africans get more confidence in these small farms.
On the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made, with which again I am in entire agreement, about having central facilities for ploughing, for fertilisers and so on, I may mention that such facilities already exist, both in Nachingwea and Urambo; it is the basis of the whole of the African tenant scheme. May I say a word about Kongwa? One noble Lord asked me, I think, whether the ranching at Kongwa was carried out entirely by Europeans. The answer is that at the moment it is carried out by the Corporation, the reason being that it is a new experiment and there is still a great deal to be discovered about pasture and things like that. But they are beginning now to try to get small tenant farms with the local tribe—some people called the Wagogo, who are cattle people—and gradually to introduce the tenant scheme for ranching as well. But that is in its infancy; it is just beginning. Hitherto, the whole of that area has been ranched by the Corporation.
LORD OGMORE: I am grateful for the most interesting and valuable statement that the Minister is making, because on the success of this sort of scheme our hopes depend. But, getting away from ranching, is there some organisation actually in being to provide the African tenant farmer with the sort of services

1547
which I suggested to the noble Lord? Can the noble Lord say anything about that?
LORD LLOYD: In Urambo the Corporation has its own farms and its own implements which can be, and are, let out to African tenants.
LORD OGMORE: Will that continue when the Tanganyika Corporation takes over? Will the sort of services which we understand have been supplied by the Overseas Food Corporation be continued by the Tanganyika Corporation?
LORD LLOYD: That is the intention, at any rate until 1957. Of course, the late Government's scheme was due to end in 1957. The new arrangements will enable the Tanganyika Government to continue the scheme if so desired. Whether or not they will so desire it, is not for me to say this afternoon. But certainly until 1957 this will carry on exactly as before.
Now perhaps I may turn to the question of the Colonial Development Corporation, about which both the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, have had something to say. I thought the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, chastised us rather on this matter. I do not think that he has read the Act, because if he will look at that, he will see that his own Government imposed upon the Corporation the duty of making both ends meet, taking one year with another. The noble Earl may now say that he was entirely in error, but the fact remains that it was his Government which settled this financial structure and imposed this particular obligation on the Corporation. I know the views of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on this matter. Both noble Lords are in agreement on the point that more money should be spent on schemes which, quite frankly, give very little chance of any financial return; and they both felt, I think, that the present financial structure is too rigid, and that it inhibits the Corporation too much from undertaking the sort of scheme which they believe it was set up to undertake.
As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said, perhaps this is hardly the occasion to go into what is the basic issue of payments in regard to the whole of the Colonial Development Corporation, but I am
1548
bound to say that in so far as the Colonial Development Corporation does go in for what people would call "finance house schemes," it does so in order to enable it to carry on a proportion of the sort of schemes which I think both noble Lords had in mind, namely, pioneer schemes of a highly speculative nature—it may be agricultural, industrial, or hotels. Those schemes could not be financed unless a proportion of the Corporation's money was invested in schemes which brought in a greater return, and it was, as I said earlier this afternoon, the intention of the noble Lord's own Act to see that the successful schemes should pay for the unsuccessful ones. If the noble Lord is saying that the whole policy of the Act should be amended and that there should be a change in the policy, that is a major issue and one which I personally should find it difficult on any account to agree with, because, after all, this is the taxpayers' money, and to give a complete and unlimited licence to the Corporation to lose as much money as they like without reference to anybody, seems to be a very broad mandate indeed. Certainly the Government did not take that view at the time, and I very much doubt whether we take a different view now.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I do not know whether I can save the noble Lord a good deal of time and energy by saying that I do not suggest that the Act be radically altered. I should be much more content to leave these matters of broad policy to another occasion.
LORD LLOYD: Then I will say no more, except to remark that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, suggested that we were providing luxury facilities in this country but were not doing enough for the Colonies. I may say that the provision of wigs and things like that under the Health Service was a luxury service, and very large sums have been expended. Suffice it to say that I, personally, regret that we are not writing off the £4 million. But, as has been said, one has to draw the line somewhere, otherwise it would be very difficult to say when a scheme was abandoned and when it was not. It would make it very easy for any corporation to say at any moment that they were going to abandon a scheme and were going to write off the capital.
LORD OGMORE: I agree that it is very difficult, but what I said was that if a

1549
scheme were abandoned the capital should be written off, whether that was before the date the noble Lord gave—which was in 1953—or not. That was my point.
LORD LLOYD: Our view is that unless you draw a line somewhere, it becomes almost impossible to establish a principle of that kind. Finally, I was personally very interested in what my noble friend said about cattle. As one who has taken some interest in breeding matters I know a little of what my noble friend was talking about. I am advised that the particular cattle breed to which he referred, Santa Gertrudi, are considered by experts to be still too exotic for conditions in Tanganyika. Whether or not that is true I do not know, but I am very interested and certainly intend to find out more about it, because if one can produce such a strain of cattle which one can ranch (and we have proved one can ranch in Kongwa) it may have remarkable results.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: Would the Lord say what he means by the word "exotic" in this connection?
LORD LLOYD: The cattle would not be tough enough to exist out there. But I have heard what the noble Lord has said about blow lamps and cacti.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: Is the noble Lord aware that Santa Gertrudi cattle have been introduced into Jamaica with satisfactory results?
LORD LLOYD: It is a question of standing up to disease. I do not pretend to be an expert on what they may have to stand up to in Tanganyika, but I will advise the noble Viscount, because I feel that he is raising something important in this matter.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Lord whether he can reply to the question I asked him about the willingness of the Colonial Office to reopen discussions with the Colonial Development Corporation concerning the writing off of capital loss in schemes completely abandoned? I did not give the noble Lord notice of this question. If he cannot answer it now, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have a reply in writing later on.
LORD LLOYD: Obviously the noble Earl could not expect me to give an
1550
undertaking about that this afternoon. I do not think he does. My own feeling is that it would perhaps be difficult to reopen the Colonial Development Corporation's demand for £8 million, although I think the £4 million demand is still open. That is my impression. I will certainly look into the matter and let the noble Earl have a reply as soon as I can. I will conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I hope they will now give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL DOCK LABOUR SCHEME
5.43 p.m.
LORD AMMON LORD AMMON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the experience of the ten years' working of the National Dock Labour Scheme, they will appoint a Commission to inquire whether the Scheme needs revision; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is not my intention to rake over the embers of recent discussions with regard to trouble at the docks. I am concerned only to show some reasons why, in my view, the time has come for an inquiry of a kind wider and more definite than has hitherto been held. There must be something fundamentally wrong when a scheme of this kind the largest social and industrial experiment in any part of the world, appears to have become bedeviled, as frequently it has, by the intransigence of those for whom it was brought into effect.
The scheme came into operation, preceded by the National Labour Corporation, the setting up of which was a wartime expedient introduced by Mr. Bevin, then Minister of Labour, in order that the men could be brought under some control and ordered from place to place where their work was needed. The first inquiry was held in 1945, and it is important to notice how subsequent events have followed the same line. I was appointed chairman of that inquiry, which was to investigate the London dock dispute, and at which both the employers' side and the unions were represented. On that Committee were Mr. Deakin and the leader of the docks section of the Corporation, as well as a member of the stevedores'

1551
society. After sitting for some time and hearing all the evidence the Committee brought in a unanimous decision:
"The Committee of Inquiry unanimously consider that the strike was wholly unwarranted particularly as there is established machinery capable of dealing with any matter in dispute."
The finding in that Report has been repeated again and again by various committees of inquiry set up in the intervening years. From 1947 to 1949 there were no, fewer than four major strikes, and inquiries were set up with regard to each of them. All brought in findings almost identical to that which I have given noble Lords. Following the trouble in 1949, a Committee of Inquiry was appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Frederick Leggett, a distinguished civil servant with unrivalled experience on industrial questions and at one time Chief Industrial Commissioner of the Ministry of Labour. Sir Frederick was also called out to Canada and other countries to help in similar matters. He said that, given good will and mutual trust, there was ample joint machinery for settling all differences without interruption of work. That comment has been constantly repeated by others. It was repeated even in the Report of the Evershed Committee, which had very limited terms of inquiry.
The scheme was introduced to do away with casual labour at the docks. Conditions at the docks then were a disgrace to any country, with men having to fight like wolves to get jobs and often being sent away without any work or satisfaction. This scheme was introduced to put work at the docks on a similar footing to work in other industries, after discussions on both sides of the industry, with Government participation, and after the whole scheme had been sifted and ventilated. The scheme had its origin in the brain of the late Ernest Bevin. I recall that as far back as 1915, when he and I went to a Labour convention in America as delegates of the Trade Union movement here, he was then dreaming of forming a transport and general workers federation (which had not then come into being) and a scheme in which dockers would be placed on terms of equality with other people.
That scheme came into operation and, to quote Sir Frederick Leggett, who pointed out, with his unrivalled experience, what the scheme is:
1552
"In no other industry is there the combination of a guaranteed weekly wage with the practical limitation of the work to registered men which is now found in the London docks. The pre-war casual conditions created suspicion and distrust between employers and workers, and it was not to be expected that these feelings would cease to exist automatically with the swift transition in conditions of employment from one extreme to the other. As we were told, more than once, 'Dockers have long memories.'"
Not only have the dockers benefits not enjoyed by any other industry, but they also have a welfare system which, with the possible exception of that of the miners, is unequalled in any other industry. They are not only assured against the difficulties of unemployment, but when they are unemployed they are paid. The principle is, "work, or pay." That is roughly the conception of conditions of employment as they obtain in the docks to-day. Yet we have this trouble again and again.
What is the cause of it? Right through, without exception, on every occasion, the same little knot of troublemakers have appeared. Time after time they have created disturbances that have upset the country to a tremendous extent. The natural question arises from this: How then is it that they manage to get away with it as they do? Surely there must be a large number of men working in the docks who appreciate how much better conditions are than they used to be. It is true that there are a large number of men who do know that, but the extraordinary thing is that we used to have men coming to us at the Dock Labour Board and asking why they were striking. We have to face the facts as they are, and something has to be done to deal with them. Sir Frederick Leggett, with his unrivalled experience, saw, as did some of us also, where to a great extent the trouble lay. I am going to risk reading at some length what is said in the Report of his Committee of Inquiry in support of the suggestion that members of an unofficial group have played an important part in the trouble.
The strike of April, 1950, as your Lordships will remember, was a strike led by Communists who had been imported over here. They came here for that purpose, and they fled directly they had accomplished their aim. But the unofficial group in this country played their part,

1553
and with regard to them the Report of the Committee said this:
"We have met most of these men in the course of our inquiry and we have received a good deal of first-hand evidence about their activities. We find their contention utterly unconvincing. It is our belief that those who direct the activities of the unofficial group have no interest whatever in strengthening and reforming the organisation of their respective unions. Indeed, many of them do not appear to have taken the trouble to inform themselves about the constitutional working of the unions, In our view they are more concerned to disrupt the working of the port as often and as seriously as possible than they are to improve dock workers' conditions."
Naturally, when one reads that one wonders how it is that these comparatively few people can cause trouble such as that which we have had quite recently. Here is the reason, in the words of the Report:
"It may be relevant here to describe the technique used by the unofficial leaders in staging a strike. The first step is usually the summoning of a mass meeting 'on the fields' just before either the morning or the midday call. The more level-headed men stay away from these meetings, and those who attend seldom represent anything like a majority of the workers in the area. After some inflammatory speeches, a resolution to stop work is carried, this process being helped on occasion by prolonging the meeting until it is too late for those present to attend the call …"
We can see something of that kind even in your Lordships' House to-night. I continue with the quotation:
"or until only a few supporters remain. Although it may be that only a small proportion of the workers concerned may have voted for a stoppage this has usually been a sufficient nucleus to start the trouble. Indeed, false statements are often made that a stoppage has already commenced. Once a stoppage has reached substantial proportions, the tendency is for many of the men, particularly those living at a distance from their work, to stay at home and wait for news of a resumption from the Press or the wireless."
That extract gives us some idea of the position that is created by these people. What are we going to do to stop it? A Board has been set up, and that organisation and its work have met with approval. One thing is certain and that is that the men do not want to lose the scheme. They want to retain the conditions that obtained of casual labour plus those that have come under the organised scheme. In fact the last strike but one was a strike against discipline. That is one of the things that has to be faced. It is no good simply appointing committees, as we have appointed committees again and again.
1554
They have brought in some report condemning the people who are to blame, yet nothing is said or done afterwards: the strikers go back, holding the initiative, and on their own terms that there should be no victimisation. That has happened every time. And it is not with the good will or even the desire of all the persons concerned.
One of the things that I think should be considered is this. My experience has shown that the Board must be masters in their own house. Interference by the Government in the last strike injured the prestige and tended to ruin the authority of the Board. If that had not happened, we should not have been faced with this recent trouble, for it was the first time that a definite lead had been given. The men would have welcomed that lead, but interference by the Government threw over the authority of the Board and brought about the trouble. Surely it is only right that if a Board is appointed to carry on a big industry like this, that Board should be trusted and treated like any other Board or any other authority in any other industry. That, I suggest, is one of the points that must be reviewed.
Then there is the question of discipline which I have already couched upon. That matter will have to be taken into consideration and given attention. I think one of the reasons why so many of the dockers appear to have been so blind to the advantages of the scheme is the prevalence of work for all. That has dimmed their vision. They tend to forget what the old conditions were like, and they do not properly appreciate the advantages of the present scheme. It is hard to bring home those advantages to the younger men; it is hard to make them understand what the conditions were like at one time. The older men, unfortunately, are not going to bother about it: they want to keep the scheme, but when trouble arises they withdraw. There is also the question of redundancy. That, too, must be gone into. Undoubtedly, in many docks in this country large numbers of people are carried on the books who are no longer competent and able to do a proper day's work, and who cannot carry out ordinary duties. Attention will have to be given to them, either in the way of pensions or some other way, so that they may fall into line.
My Lords, those are some of the problems as I see them. This country cannot

1555
afford this constant strain on its resources. It cannot continue to tolerate its social life being so frequently affected by this continual repetition of trouble in the docks. Our most recent experience is not the last which we shall have. As soon as matters settle down and the troublemakers feel that the time is ripe, then trouble will start again. The situation calls for the exercise of authority, courage and direction. Those who are in charge of the industry have got to be trusted and equipped with the proper power and authority. I, for one, am prepared to say that this is no criticism of the administration, because I know something of it myself and I know they are confined, hampered and hindered in taking steps; there is always the danger of being let down and of finding themselves in a difficult position.
This scheme has run for ten years. At the end of that time, is it at all unreasonable to say that there may be some reason to examine the machinery of a scheme which has brought about a violent revolution in our social and industrial life, to overhaul it and see whether or not something can be done to bring it up to date and make it work smoothly and efficiently? That is all I am asking at the present time, and it is difficult for me to see how there can be any objection to it. Again and again we have had the experience of appointing committees of able and experienced people. They have brought out reports, which have been forgotten so soon as the trouble was passed. The last trouble cost the country £200 million. Over and above that, we must remember that ships are leaving this country to call at ports abroad. All these are matters which I think your Lordships can consider in the objective manner which is possible in the atmosphere of your Lordships' House. Perhaps we can give a lead to the country which would be to the economic, the spiritual and the moral advantage of the country as a whole. I beg to move for Papers.
6.2 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I should like to offer your Lordships a few observations on the important matters which the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, has brought before the House in presenting the Motion which stands in his name.
1556
As we all know, the noble Lord has had a great, one might even say unique, experience of these matters. No one, I am sure, would wish to question his genuine interest in the welfare of the ports and, more particularly, of the workers who are employed there. He has spoken with studied moderation. Without necessarily agreeing with everything he has said, I hope Her Majesty's Government will give careful consideration to the request which he has made.
The Dock Labour Scheme, as it stands to-day, was not introduced as an agreed Scheme. The employers had embodied their views and a series of proposals in a full and carefully considered memorandum. Their proposals were not accepted. The Scheme was imposed by the Government on the basis of the experience that had been gained under three schemes which operated during the war: a scheme for the Mersey, a scheme for the Clyde and the scheme to which the noble Lord more particularly referred, under the control of the Dock Labour Corporation, which covered London and the other ports. I say it was imposed; but it was accepted by everyone concerned with great good will. As the noble Lord has said, it represented a daring experiment of a quite novel character, and I join with him in saying that it is surely not surprising that the experience of the past seven and a half years, or whatever period it may be, should have brought defects to light. So it has proved.
I would venture to mention two features in particular. In the first place, under the Scheme the normal employer-worker relationship is completely blurred. Apart from the permanent men, who are a small proportion, I do not believe a man really knows who is his employer. I certainly do not. He knows for whom he is working at a given moment, but he does not know who really is his employer, and expressions like "legal employer" and "operational employer," which you will see in the literature on this subject, do not really help. Then, and this is the second point (I am not going to deal with the matter exhaustively), under the Scheme the representatives of labour are called upon to share with the employers a managerial responsibility, having themselves no primary managerial function. That

1557
feature I believe—and I am not alone in this belief—has done a great deal to weaken the authority of the union representatives as custodians of the workers' interests. That I regard as a very important point. The solution may be found perhaps—I do not know—without any more radical change in the Scheme, by a very much greater delegation of executive authority to the officials working under the Dock Labour Board.
It might have been thought that this Scheme, really revolutionary in its character, would have had a profound psychological effect upon the workers. Apparently that does not prove to have been the case, as the noble Lord said. The old casual labour mentality has continued into this new period of security and of continuous employment, arid the tradition of unquestioning class loyalty, which has always been characteristic of dock labour and which was undoubtedly good and necessary in the beginning, has now in practice been found only too often to be wholly perverse. The cry—one hears it constantly—"One out, all out," the old cry, still meets with a response from people who, as the noble Lord says, do not in the least know why one is out. They follow out like sheep. I do not want to be controversial.
I have one other point: but let me first say that it will be many months before the normal rhythm of the movement of ships and goods is restored in the ports, and notably in the Port of London, affected by the recent strike. Would your Lordships just picture for a moment the position where six or seven large liners belonging to a single Line are held up for weeks, their cargoes frozen in the holds or on the quays and hundreds or thousands of passengers, their passages already booked, left kicking their heels indefinitely. Consider the sort of upset that state of affairs entails. It will take even longer, perhaps much longer, to re-establish in the minds of our friends overseas complete confidence in the ability of our ports to handle ships and goods with efficiency and despatch. Incidentally, may I say that this is not only affecting great corporations or great interests? I believe it to be the case that there are a number of quite small undertakings that are almost driven out of business by the sort of situation that has recently developed in our ports. There have been far too
1558
many of these stoppages, and it is all very deplorable. The Scheme has conferred untold benefits on the workers, and no one here would wish to see a return in any degree to the old evil conditions that previously obtained. But something must be done. It is most disturbing to me, at any rate, and I should think to many more, to see large numbers of men flocking eagerly to the banner of the union, which, as has now been established on the highest authority, brought these men out on the hollowest pretext, in flagrant breach of obligations that the men had entered into, and thereby inflicted grave injury on our national economy.
The noble Lord said something about welfare, which is a matter apart from the actual conditions of service—pay, continuity of work and so on. I do not know whether your Lordships realise how much has been done, although a great deal undoubtedly still remains to be done. The Port of London Authority alone have spent over the last eighteen months £150,000 on new lavatory blocks; the Dock Labour Board have established welfare and first-aid centres; and I myself, if I may venture to say so, while I was Chancellor of the Exchequer, made available to the new Corporation a sum of no less than £500,000, which had been accumulated during the war as a result of the operations of the Dock Labour Corporation, to be used entirely in the provision of amenities in the docks. Those are important considerations. I think that a strong case can be made out for an impartial re-examination of the whole position. It would have to be dispassionate, carried out in a calm atmosphere, without any sort of recrimination, whatever the temptation might be, and with, I should hope, good will on both sides. This perhaps is not the precise moment at which one would choose to set such an inquiry on foot—feelings are still raw. But I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept this Motion in principle, and will not wait too long before setting on foot an impartial inquiry into the whole situation.
6.13 p.m.
LORD CALVERLEY: My Lords, I intervene in this debate to support my noble friend Lord Amnion and also the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. For a good number of years I represented in the other place the dockside labour in my

1559
constituency of Kingston-upon-Hull, and I was able to enter into their lives to try to understand them when it was difficult to do so. As a result of this deplorable strike I think the Government must take some action to set up, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, has put it, an impartial and dispassionate Committee, and I hope something will be done on those lines. The ordinary man in the street, especially in the industrial North, could not understand why these men had come out on strike. When I looked round the industrial North, which is dependent upon constant supplies and cargoes of wool from overseas, I wondered whether the people who had brought the men out on strike realised that if the strike had gone on for a further short period of time there would have been great unemployment, at any rate in the worsted trade, as well as in the other parts of the textile industry.
There is a great need for clarity in explaining to the dock men that they have a duty to the community, especially when that community has done so much for them in giving them security. I remember in the long ago that great trinity of workers, Cardinal Manning, Tom Mann and Ben Tillett, when they tried to stir up public interest in London for these casual workers, who were usually on the verge of starvation. I remember, too, as will many of your Lordships, a man in the prime of his life who came and gave evidence and also acted as the dockers' K.C., in order to try and win sixpence an hour for the dockers, and who went on to bring in a Scheme which both my noble friend Lord Ammon and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, have emphasised as being unique. That Scheme gave to these casual workers security and the knowledge that there would be something coming into the house to-morrow and the day after.
My noble friend emphasised the words "given good will." Well, for the life of me, I could not see that there was any good will in this strike. I came to the opinion, as a man in the street, that there was a handful of men who were, in effect, saboteurs. A gentleman from Russia who happened to hear of something like this lack of discipline and responsibility in this country when he was here during the war told me himself that he said to these men: "Do you know what would
1560
happen to you if you were in Moscow? You would be put up against a wall and shot." It is a cliché that gratitude is a sense of favours yet to come—we politicians have learned that. I would appeal to the women in dockland, not only in London, but in Liverpool and elsewhere, to try and hammer a little common sense into these men whom the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, describes as acting somewhat like sheep. They are blind sheep, and sometimes I think the leaders are simply purblind bell-wethers, but I suppose in genetics you would call them "tups." These men collectively are very strong. Only a few weeks ago they brought the economic standard of this country into jeopardy, as they have done previously. Collectively they are strong. So was Samson. He was blind and he destroyed a Temple—a heathen Temple, it is true. I wish these men, these blind, strong Samsons as one might call them, would realise that if they act upon the advice of these blind leaders of the blind, they are sufficiently strong to bring our economic Commonwealth into jeopardy by pulling down the pillars of the State. Therefore I trust that Her Majesty's Government will take some action, if it is only to make these men realise the wonderful benefits which have been given to them as a consequence of the work of that great statesman who is no longer with us, Ernest Bevin.
6.22 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but having lived for most of my working life in dockland, knowing many of the dockers and their lives and having witnessed their struggle over a number of years, I feel that I must correct my noble friend Lord Calverley in this—that the full round orb of the 6d. per hour was won by John Burns and others. It was Ernest Bevin who won the title of "the dockers' K.C." and obtained the Shaw award which fixed the rate of pay at 16s. a day. On that occasion he produced for the information of the Court of Inquiry the plate of meat and vegetables of the calorific value described by Professor Bowley, of the London School of Economics, as sufficient for a docker's dinner, and asked Professor Bowley and others whether he could sustain himself on that number of calories.

1561
This debate brings back to my mind the 1911 dock strike, as a result of an incident in which, but for a fortunate accident, I should not have been here. I was knocked down and nearly killed in a charge of the mounted police in Poplar during that strike. Whether it would have been good for others if I had been killed remains to be seen. I join with my noble friend Lord Ammon in hoping that there may be some inquiry into the whole set-up. I think we must be extremely careful in what we say to-day not to add any words which would further embitter feelings on both sides. I hope the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, will pardon my saying this. I wish the suggested inquiry could inquire whether the Port of London Authority, as it exists to-day, is really an appropriate machine to handle these problems in the later part of the 20th Century. Your Lordships will remember that the Port of London Authority was a typical piece of what I may (I hope without offence) describe, as "Lloyd-Georgeism"—"neither fish, flesh, fowl nor good red herring"—and I think it might be appropriately described as employers' syndicalism.
It would not be a bad thing if, in examining the whole structure of to-day, we also took into consideration whether a new authority to handle these problems might not be one of the solutions. 1 want to make it perfectly clear that I am speaking only for myself on this matter, but out of some experience. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, in his characteristic manner of clear, calm, lucid statement, said that the present scheme of the Dock Labour Board blurs the whole employer-employed relationship. I think that is an apt way of referring to the labour problem in the docks to-day. But let me try and translate the problem, as I understand it, into more homely terms. The men are employed, and the employers are the Dock Labour Board—that is fundamental. The men are parcelled out as required, I think it is, among 680-odd employers in the docks. If they are not required by firm A, they have to report and can go to firm B if the Dock Labour Board find that there is a shortage of labour with that particular firm. I think that is what the noble Viscount refers to as "blurring"
1562
the ordinary employer-employed relationship. So acute is the problem in the docks that some employers will keep their men on and pay them when there is no work, rather than put them at the disposal of the Dock Labour Board, because that is breaking up that unity of the labour force which all employers to-day know is a valuable factor in day-to-day work. I can say these things, which perhaps the noble Viscount would find it difficult to say.
There are all sorts of little troubles arising in dockland. If a man has been working all day and at four o'clock in the afternoon is told that he has to work late that evening, that is all right. Tides do not wait for the convenience of either the workers or the employers; and the ship has to be got out. However, perhaps the man concerned has arranged either for a darts match or to take his lady out, so that working late may be a less desirable occupation that evening. Sometimes he may resent being told at four o'clock that he has to work overtime. Of course, in the old days one had to do it, as my noble friend, Lord Ammon said. If a man was told at six o'clock that he had to work all night, it was just too bad. If he did not do it, there were half a dozen men waiting to take his job. All that has gone under the new scheme. We have to take into account not only, shall I say, inter-union rivalry, which has played a great part in this business, but also the psychology both of the men and of the employers.
Therefore, if we have an inquiry—and undoubtedly there is a good case for san inquiry—my own view is that it should be a far-ranging inquiry. I would even be heretic enough to suggest that the set-up of the Dock Labour Board to-day, and the Port of London Authority, as the body controlling the Port, might be brought within the scope of the inquiry. I know that these are views which may be unpalatable in certain quarters, and they must not be taken here as the views of those who sit on these Benches. But they are views of one who has spent forty-odd years in dockland, who has met, conversed with and lived amongst these people and who knows something of their problems.
6.31 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I should like to raise one brief point. But first may I say that I support whole-heartedly the proposition put forward to-night by my noble friend Lord Ammon and by other noble Lords who have spoken. I, too, have some experience of dockers and dockland, but there is one aspect of these recent disputes, and particularly of this last one, that is most serious. I beg the Government, if they decide to adopt the proposition of an inquiry into the Dock Labour Scheme, to try to deal with this question of intimidation. It is intimidation in dockland to-day that is the cause of a good deal of the trouble. The great bulk of the dockers in this last dispute did not want to stop work at all: they were compelled to stop, however, by reason of the great amount of intimidation, which prevailed on a scale which we have never before seen. It was a question not just of frowns and hard words, but of threats of physical violence. Surely some method can be found to protect the dockers of the Port of London, and of other ports too, against this intimidation which is so prevalent to-day. I should like to make that point. I hope that, if this inquiry is held, that point will be taken into consideration.
6.33 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, I do not think that any noble Lord, in whatever part of the House he sits, would wish to quarrel with the observations which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, in introducing his Motion. We know the noble Lord to be a man of moderate and sound ideas, and also a man who is intensely interested in the National Dock Labour Board, over which he presided for some years—I think directly after its foundation. I feel sure that your Lordships will also have been impressed with the observations made by my noble friend Lord Waverley who, as being chairman of the Port of London Authority, has great experience in the working of this Dock Labour Scheme.
Before I come to deal with and answer the general observations which were made by the noble Lord in presenting
1564
this Motion, I want to answer two questions which he raised. I do not intend in my remarks this evening to go into any detail about the inquiry over which he presided and which reported in April, 1945. That, in fact, was a report published before the introduction of the present scheme. Therefore, with the noble Lord's permission, on this occasion I will overlook it. On the second point I should like to correct the noble Lord. I think he made a slight error in the speech he delivered when he said that during the recent strike the Government interfered with the Board.
LORD AMMON: I am sorry; I was referring to 1949 when I said that.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I am glad to hear that; I thought that that was what the noble Lord meant. Before coming to answer these individual points, I want to tell your Lordships that I have received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Crook, who has written to me to say that some noble Lords had expressed a hope that he, as Chairman of the Dock Labour Board, would take part and speak in this debate. The noble Lord has rightly replied that, in accordance with precedent, he is not permitted to speak, as it is the prerogative of the Minister of Labour, to whom the Board reports, to account to Parliament for the affairs of the Board. For that reason, the noble Lord, Lord Crook, asks me to say that he will not be speaking in this debate and that, further, he has decided not to be present during these discussions. I think your Lordships will readily appreciate the decision which the noble Lord has reached, in view of the important position he holds in the National Dock Labour Board.
I feel that it may be of some assistance to the House if I remind your Lordships of the background of the Dock Labour Scheme which is operating at the present time, and also try to trace certain developments which have occurred since its inception in 1947 and the passing of the Act in the previous year. The Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act was passed in 1946. Its object was to enable permanent schemes to be made for ensuring a greater regularity of employment for all dock workers. It provided that both sides of the industry could formulate schemes to replace the

1565
temporary war-time measures for the decasualisation of dock labour, and that, furthermore, the Minister himself could, if necessary, vary the scheme on his own initiative, although, of course, it would clearly be his object to secure agreement from both sides of the industry before he did so. Unfortunately, after the passing of that Act, which was so great a social and economic innovation, and, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, rightly said, one which brought untold benefits to the dock workers, representatives of the industry failed to reach agreement. The scheme which is now in operation was prepared after a public inquiry at which all the views of representatives of both sides of the industry were care fully examined. It was then introduced by the Minister of Labour in the late Government, and was ultimately approved by Parliament in 1947. The existing scheme, therefore, as the noble Lord who moved the Motion will observe, has been in operation for seven and a half years, and not for a period of ten years, as he has stated in his Motion.
I have tried to explain briefly to the House the purport and intention of the principal Act, and the steps that have been taken to put it into practical effect. It is true to say that the scheme has worked reasonably well during its short lifetime. I do not think it is necessarily the fault of the scheme itself that a number of disputes have unhappily occurred during its operation. The House may remember—certainly the noble Lord and the noble Viscount will remember—that, after the unofficial strike in 1951, a Committee of Inquiry was set up under the chairmanship, as your Lordships have been told to-day, of Sir Frederick Leggett. Their Report drew attention to two main matters. First, it recommended the provision of better amenities, now considerably improved, as indeed the noble Viscount pointed out; secondly, it recommended modifications in the disciplinary provisions of the scheme, but no action has been taken as it has not been possible for both sides of the industry to reach agreement. However, following a decision of the Court of Appeal in March last year, which made it clear that the disciplinary powers of the local Dock Labour Boards had to be exercised by the boards themselves, discussions have taken place between my right honourable friend
1566
and both sides of the industry, but, as yet, no formal proposals have been received from the industry. Your Lordships will well remember the recent report of the Court of Inquiry which was set up by my right honourable friend and presided over by the Master of the Rolls. In its final report that Court of Inquiry made it clear that, in their opinion, for practical purposes the issue at stake could be satisfactorily resolved by agreement between the employers and the workers in the industry about the arrangements for overtime working. The report itself did not suggest, in any way whatever, substantial amendments to the scheme which is now operating.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: May I ask my noble friend whether, in his view, it would have been within the province of that Commission of Inquiry to make any such recommendation?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should have thought that the Committee, if they had thought that the scheme was operating badly and that neither side were satisfied, certainly would have been prepared to say something in their report to that effect.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: Without taking any evidence?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: There I must leave it to the noble Viscount; but I certainly should have thought that, had the Master of the Rolls thought that there was considerable feeling within the industry by one side or by both on the existing scheme, undoubtedly he would have said so.
I have tried to point out already that the Act enables the industry to make proposals for changes in the scheme, and I have also reminded the House of the main recommendations of the two bodies which have been set up in recent years to conduct inquiries. I repeat that neither of those two bodies recommended any fundamental alteration in the main framework of the scheme. I think it is obvious that no amendment, whatever it might be, could be effective without the good will of both sides of the industry. It is true that the Minister of Labour has the right to initiate amendments, but he would not think it right, I feel certain, to consider the matter until the industry had had time to survey recent events in their proper perspective. I should have

1567
thought that noble Lords would readily agree that it is too early to-day for the industry to have reached any decision upon the changes which they may wish to suggest. However, in due course it is the intention of my right honourable friend to discuss with the industry the operation of the current scheme; but I believe it would be premature to consider an outside Commission of Inquiry before those conversations have in fact taken place.
I know that your Lordships will fully appreciate that the report of any impartial body which may examine the scheme could not really be of great value unless it commanded a substantial degree of support from both sides of the industry, such as would justify my right honourable friend in ultimately embodying the recommendations that they might make in an order to be laid before Parliament. I therefore suggest to your Lordships that it would be wise now to allow time for discussions between my right honourable friend and both sides of the industry before any decision is reached about the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. I hope that the noble Lord who moved this Motion will see fit to withdraw it in view of the remarks that I have made. He will, I know, readily appreciate that there are no Papers which I can lay, and therefore I trust that he will see his way to withdraw the Motion.
6.45 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. He would not expect me to feel at all satisfied, but I give him right of way on the question of ten years, if that is worth while. In effect, the scheme has been in existence, so far as the principle is concerned, since 1947. There have been additions and amendments which grew up after the experiences of the war years. Whatever value there is in that, I concede. With regard to the Evershed Court, the very terms of reference were so limited that the Court could not possibly bring forward any suggestions covering the whole scheme. The terms of reference turned on the question of what is overtime, and little more than that. Even then we had support, when the Master of the Rolls said that the dispute was capable of solution if there was good will.
1568
I think the noble Earl has missed the whole point of the Motion. As he has said, no fundamental alteration has been made. Of course there has not; that is why I have moved the Motion. It is because all these inquiries have left us where we were and have given us nothing at all that I have brought this matter to higher authority—to Parliament itself. That is the whole gravamen of the case that we have put before your Lordships to-day. We have had these inquiries; we have had good will; we have had the Minister and able and competent people to go into the matter. They have brought in reports which have carried no weight, and nothing has happened. Now one is asking that there may be a superior body, more embracingly adequate. I suggest that it would have good support from the leading and sensible people on both sides of the industry. There would be no difficulty whatever about that.
Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to refer to an amusing point of which he reminded me when he dealt with the question of amenities. Until this scheme came into operation the dockers had to stand out in all sorts of weather, putting up with everything that was possible in the way of indescribable conditions. Then, at great expense, we began to put up shelters; but they would not go into them. They said they would not go into them because, somehow, the fact of going into them interfered with their freedom. That is what happened. One could go round and see men standing out in wretched weather when there was a comfortable room with every accommodation built for them at some expense near by. That sort of conduct was inspired by the same clique which has been operating right through in all these matters. On that occasion, these difficulties were put forward. One has to consider human nature and the vagaries of human nature.
I want to thank the noble Earl for bringing up one point that I had meant to bring up myself, although I was reluctant to do so. I think that the position of joint working has still to be reviewed. There is no industry in this country where there is so much joint working as there is in this industry; yet we see the disastrous results which are achieved in the favourable conditions under which the dockers are working. I think that point should be inquired into.

1569
Of course, there is no point in pressing this Motion to a Division. It is rather regrettable that the noble Earl has not been able to give us something more definite, but has merely asked us to wait and see what happens after there has been an inquiry. I can see the result of the inquiry, and I can see that we shall have the next strike within a very few years. I hope that we are going to do something to avoid that. That was one of the reasons why I put down this Motion, in order that, after the experience we have
1570
had, we should see here an opportunity to examine and review the scheme in the light of events, to find out its weaknesses and to discover whether the machine wants tuning up again. I believe it is an excellent scheme but, like some new things, it probably wants a little retuning. I ask leave to withdrawn my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at ten minutes before seven o'clock.