Lords Sitting of 6 July 1955

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The EARL OF DROGHEDA On the Woolsack.
Payers
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed.
SALFORD CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT
2.35 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 if they will state the amount of dollar exchange absorbed to date arising from the requirements for support—(a) to the price spread on sterling dollar exchange; (b) to the policy for transferable sterling; or both together.]
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): My Lords, the information which the noble Lord is seeking relates to certain operations of the Exchange Equalisation Account. The noble Lord is, I think, aware that whilst my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a general responsibility for the policy under which that Account operates, the day-to-day dealings in exchanges, which are of a highly specialised and technical character, are undertaken by the Bank of England. We publish regularly figures of movements of gold and dollar reserves, but for a number of reasons it is not in the public interest to disclose the particulars of the operations of the Exchange Equalisation Account. I very much hope that
454
the noble Lord will not press me for further information
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I naturally accept the grounds on which my noble friend states why an Answer cannot be given to my Question. May I, however, ask whether, in view of the official denial made last week of any imminence of devaluation, and having regard to the reports widely current in North America that there is imminent a change in the spread of the dollar-sterling exchange rate, he will make representation in the proper quarter that a supplementary statement would be advantageous?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, think the noble Lord's supplementary question goes a long way further than the factual Question which I was asked in the first place. The noble Lord is aware of the statement made by the Economic Secretary last week. I do not think it necessary for me to remind him that it was categorical in character and authoritative in force. I would only say that there has already been an improvement in the sterling-dollar exchange rate.

ADMIRALTY EXTENSION BUILDING
2.39 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: 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 when they intend to remove the massive and hideous structure erected during the war behind the Admiralty.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, this extension of the Admiralty was erected in 1940. It is of specially strong construction and its removal would be very expensive. The possibility of demolishing it has not yet been considered, but my right honourable friend intends to examine the matter in detail and will naturally give consideration to the noble Lord's views.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. Arising out of it, I should like to ask the Government whether they will bear in

455
mind, first, that this building is monstrously ugly in itself, and secondly, that it obstructs what used to be one of the finest vistas in London. Why cannot it be pulled down on esthetic grounds, as the French pulled down the old Trocadero building in Paris?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the question of whether this building is ugly and monstrous and destroys one of London's vistas is a matter of opinion. As regards the second question, it is true that the French Government pulled down the old Trocadero, but the noble Lord will recollect that it was used for concerts, exhibitions and the like, which was something far different from what the Citadel at the Admiralty is used for. Nevertheless, I will convey the noble Lord's observations to my right honourable friend who, no doubt, will take them into consideration.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
WRITERS TO THE SIGNET WIDOWS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

THE COLONIAL TERRITORIES
2.45 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the situation in the colonial territories with particular reference to the Report of the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the year 1954–55 (Cmd. 9489); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am afraid you may think that the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper to-day is expressed in rather wide terms. It is put in that way intentionally, because I feel that once a year we should have a general debate upon the annual statement of the Secretary of State, looking upon the colonial problem as a whole and using by way of illustration the conditions in any particular colonial territory that is apposite. On occasions when I have put
456
down Motions relating to one territory or to a rather narrow field, the objection has usually been expressed by noble Lords opposite that the Motion was too narrow and that they could find little to say about it. I hope that to-day they will not criticise me for putting down a Motion in terms which I trust will satisfy them, as well as noble Lords on this side of the House. As your Lordships know, the debates in your Lordships' House are widely reported in the colonial Press. Though possibly they do not always get a great deal of publicity here, that is certainly not the case in the Colonies, and I, for one, after any colonial debate in which I have taken part, find that a fine crop of leading articles comes to me and is garnered into my files.
There are two schools of thought about the Report itself. One says that it should be cut down a great deal and a lot of it expunged; the other says that as this is the only Report we have in the year, it should be a full one. I must admit that I am a protagonist of the second point of view. Even the infinitesimal proportion of the British public that is interested in the Colonies can hardly be expected to go chasing round bookstalls looking for the latest individual reports on the various territories. I hope that Mr. Evans, who edits the Report, will die in the last departmental ditch, or roast in the hottest bureaucratic fire, before he agrees to the slimming of the Report.
The contents of the Report, of course, do not make light reading. It is full to overflowing with facts, and it is almost entirely a work of reference. However, it is a most valuable work of reference, and I make no complaint about that. Nevertheless, I feel that the way in which the subjects are dealt with generally is a little irritating. For example, if a reader wants to ascertain conditions in Malaya, or in any other territory, he has to chase through all the headings so that in the end he can obtain a complete picture. I suggest that it might be better if the Report gave a complete picture under each territorial heading. It is true that there are pros and cons. In some ways it might be easier, if the reader wanted to look at the labour or medical conditions, say, to look at all the territories under the one heading; but I imagine that for most readers it would be more convenient if

457
all the subject matter relating to one territory were put under a territorial heading, rather than under a subject heading.
As to the ideas behind the Report, I have often suggested to your Lordships that one of the great defects in the Colonial Office and in our colonial set-up is that there has been no planning organisation whose concern has been to plan for the future. The Colonial Office has an immense knowledge of the Colonies and a vast amount of factual information, but the Ministers and the senior officials are immersed in day-to-day matters. The Colonial Office is a Whitehall in itself. Clouds darken the horizon: the storm can be anticipated; but it never is, and the ensuing deluge always takes the British public completely by surprise. When a series of riots takes place it is the practice to set up a Commission comprised of people with one common qualification—that they know nothing whatsoever about the area on which they are to make recommendations. We go from crisis to crisis, as it were. In most cases, the reasons for the crisis can be foreseen. I do not know whether it is too late now, but, if it is not, I should welcome the setting up of some small body in the Colonial Office, divorced from day-to-day matters, whose duty it would be to consider the future, much as in the War Office there is a small staff always thinking out the future and making plans to meet possible contingencies.
I propose to refer to some of the major problems in the colonial territories, most of which are referred to in the Report. The first one to which I propose to refer—and it is only a short reference—is the recent Report of the East Africa Royal Commission (Cmd. 9475). This is a voluminous, careful and thought-provoking Report. It is far too great a subject to deal with at any length to-day, and I think, with your Lordships' permission, that we ought to have a debate on it in the autumn, if my friends on this side will agree, and the Government will agree, because it is of vital importance to Africa. I have read a good deal of the Report and there is one observation that comes to my mind at the moment this is, that to some extent the proposals appear to be framed in an agricultural and industrial vacuum. The proposals require fundamental changes in custom and tribal ownership of lands. It is not
458
always realised, I think, by the framers of a Report how difficult it is to get these customs and ownership rules changed, even in the United Kingdom. In the main conclusions on chapter 5, paragraph 4, it says this:
"One principle is fundamental, viz., if modern economic institutions are to evolve they must be freed to the fullest extent from he political authority of the tribe when it is obstructive."
In Britain even small changes in land custom are violently resisted. The Government, in spite of pledges by Welsh Conservative candidates, and in spite of the desire by Welsh people, put the Whips on and in the last Parliament the English Members defeated the wishes of the Welsh people over land reform in Wales. In the United Kingdom, therefore, we are still not free from the political authority of the tribe, even when it is obstructive. I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, who was recently one of our tribal leaders, our tribal representatives, in this House—as an elder, of course—agrees with me.
Another extract from paragraph 5 in the same chapter says:
"It will be necessary to enlist the support of those members of the tribes who command the confidence of the people so that the essential transition from this old tribal system of tenure to one which meets the requirement of economic progress can be accomplished with the least possible social disturbance."
Take our own system here. In my view, a good deal of the legal administration and the organisation of the legal professions of this country is an ancient but rickety edifice, long out of keeping with its surroundings. Only a fortnight ago the Government brought in a Bill to shore up its sagging walls, but any suggestion of reform calls up the strongest opposition from the politicians and the lawyers; so we in the United Kingdom have found it impossible to command the confidence of the people in the essential transition from this old tribal system to the new one which is required. Why, therefore, should we expect primitive African tribesmen to be so much more enlightened, versatile and elastic than English politicians or English lawyers?
While these recommendations are to some extent perfectly sound—many of them are perfectly sound from an agricultural and industrial point of view—they really beg the broader question

459
which is whether you can easily transform these customs and traditions, if you want to do so, purely for economic reasons. I should have said that the basic African agricultural needs include the provision of land, new and old, for agricultural development on modern lines and the provision of the necessary services from a central pool for finance, equipment, marketing, seeds, and so on—the sort of suggestion I have put many times to your Lordships for this central organisation, which I call the hub and the wheel, the hub being the central marketing and servicing organisation, and the spokes and the rim of the wheel being the farmers, co-operative or private, operating in contact with the centre.
To turn to another issue, we are much concerned to-day with a large number of small territories, some of them not particularly small in size but economically small, in the sense that in all probability they will never be able to stand on their own feet. We have loaded up many of these tiny islands, usually about the size of the Isle of Wight and with something of its population, with an imposing and expensive governmental superstructure of executive councils, legislative councils, municipal corporations and so on. Places like Singapore, Malta, Aden, Hong Kong, Gibraltar, the Seychelles, and Gambia, are all in this situation. I should have thought that what we ought to have done—it is a little late now, of course—was to have one council or territory for all domestic affairs and another larger body outside, in connection with our own country here, to deal with their external affairs.
The present Government and the Colonial Office have given no leadership up to now on this particular question, which has become acute recently in the case of Malta. There is over here at the moment a deputation from Malta, and they, I understand, have been seeing the Government and have had a conference with them. It may be that the Government will make a statement on the result of the conference. All I have to say is that the Government should remember, in whatever solution they come to on this problem, that others are watching the present conference and its outcome, and will inevitably regard it, rightly or wrongly, as a precedent. I am fairly sure that a claim for similar
460
treatment will soon come from quite a number of territories. Therefore Malta, in my view, cannot be regarded in isolation. Although it has elements which make it almost unique, it will be regarded as a precedent. Then there is Cyprus. I was going to say a good deal about Cyprus today, but in view of the welcome news that the Government have decided to call a conference between themselves, the Greek and the Turkish Governments, and that the other two Governments have accepted the invitation, it would be better to say nothing more than to support the Government in their proposals and to hope that they will have an entirely satisfactory outcome.
Now I move forward to the difficulties which are being experienced in various places on the question of the relationship between the Government and the Opposition. We might, I think, if we had had these high-powered gentlemen thinking about some of the problems that are facing us, have had some guidance on this matter; but in fact the boats in the various Colonies and colonial territories have been pushed out into the stream with very little guidance from anybody, and the proper relationship between Government and Opposition has never been worked out. No leads have been given to them. In this country we have, over centuries, in a rough and ready way worked out the principles for ourselves, so far as there are any. They have never been written down, but there are unwritten rules of the way in which Governments treat Oppositions and the way in which Oppositions expect to be treated by Governments—not always the same thing. They are fairly well known and, by and large, we do play according to the rules. But in these new territories there are no rules. No one has ever suggested what the rules should be. The position has become difficult in the Gold Coast because so far there is obviously a failure there in the maintenance of proper Parliamentary relationships. Recently there was a threat by a Minister with regard to the Opposition, to which we should certainly object most strongly if it were made here by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, or by any of his colleagues. I do not think for one moment that he would make such a threat. This threat was to execute, imprison or expel the Opposition Leaders

461
at a later date. I imagine that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, would join with me in deprecating that very much, however much at times he might feel inclined to sympathise with that Minister.
The National Liberation Movement in the Gold Coast is the Opposition. That has grown up recently, and it has grown up because of the objection felt by the people in the Central Area of the Gold Coast, the Ashanti people, to what they regard as the undue dominance of the politicians in the South. They have suggested that the God Coast Constitution should be changed from a unitary Constitution to a federal one, in view of the differences in standards, experience and background of the various parts of the Gold Coast. They also suggested that there should he an inquiry into the activities of the Cocoa Marketing Board, but what they really want is an inquiry into the business side of it, the Cocoa Purchasing Company. They ask for the appointment of a mediator to go out there to see if he can bring the Government and the Opposition together. They have suggested someone of the status of Professor Hancock, Professor Weir, Professor Mackenzie or Dr. Ivor Jennings for the purpose. They want the Constitution to be known and discussed before the Act of Independence is passed and to be a schedule to it. Finally, they want the Prime Minister to agree to an election immediately after the Act of Independence has been passed.
It is not for me to say whether all or any of these demands or requirements—call them what you will—by the Opposition in the Gold Coast are soundly based. I do not know; I think it would need an Inquiry to find out. But the tension in the Gold Coast at the moment, especially in Ashanti, where there is a large number of armed police and troops, calls for a mediator, someone of the calibre that they have suggested, to go out there to see whether he can bring the two sides together. I feel that, fundamentally, there is a failure to work together in a proper Parliamentary way as a Government and an Opposition. Quite frankly, for that failure I think that we in this House and our colleagues in the House of Commons. both Government and Opposition, must all take a certain amount of responsibility, because we have never really given the people help in the way that they should have
462
had help to try to draw up a series of rules, or given them the necessary advice from our long experience in the delicate business of handling a Parliamentary democracy.
This brings me to a further point. It can see a difficulty looming ahead quite soon, and nothing has been done to meet it or to prepare for it. The Commonwealth is overwhelmingly Asian. Soon, when the new territories come into it, there will be almost as many African members in it as Europeans, and there will soon be knocking at the door the new countries—Malaya, the Gold Coast, Nigeria, the West Indian Federation and the Central African Federation. What is being done in this country to prepare the way? What is being done to prepare the old countries for the reception of the new, or the new countries for the sort of way in which they will be expected to carry on when they are independent members of the Commonwealth? Nothing much was done in the case of India, Pakistan or Ceylon, and I imagine that nothing much has been done now, because we are inclined to treat this subject as an unmentionable—as something that must never be mentioned. That is complete nonsense. These are the sort of delicate questions that ought to be dealt with now, and if there is anything that we can do to smooth the advent of the new territories into the Commonwealth, then we should do it, because in some cases they have nothing like the long experience of, for instance, India and the Indian Ministers behind them. They are coming into this new realm of world affairs and Commonwealth affairs with very little preparation indeed.
Independence, as vie know, does not mean self-sufficiency. To use an analogy, it is rather like an aircraft with navigational aids from the ground. It looks as if the aircraft is going along at its own sweet will, in any way it likes; but, in fact, it is rigorously confined to certain air routes and is all the time in contact with the ground and using navigational aids. That is what will be necessary for many of these new States when they become independent. They will not be in a position to handle their own economic affairs. There is, and there will be for a long time, a great need for economic and technical assistance for them, and it will be necessary to second from the other Commonwealth countries, including our

463
own, a large number of technicians to assist them in developing their economies. Only recently in The Times there was a most interesting and valuable letter from Ministers of the Northern Nigerian Government appealing for anyone who had resigned from the Sudan Service to go to Northern Nigeria where they were only too anxious to receive them. In Malaya to-day the same thing applies.
There is a great shortage in Malaya of technical assistance, particularly in agriculture. I had a letter about it only yesterday. In the development of those countries, that is one of the prime necessities. I believe it will not be done by expecting people to go out for many years, for the rest of their lives, to these territories. During the time that I was Chairman of the Colonial Research Council we found that, and we did our best and eventually succeeded in getting common terms of agreement between the universities, the research organisations here and the Colonial research organisations, so that a man could go out for a time to the Colonies and then return to this country, either to the research organisations here or to the universities. First-class men will not be obtained unless something of that kind is developed throughout the various branches of service, both Government and otherwise.
I regret to say that the nationalised industries, as yet, do not take this point of view. It is not enough for research organisations or even for the Government; this same latitude, this same elasticity, must pertain in all branches of our national life—trade unions, cooperatives, private industry, nationalised industry, municipalities and so on. In other words, if a town clerk is required for some place in Africa, it should be possible to get him from a municipal organisation here to serve a few years and then to return to his organisation in this country. But the nationalised industries do not take that point of view. The Coal Board is a defaulter. My information from Nigeria is that the coal mines there have applied for people from the Coal Board, and the Coal Board will not guarantee that, if those people come back to this country after service in Nigeria for a few years, they will retain their seniority. In other words, they must come back and
464
hope for the best. I do not think that is good enough. A nationalised industry such as a Government service or the municipalities should lead the way in this field, and I hope that the Coal Board will do so. I should like to ask the Minister a question about the Overseas Civil Service. How does this fit into the pattern? Is it anything more than an old lamp under a new name? My information is that not much is happening in the sphere of the Overseas Civil Service. Are there any recruits coming from other parts of the Commonwealth? Are there any Asian or African recruits? Are there any Canadian or Australian recruits?
Now I should like to say a word about the economy of Malaya. As we all know, there is a great need for diversifying the economy. There is a need for the production of primary and cash crops, to lessen dependence upon tin and rubber, and a need to replace old rubber trees with young and high-yielding strains. There is a great need in Malaya for capital to carry out these objectives. In fact, there is a great need for capital in all territories. I am rather surprised to see that last year far less capital was poured into the colonial territories than the year before. There was a statement quoted in The Times which I thought rather misleading—not through the fault of The Times. That statement implied that the World Bank had sent representatives to Malaya who had recommended that £90 million-plus (that is, a little more than £90 million) should be spent on the Federation and £71 million, or a little more, on Singapore. I must admit that, from the terms of paragraph 327 of the Annual Report, I thought that this meant that the World Bank was going to spend this amount; that that was the recommendation by the Bank. But by no means. It appears that this was simply a recommendation by the Bank to the Governments of the Federation and Singapore that they should spend this amount. But there was no suggestion as to where they are going to get it. I imagine that the Federation and Singapore know as well as anybody what they require: what they want is someone to provide the money, and I hope that the Bank will do something more than make a pious exhortation; I hope they will come up with some cash. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will tell us what is happening there.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the Aden Protectorate. Tribesmen, or anybody else for that matter, do not revolt or engage in warfare, ambushes and other war-like excursions without a reason—there is always something behind it. I think we were all startled only a fortnight ago to find that the Government had been bombing the homes and property of the tribesmen under their protection in the Aden Protectorate. In Roman times that part of Asia used to be called "Arabia Felix." I imagine that in these days we might call it "Arabia Infelix." While I was at the Colonial Office my attention was called to the Aden Protectorate by the excellent irrigation schemes there installed by the members of the Aden Agricultural Department. In certain areas, the desert was yielding high and very good crops from the irrigation. Then we had the anti-locust patrol, hunting and destroying the hoppers before they could take wing. But to-day the Government have turned our ploughshares into swords, and they have bombed, I think indiscriminately, the property of these tribesmen.
The tribesmen are a property-owning democracy, and I should have thought that, for that reason alone, they might have had some call on the sympathies of the Government. The Government are advocating a property-owning democracy here, yet are bombing it in Aden. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, objected to my use of the word "indiscriminate," but what else is it when the Government launch Thunder-jets against helpless villages, and when the good and the bad, the well-to-do and the poor, the evil and the innocent, are all treated alike? What discrimination can there possibly be in that? I should like to ask the noble Lord what is beneath it all. What is this seething beneath the crust of the Aden Protectorate? Have the Yemen any influence? Have they been supplying arms to the tribesmen?
It has been suggested that, basically, this is an economic issue, that some of the tribesmen who are camel-owners object to the motor transport which is being introduced by firms into the Aden Protectorate and is taking away their business. That is an economic argument. If it is true, why do the Government not try to deal with the economy, rather than by bombing the homes of people who might have nothing to do with this matter at all? If the Yemen
466
have an influence it will be necessary to deal with them rather than with the villages we have been dealing with. We are told in a heading in the Daily Telegraph of July 2 last that
"Air control breaks down."
We are told that the 1st Battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders and one squadron of the Life Guards have been sent there. Does that mean that the bombing has now been found to have been as useless as it was indiscriminate? I think that the House and the country ought to have information on that point. I hope that your Lordships will not think that I have been too discursive in introducing this Motion. But this is a big subject and I have tried to pick out the important factors and the problems that. I think should be picked out on this, our annual review of the Report by the Secretary of State. I beg to move for Papers.
3.18 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, in reading this Report no one can fail to be impressed by the immense amount of work which is being done by many devoted officials, and I think we should pay a tribute to our officials who are doing this work. Certainly, this Report rebuts the charge, which we still hear, that we are neglecting our colonial territories. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that it is a pity that this Report is not presented in a more readable form, and that it does not reach a wider circle in this country.
In spite of the fullness of the Report, I am left with the impression that no one can guess what it is trying to achieve. Here we are dealing with millions of people who have been left behind in the great material advance achieved by the Western World—-people who are awakening and who are disturbed. Into this scene of confusion are poured hundreds of experts: there are American experts, supplied by the Foreign Operations Administration of the United States Government; there are United Nations experts, supplied under the Expanded Programme of Technical Assistance; there are experts under the auspices of the Overseas Territories Committee of O.E.E.C.; and there are experts reporting to American corporations on the opportunities for private investment under the auspices of O.E.E.C. We read in this Report that there has been financial

467
aid from the United States, under the Mutual Security Act; financial aid through the International Bank; through the Colonial and Welfare funds; through public loans, through loans from the British Government and through grants-in-aid from the British Government for many specific purposes—reconstruction, emergency supplies and assistance, war damage, rehabilitation and resettlement. Some of these efforts are welcomed by the local inhabitants; some have been coldly received with suspicion, and others positively rejected.
It is not surprising that a clear picture does not emerge from all these operations. The territories and peoples involved are scattered and diverse and, particularly in Africa, there is a general reaction to any happening in a particular area. In the different territories the stage of political responsibility varies so much that in one, for instance—the Gold Coast—a responsible British Minister could speak of
"the last stage having been reached before the assumption of full responsibility for its own affairs,"
whereas in other territories the first stages along this road have hardly been reached. In looking at this confused picture it is necessary to get clear in our minds the simple fact that, in potential capacity, these peoples are not different beings from Europeans. They have been left behind in the race for material progress for two simple reasons: first, they have been hemmed in with restrictions, embodied in tribal customs perpetuating a mere subsistence economy; secondly, a hampering conception of security has dominated their economy and restricted their action. This is a lesson which sonic of our would-be reformers have not yet fully learned; and the backwardness of these people should be an ever-present warning against the deadening effect of restrictions upon the potentialities of human enterprise. But restrictions are always difficult to remove, and age-long restrictions are hallowed with reverence. Those who have been kept in darkness cannot face the light without danger to the sight; and in endeavouring to free these peoples from their restrictions we must act with caution. If we must be clear what we are doing we must also be clear that if the aim is to raise the standard of living of these peoples these restrictions must go. And the only way
468
that they can go is by outsiders, who are not so inhibited, coming to live among them and teaching them. Colonists are not, therefore, usurpers but potential benefactors—and the only possible benefactors if raising the standard of living is to be our aim. Let us be clear on that.
If my analysis so far is right we must also keep a very clear idea of what can and cannot be done by Governments. We must distinguish between business and charity—and I use the word in no disparaging sense: charity is a proper ingredient in any professedly Christian or religious society. But we must keep a clear distinction between charity and business. From some expenditure—the charitable side—no direct material return is to be expected. It will be used to mitigate the dangers involved in breaking down age-long traditions and restrictions. But, for the rest, if these people are to be freed from restrictions they must be encouraged not to rely upon the Government for everything. The Government must not do what the people can be encouraged to do for themselves, so I think that the main concentration of Government activity will have to be upon communications, water, the provision of power, and possibly some pilot schemes, and upon health and education. Housing should be linked with industry. With the building of factories there must also be housing provision. Settled labour, replacing migrant labour, is essential to modern agriculture, and the two things should be developed together: but, as an overriding principle, aid must be concentrated where it is likely to be most effective. That is an old maxim of the classical economists which has been too much overlooked in recent years. The work of the many experts to which I have referred should be made to fit in with the picture that I have sketched.
There are two others matters dealt with in the Report to which I should like to refer. First, I should like to welcome the very clear movement towards federal grouping. There are the Federations of Nigeria, of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, of Malaya and of the British Caribbean. This is a pattern which is encouraging in our picture, but as these Federal Governments emerge, I should like to see a more definite attempt made to associate the Home Government with them on a basis of equality within the scope of their functions. I should like to see a British Minister jointly responsible, with the local

469
Ministers, for external relations and external trade, so completing a Federal set-up in which this country is associated in the federal capital. I think that we have to do more thinking and more experimenting in consultation with these developing territories for I do not consider that it is either in their best interests or in ours that the ultimate commercial relations between them and this country should be as they are now between this country and members of the Commonwealth, with all sorts of trade barriers between them.
The other matters to which I shall refer are Sections 472 to 475 dealing with the proposed Organisation for Trade Cooperation—the former G.A.T.T. I have already referred to this matter in your Lordships' House and I do not want to repeat what I said then. I should, however, like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government really consider it in the interests of these colonial territories to stimulate, or artificially to encourage, uneconomic production on the promise of a secured market in this country. That is not the way to build a stable economy in these territories; nor is it the way to treat the consumer in this country. I should have thought that the recent trouble over grapefruit might have been a lesson. So much nonsense is talked about dumping; yet all over London, at this moment, shop windows are full of goods being offered at reductions of up to 50 per cent., at prices at which the goods cannot be repeated. In fact, they are guilty of dumping their goods upon the market, and I have no doubt that there are other traders who dislike and resent their action, and would like it made illegal. The logical outcome of the type of thinking which is shown in these paragraphs would be to make such sales illegal. No, my Lords, it is a normal and salutary feature of trade to sell sometimes in this way.
It is a different matter if a Government takes a hand in the game, or if there is too great a concentration of power in the hands of a single organisation. But such cases must be dealt with by inter-governmental action. Duties are quite an ineffective weapon. It is unfortunate that today Governments having so much power tend to believe that they have still more
470
power than they do, in fact, possess. Consequently, they are apt to look upon the normal functioning of the market with suspicion. It is necessary to keep on repeating that a stable economy is built only upon processes which can be performed economically. I should like to plead against the action proposed on other grounds. What causes trouble in the world is when you allow a practice in your own country, and declare it unfair in another country, and then discriminate against it. Any action taken in discrimination should surely be based upon some clear moral principle that the practice is wrong or unfair, whether at home or abroad.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to return to the picture of the vast and developing African territories. May I express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will help the development there in the following ways. First of all, by a better instructed information service, and by helping through that information service to allay local fears concerning capital investment in those territories overseas. Secondly, by reviewing their taxation policy in relation to British companies operating in those territories, because taxation policy at present nullifies any local concessions granted to British companies. Thirdly, by giving clearer guidance to the local administrations as to the objectives, both short term and long term. This involves presenting an. overall picture of the economy in a wide area, so avoiding the danger that a local administration may try to achieve a poor self-sufficiency in too small a region. This is particularly necessary in prospecting, which may have to be undertaken over the area covered by several different colonial administrations. For East Africa, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, the Royal Commission has made a Report which will be particularly helpful for this purpose.
While I am referring to this wider aspect of the colonial problem, may I say one word more? At this moment, the Foreign Ministers of the European countries, including our own, are addressing the Council of Europe in Strasbourg on the subject of a renewed drive for European unity. Her Majesty's Government have laid great stress upon the overwhelming necessity of greater unity in Europe. These European countries are

471
all deeply committed in Africa, as, indeed, we are. Several of them administer colonial territories there; others have close associations and links, cultural, economic and commercial. Africa needs the best Europe can give in administration. What greater stimulus could Her Majesty's Government give to European unity than to invite an overall European approach to the problem of African advancement? Here is a chance of uniting Europe in a common purpose, a common task, continuing a work in which they have all had a hand and from which no European country can be excluded without grave dangers both in Europe and in Africa. The Council of Europe is a consultative body. Let Her Majesty's Government for once consult it upon a big issue. The very act would give the Council life which it has lacked, and might produce some useful suggestions on the problems which we have been discussing to-day.
3.36 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships in all quarters of the House are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for giving us this opportunity of considering the Colonial Office Report. Circumstances this afternoon are such that upon two of the colonial issues uppermost in our minds we shall not touch in any detail in this debate. I understand that shortly a statement will be made on one of those subjects—Malta. The other subject, Cyprus, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has said, there is no need—indeed it would be inappropriate—to debate today. I should like to reiterate what the noble Lord said in extending a welcome to this proposed conference and expressing pleasure at the acceptances that have been given to the invitations.
Without in any way debating the subject, I suggest that in this conference—at which. I know, no subjects are barred for consideration—five basic facts should form part of the background of the discussion. We may remind ourselves of them to-day and agree upon them. The first is that our legal right to Cyprus is unchallengeable; the second, that in the interests of peace and security for the free world—including Greece—we must retain Cyprus as a military and air base; and the third, that the powerful Turkish minority can no more be coerced than
472
can other nationals. Their views and their wishes must be considered as much as those of other nationals. In the fourth place, our duty and determination must be to maintain law and order and to use such force as is necessary to that end. Fifthly, let us bear in mind our record of achievement in Cyprus. It is one of which we can be proud in terms of improved circumstances.
It was in 1878 that Cyprus was first occupied by us, with the agreement of the Sultan of Turkey. The population was then around 200,000 and the revenue was around £200,000—that is to say, the revenue was about £1 per head of the population To-day the population is some 500,000 and the revenue £9,500,000, or £19 per head of the population. There were few schools then; now there are more than 700. There was not a single printing press; now there are around fifty publications ranging from dailies to half-yearlies—and not all of them support Her Majesty's Government. I suggest that these basic facts might well be remembered in giving our welcome to this conference. I have seen in the Press a statement that in some quarters this Government move may be considered as a sign of weakness or surrender. I cannot see any justification for such a view. Initiative in a difficult situation has no need to be labelled "Weakness." Equally, determination to maintain law and order and to repress terrorism by all the force necessary for that end is a duty of Her Majesty's Government to be carried out on behalf of all Cypriot citizens, whatever may be their original nationality.
Both noble Lords who have spoken underline the sentiment, with which I am sure we all agree, that full and wide colonial development requires a foundation of healthy economic conditions in every individual colonial territory. We must admit that regrettably low standards of living still persist in various parts of the Colonial Empire, including that part with which I wish to deal—namely, the Caribbean. So long as these standards of living continue, so long is our colonial trust unfulfilled and our colonial task unfinished. The Chief Minister of Jamaica, Mr. Manley, has to-day returned to the United Kingdom to continue his negotiations with Her Majesty's Government. I hope that in the near future Her Majesty's Government will be able to

473
make a statement reporting the results of these talks with the First Minister and showing that the economic conditions in Jamaica can be improved as the result of agreed steps. The background to these Jamaican talks—indeed, to our whole Colonial Empire policy—is mirrored in Britain's own economic policy. The question I want to submit to your Lordships this afternoon is this: is the policy which we are following in this country, which is best suited to our own industrial needs in a competitive world, a policy which assists to the full, or does it possibly impede, the fulfilment of our colonial trust and purpose?
Led by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by the President of the Board of Trade, Britain has firmly declared for the policy of international multilateralism, which is also supported by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. I would label it "the new Tory Liberalism." This policy requires strict rules for international trade, based on non-discrimination, reduced tariffs, no new preferences and rejection of reserved markets. At present this policy is riding high. How long it is going to do so is a matter open to debate. It is not appropriate that it should be debated to-day, but I expect that vie shall be debating it some time in the future. To-day, along the lines of this policy, we are striving, and striving successfully, for new export markets in a technical world. Aircraft exports are over £60 million, motor car exports are booming, and Britain hopes to lead in the manufacture and export of electronics and later on in the industrial use of atomic power It is in these directions that the Government hope to find the means of absorbing any slack in employment or loss in export values caused through older industries, such as part of the textile industry and even the glove industry in the West Country, being unable to face a competitive world and the conditions of competition in which multilateralism has involved us.
The question I would ask your Lordships to consider i this: if this policy is planned and carried out further at the expense of our colonial interests and our ability to help our Colonies, as we must if we are to fulfil our colonial trust. have we not, in punning multilateralism, restricted ourselves so much that we are unable to develop our Colonies in the way in which it is our duty to do and
474
in the way we must do if development is to take place? The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, spoke of uneconomic production. We cannot talk about uneconomic production in a single crop economy, where the whole community depends on being able to produce a traditional crop of fruit, vegetable or other agricultural product. We cannot switch these men over to some other industry in the interests of a theoretically free trade world. In fact, we have to safeguard the employment of these men and give them an opportunity of earning a living in their trade, even though it may not be, theoretically, an efficient trade.
I submit that in the interests of our home economy we have accepted restrictions which prevent colonial development to the fullest. No Colony today can conclude bilateral trade agreements for the disposal of its products to any foreign country if such an agreement entails preferential discrimination of imports into that Colony. We have accepted on behalf of the Colonies restrictions preventing them from discriminating in their import policies so that they can have a. chance of building up secondary industries protected by regional tariffs—it may not he a protective tariff for ever but only one needed for the period of nursing and developing the Colony. But if, as is the case, we want to get away from one-crop economics, we must be able to give the Colonies opportunities of protection for a period of time. In our policy we declare that we want to see colonial territories getting away from single-crop economies; but our actions belie our intentions.
I guess that the Government reply wilt probably be a twofold one. First, they will say that the higher volume of world trade resulting from successful multilateralism will be reflected in an increased demand for colonial produce. The other reply will be that we have secured at Geneva a waiver concession aimed at assisting distressed colonial producers. As regards the first, let me quote the words of the Minister of State to the Board of Trade, in which he put the Government defence clearly. He said:
"The aim of the Government's overseas policy is to hold the doors of world trade open; the larger the volume of international trade, the larger the volume of Commonwealth trade and the larger the volume of British exports."

475
This seems rather like saying that the bigger the total number of runs made in a cricket match, the more runs must be made by one side. That is a fallacy, as England has found in the West Indies, in Australia and in other parts of the world. In the long run it may be that the Government's contention is true, but it takes too long and it is too indirect to give help along those lines. It does not bring comfort or early improvement to those who live in conditions which we reject as unacceptable—to the unemployed banana grower, to the distressed tobacco grower or to the grower of citrus fruit or vegetable oils in the West Indies—to throw a stone into the middle of the pond, because they are right on the outside. That does not help them very much, because the ripple takes too long to get to the edge and, when it does, it is only a little ripple.
The second defence which I expect we shall hear—namely, that the waiver concession gained at Geneva is going to help—hardly bears examination. The concession is described as allowing us to give increased preferential tariff margins for certain colonial products imported into Britain. However, the concession is so hedged about with restrictions and limitations that I submit it is of little practical value. In two or three minutes I am going to describe to your Lordships some of those limitations and restrictions. If I am wrong in my description, if I have misread the document, I hope the Minister will correct me. I want to get the matter right. I do not think it is unfair to ask the noble Lord whether someone who is deploying a case is deploying it correctly or otherwise. If, in reply, the noble Lord says that, broadly speaking, I am correct in my description of the limitations, then I will leave it to your Lordships to judge whether it is a worth-while concession or otherwise.
The first restriction is that we can use this concession only where the United Kingdom market is the main receiving centre for the produce of a distressed colonial industry. That cuts out our helping industries in the Caribbean which may be thoroughly distressed but do not export to the United Kingdom as their main market. I looked at the figures of West Indies trade in the 1953 document. For 1953 the West Indies exports as a whole totalled £1153½ million, and the
476
United Kingdom accepted some £56 million, approximately half. Therefore 50 per cent. of the exports of the West Indies could not be helped by this concession which we have obtained at Geneva. Further, we can give increased help to imports into this country only if we are the main receivers of that particular product produced in the West Indies. Much of the value of this concession is whittled away if it can apply only to half, or only to part of the half, of the total export trade.
Next, the concession can operate only provided that neither this nor any other country receives any benefit for itself, its home industry, its home agriculture or its export trade. Who can say what a benefit is? Who can say whether we are or are not getting direct or indirect benefit? Moreover, why should not this country get some benefit from colonial trade? We gladly pay, and we invest largely. It is not immoral to try to get some benefit for ourselves or for the Colonies with whom we are trading. Then, we cannot try to operate this rather thin concession without the prior consent of all the thirty-four contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, any one of whom can object and delay action. Cuba does 1·1 per cent. of the total trade of the contracting parties; Nicaragua does ·1 per cent. and Peru ·4 per cent. But each has the same right of objection as Great Britain and America, who share between them approximately 40 per cent. of the trade.
Finally, if any one of the thirty-four contracting parties does object, Britain has accepted an obligation to enter into discussions with a view to limiting the proposals we put forward to help our Colonies. This means, in effect, that if we propose something and any one of the thirty-four contracting parties objects we are obligated not to maintain our position but to start a line of retreat and modify our proposal at once. I find it curious to think of a battle where one side goes into the conflict with the declared intention to start a retreat, for an unspecified distance, at the smallest sign of resistance. It does not make a very powerful arguing point for Great Britain to deal with any one of the thirty-four objectors if we have at the beginning declared that if anybody objects we will start a retreat. The only

477
question then to be decided is how far we retreat.
It is because of the situation I have described, and because I think we are, by our economic policy, in danger of sacrificing some of the interests of agricultural workers in Jamaica to the interests of the engineers at Coventry, that I would ask the Government to think again before we hand over to an outside power our freedom and ability to fulfil our colonial trust. Thinking again may delay the entry by Great Britain into this new trade organisation; but I submit that delay is worth while if by delaying we retain the freedom to fulfil that trust that we all wish to see implemented by this country.

MALTA
3.55 p.m.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships I should like to make a statement about Malta which has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. It is as follows:
"In the discussions which he has been holding with my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary, the Maltese Prime Minister has put forward proposals for a closer association between Malta and the United Kingdom. Her Majesty's Government welcome this initiative. They feel sure that in all parts of the House there will be a sympathetic response to the suggestion that the two peoples should draw more closely together.
"The administrative, financial and constitutional aspects of these proposals are closely linked. The administrative and financial aspects are at present under discussion with the Maltese Government Delegation. On the constitutional side, there is included a proposal that Malta, while retaining its own Legislative Assembly, should in future be represented in the Parliament at Westminster The Government feel that all sections of political opinion in Parliament should have an opportunity to consider, and express their views upon, a new constitutional development of such importance.
478
"They therefore propose to convene a Round-Table Conference, comprising representatives of all the political Parties in the Parliament at Westminster, to consider constitutional questions arising from the proposals. This Conference will meet during the Summer Recess. It will call into consultation representatives of the political Parties in the Legislative Assembly of Malta. Her Majesty's Government believe that by this procedure of practical co-operation between the two Parliaments this imaginative proposal can be considered in a way that accords with its constitutional importance and with the interests of both peoples."
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, I am in the unfortunate position of not having been made aware beforehand that this statement was going to be made, and consequently I have not been in touch with the leaders of my own Party. Therefore, the views that I express are purely my own, which may be recalled, if necessary. As the noble Marquess has said, this matter is obviously one of very great constitutional importance. These proposals represent a complete departure from anything that we have ever done. What is proposed is analogous to the system which the French have tried—but whether that system has been altogether successful or not is not for me to say. It will obviously have repercussions. If this system is to be adopted for Malta, it obviously would be difficult to resist it for certain other territories. I welcome the idea, which is a bold one, because we all desire to be on close terms with Malta. The drawback is that in our Parliament, a Member of Parliament must be a Member for all purposes. It is impossible to differentiate between broad issues concerning the Commonwealth, as a whole, and purely domestic issues, such as, for instance, the Forth Bridge or what sort of television service there is to be. Therefore, the whole subject needs careful consideration.
The proposal which the Government have advanced of a Round-Table Conference is itself a novelty. I have heard of a round-table conference to try to solve difficulties between Parties, but I have not heard of a round-table conference to try to thresh out the appropriate policy. But the fact that the idea is new is no reason for saying that it is

479
bad—indeed, I am inclined to think that it is a good idea. I would merely add this further comment. I do not suppose the personnel of this Conference has been considered at the present time. I have no doubt that the noble Marquess will bear in mind, in consideration with others, the possibility of Members of your Lordships' House being included in this Conference, which concerns a matter that is obviously of great importance to both Houses of Parliament.
LORD REA: My Lords, in thanking the noble Marquess for this most interesting statement, I should like to dissociate noble Lords on these Benches from the view, not perhaps totally held on the Benches on my left, that because this is an innovation, new and rather imaginative, it is therefore, perhaps, to be looked at with suspicion. I should like to congratulate the Government on bringing this thing to a head, particularly as understand that the consultation is being worked on, and drawn together, and not drawn apart, both by Mr. Mintoff, the Prime Minister, and Dr. Borg Oliver, hacked, of course, by our excellent representative in Malta, Sir Robert Laycock. With such good will on both sides and, I am sure, from everybody concerned, I wish this conference all good fortune.
EARL JOWITT: If the noble Lord was referring to me, may I say that I did not suggest that the idea should be looked at with suspicion, but I do suggest that it should be looked at with great care.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think we should all agree with that view: that is why we are setting up the Round-Table Conference. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt—I do not complain in the least of his remarks—asked me two definite questions. The first concerned the membership of the Conference. He said that while, no doubt, that matter had still to be considered, he would like to know whether Members of your Lordships' House would be included: whether they could be members. Of course, the actual detailed arrangements will be a matter for consideration between the Parties through the usual channels, but I think I might say straight out that Members of your Lordships' House will not be excluded from the Conference. I hope that it will be representative of both
480
Houses. The other question was whether this proposal would create a precedent. Of course, that is a very natural question. There are no two Colonies that are exactly alike, and there are, I believe, considerations which differentiate Malta from other Colonies. Therefore, I should not like to accept any suggestion that this creates a precedent. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for the words he has spoken.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess one further question? Will the representatives of our Parliament to this Round-Table Conference be appointed by the Government or by Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: They will be nominated, as I understand it. What is intended is that they should be in proportion to the strength of the Parties in another place, and the Opposition Parties will be invited to nominate their own representatives. That, clearly, is right.

THE COLONIAL TERRITORIES
4.3 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the limelight having just been focused on one small spot in the Colonial sphere, it can now be diffused again over the whole of the Colonial area. As is natural in a debate of this sort, especially as we are discussing an Annual Report of enormous width, scope and detail, our speeches are ranging very wide. So I ask no apology for not following noble Lords who have spoken already, and I will touch on two or three subjects which are not in the realm of constitutional or economic matters but which concern the social welfare and advance of the colonial territories, and particularly those in Africa.
I should like first, however, to take up what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said about information services. The noble Lord mentioned the need for making fully known in this country and elsewhere the good work that is being done by colonial officials all over the world. The Report, in paragraph 534, mentions steps taken by the information services to present the true picture of the Colonies, not only in other Commonwealth countries but in foreign countries

481
as well. I hope that there will be no tendency on the part of Her Majesty's Government to economise in those services. We had a debate some time ago on the subject, and last year it was borne in on me that there is a great need for the maximum possible publicity on behalf of the Colonial Service, not only in foreign countries but even in other Commonwealth countries. I took part in a Commonwealth Parliamentary delegation to East and Central Africa, and it was quite obviously new to many of my colleagues from other Commonwealth countries on that trip to see what was being done by the Colonial Office and its servants in those areas. Obviously, information services can only provide the information; they cannot ensure that it is published. Unfortunately, the things that tend to get published in the Press are generally the sensational ones or reports of disasters—in other words, when things go wrong it is news; and when they do not, it is not. For that reason alone, there must be no stinting the amount of good publicity material put out on this subject.
I want now to say a few words about primary education. I think most people will agree that one of the biggest obstacles to rapid political advance in the colonial territories is the very large gap that exists between the more highly educated Africans aid the mass of their fellow-countrymen. One of the most intractable problems of governing the African Colonies is how to close that gap with as little delay as possible. We cannot wait for the generations to grow up and go to school, and for their children to receive higher education. The process must be telescoped, and it is encouraging to see from the section of the Report dealing with primary education, that some spectacular advances are being made towards the aim of universal primary education. There is a long way to go, but in certain territories the figures show really remarkable advances in the last few years.
One need mention only the West Coast countries—some of the States of the Federation of Nigeria and the Gold Coast—where they have primary education for all who wish to take advantage of it. The enrolments in primary schools are going up, and they are also proposing to divide the cost between Government funds and local authority funds—in other words, they are decentralising education
482
in much the same way as we do here. Moreover, in Uganda the drive to expand the output of primary school teachers has had tremendous success. There has been an increase in the output of primary school teachers from 360, five years ago, to 843 last year. The aim is 1,150 at the end of next year. Obviously, that is the critical element in expanding an education system—how fast it is possible to expand the number of trained teachers. It is encouraging to know that that matter is going forward so well.
I have mentioned two territories—the West Coast and Uganda—that have outstanding records, but there is a great variation, it seems to me, between the more successful territories and the others. There is mention of some of the other territories, and the Report says that in Kenya particularly conditions for education arc rapidly returning to normal in the Kikuyu country. The effect of the emergency is being overcome. I hope that that process is going on, because I noticed in the East Africa Royal Commission Report—the document to which the noble Lord referred and which no doubt we shall be debating later—one of the conclusions they came to was:
"Better and more widespread education is a necessary element, indeed a prerequisite, of a higher standard of living."
So I hope that the Kenya Government will spare no efforts and no money to expand the educational facilities.
There is no mention in the Report this year of educational progress in Tanganyika. It is a curious omission. I think we should have been told something about conditions in that large and important territory. With regard to Northern Rhodesia, we are told that Government expenditure has increased by 50 per cent. during 1954. That is all to the good. There is no mention of education in Nyasaland. In passing, I might mention that there seems to be less reference in this year's Report to those two territories, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, than there has been in previous years. We know that by the Constitution of the Federation of Rhodesia certain matters in those territories, among which is African education other than higher education, remain under the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I hope that there is no tendency in Her Majesty's Government's mind to think that they can in any way relinquish their responsibility

483
for, or their control over, these matters that so closely affect the Africans in those territories. Nyasaland, in particular, I happen to know has in hand a five-year educational plan, due to be completed in 1959. By this they are going to expand the enrolment into primary schools from about 36 per cent. of the child population to 47 per cent. The system is to be decentralised to some extent and local education committees are to be formed to control it. Your Lordships will notice that, even in 1959, the aim is for only less than half the children to attend a school. I think that is a figure that should bring home to your Lordships the seriousness of the situation in many African territories.
I have mentioned that in some territories local authorities are being brought into the education picture, and local government in all its forms is one of the more important spheres in which a community can advance towards full political responsibility. The promotion of local government institutions has, I know, been in the forefront of Colonial Office policy for a number of years. It is linked with adult education and other forms of development. It goes by the name of community development. To go back for a moment, your Lordships will realise that primary education is all very well for the children who are growing up now, but the population who have grown up in past years have not had the advantage of education, and the importance of community development is in relation to adults. The term "community development" may be unfamiliar to your Lordships but I notice that it has been defined, authoritatively, I think last year, as
"a movement designed to promote better living for the whole community, with the active participation, and on the initiative, of the community."
What that means in fact is that it embraces all forms of betterment, not only for rural communities but also for urban ones. However, there is a more urgent need in the rural communities for improving the lot and the lives of the inhabitants. So it works towards, in the agricultural sphere, proper soil conservation, better farming methods and better care of livestock; in the health sphere, better sanitation and proper measures of hygiene and infant welfare; in the education sphere, adult education as well as the
484
improvement and extension of schools; and also, co-operative societies and the development of local government. The essence of it all is the stimulation of initiative.
I do not want to give the impression that this is a substitute for straight academic schooling. It is not. It is a means of improving the conditions of those who have not been at school and those who are living the necessarily poor, primitive lives of peasant communities in Africa. The Governor of Northern Rhodesia some years ago wrote
"Much of the backwardness of the rural population is attributable to lack of knowledge of even the most elementary rules of good living. Until a man learns how to plough properly, to use farmyard manure, to conserve the natural fertility of his soil, to use good methods of husbandry, to keep himself, his family, his house, and his water supplies clean, and to observe basic rules of health and hygiene, he cannot move far along the path of human progress."
With that as the background, I find it somewhat disappointing to discover how little is mentioned on the subject of community development in the Report. I notice that there is no mention, in this section of the Report, of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, the two countries which are in the Federation of Rhodesia. I was privileged to see several remarkable places in Africa: the Jeanes School at Kabete, near Nairobi, the Local Government Training School at Entebbe, the District Development Centre in Barotseland and the Local Government School in Nyasaland. There is one feature common to them all: that the scale and the resources available are wholly inadequate. The people turned out from courses in health and hygiene, agriculture, and so on, could be numbered in dozens or hundreds when they are needed to serve a population of millions. The only way in which you can cover a wide area of teaching with small resources is by training demonstration teams and sending them round the country. Incidentally, that is probably the best way of striking the imagination of the African. Those teams, composed exclusively of Africans, go round demonstrating the use of insecticides, fertilisers, agricultural methods and so on, and are of immense benefit; but the teams and teachers should be multiplied many times. I should like Her Majesty's Government to tell us that

485
they regard this community development movement as of first-class importance in the development of the territories, and that they will spare no effort, and encourage the Colonial Governments to spare no money and no effort, in extending them as much as possible.
4.21 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I rise to make only a brief intervention as I know that other noble Lords want to speak. I am going to put two questions to my noble friend, but first I want to say one or two words. The size and scope of colonial affairs is such that in colonial debates we sometimes lose ourselves in the very immensity of the subject. I believe that in the old days in China candidates for examinations used to be told: "Write all you know; time allowed, three months." When the Minister comes to reply he must feel that he is coping with something like that, but without quite so much time at his disposal.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I found myself in agreement with a good deal of it. I should like to take him up on two points, and the first is in regard to what he said about the Gold Coast. He feels, perhaps, that there has been a breakdown in proper Parliamentary relationships there. We all regret the tension that we know exists in the Gold Coast at this moment. If we were able to get the problems of the Gold Coast resolved it would be an excellent thing; but we must not expect things to move too quickly. Round about 200 years ago in this country a Minister faced impeachment; now he is made Leader of the Opposition, and his salary is a charge upon the Consolidated Fund. We did not get our form of responsible government exactly overnight. At this moment the Gold Coast is in a most fascinating phase, the final stage before complete independence. Of course the set-up is not perfect; indeed, it is very far from perfect. But that is not to say that the all-African Cabinet are not making a good job of things.
There are, of course, two sources of dispute, which the noble Lord mentioned. There is the federal movement and the call for an inquiry into the marketing boards. I think both of these have been handled in a proper Parliamentary
486
manner, inside the House, and if Mr. Nkrumah has, in fact, enraged a sufficient number of his people, he will find that he is not returned at the next Election. I consider it a most happy thing that in the Gold Coast at this moment there should be two men of such stature as Sir Charles Arden-Clark and Mr. Nkrumah. I pay a very warm tribute to a previous Colonial Secretary for appointing Sir Charles Arden-Clark to that particular post. It means that Mr. Nkrumah has access to the advice of a man of great gifts, wide experience and extremely sound judgment. One thing about which I think we must be careful is advice. We always have it available to give. Help we always promise, but we must be careful not to confuse advice with interference.
The second point I wish to take up with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is what I thought was a rather severe charge about the use of bombing in the recent disorders in the Aden Protectorate. He mentioned indiscriminate bombing. In a sense, all bombing is not entirely discriminate, just as all use of artillery fire is not entirely discriminate. If the noble Lord has read the relevant section of the Report lie will see that those who broke the peace had the active support of the Yemeni from across the border. Where that condition exists it is difficult to bring bandits co book with ground forces. They have asylum on the other side of the border; their sinews of war will be replenished. I agree that it is drastic to have to use bombers, but in this case I do not think we had any other choice. In our own part of the world we have people in personal responsibility, but in the Arab world the position is very different. If one member of a tribe does something against another, the whole tribe takes on the corporate responsibility for that act. Therefore, after due warning, the use of bombs as an effective measure against a tribe, some of whose members had broken the peace, was, I believe, justified.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn to the paragraph in the Daily Telegraph, which I quoted? That paragraph said that this attack had broken down, and that ground troops had had to be sent. So that even if, as he may say, this method of using bombers is moral, how does he justify it as being efficacious?
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: I thought that the noble Lord's attack was against the use of bombers.
LORD OGMORE: Yes.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: They are not being used now; but I am talking about the fact that they ever were used. And however much we regret the need to use them, there is no ground for remorse that we did use them.
I turn now to my two questions—first to East Africa. We all believe that we have broken the back of the Mau Mau "snake," but this once happy country has had a terrible setback in its advance. It is always the same with Mau Mau or Malayan terrorism. There is such a distraction of effort, measurable in men, money and materials. We hear now that Mau Mau have withdrawn from larger and larger tracts of country, which are returning to the care of the administration and of the police. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Lloyd (I apologise to him for rather short notice) what steps have been taken by the Kenya Government to implement the statement of policy which was issued by the Council of Ministers when they took office in April, 1954.
Then I turn to the other side of the world, to the West Indies. We all hope that we shall soon be welcoming the coming into being of the West Indian Federation. It is a concept long dreamed of and many times discussed. Of the different West Indian territories, we have latterly tended to hear more of British Guiana than usual. I have made something of a study of British Honduras. They have peculiar problems, both political and economic, and my second question to the noble Lord is whether he can tell us something—and we should like to hear as much as he can tell us—of the recent political and economic developments in the territory of British Honduras.
Last of all, there is a phrase which we hear quite often and which I was rather surprised to notice that Mr. Creech Jones used in a speech the other day in another place—that "Colonialism is dead." I wonder what that phrase can possibly mean. It is often used by the Russians, so I thought I could not do better than get a Russian dictionary and look it up. I am informed by my Russian translator
488
that a colony is "an area or country seized by an imperialist State with the object of making super profits by using it as a source of raw materials and by the merciless economic, political and national oppression of the population." Well, they should know! It is they who fettered that system on a tract of the earth which runs from East Berlin to the Bering Strait, and South to the China Seas. Is colonialism dead in the British sphere of influence? In the sense of the definition given by the Russian dictionary it was never born. We acquired these territories by different means, none of them discreditable in the light of the times in which we acquired them. We acquired with them responsibilities; and, so far from those responsibilities being dead, they are very much alive. We go on shouldering them in this day and age, and it is only too likely that we shall be shouldering them for many generations hence, however tempting may be the voices which say that we have shouldered them long enough; for on our shoulders rests the hope for a better life for many millions of people.
4.31 p.m.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, I intend to say only a few words on the need, as I see it, for the foundation of an Anglo-Hellenic University in Cyprus. I do not speak as one with personal knowledge of the island; but sometimes those with limited knowledge of the trees get a clear view of the wood; and in years gone by I have travelled a certain amount in Greece and have been aware of the quite unusual sense of historical continuity of culture with the Eastern Roman Empire, and so with classical Greece, that prevails from the Monastery of Athos to the coffee-houses of Athens. It seems to me (and it is always easy to be wise after the event) that our policy in Cyprus has been correct but unimaginative. We have given the island good government and economic prosperity, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has pointed out; we have not interfered with its cultural links with Greece; and through such organisations as the British Council we have endeavoured to make something of our own art and literature available to the Cypriots. But the pudding has not entirely proved itself in the eating; the soufflé has been a little flat. Yet we owe so much to the Greeks and the Greeks owe so much to us.

489
I would propose the foundation in Cyprus of a university, not designed to make Englishmen of the Greeks who live there, but one affiliated, say, to Oxford and Cambridge, on the one hand, and to Athens, on the other, so that, possibly on a post-graduate basis, or otherwise, those reading Greats could amplify their scholarship in the light of living Greek thought and the modern Greek language, and those in Greece anxious to study on an advanced level our literature, language and learning could find them, so to speak, at their door. Such a university obviously would need to include a faculty for Turkish studies. It would bring together the understanding of our political institutions and the ancient wisdom of the Eastern Mediterranean. Cypriots, if they wished, could themselves take degrees without the expense of leaving their island, which must, after all, at present grievously limit the number of those seeking a full education. It seems to me that a university designed to bring together British and Greek scholarship, in conjunction with that of our neighbours and allies in Turkey, is just what is needed to give unity within a European framework, and to turn Cyprus from a stumbling-block of misunderstanding into a cornerstone of friendship.
4.35 p.m.
LORD RENNELL: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord who opened this debate for not having been in the House to hear his opening remarks, and also for intervening at the last moment on a rather narrow subject, though it is one with which I have personally been very much concerned. In the Report on the Colonial Territories which is the thesis of this debate there is a very brief paragraph on Somaliland which says only that on November 29 an agreement was completed between the United Kingdom Government and the 'Ethiopian Government providing for the withdrawal of the British military administration from certain parts of Ethiopia bordering on the Protectorate, with effect from February 28. That decision which admittedly implemented an engagement made with the Ethiopian Government as long ago as 1897, in an agreement which was negotiated by my father with the Emperor Menelik, has caused much trouble and perturbation in the minds of the Somali people.
490
May I refresh your Lordships' memory, very briefly, with a most interesting fact about Africa? What is commonly called the Horn of Africa, from the Straits at the entrance to the Red Sea down to the Juba River, is the only large area in the whole of Africa that appears to have an entirely homogeneous population. Apart from a few hundreds of an earlier race, there is no mixture of races; and the people who live there are entirely of one religion—Moslems. Unfortunately, since the European intervention in Africa, Somaliland, like Caesar's Gaul, has been divided into three parts. through no fault of the Somalis; it is divided between ourselves, in the British Somaliland Protectorates, the Italian Somali coast and the portion, virtually unadministered before the institution of the British military administration usually called Ethiopian Somaliland. But the establishment of the British Protectorate happened not only with the consent, hut with the acclamation, of the Somali people, and in spite of all the difficulties we had had in the past with the Mad Mullah and his fanatical adherents, over a long period of time. The Somali people have apparently been sufficiently happy under our Protectorate and rather loose administration to have welcomed with open arms the re-occupation of British Somaliland, when it was reconquered from the Italian forces, in 1941.
Since that time, all the three Somali territories, British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland and Ethiopian Somaliland, were for many years administered under a British military administration over which I had the privilege of presiding. It was the first time in modern history that the whole of the Somali area in Africa, and the whole of the Somali people, had found themselves under one single administration. The British military administration of British Somaliland continued unit the territory, after the end of the war, was handed back to the Colonial Office, at which time a repartition was once more made of the Somali areas and the Somali people. In circumstances too detailed to go into in the course of this debate, the Italian Somali coast was handed back to the tutelage of Italy for a period of time which, I believe, terminates in 1960. Ethiopian Somaliland remained under British military administration until, as is announced in this Report, it was handed over to Ethiopia this year, and, so far as I know,

491
much against the wishes of the Somali people in that area and of the Somali people generally.
I should like to point out that foreign intervention in Somali affairs is comparatively recent in history. The only town of any size on the edge of the Somali area, Harrar, was occupied by the Emperor Menelik's troops only in, I believe, 1887. Before that Harrar was essentially a Somali centre and one of the few such centres in a nomadic area. The circumstances of the expansion of the Ethiopian Empire under the Emperor Menelik are probably well known to your Lordships and not germane to this particular discussion. It was in the same generation that the British, French and Italian interventions took place. The handing over of Ethiopian Somaliland implemented this year, as the outcome of what was known as the Rennell Rodd Agreement with the Emperor Menelik of 1897, was legally correct, although it took nearly sixty years to be implemented.
At the time that Agreement was made there were circumstances of which most of us are to-day totally unaware. There was, notably, the French penetration from Djibouti westwards into Africa, of which the Marchand Expedition from the West Coast to the Nile Valley was a relevant element. The Rennell Rodd Agreement, negotiated as a treaty of amity and commerce between the Ethiopian Empire and Her Majesty's Government in this country, was, however, designed to stop the French penetration through Ethiopia to the Nile, and in fact to stop a junction with an expedition, fitted out ostensibly for botanical purposes, by two Frenchmen, who left Djibouti in order to meet Marchand at Fashoda with arms and food. As the result of the failure of this French expedition to reach the Nile, the surrender of Marchand at Fashoda took place, as your Lordships are aware. There was, therefore, behind the Agreement of 1897 a great deal more of importance to the Somali people than the settlement of a grazing dispute as appeared in the treaty of amity and commerce. Since 1897, when the Rennell Rodd treaty was signed, a great deal has taken place, not only in Africa generally but to the Somali people in particular, and including the relegation of the French to the Djibouti area.
492
The Somali people are an expanding race, and they have been an expanding race for some generations. They have been expanding north, west and south. Various efforts have been made by various people to contain them within their boundaries—but not very successfully. They are, moreover, strangely enough, for a nomadic people, extremely adaptable. The Somali camel trader of the past is now a Somali motor driver, pedlar and merchant throughout the area of Eastern Africa, which runs approximately from Port Sudan and Mombasa into the interior as far as the Ethiopian lakes. He has also taken to the sea, and many Somalis are serving in Her Majesty's Merchant Navy and the merchant navies of many other nations. It shows remarkable adaptability on the part of a land nomadic people that they should thus take to maritime life.
The handing over of what is an intrinsic part of Somaliland. as the Somalis know it and as those of us who have been out there know it, is not only a tragic redivision of Somaliland, but one which looks more likely to be perpetuated than anything involved in the handing over at the end of the war of the Italian Somali coast under tutelage of the United Nations, for a period with a terminating date in 1960. It is therefore not unnatural that the Somalis have taken very great exception to the decision of Her Majesty's Government to implement the 1897 Agreement and to withdraw the surviving British Administration and troops in Ethiopian Somaliland, thereby perpetuating, so far as they can see for ever, the cutting off of Ethiopian Somaliland, with its important grazing areas, from the rest of their lands. Moreover, the Ethiopians and the Somalis have little in common. They have different religions, different ways of life, differences of outlook. There are other differences which will occur to your Lordships, and I need not elaborate them. The protests made by the Somali people against this decision were made to Her Majesty's Government in this country without any effect, as the result of which lack of effect the Somali people in British Somaliland have now decided to send a delegation to the United Nations to make their case. I should like to think that their plea to the United Nations will receive the support of Her Majesty's Government, so that

493
we shall see, in measurable time—say by 1960—the prospect of a reunited Somaliland and the unification of an area of homogeneous population in the only large part of Africa where such conditions exist.
I regret very much that when the settlement was reached at the end of the war it was decided to allow the Italians to return to the Italian Somali coast, and I say this in all friendliness to my Italian friends, with whom I have been associated, as your Lordships may know, for the whole of my life. It is not in any way that I object to the Italians, What I object to is that this has created a redivision of the one homogeneous area in Africa. That was done, admittedly, without any enthusiasm in this country. Indeed, the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, did his best to oppose the decision, which was, in fact, taken out of his hands by people who knew a great deal less about Somaliland and the Somali people than we in this country do. Had it been necessary, for political or any other reasons, for the Italians to receive back under tutelage any part of their Colonial Empire, Eritrea was a much more obvious choice, being a country of mixed races, mixed religions and mixed ways of life. But that was not done. I regret very much that when that decision was reached at the end of the war it was reached without consultation with the people who knew Somaliland, and in completed disregard of the views of all those people who had ever been associated with British Somaliland, Italian Somaliland or Ethiopian Somaliland. Nevertheless, it was done. But that harm done is remediable. The Italian tutelage can be brought to an end. The prospects of a return to the Somali people of the area which has now been handed over to Ethiopia are, however, negligible, and consequently are a legitimate source of complaint by the Somali people.
In conclusion, I should like to add only one other thing. The behaviour of the Somali people in proffering their requests to Her Majesty's Government and making their case has been marked by dignity and sobriety. There have been no threats, no rioting and no shedding of blood; and, above all, there has been no antagonism to ourselves. They rightly say, having placed themselves under our protection voluntarily in the latter part of the last century, having through us
494
had the benefit of contact with their Somali brothers in what is known as Ethiopian Somaliland, having had the rights of grazing flocks in the area from which they are now cut off, that they feel they ought to have had greater support from the people who have been looking after them and whom they would be happy to see continuing to look after them in the future until they are able to look after themselves. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will do their best to support the moral claim of the Somali people for reunification of the Somali-lands in the Horn of Africa and will do nothing to oppose it. I hope they will seek to carry out what has been our consistent policy elsewhere—to bring people to unity and peace and self-government. I sincerely hope that the Somali people will achieve this with the assistance of ourselves and, perhaps, of other nations, instead of being condemned to live under three separate régimes, which need never have happened had a sensible and statesmanlike view been adopted at the end of the war when they were administered by one authority, the breaking up of which we should have stopped.
4.49 p.m.
LORD MILVERTONI: My Lords, as has been said already, the terms of this Motion have been so widely drafted that any attempt to deal with it comprehensively would require not merely a speech but a book, and no small one at that. I shall make no attempt to go to that length, nor is there any need for me to traverse some of the interesting speeches which have already been made, because I find myself to a considerable extent in agreement with them. But they have touched, as your Lordships have heard, on specific cases, and I want to adopt a slightly different approach to this Motion. Over the past twelve months we have had debates on various colonial territories where there has been trouble of some kind or another—Malaya, Kenya, British Guiana, Cyprus, Uganda and the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. In some of these cases there are special reasons why it is undesirable in a debate like this to go into any detail and I shall not attempt to do so. I do not wish to embarrass the Government, either, by specific mention which must necessarily be incomplete. As I view it, this debate affords an opportunity of dealing with

495
colonial policy in a general way, and that is the only way in which I can avoid the feeling of being somewhat disjointed.
The Command Paper which is the subject of this Motion is a remarkable document. I think that the Secretary of State and the Colonial Office, as well as the Colonial Service in all its branches, are to be congratulated on the real progress and solid achievements depicted so clearly and so quietly in the unemotional English affected by Whitehall. Perhaps this is an appropriate moment for me, as a Back Bencher and as an old member of the Colonial Service, to record the appreciation and admiration which we all feel for the work done by the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, during the years when his firm guidance and determined sagacity won the respect of all Parties in this country and the esteem of all colonial people. I join, too, in welcoming Mr. Lennox-Boyd back home to the job where his heart and interests lie. If the noble Earl, Lord Munster, whose courtesy and ease in answering debates are so appealing and so appeasing, had to move to higher responsibilities, I am glad that his mantle has fallen upon the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, under whose distinguished father I had the honour to serve when he was Secretary of State for the Colonies.
The Report starts with an impressive list of constitutional and political developments, followed by fifty pages on economic and financial developments, then by another thirty-five pages on social services. I must confess that the order rather intrigues me. Although without the economic development, political progress is just a name and social services a dream, none the less I think that the order is right. An able writer on colonial affairs recently said:
"The essence of the colonial grievance is not economic. It is political … for the biggest fact of all in the colonial world to-day is not poverty but passion—passion about the colonial relationship."
In this connection, it does not matter whether the Government is good or bad: it is alien, and that in the modern context is what hurts. No doubt the mass of the people are better off under British guidance and no doubt they are likely to be better off for some time to come, but that is not the point. We are dealing with the pathology of wounded
496
self-esteem, a resentment of inferior status by a small, educated minority.
That attitude is a direct result of our own teaching of our own doctrines of liberty and self-government. The nationalist movement in most Colonies is a direct creation of alien rule, and its cohesive force is really a craving to be rid of such rule, rather than internal patriotism. The trouble is that agitation in these circumstances becomes a career for ability, and that is a bad nursery for would-be self-governing statesmen. A minority, ambitious for power, working on the economic discontents of the majority, can paralyse the machinery of government. We have seen it in many places. If not given sufficient outlet, it will end by sabotaging all government.
It is true that self-government means initially the handing over of authority by the administering Power from one minority to another minority. How representative is this minority? That is a difficult question to answer. Generally speaking, the minority is the ablest and best educated, who can and do influence the ignorant masses. When India and Ceylon became independent they possessed a trained indigenous Civil Service, able to take over the strain of independent government, whereas in our Colonies that stage has clearly not been reached. None the less, as we know, it is not possible to slow down the progress towards self-government in order to give it a better chance when it comes. On the side lines the United Nations continue to provide a world forum for public opinion hostile to the colonial relationship, an opinion which is often ignorant and malicious as well.
In the early days the economic credentials of superior achievement, the disparity of technical skills and moral values between the European and, say, the African, encouraged this idea of racial superiority; so what were at least partially environmental advantages in the first place become associated in the general mind with colour. Disturbing forces were released by the two World Wars. The Western European himself destroyed in native eyes much of his own prestige during that process. But much of the unrest with which we are faced to-day was inevitable in any case, as a result of the clash between two different ways of life. In African customary life, for instance, the individual was

497
subordinated to the family and the tribal group. His loyalties were group loyalties. We are witnessing the full consequences of de-tribalisation, industrialisation, the cinema, the break-up of family life which conies from so many able-bodied men leaving their villages and working in mines and on plantations and farms, inflation and the fluctuating value of money, and, generally speaking, the imposition of a money economy upon people bred in a subsistence economy relying largely on barter.
The Command Paper which we are considering has for its background this battle for the minds of men. If we can convince the colonial peoples of the sincerity of our motives and the genuineness of our determination to help them to self-government at the earliest possible moment, then the battle will be won. But to achieve that, a world of suspicion and mistrust has to be dispelled. Whatever criticism may be offered to-day, nobody can say that the Colonies are standing still. They undoubtedly are moving, but in many cases there is an impatience that the pace is not greater. It has been said, too, not without reason, that the pendulum of opinion has swung so far in the direction of economic values and materialistic aims that things of the Spirit have escaped adequate attention, leaving a vacuum dangerously available to evil influences. After all, my Lords,
"Man does not live by bread alone."
And what if the price of the machine age is, after all, too high? There may be a stronger case for sitting idle in the sun than our restless generation is willing to admit. In any case, miracles of economic transformation cannot be performed overnight.
Our accepted policy seems to rest on the right of people to misgovern themselves, if they wish, our minor responsibility being to mitigate as far as possible perhaps an initial slowing down or slackening of efficiency and of principle in government. Democracy is founded on a belief in the ability, integrity and patriotism of the common citizen. It is a large assumption to make; and it is urgently necessary, therefore, to press on with education in all its aspects. But if we are to contemplate, as indeed we do, an ever increasing participation of the ordinary man in his own government, then the
498
same forces that swept away the administering power will also inevitably liquidate the native chiefs. If that process is not reasonably gradual, then the result is not likely to be happy. It is accepted policy that all the Colonies which are big enough, either alone or grouped with others, and able to stand alone politically and economically, should be assisted to achieve that status as quickly as possible. Obviously, there is no one answer to the question when or by what stages power should be transferred. It will vary, but the end is now assured. It is hoped, as a corollary, that all Colonies which achieve independence will elect, from motives of self-interest and good will, to remain members of the Commonwealth. For the many other Colonies which are too small to look after themselves entirely complete local self-government under British protection is assured, but as yet no closer association with this country has been envisaged. It is not easy to devise a closer relationship for these small auxiliaries of the Commonwealth. It would seem, apart from other objections, a step in the wrong direction to add representation in an already overloaded House of Commons, whilst representation in this House would be an anomaly unless it were fitted into some reformed structure.
Time does not permit me to deal with the vital importance in these connections of what is behind this Report—namely, the importance of private life and happy personal relations. Much of the passion which is apt to creep into claims for independence is based on social slights and the imputation of social inferiority. Wherever there is no cultural basis for this imputation of inferiority it should certainly slowly disappear before an enlightened public opinion. I would say a word or two about the Colonial Office before I conclude. The Colonial Office system is rapidly becoming outmoded. For all the bigger Colonies direction from London seems to me to give the worst of two worlds. There is no final authority on the spot and no strong consistent policy from London. The Whitehall system applied to the Colonies seems to me to mean bureaucratic government stimulated and obsessed by fear of Parliamentary criticism.
I have deliberately said nothing about multi-racial States, because the subject is complex and would merit a separate

499
debate in itself. Apart altogether from the East and Central African problems of creating multi-racial Governments where there is a local resident European population as one of the constituents, in the ultimate hope there of unity in diversity, there are many analogous problems throughout the Colonial Empire where Europeans are not included at all. In Malaya there is, as yet, no Malayan nation, only three major races, the Malay, the Chinese and the Indian; in Nigeria, there is not yet a Nigerian nation, and beneath the surface of British control exist multi-racial tensions of some magnitude; in Fiji, there is still the unsolved problem of the evenly balanced numbers of Fijians and Indians; and so on through Mauritius, Trinidad, British Guiana and other Colonies.
One last word about the Colonial Civil Service, which has recently suffered a change and is now to be known as the Overseas Civil Service. Beneath this change of name is hidden the fact that the days of the administrative service in the old sense are numbered. It will pass away, functus officio, as indeed the Secretary of State himself in the present importance of his office will also cease upon the midnight—we hope of course, with no pain. The need and demand for professional help will continue, and may even grow, but obviously the administrative officer's place will be taken by local government officials, men and women, if self-government is to mean anything at all. There will be, perhaps for a long time, undiminished demand for the help of doctors, engineers and scientists of every kind, agricultural, veterinary and forestry experts, and even lawyers, but there is no more reason why the administrative service should survive than the Indian Civil Service. Its enduring monument will be a number of thriving young States, growing in importance as the years pass by and, we hope, proud of a friendly association with the Commonwealth.
I have deliberately avoided individual and detailed references to particular Colonies. May I conclude with the expression of a hope that we shall continue to have faith in ourselves; that we shall not be affected by the criticisms which are so frequently levelled at us. Let us continue to have faith in what we have done and what we are doing in the cause of human betterment, and once more may
500
I congratulate the colonial authorities, both here and abroad, on the record contained in this Report.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by The LORD CHANCELLOR.
5.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, before I embark on my few remarks, may I say, as the first speaker to have this opportunity, how delighted we are to see the noble and learned Viscount back on the Woolsack. I hope that he did not have too breathless a journey from the Airport to your Lordships' House, but it is a great pleasure to all of us to see him here again.
I think your Lordships will agree that when we are discussing the Colonies we all have our eye on the same target, and for that reason there is a wide measure of agreement between speakers on both sides of the House. I believe that noble Lords opposite found a good deal of common ground with us, and I am certain that we find a great deal of common ground with them. I will pick out only one or two points at this stage of the debate, but I should like to say how much I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, when he said that the Government should do all they can to support the agrarian economy of the West Indies. Unfortunately, the West Indian territories still depend for their standard of living, low as it is, and for their standard of employment, low as that is, on the United Kingdom as a market for their main products. We have a real obligation to protect them from the violent fluctuations which take place in the market price of these commodities.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, referred to Jamaica. I share his hope that we shall soon hear from the Government that a trading agreement has been concluded with the Jamaican Government which is satisfactory to both parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, is back in his place, I must take up one point in his remarks. He referred to the use by my right honourable friend Mr. Creech Jones of the expression "death of colonialism." He then indicated colonialism in the Russian sense, and said that colonialism in that sense had never existed in the British Colonies. Of course, we should all agree with that. But I do not think for a

501
moment that my right honourable friend was using the term "colonialism" in that sense. What I think he meant—I have had no chance of consulting him—was that the British colonial policy aims at ending the subordinate political status of all our dependencies. We are, therefore, the one Power in the world, and the only colonial Power, which is working for its own extinction as a colonial Power. In that sense, I think it is true that colonialism is dying, if it is not already dead so far as we are concerned.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: It is anybody's guess what the right honourable gentleman meant. I am, however, obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation of it. I certainly did not charge Mr. Creech Jones with meaning colonialism in the sense of the Russian definition.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord opposite.
May I pass on to the few remarks on the Colonies which I should like to offer to the House. There is one subject on which my noble friend Lord Ogmore did not touch in the course of his compendious survey of this field, and which no other noble Lord in the course of the debate has touched upon, though it is a matter of great and topical importance. That is the situation in Uganda. I am fully aware that discussions are going on at this moment with two delegations from Uganda, and naturally I shall not expect the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, to say anything about these negotiations. But I should like to offer views which I am sure he will consider before final decisions are reached.
We are all delighted to note in the Report the relaxation of tension that has steadily taken place in the past year in Uganda. We owe this to a series of wise decisions, both on our side and on the part of the African leaders. There was the decision to send out Sir Keith Hancock, an ideal negotiator, and the. success of his committee in obtaining agreement about constitutional reforms in Buganda. Then there is the decision of the Government here to allow the Kabaka. to return, on the condition that the constitutional reforms to which I have referred were accepted and carried out by the Lukiko of Buganda. Finally, there
502
was the extremely statesmanlike acceptance by the Lukiko of the recommendations made at the Namirembe Conference. This series of events has created the right atmosphere for the present negotiations, of which the outcome, I think the noble Lord opposite will agree, will be a turning point in our relations with the Protectorate.
There is one thing that has come out quite clearly from what has been happening in the last two years in Uganda. I do riot think anyone can doubt that the desire of the Baganda for the return of Mutesa II has not lessened since his exile in November, 1953. It is therefore most important that the Government are no longer opposed to his return. The only difference, now no logger a difference of principle, between the Government and the Lukiko, is about the timing of his return. I hope that the Government will do everything possible to secure agreement on this one absolutely vital point. It would be a mistake, I am sure—and I have no reason to suppoes that the Government have made this mistake—to link the return of the Kabaka with the acceptance of an Indian Minister in the Uganda Government: the two matters are quite distinct. One affects the Central Government and the other the Baganda, and there is nothing in the Namirembe proposals about changes in the composition of the Executive Council.
One concession the Government would. be wise to make—and I should like to commend this view—is a willingness to bring forward the date of the Kabaka's return. This could be done—and the possibility is already stated in the official view ex pressed by the Secretary of State —by shortening the period of nine months which the Government at that time considered should elapse after the agreement comes into force. Provided that Mutesa II is willing to endorse the constitutional settlement—and I do not think there is any reason to doubt that he will do so—it is far more likely to be worked satisfactorily if his people see that he freely consents to it and are absolutely sure that he has not agreed to it under duress while in exile. I think that is an extremely important psychological point, if I may put it that way. The dignity and restraint of this young man during his period of exile show, I think, that he has the makings of a good constitutional monarch. And the really extraordinarily

503
sweet reasonableness, and the respect for law, of the members of the Lukiko during this time of acute strain indicate that they are well fitted to carry out their new responsibilities as members of a Ministry in a fully developed Parliamentary system. But this reform in the Constitution of Buganda, and many other reforms and improvements which Uganda owes to the enlightened leadership of the present Governor, Sir Andrew Cohen, will be prejudiced unless agreement is reached.
I am sure no one will forget that a necessary condition for the success of all these changes is goodwill. I should like to underline that word "goodwill" a hundred times, because I believe that it is the key to everything else. If goodwill is essential for further progress now, it will be even more important in the future. When Uganda becomes an independent African country, which I presume will certainly happen in the present century, we hope that it will stay within the Commonwealth, as other dependencies have done on reaching independence. But this decision, remote as it may be from to-day, will depend largely on the goodwill which we shall gain or lose by British policy at the present time. I believe that we have a unique opportunity now of restoring the traditional friendship and goodwill between English people and Africans in Uganda, between our Administration and their Administration, and of getting the close co-operation between the races needed for progress in every direction. I profoundly hope that this opportunity will not be lost.
5.21 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, the Motion which we have been debating this afternoon draws attention to the Report of my right honourable friend upon colonial territories. Before I attempt to deal with the innumerable specific questions which have been raised, I ought perhaps to make one or two general observations upon the Report itself. As regards the form of the Report, I think on the whole it has received a meed of approbation from all sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said he thought it was all right. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said he
504
thought it was a very good Report. Generally speaking, it has been well received.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said he was in favour of the comprehensive type of Report, although I gather that there are others who think that a something more concise might better. From the Colonial Office point of view, our only desire is to produce the kind of Report which will provide, as briefly and as clearly as possible, the information which the majority of its habitual readers in Parliament desire. Certainly, we are very open to suggestions. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, made one or two minor suggestions about how the Report might be improved. I will keep those in mind. On the question of the comprehensive Report as opposed to the more concise one, I would say that of course brevity is a virtue in many ways—in wit, in speeches and not least in Reports. But when you are dealing with the varied interests and activities, both political and economic, of no fewer than thirty-seven separate territories, there is a limit to the amount of streamlining that can be done, if anything like a fair picture is to be given; just as, if one is trying to answer this debate dealing with practically every one of those thirty-seven territories, it is hard to be brief if one is to answer every question. Moreover, those who read the Report are probably interested in different aspects of colonial affairs, and if all are to be satisfied it is essential that all those various facets of the colonial picture should be adequately covered. Therefore, on the whole, I, for one, side with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the form of the Report.
But, whatever its form, the Report does attempt to give a balanced picture of what is taking place in the Colonies at the present time. I am quite certain that it is of the first importance that a balanced picture should be given. Public interest in the colonial territories to-day is, I believe, greater than it has ever been before. That is a very satisfactory development. Several noble Lords pointed this out: the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, did, and the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, talked about the importance of the information services for this reason—namely, that the increased publicity which the Colonies get, perhaps inevitably, always is focused upon the difficulties, the setbacks and the dissensions which inevitably arise in any

505
developing organisation, and ignores the less spectacular but steady progress that is being made in so many fields. Thus, the ordinary man in the street sees a good deal about the troubles in Kenya, in Malaya and in Cyprus, but he hears little of the constitutional Advances which are steadily being made, even in some of the troubled territories themselves, of the continuing annual expenditure of Colonial Development and Welfare funds on projects throughout the colonial territories—over £15½ million was spent in 1954–55 in this way—and of the progress that goes on all the time in the medical and educational fields.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but, as your Lordships know, there is a Royal Commission at 5.30 o'clock. I suggest to the House that we adjourn during pleasure until 5.30, for the Royal Commission.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
5.30 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:

Austrian State Treaty,

German Conventions,

British Transport Commission Order Confirmation,

Writers to the Signet Widows' Fund Order Confirmation.

House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

THE COLONIAL TERRITORIES
5.42 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I had observed that I attach great importance to the fact that the Report gives a balanced view of what is going on in the colonial territories. I think that is important because, as I was saying, it is very often the sensational, the disastrous, and so on, that catches the eye of the average reader of the Press. Although the
506
man in the street reads little about all the progress, I think that those who have studied the Report will agree that a great deal has taken place from the constitutional point of view. For example, there have been, among other developments in the period covered by the Report, the establishment of Nigeria as a Federation, the changes in the Constitution of the Gold Coast providing for a wholly elected Assembly and a Cabinet of representative Ministers, which brings the territory to the last stage before self-government; the introduction of a new Constitution in Tanganyika and the publication of proposed changes in Nyasaland; and, in the Far East, the adoption of a new Constitution in both Malaya and. Singapore. On the economic side, exports (including re-ex ports, which fell a little compared with the previous year) were 5 per cent. higher in volume in 1954 than in 1953, and imports also increased in volume. Colonial Development and Welfare expenditure, to which I have already referred, was the highest of any year so far.
Even if we look at the debit side of the balance sheet, it will he seen that progress has been made towards the restoration of law and order in both Kenya and Malaya. So that I hope your Lordships will feel—and I think most noble Lords have already expressed this as their feeling—that this Report is a useful document and that, despite the various difficulties and setbacks which we have experienced, we are making progress towards the goal which I. know is common to all Parties. That goal, of course, is to lead the colonial peoples towards self-government within the Commonwealth. That is our aim, although a number of the smaller territories lack the size, population and resources to sustain the position and obligations of independent sovereign Stales.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, once again drew your Lordships' attention to the problem of these smaller territories, a subject which was debated in this House as recently as last February. There is little I can add this afternoon to what I said on that occasion. At that time I made it clear that Her Majesty's Government were very conscious of the problem of these small territories and that we would continue to study the question of their future. At the same time, I said

507
that I was doubtful whether any cut-and-dried plan would provide a solution. My reasons for taking that view were that these territories differed enormously one from another, that the problem was more one of their individual relationships with the United Kingdom than of their relationships one with another, and, finally, that they were likely to reach the stage of constitutional and economic development at which it will become necessary to settle their constitutional relationships with the United Kingdom, at greatly differing times. For all those reasons I felt that any cut-and-dried plan for each and every one would be very difficult. Although I never ruled out such a solution which would apply to all territories if we could find it, I have always felt that the empirical approach to the problem was more likely to produce a workable solution than a doctrinaire approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, accuses Her Majesty's Government of lacking leadership in this matter. I do not think it is any good to show leadership unless one is quite certain that one has something which is leading in the right direction. I do not think anybody has yet produced an overall, cut-and-dried plan which is necessarily the right one. I am, therefore, prepared to face a charge of lack of leadership, for I would rather do that than produce a plan which is wrong.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Lord, after this interesting thesis which in the military sphere would be regarded as a prelude to disaster, what he proposes to do in regard to Malta? One cannot have an empirical approach in these matters. You have Malta firmly on your plate, and many territories will follow whatever is done in the case of Malta.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I was about to mention Malta, if the noble Lord had not intervened. When I spoke of an empirical approach I meant that we have to enter into discussions with various other territories at the appropriate moment, in the way that we are dealing with Malta. Obviously, the noble Lord would not expect me at this moment, with the announcement that has just been made this afternoon, to go into details of what is proposed. That will be considered by all Parties in both Houses.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am trying to reconcile the approach of the noble Lord with the statement of the noble Marquess the Leader of the House, which must, in the case of Malta, be taken as a precedent.
LORD LLOYD: If the noble Viscount will allow me to develop my theme, I will come to that point. I said that I would not be expected to go into details of what is proposed for Malta, but I do not think, as the noble Marquess has already said, that that could necessarily be taken as a precedent in regard to the development of colonial territories. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, speaks of lack of leadership; but may I put it to him that if a solution could so easily be found, why was no solution produced in the six years in which his Party was in power, and why has no solution come from the noble Lord, if he has found one, over the past three years?
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I have put up my suggested solution on several occasions over the past three years and I have asked Her Majesty's Government either to accept it or to produce one themselves. Noble Lords may look up, in our own OFFICIAL REPORTS, the occasions when, from time to time, I have put forward a suggestion for a Grand Council.
LORD LLOYD: I have told the noble Lord on previous occasions when he has proposed a Grand Council that I did not consider that to be a useful solution, but he continues to discuss it. That is a difference which exists between the noble Lord and myself, and I will not pursue it for I have many other points to cover. But even had he produced this overall solution which he thinks is possible and yet has not produced, I very much doubt whether it would be acceptable to Malta; nor would a solution acceptable to Malta necessarily be acceptable to Cyprus, where there are very unusual and particular circumstances which are quite different from the circumstances in Malta. I do not think there is much point in speaking too theoretically upon this subject. I still believe that the empirical approach is the right one.
There are many things which are difficult to discuss, and Cyprus is another of them. The noble Lord, Lord Moyne,

509
gave your Lordships some very interesting views on a suggested university in Cyprus but again I do not propose to go into detail about Cyprus because, as your Lordships know, the Prime Minister has proposed a conference with the Governments of Greece and Turkey to discuss political and defence questions affecting the Eastern Mediterranean, including Cyprus, and, obviously, since these talks have been proposed, I think it would be inappropriate that we should go into the matter in any detail this afternoon.
Leaving the smaller territories, I should like to conic to the question of the larger territories, whose advance is not circumscribed in the way that the advance of the smaller territories is limited. How should their progress be regulated? Lord Ogmore suggested that there should exist in the Colonial Office an organisation to consider constitutional and political trends He knows as well as I do—he is quite right about this—that pressure in the Colonial Office is very considerable, and I agree that one does not, perhaps, get the amount of time one would wish to think about the broader aspects of these matters, owing to the enormous amount of day-to-day business which comes to an office which exercises such wide and diffused responsibility over so much territory. Of course, there has existed in the Department for the last two years a sub-department which deals with comparative constitutional and political trends amongst all our territories, large and small. Equally, my right honourable friend is kept fully informed by Governors of such trends in individual territories. So there is no lack of information on the subject. It is really a question of how that information can best be exploited and considered. I think that the noble Lord's suggestion is interesting and I should like to consider it more carefully. The pace of constitutional advance, however, must be a matter which the Secretary of State decides, in consultation with his colleagues, in the light of the general conditions in any territory at any given time. There will, of course, be many considerations which will weigh with him, but ultimately, in the last resort, the advance of any territory must surely be governed by its capacity to stand, politically and economically, upon its own feet.
That principle is very relevant to the observations made by the noble Lord about the Gold Coast. The Gold Coast
510
is, politically, the most advanced of the colonial territories. The Legislative Assembly is wholly elected, and Ministers have the fullest possible measure of responsibility for internal self-government, short of the stage of complete Gold Coast independence. Therefore, the Gold Coast is on the very threshold of self-government. Lord Ogmore rather suggested that when a territory reached this stage Her Majesty's Government tended to withdraw their support and advice. He said that the boat was pushed out with very little guidance—I think those were his words. He expressed particular concern lest, through lack of guidance, the true relationship between Government and Opposition, and the proper functions of both, should not be appreciated. I entirely agree that it is most important that both Governments and Oppositions in these territories, such as the Gold Coast, should be aware of the proper functions of democracy, and of the very great responsibilities that rest upon them; and as long as Her Majesty's Government retain some responsibility for the constitutional systems of colonial territories, it is our policy to provide in the Constitutional Instruments for essentials of democratic self-government, such as the impartiality of the public service and the police.
I do not think, however, that we can try—I do not think the noble Lord suggested that we should—to write into Constitutions of territories newly reaching self-government the sort of code of Parliamentary conduct which it has taken centuries for us to develop and abide by in this country. I think that the successful adaptation of Westminster forms and practices in many territories is a tribute to the increasing two-way traffic which is, and has been, taking place between this country and the colonial territories. I should like here to say a word in praise of the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which has facilitated, amongst its other activities, visits of Members of both Houses of Parliament to our overseas territories, and has also arranged for individual political leaders and groups from those territories to visit this country. The Association is doing invaluable work in this field.
I do not want the House to imagine for one moment that merely because a territory is on the verge of self-government Her Majesty's Government wash

511
their hands of it and take no further interest in it. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the Gold Coast, there is, I think, at the present time one of the ablest of Governors, Sir Charles Arden-Clarke, to whom a very warm tribute was paid by Lord Tweedsmuir. Sir Charles is always available to help and advise, and is only too willing to do so. But once a territory has achieved that degree of self-government that has been achieved in the Gold Coast, it is no longer possible or desirable for the Governor continually to thrust advice upon Ministers. Were he to do so, I think his advice might tend increasingly to be disregarded. Once you have set up responsible ministerial systems which are in many matters autonomous, you cannot behave as if you were still operating in a much less advanced constitutional arrangement. That is why it is so vitally important that too much political advance should not be given until those concerned are ready for it. When political advance has been given, as in the Gold Coast, it is equally important that it should be founded on complete trust and confidence between Governors and Ministers. I know that this is so in the Gold Coast, and that the Ministers there appreciate the value of the help which the Governor can give them.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, mentioned other forms of assistance. Here, I agree, it is very important that when a colonial territory is nearly at the stage of self-government it should still be able to obtain the technical skill which is required. Her Majesty's Government make every effort to satisfy any request on the part of such territories for the recruitment of technical staff, and the Colonial Office maintain close liaison with the National Coal Board, the British Transport Commission, the Postmaster General and other organisations in regard to the secondment of their staff to colonial territories. These bodies have been, on the whole, very helpful in arranging secondments. I do not happen to know of any recent case such as that which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, cited, when negotiations have broken down on the question of guaranteeing seniority. I think the point which he has raised is a very important one, and if he knows of any case and can give me details, I shall be only too ready to take it up.
LORD OGMORE: I am told that this case concerns collieries at Enugu, in the Eastern Province of Nigeria. It is said that there was a failure, and there is a continuing failure, on the part of the National Coal Board to guarantee continuation of seniority of their officials.
LORD LLOYD: If the noble Lord could give me any additional information, I should like to take up that matter.
Before leaving the Gold Coast, let me refer to two other matters which the noble Lord mentioned. First of all, he spoke about the question of federation. As he truly said, the leader of the National Liberation Movement and the Asanteman Council of Chiefs are demanding a federal form of Constitution for the Gold Coast when it becomes independent. They have gone further; they have demanded that consideration should be given to such a form of Constitution before independence is achieved. In this latter demand they are supported by other political Parties, particularly the Northern People's Party of the Northern Territories. The position is that Dr. Nkrumah has on more than one occasion invited Ashanti leaders to discuss their difficulties with him, but the invitations have been consistently refused. On the other hand, he has rejected a demand for the setting up of a Constituent Assembly on the ground that the Legislative Assembly is composed of members democratically elected by the people of the Gold Coast, and is therefore perfectly competent to discuss matters connected with the form of government best suited for the Gold Coast.
Finally, Dr. Nkrumah proposed in the Legislative Assembly that a Select Committee should be appointed to examine the question of a federal form of Constitution and a Second Chamber. The Opposition Parties walked out of the debate, and the Select Committee which was appointed contains no representative of those Parties. It has been boycotted by the National Liberation Movement, the Northern People's Party and other Opposition groups. Nevertheless, it has completed its task and its report is expected later this month. I think it is regrettable that the Opposition Parties in the Gold Coast have made little progress in resolving their difficulties in a democratic way, and I regret that they

513
should have refused to take part in the proceedings of the Select Committee. I can only repeat once again what I have said before in this House, that the continned failure of the Gold Coast to resolve its differences in a peaceful and constitutional manner must inevitably retard progress towards self-government. We can only hope that when the report is laid before the Legislative Assembly the whole Assembly will debate it in a constructive manner.
Next, let me say a word about the demand in the Gold Coast for an inquiry into the affairs of the Cocoa Marketing Board and its subsidiary, the Cocoa Purchasing Company. It is a fact that: serious allegations have been made by the Opposition Parties against both these bodies. It has been said, for example, that loans were made by the Purchasing Company only to farmers who were supporters of the C.P.P. That is the kind of allegation that has been made. I do not know whether or not there is any truth in these allegations. All I can tell your Lordships is that the matter was fully debated by the Gold Coast Legislative Assembly, and on a Division the demand for an inquiry was defeated. I think your Lordships will agree that, since this is a matter within the competence of the Gold Coast Assembly, no intervention by Her Majesty's Government would be appropriate. Certainly it would be a major setback for the progress of the Gold Coast towards independence if a majority decision of that Assembly were set aside.
So far, I have dealt almost entirely with political and constitutional matters, to the exclusion of the economic side. I should not like it to be thought from this that I minimise in any way the importance of economic progress in the colonial territories. I cordially agree with my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye that a healthy economy is the basis of all progress, economic and political. In the limited time available to me this evening, it would not be possible to deal with all the innumerable economic problems that continuously engage the attention of Her Majesty's Government. On the whole, I think the picture conveyed by the Report we are discussing is satisfactory. On the economic side we hive had two interesting speeches this afternoon—although up to a point they were contraclictory—from the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and
514
Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I would tell the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that I shall study his speech with great interest in the OFFICIAL. REPORT to-morrow. I thought that many of the points he made were worth a good deal of further thought. But I should like to deal with the question that was raised by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye about the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, a matter which is very near to his heart. Here again, the subject is such a vast one, touching as it does on all aspects of the external trade and commerce of our Commonwealth, that it is difficult in a general debate of this kind to do more than deal briefly, and perhaps inadequately, with the points he has raised.
The noble Lord said and, of course, it is true, that many of the undeveloped countries, which include the colonial territories, have felt that G.A.T.T. is for them a bad bargain. They have argued that the benefits which primary producers derive from the Agreement are slight, and that they certainly do not compensate them for their loss of freedom to use restrictive devices of any kind they think necessary to assist their own economic development. They have also claimed that the exceptions the rules of the Agreement—for example, to permit the use of quantitative restrictions to meet balance of payments difficulties—have favoured the developed countries. Some of our colonial territories have been critical of the "No new preference" rule because of the restrictions it imposes on the grant of preferential treatment for their products in Commonwealth markets.
On the other hand, I think we must not forget that by and large the colonial territories do not in fact depend on Imperial Preference for their prosperity. The great bulk of colonial exports are sold on world markets, and most territories must continue to depend for their prosperity on a rising level of world trade, which the General Agreement is designed to promote above all else. It is only for a relatively small number of colonial products, admittedly important to the Colonies concerned, that the United Kingdom market is a key factor. It was in order to help these territories—and the Caribbean territories are obviously a case in point—that Her Majesty's Government pressed for various, amendments to G.A.T.T. at the recent Review Session.

515
My noble friend has poured cold water —or, should I say, luke-warm water—on the concessions we obtained there, and suggested that they are quite inadequate to meet the problem. I suggest to the noble Lord that even if these amendments do not go so far as he would like, they constitute a considerable advance in the right direction. He did not mention the new Article XVIII, which recognises that countries in an early stage of economic development which can afford only a low standard of living for their peoples must have certain facilities for developing new industries. I will not weary your Lordships with the details of Article XVIII, but if the noble Lord will study it, as amended, I think he will see it is an advance. I am sure it is fair to say that the new Article XVIII has been cordially welcomed by the undeveloped countries and certainly by the colonial territories.
Coupled with that, there is the colonial waiver. The noble Lord said that the colonial waiver was so circumscribed and hedged in by limitations that he thought it no good at all. He asked me to say whether he was correct in his interpretation of the limitations which hedge the waiver. I would say again that nothing in G.A.T.T. is easy, although some things are more difficult than others. It is the most complicated document in the world. I do not want to get involved in an argument with the noble Lord on the question of colonial waiver, particularly as the President of the Board of Trade has said in another place that at the moment Her Majesty's Government are examining the application of the waiver to the particular problems of the Caribbean. Though I would say that substantially my noble friend is right, I still think that the waiver is an advance. In conclusion, I would draw his attention to the remarks on that matter made by the leader of the West Indian delegation to the Geneva Conference at the end of that Conference. He said:
"A year's effort by the British Caribbean was crowned with success when last Saturday the Geneva Conference for the Review of the G.A.T.T. granted the United Kingdom a colonial waiver. Although we are unable to give further details now, when it is possible to publish the waiver it will be found to be a substantial fulfilment of the West Indian demands."
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, if that welcome declaration is
516
correct, how is it that there seems to be some conflict of mind between the Government and Mr. Manley on the ability of the Government to meet the needs of primary producers in Jamaica?
LORD LLOYD: I do not think the Government have ever claimed that the Article did everything. In addition to what we are trying to do at Geneva to help the colonial territories, the Government, as your Lordships will remember, have recognised that the banana and citrus fruit industries are subject to special risks, and your Lordships will also remember that the former Secretary of State gave an undertaking to examine these risks and to work out any schemes of assistance necessary to safeguard these interests. My right honourable friend is engaged at the moment in discussions on both these matters, and I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he wants: that as soon as the discussions are concluded the results will be made known to this House. It is not true to say that negotiations have broken down between my right honourable friend and Mr. Manley; Mr. Manley is returning to-morrow to resume the discussions.
Having dealt with that particular point, I should like to deal with various other points raised by noble Lords. A number of noble Lords referred to the Royal Commission on East Africa. Here again it is difficult for me to say much about this Report to-day. When you have a voluminous and far-reaching Report of this kind, which covers every aspect of social and economic development in East Africa, and where some of its recommendations entail a great departure from and modification of current policies, I think your Lordships will agree that it has to receive careful scrutiny and exhaustive discussion among the various authorities concerned. My right honourable friend has recently had talks with the Governors of Kenya, Tanganyika and Uganda to hear their preliminary views on the contents of the Report. He is asking the Governments of the East African territories to consider the conclusions which the Commission has reached, and as soon as those views have been received and studied Her Majesty's Government will be in a position to make a pronouncement on the Commission's recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, suggested that at an appropriate

517
moment we might have a debate on this subject, and I think that would be right and proper, though I suggest that it should be deferred for a few months until these processes have been gone through. In the meantime, any views which your Lordships have expressed this afternoon are most welcome to the Government and we shall, of course, consider them carefully.
I was asked about the position in the Western Aden Protectorate. Your Lordships are aware that no part of the Aden Protectorate is under direct British administration; we are there by virtue of our treaty relations and our obligations to the local Arab rulers, to advise them, to assist them and to protect them. The territories of these rulers are claimed by the neighbouring kingdom of the Yemen on the basis of less than a century's occupation which, in fact, ended more than two centuries ago. At present Aden-Yemen relations are governed by the 1934 Anglo-Yemeni Treaty, which forbids interference by either side in the affairs of the other. I am sorry to have to say that, despite this, the Yemeni authorities have not resisted the temptation to further their unjustified claim by interfering in the inter-tribal quarrels that inevitably break out from time to time. Those are quarrels between various tribes under the various Sultans and not quarrels between Her Majesty's Government and the tribes. Therefore, as a result of that, tribesmen who normally would soon be brought back to their traditional allegiance are given money, arms and ammunition from across the border and are thus enabled to hold out for long periods. The task of keeping order with our very small forces—which I am glad to say have recently been greatly increased—is thus made extremely difficult.
The increase in our forces to which the noble Lord has referred has nothing to do with the effectiveness or otherwise of action from the air. It is purely that, in view of the general trouble caused by the Yemen, we are as a matter of policy increasing our forces there. All these troubles culminated on June 15 last in the ambush by local rebels of a Government convoy in the territory of the Upper Aulaqi Sultan which resulted in a number of casualties, including two British officers and one Arab officer killed. That resulted in a Question in your
518
Lordships' House, which your Lordships will remember.
As regards methods of dealing with these disorders, they are, as I think I said on that occasion, normally dealt with by the local security forces of the rulers themselves. But these forces are not always very effective, especially in bad cases. However, that is the normal way of dealing with them, and it is only in cases where ground action would entail difficulty or delay, or might involve operations on a formidable scale, that the air arm is called in at all; and then, as I have said before, it is employed in a. manner designed to avoid causing loss of life by limiting its operation to particular targets. The noble Lord said that it was indiscriminate bombing. Well, it is indiscriminate to the extent that it against the dwellings of a particular tribe. But the noble Lord must remember that tribal responsibility in these areas is the accepted thing. The tribe do not hand over an individual offender, and if anything goes wrong the tribe is punished collectively. In point of fact, on the last occasion when there was bombing from the air there were no casualties; indeed, there were fewer casualties than there would have been if ground forces had been employed.
I do not think I have anything to add to that, except to tell your Lordships what additional steps the Government are taking to deal with what is a troubled situation. We are, as I have said, reinforcing the forces, out there by one battalion of the Seaforth Highlanders, a squadron of armoured cars, and brigade headquarters. The Governor has interrupted his leave to return to Aden to review the local situation and to consult with the military authorities on the spot. The local forces under the control of the Air Ministry—that is to say, the Aden Protectorate Levies—will now be rapidly expanded by three squadrons. Finally—and I think this is important—authority has been given for additional expenditure to assist the administration of the poorer rulers in the neighbourhood of the frontier, in addition to financial aid, including Colonial Development and Welfare, which is continually given to all the rulers. Those are the measures we have taken, and we hope they will help to restore law and order and defeat the intrigue to which I have already referred

519
I was asked various other questions. The noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, asked me what steps had been taken by the Kenya Government to implement the Statement of Policy issued by the Council of Ministers when they took office in April, 1954. They have, in point of fact, taken considerable steps since then. A primary aim of the Government has been to increase the number of administrative staff working in the provinces, with the object of bringing about by closer administration an orderly economic, social and political development in the native land units, and to bring home to the inhabitants of the undisturbed districts the recognition that there can be no question of their interests being subordinated to those of the troubled areas. Recruitment of additional officers is now going ahead both in the United Kingdom and in Kenya. Closer administration is also facilitated by the creation of new villages, of which 510 had been built in the troubled areas by last February. The primary object of these villages is to give the inhabitants greater security from terrorists, but many other communal and social benefits also accrue. At the same time, the Government are paying particular attention to the immense problem of the rehabilitation of Mau Mau adherents now in detention, and African and European staff are being recruited to undertake this work. Already there have been some encouraging instances of co-operation from ex-Mau Mau adherents in winning over others from their lamentable beliefs; and this gives hope to those engaged on a task which remains vast but which is being resolutely tackled.
Economic development, more than ever essential in Kenya to-day, is not being forgotten. In the agricultural sphere the most important single measure is perhaps the Agriculture Bill now passed by the Legislative Council, giving the Government power to ensure that land in the European and African areas is being properly used and developed. Further, loans are made in approved cases to enable farmers to introduce on their farms balanced systems of agriculture based on livestock. Turning to the commercial and industrial field, I am glad to say that activity is increasing. Several new factories, including one for cement, are under construction, while technical educational
520
facilities are being expanded (I might mention, as one example, the opening of the Royal Technical College in Nairobi) to ensure that technical skill keeps pace with the growth of industry and commerce. At the same time, general education is being catered for by a steady increase in the number of primary schools and in the output of trained African teachers from the teacher training colleges.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer, but there is one point I think I ought to state. During the last month the Kenya Government have been able partly to lift the ban on African political activity and to announce the formation of African district political associations which may be joined by any adult resident of the district concerned. The eventual aim is that representatives of each district or constituency shall form themselves into a convention which can then be closely associated with the Legislative Council member for that area, thus providing a means for the ventilation at a high level of district political opinion. For obvious reasons, this system cannot yet be fully applied in the troubled areas—though even there a modified form is proposed with which African loyalists will be associated—but it is to be warmly welcomed as a great step forward towards brighter days in Kenya.
One or two other points were raised, but in such a varied debate it is hard to answer all. I will, however, do my best. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, asked about information services. I am conscious of the importance of information services, as I said earlier, and certainly if the noble Earl is interested I shall be glad to show him some of the material which we are putting out and which I think will satisfy him, up to a point, with the work that is being done. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked me about the situation in Buganda and about the negotiations which are going on at the present time. All I can say about that matter is that the negotiations are proceeding. I do not think he will expect me to say much more than that at the moment, but I will certainly inform my right honourable friend of what the noble Earl has said, and of the importance he attaches to the time factor in connection with the Kabaka's return. Of course, I can assure him that as soon as the negotiations are completed your Lordships will be informed.

521
In conclusion, I will merely say this. I think these debates are helpful, but I sometimes wonder whether it would not be more useful if we could restrict oar debates on colonial matters to slightly more definite fields. The range is so great that one always feels, when answering for Her Majesty's Government, that one has dealt rather inadequately with the speeches which have been made. On the other hand, if one were to deal properly with all the important questions that have been put, one could speak easily for two hours, and I do not think that is what your Lordships desire. Your Lordships have shown that in general principle you approve of this Report, and I think we should all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for having initiated what I hope will prove to have been a useful debate.
6.24 p.m.
Lotus OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to thank the many noble Lords who have taken part in this debate to-day, and to say that I, for one, listened to all the speeches with much interest; I thought they contained a great deal of information which I am sure the Government will consider very carefully. I do riot agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken on the question of narrowing the debate. because it is only once a year at most—sometimes we do not have it once a year —that we have a general debate on the Colonies, and I think it is important to retain a debate going into general principles once a year. It is true that it puts the Government in somewhat of a difficulty. They have a wide field to cover, hut, if I may say so, I think the noble Lord covered it very well.
LORD LLOYD: I do not want the noble Lord to get the impression that I wish to curtail in any way the kind of debates the noble Lord wants. I only feel that one sometimes gives a rather inadequate reply to noble Lords, owing to the obvious difficulty of the wideness of the field. Naturally, I am always at the noble Lord's disposal to have any debate the Opposition wants. That is, after all, what the Government arc here for.
LORD OGMORE: I think, on the whole, it is desirable, not very often, but at least once a year, to have a general debate on the Colonies. I was going to thank the noble Lord for the care which he has taken to answer questions, and
522
although I do not agree with much of the content of what he has said, that is not his fault. He has done his best to try and find out what the Government really intend, and that is always rather difficult.
I shall not make much comment upon the noble Lord's speech—I do not think this is the time to do so. But there are one or two points that I feel I ought to make. First of all, there is the fallacy which has been stated today, not only by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, but also by the noble Leader Lord Salisbury, that whatever is done in the case of Malta will not have any effect on the rest of the colonial territories. May I disabuse them, in the strongest terms, of this belief, because I can assure them that, rightly or wrongly, whatever they may think, there are many parts of the Colonial Empire which are looking very carefully at the decisions that are to be arrived at and at the considerations which are involved. Whatever they may think, these territories may, in time, come to the door of No. 10, Dowling Street, and ask for identically the same treatment as Malta has had. It may be thought that that is not a logical but an empirical approach. Why should the empirical approach be regarded as of such merit in colonial matters? When the noble Lord was a Welsh Guardsman, would he have put up to his colonel an empirical approach instead of a plan? He would have got into great difficulty, and he would have been on a charge.
LORD LLOYD: If I had always adopted the same plan, regardless of the military circumstances, I should have been under the sod.
LORD OGMORE: At least he always made a plan, and that is the point I am getting at—not always the same plan, but a plan.
With regard to Aden, this is not the time to debate that question. May I say, however, that if Machiavellian tactics and statecraft are to be used, as they are in this case, with tyranny, they must be used successfully. It is no good having an unsuccessful tyranny, which seems to be the case here, according to the report we have had from the Daily Telegraph. Thirdly, may I take up a point from the East African Royal Commission Report. I agree with the noble Lord when he suggested that we should have a debate in

523
a few months' time. I hope the debate will be held before the Government make up their minds and not after, so that we may try, in our humble, modest way, to put points to the Government for their consideration. There is not much use in debating in Parliament a subject upon which the Government have made up their minds. I did ask a question about the World Bank, but I realise that the noble Lord has not had an opportunity of answering. Perhaps he will give me an answer in correspondence. There is a difficulty here, because the Mission was in Malaya sixteen months ago, and I am told that ever since it was known in Malaya that they were there and were proposing to report to the Bank, economic planning has virtually been in abeyance. Therefore, it is rather important that a decision should be arrived at fairly soon with regard to the proposed loan from the World Bank. Either it is going to make one or it is not. Already there has been delay which has caused some concern. With those words, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
6.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Strathclyde, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons to consider the said Bill: That the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

V. Stonehaven,

L. Balfour of Burleigh,

L. Amulree,

L. Greenhill,

E. Dundee.

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(The Earl of Onslow.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith and to request them to appoint five Members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.

TAF FECHAN WATER SUPPLY BILL
Reported, without amendment.
CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL
Reported, without amendment.
BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.