THE COLONIAL TERRITORIES

HL Deb 06 July 1955 vol 193 cc505-23

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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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

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 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.

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 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 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.