Lords Sitting of 1 December 1959

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
The Earl of Mount Edgcumbe—Took the Oath.

PICCADILLY CIRCUS DEVELOPMENTS
2.35 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the plans of the proposed building at Piccadilly Circus which the London County Council submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission in February, 1959, disclosed the fact that the building was to be surmounted by a rotatable crane.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I understand that no plans submitted by the applicant to the Council, or by the Council to the Commission, have included a crane.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that Answer and assure him that I was not suggesting that the crane was any more disreputable than the rest of the building?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the London County Council have yet submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission plans of the improved elevation of the lower part of the proposed building at Piccadilly Circus, which they agreed to be necessary to meet the Commission's criticism.]
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I understand that as yet the London County Council have not themselves received from the developers the revised plans which, among other things, will incorporate the modification to which this Question refers. The answer to the Question is therefore, No. It is hoped that the revised plans will be ready in time for them to be made available for inspection by members of the public a day or two before the public local inquiry, which is to be held into this scheme, and which is starting on December 16.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does it not follow that he was a little premature on November 17 when he said that the criticisms of the Royal Fine Art Commission on this part of the building had been met? Does it not follow from the Answer he has now given that the plans of the building which will be the subject of a public inquiry as early as the 16th of this month have not yet been made public?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not think that I can add anything further to my reply. With respect, I suggest that it would be advisable to limit our discussion of questions on this matter to-day, as this inquiry will be taking place on December 16.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, arising out of that Answer, may I ask the Minister, if this inquiry is going to take place so soon, who is going to represent the public interest at the inquiry? In your Lordships' House and elsewhere all Members represent the public and its point of view in matters of interest. Who is going to represent the public interest at this inquiry in the way the Attorney General sometimes acts as amicus curiae? Will the Royal Fine Art Commission or some trust, or some body representing the public interest, be there to represent the views that have been so widely canvassed in both Houses?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should be happier if I had had notice of that Question, which hardly arises out of the detailed Question on the Order Paper. The public is represented at this inquiry, and I understand that any member of the public or any organisation

1029
representing the public has a full and perfect right to be represented at the inquiry.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, but are we to understand that the public will see the revised plan only two or three days before the public inquiry takes place?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, my information is that the plans will be available to the public before the inquiry takes place.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But how long before?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Marquess a precise answer to that question.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I put it to my noble friend that we have a right to know in this House how long it is going to be. If it is going to be only two days, on a matter which requires careful and detailed discussion by architects, experts and others, ought there not to be more time given? And would it not be worth while postponing the inquiry for a few days to see that adequate time was afforded?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I should not like to express an opinion on the question of postponing the inquiry without consulting my right honourable friend. If a Question on exactly how long the plans would be available before the inquiry had been on the Order Paper, of course, it would have been answered. I will convey this question to my right honourable friend at once and seek to give the information that is required.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if I were to put down a Private Notice Question, as a matter of urgent public importance, for to-morrow, would the Government be able to answer it?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, if a Question is put down for to-morrow, I am sure that my right honourable friend will do his best to answer it.

THE "PINK ZONE"
EARL HOWEhad given notice of his intention to ask the following Question:
[To ask Her Majesty's Government whether certain new regulations are contemplated governing waiting cars during the Christmas period; if so, what will be the position of residents within the area and members of the medical profession who must use their vehicles during the course of their daily work; whether it is intended that any such regulations will be applied to heavy commercial vehicles and other trade vehicles; and whether it is intended that the unrestricted circulation of such vehicles, and the consequent congestion, shall be permitted during daylight hours and during the period indicated.]
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Question was placed on the Order Paper a fortnight ago, before the official plans of the Minister were known. Having regard to the wonderful success so far of the Minister's "Pink Zone", I do not propose to ask it.

WAR-DAMAGED HOSPITALS
2.41 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in cases where the hospital capacity of a district remains inadequate, they will authorise the payment out of war damage account, of the cost of repair or replacement, of war damaged hospital buildings in that district.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, the situation broached by the noble Lord is, I confess, a good deal more complicated than I realised when I first read his Question, and my reply cannot be as straightforward as I then hoped. The fact is that under the National Health Service Act, 1946, any payments from war damage account must be appropriated in aid of the National Health Service Vote—that is, set off against expenditure on that Vote. This means that any such payment made would be compensated by a reduction in the

1031
amount at that time available to the Service. This being so, the adoption of the noble Lord's proposal would not particularly help the Regional Hospital Boards or increase hospital building.
Until 1952, Regional Boards were allowed to claim war damage payments, but as these were appropriated in aid to the National Health Service Vote, and as the amount of building was limited by a ceiling on investment, it led to no increase in building. The procedure was therefore abandoned as wasteful of time and effort. The Government's view is that the proper course is to rely on the Regional Boards to decide the spending of their own funds, and not to give any special priority to the repair of war damage.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his reply confirms that nothing whatever is paid on war damage account for the repair of war-damaged hospitals, and that means that in the metropolitan areas a great disability is inflicted on many of our older hospitals which are in the worst condition? Would he therefore look at that particular point? Further, would he look at the point that the capital programme for hospitals has been fixed for the next three years, which means that, unless there is a change in the present procedure, no help can be given to hospitals which are badly war-damaged—and this does not apply to any other kind of building—and which have no help even to pull down buildings that are dangerous? Will he look at that point because, with respect, his reply is not a reply to the point I have put.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I studied the noble Lord's Question carefully, and I think that mine was a direct reply, or as direct a reply as I am able to make, taking into account that provision of the National Health Service Act which I mentioned. I do not think it confirms the noble Lord's statement, because I had not heard that statement previously made. I think he was referring specifically to, for instance, St. Matthew's Hospital, which forms part of the Central Group of which he is Chairman. For that reason, I have looked into the condition of that hospital, and I find that one block was severely damaged during the war and made weather-proof
1032
some years ago. The interior has not been reconditioned, because the need for additional beds has never been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Board which is responsible for the planning of hospital services in that Region. I have not yet been able to find out what efforts have been made to demonstrate such a need to the Regional Board. So far as figures go, the hospital has 320 chronic sick and geriatric beds to serve a population of 145,000—that is, a ratio of 2·2 beds per thousand, which is nearly twice the national average. The yardstick of need is not the national average but the need in a given locality. I have tried to study the noble Lord's own particular area, and I cannot find that there is a case where the need for expansion is held down artificially by reference to the national need.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for the detail into which he has gone, I was not referring to a particular hospital—indeed, I should have thought it would have been improper for me to do so. But can the noble Lord look at this matter with regard to the national position? St. Thomas's Hospital, we are informed, is to be rebuilt at a cost of £7 million, which is largely justified—and I do not dispute it—on the ground of war damage. That £7 million would resolve almost all the war-damage difficulties of almost all the hospitals throughout the country. Can the noble Lord not consider that and again have a look at the question of war damage at ordinary hospitals?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I am sure I should be right in saying that St. Thomas's Hospital is being rebuilt on the grounds of need and not simply on the grounds of war damage.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if the need is there, and it arises partly from the existing war damage, it would be a sensible thing to authorise the commencement of rebuilding?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I hoped that I had made the point that the Regional Board in this particular case has not been satisfied that their need is greater than other needs in other parts of the country.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: I am sorry to press the noble Lord, but that is not a very satisfactory situation. If the need is there, and the damage is there, at least the damage can be made good. The need, we know, exists all over the country, and to refer to the average does not help anybody.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think I did make that point myself. But the point is that somebody has to be the assessor of the need; and responsibility for the final assessment of the need, as measured against other needs in other parts of the country, devolves on my right honourable friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I wish to inform the House that there will be a statement on Egypt at approximately 3.45 p.m. this afternoon.

PRIVATE BILL STANDING ORDERS
2.49 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The sole purpose of these Amendments is to give effect to the change in the name of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and to the transfer of functions from the Ministry of Supply to other departments. I beg to move.
Moved, That the following Amendments to be made to the Standing Orders relative to Private Bills, etc.:—
Standing Order 29, page 24, line 3, leave out ("and Civil Aviation").
Standing Order 31, page 24, line 38, leave out ("and Civil Aviation").
Standing Order 34, page 25, line 43, leave out ("and Civil Aviation").
Standing Order 39, page 27, line 8, leave out ("and National Service").
Standing Order 39, page 27, line 9, leave out ("and Civil Aviation").
Standing Order 39, page 27, line 9, leave out ("Supply") and insert ("Aviation").
Standing Order 45, page 30, line 9, ("and Civil Aviation").
Standing Order 131, page 59, line 41, leave out ("and Civil Aviation").
Standing Order 132, page 60, line 12, leave out ("and Civil Aviation").
Standing Order 139, page 61, line 31, leave out ("and Civil Aviation").
Standing Order 139, page 61, line 43, leave out ("and Civil Aviation").
Standing Order 140, page 62, line 6, leave out ("and Civil Aviation").—(Lord Merthyr.)
On Question Motion agreed to: the said Standing Orders amended accordingly.

MARSHALL SCHOLARSHIPS BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

THE SITUATION IN KENYA
2.51 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the political, economic and social effects of the situation in Kenya; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: The present stage is one of great importance in the life of Kenya. I suppose one could say that all stages are of great importance in the life of every country, but it so happens, for a variety of reasons, that it is particularly true at this moment of Kenya. I think the noble Earl who is to reply will agree with that. We have had many debates on other parts of Africa, at least on Central Africa, during the last two years, particularly with regard to the affairs of Nyasaland. But it is many years since we had a debate in this House on the general conditions in Kenya, and I thought that, coming at this stage before we break up for the Christmas Recess, it would be right and proper for us to consider the affairs of this territory.
The situation is this. The emergency, which has been in existence for seven years, is now coming to an end. In fact, it will be brought to an end officially in January. The emergency powers under which the Government have been operating will all cease as such, although three of them will continue in permanent form under two Bills, the Detained and Restricted Persons Bill and the Public Security Bill. The main provisions of these Bills will include a power to retain the hard-core terrorists or detainees, stricter control over public meetings and control over the registration of political associations. This means that quite soon 3,000 of the 4,000 detainees will be released, including sixteen convicted murderers and six of those who are described as "loyalists". Jomo Kenyatta and other African Kikuyu leaders are still to be held; they are not receiving the benefit

1035
of the relaxation of the emergency. In an answer to a Question by me on November 10 last, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said that this restriction on the liberty of these people was necessary for the peace and good order of the Colony.
The second event of which we might take notice is a striking one, in my view. The Highlands, including the White Highlands, the subject of so much controversy over the years, are to be open to races other than those which now occupy them—that is to say, the White Highlands are to be opened for the purchase or lease by peoples of other races than Europeans and, although this is slightly more vague, I gather that the Kikuyu and other African reserves are also to be available for purchase or lease by persons of other races than those which at present occupy them. There is no Bill yet to this effect. These provisions have appeared only in a Sessional Paper which is now before the Legislative Council in Kenya. The third event is that there is a Constitutional Conference of great importance affecting Kenya starting in London in January. The fourth event is that the new Secretary of State leaves on his first visit to Kenya in a week or so. The fifth event which, happily, is a past event, is that the railway strike which almost immobilised the Colony and its neighbouring protectorate of Uganda, involving 23,000 African railwaymen, is now happily ended. It looked at one time as if this railway strike might turn into a general strike.
In my view, these developments are cause for much satisfaction, and I, who have often been a critic of the Government and still am in colonial and other matters, would like to congratulate the Government, and particularly the new Secretary of State and the new Governor, on a promising beginning and an imaginative approach to the problem. I should like to deal in more detail with some of the matters to which I have referred.
The land in Kenya, as we all know, is the basis of the life of the Colony, and is the cause of many of the problems with which it is faced. Kenya, like many countries, is not industrialised to any large extent at all. It is still basically an agricultural economy; its exports are mainly agricultural, and it lives on the land. That applies to all races, European,
1036
Asian and African. It is remarkable how short a life Kenya has had. It began, in a sense, in 1895. Those of us who were not in existence in 1895—and there are many of us who were not—can grasp how short a span it is when we realise that the father of this House, or, at least, the noble Earl whom I imagine to be the father of the House (it is not always easy to decide who the father of the House of Lords is) had already been a Member for five years when Kenya, as it were, came into existence.
The reason for Kenya's existence was the building of a railway line to connect Mombasa with Uganda. When the railway line was built, those who built it, in common with those who build railways everywhere, had some difficulty in making it pay. The only difference between them and others was that they foresaw this difficulty before they ever built the line, and not afterwards, as is the case with most railway companies in the world. They advertised in Britain for settlers to go out and settle along the line, so as to provide freight for the railway. It was an odd way of Empire building, but that is in fact how this Colony arose.
It so happened that just at that time, owing to a series of accidents, a large stretch of land in this part of what is now Kenya looked as though it were depopulated. There had been smallpox and rinderpest epidemics, and there had been locusts and famine. Indeed, Kenya had nearly all the Biblical troubles just about that time, and it looked as if it was depopulated, when in fact it was not. The Kikuyu, who were very much lessened in numbers by reason of these disasters, had retired into Kikuyuland, and they had left more or less unoccupied the portion of the land which is now Kiambu, north of Nairobi, which they had bought or leased from a tribe called the Wanderobo. The Government believed that area to be unoccupied, and settled the settlers upon it. They also obtained much larger tracts by treaty from other tribes, including the Masai. I must mention this matter because this is one of the great issues of Kenya—it is exaggerated on both sides, of course. The Kikuyu are rather inclined to say that the whole of the White Highlands were theirs and were taken in this way, whereas that is not in fact the case; it is

1037
only a comparatively small part of the White Highlands that was taken in this way, and it is the area around what is now Kiambu. That is the thorn in their flesh. So far as I am aware, the Masai never objected to the occupation of very much larger parts of the White Highlands; nor did the Nandi—and I presume that parts of their land were also taken by treaty. But it is this piece round Kiambu which has been the trouble.
Another point is that the Kikuyu, unlike the other tribes in Kenya, and unlike most tribes anywhere in Africa, were agricultural people, whereas the others were hunters or pastoralists. Agricultural people, people who dig the ground, put the spades in and watch the crops grow, feel more strongly about a hit of land than the pastoralist who wanders over vast areas. The individual Kikuyu had actually bought or leased from individual Wanderobo pieces of land. Therefore they were not tribal lands; they were individual lands. That was the basis of the whole trouble. No doubt many of your Lordships know this as well as I do, and probably better, but since one has to get the record straight, your Lordships will perhaps excuse my mentioning these matters which are so well known. It is with the Kikuyu that most of the difficulties have been. The Kikuyu are agriculturists; they are very politically minded; they are intelligent. And in some ways—I will not say in all ways—they are active. And they are just over one million of the six million population of Kenya. That gives us a broad picture
The Government's proposals with regard to the White Highlands are therefore of immense importance. The Kikuyu on the one hand, say that this was African land, rather tending to look at the whole of the White Highlands, instead of at the area around Kiambu. They say, "This was all African land; it belonged to us." The settlers say, "That is all very well. Whatever may have happened in the past, we bought our land and came out here at the specific invitation of the British Government. We bought it and worked on it, and produce three-quarters of the exports of this Colony." The Asians say, "We came out to build a railway, and the railway was the beginning of the whole Colony. Without us there would not have been a railway and would not have
1038
been a Kenya." So everybody has a point, and it is no good looking at the problem and disregarding any point. It is easy to solve any problem if you disregard one-third of the constituents of the problem, which usually happens, I regret to say, when anybody is considering the problem of Kenya.
When the Government make this bold departure—they are the only Government who have ever done this—and say that the White Highlands now must be available for sale or lease to other races, we can see what sort of step it is and how bold is the step they have taken. It is absolutely right in my opinion. I am also glad they have not restricted this to the White Highlands. I am glad they have thrown the reserves open as well. That is important. I do not know that it is going to have a great practical effect, because I do not think anybody is going to burst himself to buy land in a Kikuyu reserve, but the fact that they can do so is very important. There is one warning I should add on that point. Owing to the fact that the economic situation of the individual Kikuyu is so unlike the economic situation of the average European or Asian, the safeguards which will be involved in all these transactions will have to be particularly secure and tight in the case of the Asians. For those of your Lordships who have not been to the Highlands—there may be some noble Lords who have not, although many have; no doubt some noble Lords own land there—I can best describe them as they occurred to me on the various visits I have made. They appeared something like the county of Merioneth, which the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack knows very well; an upland country, not lush country, such as one finds in Sussex; not quite so bad, perhaps, as the Cotswolds, over which the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, hunts his hounds with such ardour, and with an occasional mishap I am afraid. But they grow good crops, coffee and other crops; they can grow, for the middle of Africa, very good crops indeed.
The real criterion in this intensely important question, on which I feel to a large extent the whole issue of our relationship with Kenya is going to turn, must be what is best for the land. That is the test. That is a test which has not by any means always been applied.

1039
Anyone who flies over Kenya will see some very distressing examples of soil erosion in many places. I hope the Government will be quite firm in two ways: first in providing, when sales are contemplated, that the units must be of an economic size; and secondly, that they must be subject to good farming practice. It is no good allowing people to fragment their land and to reduce the yield, and in time to kill the fertility of the soil. There has been far too much of that in Africa, and we must have a firm hand on that.
Turning to the ending of the emergency and the new legislation, I would say that naturally none of us cares for permanent legislation of such a restrictive kind as this. I believe that the onus is upon any Government to show cause why such legislation should be necessary once the emergency is over, and I think the onus is on the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to prove to the House that this restrictive legislation is necessary. One thing I would ask him, even if he is able to prove to the House that it is necessary, or will be necessary in the next few years, is to give the House an assurance to-day that none of this legislation will ever be used unless it is absolutely necessary—not merely convenient, but absolutely necessary.
The second point arising out of the new legislation, or the ending of the emergency, is the position of Jomo Kenyatta and the other leaders. I believe that it is quite unrealistic to suppose that these Kikuyu can long be detained. They have been tried they have been convicted; they have served their sentences. They are not having the benefit of the end of the Emergency Regulations because, by a technicality, they were never convicted under them or held under them. Again, I think the onus is upon the Government to show that they should be held, that a man who has served his sentence, and more than one man, should be held in British territory responsible to the British Parliament. We want to be assured of that.
Quite apart from the moral issue, I think it may be necessary—one cannot tell—in the disturbed conditions that might arise to hold them for a little time longer, though I very much doubt
1040
that. I met Jomo Kenyatta as long ago as 1948, and had a long talk with him. In fact, I addressed a large meeting of which he might have been regarded as the chairman, if there had been a chairman, right up in the Kikuyu country. I thought that he was in a pretty poor physical state then, right back in 1948—largely, I suppose, through his own free will. However that may be, I have in my time met a large number of Nationalist leaders, none of whom has ever been remotely like Jomo Kenyatta was then, which was, as I say, eleven years ago; and he has not got any younger in the interim. I personally cannot believe that with the younger leaders who have come on in the meantime, like Tom Mboya and the others, there can be such a great peril to the life of Kenya from Kenyatta and the other elderly gentlemen as the Government seem to think there is. I think that to a large extent it may prove that they will have a much greater nuisance value to the British Government and to the Kenya Government by keeping them there than if they were outside. I have lately met people who were recently in detention camps and I have met settlers, and they have all assured me that the people of Kenya are sick and tired of the whole thing; they want to get back to peace and concord and to do away with strife and bitterness.
Turning to the Constitutional Conference, what basically is it hoped to do? I suggest that, basically, the object of the Conference is to try to solve the interracial problem. We know that that is a great constitutional problem in Kenya, just as there was in the Federation of Malaya. The problem in West Africa is not an inter-racial problem. To some extent there it has been an inter-tribal and an inter-religious problem, but not an inter-racial one. In the Federation of Malaya, in Kenya and in Central Africa, it is an inter-racial problem. As we all know, that is a most difficult problem to solve. I do not think that the Federation of Malaya, and particularly the Malays, have ever had, from this House or elsewhere, the tribute that should have been paid to them for the way in which they did their best to solve the inter-racial problem. It was not a question of just a very small minority. The Chinese were a large minority in

1041
Malaya; yet the Malays voluntarily gave them full electoral privileges and powers at the ballot box, in the same way as these powers were held by any other citizen of the land.
To what extent are we going to be as generous as were the Malays? To what extent are we going to follow their example? How does Kenya differ from Ghana and Nigeria? Only, I would suggest, in the event that there are these other powerful racial minorities in Kenya and not in the other countries. What is to prevent the 6 million Africans, the 200,000 Asians and the 50,000 Europeans from developing a multi-racial society, as in the Federation of Malaya? Only one thing—fear. That is the only thing that stops them. And that fear is largely imaginary because, in fact, all the three races are needed in the development of Kenya. They always have been needed in its short history, and they will be needed for many years to come. The sooner all three of them realise that fact, and we too, the better. The Times to-day, I noticed, quoted the African elected members as saying that they want responsible government in Kenya in 1960 with an African as Chief Minister. This will be among the demands which the African elected members will make at the Constitutional Conference in January in London. So at least we know what the African elected members want, and we can guess what some of the other parties who will be represented there will also want. I would suggest that at this crucial Conference in the life of Kenya, the Secretary of State should show the courage that he has already shown in the events and affairs of Kenya, and that he makes certain facts plain to all who attend it.
In the first place, I think he should make it quite plain that the constitutional objective, the eventual aim, is that one adult shall have one vote, and that that shall apply to the country as a whole as soon as it can be done with safety. I do not say, "One man, one vote"; I say, "one adult, one vote"—universal adult suffrage. As the second principle, I would suggest that he lays down that Kenya must remain under United Kingdom control until a fully democratic elected Government takes over. Only then, as the Ministers who are responsible, or partly responsible, to the Legislative Council take on their duties should the
1042
United Kingdom gradually relinquish power. This is common form. So far as I am aware, it has been applied in all other colonial territories, and there is no reason, unless the Government can find one of which we are not aware, why this principle should not be followed in Kenya.
Thirdly, I would suggest (this is perhaps as important as the others) that all members of the Legislative Council, that is, the Parliament of Kenya, should be elected on a genuine common roll. There should be no tribal rolls, racial rolls or anything of that kind. The people must begin to think of themselves as Kenyans, and members of the Kenya Parliament should regard themselves, as the Members of our House of Commons do, as being the representatives of their constituents, of whatever race, creed or anything else they may be, in the constituency which they have the honour to represent.
I believe that this will cause difficulty among the Africans, because I gather that they want to increase straight away the communal representation by 12. I also gather that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has not agreed to that proposal. If that is the case, I support him. In my view, he is quite right in refusing to agree to a further communal representation, and he is quite right in accepting the principle which we fought for in West Africa and in Malaya and in other places, in India and elsewhere, that we must get to common rolls and away from communal representation.
My Lords, in saying all this we must not overlook the fact that we are imposing upon the future of Kenya and upon ourselves a great task, in that we shall need, as a matter of urgency, to train a large number of Africans in Kenya to take the positions in Government, in local government, in the professions, and in commerce and industry, to which they will be called in a few years' time, or even less. We must begin to face the fact that at the moment there are not nearly enough Africans under training in Kenya. I am very anxious, as I am sure the House will be anxious, to hear from the noble Earl what are the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the new University of East Africa which was referred to, rather shortly, by the Secretary of State last

1043
week, in another place, in replying to a supplementary question. How, and to what extent, will the new university fulfil the needs that I have indicated? Where is it to be set up and how is it to be staffed? How many students will the university be expected to accommodate?
Before I close there is one point that I should like to make and to emphasise. Sometimes before a Colony becomes independent or gets self-government there are those who run around saying that it is going to bring economic disaster; that all capital will pour out of the country, and no new capital will come in; that the economy of that country will be completely disrupted and the people will starve; that tribal outbreaks will occur, cannibalism will arise and so on. In fact, in all the cases since the war—the many cases in which countries have gained independence—exactly the reverse has happened. Money pours into the country, the economy expands and people have a new impetus to work. The situation is completely changed.
Only last week I met one of the directors of one of the greatest international corporations in the world, and he was lyrical in his description of Ghana. He did not know that I had ever had anything to do with the Colonies and was not speaking in that way because he thought it would please me. So far as I am aware, he had no idea at all that I had had any connection whatever with the Colonies. He was telling everybody in the room what a wonderful place Ghana was: what great opportunities there were there, how intelligent the Ghanaians were—how willing to co-operate and how ready to be trained, and what excellent material they were for the higher managerial posts. How many years ago in this House did we hear the most dreadful forecasts of disaster in Ghana? Only a very few years before, noble Lords were getting up in this House, as were Members in another place, and forecasting utter ruin when Ghana achieved independence. Yet we can see from the wonderful visit that His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh has just paid to Ghana—a most successful visit—and the way in which he was welcomed, and the impression
1044
it made on his mind, exactly what is the situation in Ghana to-day.
So, my Lords, I would ask people not to get worried about Kenya. The only difference when Kenya gets independence is that she will expand enormously, and the Chief Minister will be coming to this country and other European countries begging people to invest capital and to come out there and start industries; he will be going to the World Bank and getting loans. There need be no worry about capital in Kenya. The only thing is that shares will go up even more than they have in the recent boom in the City.
Lastly, I should like to make one plea on the need for more social contact in Kenya. Those of us who were brought up in the East and who had our first contacts there with people other than Europeans have sometimes been a little worried about the different attitude we have seen in East Africa—perhaps not so marked to-day as it was years ago—in the social sphere. When I first went to Penang thirty years ago my old principal said to me. "Look here, young man, there is one thing I want to tell you. No doubt you have come out here, like everybody else, with a swollen head, thinking you are better than everybody else; but you are not. These Asians are just as good as you are, and you must treat them exactly as you would people at home. If you have a difference of opinion with a policeman in London you are very polite to him. You jolly well be just as polite to a policeman in Penang". I must admit that I was—and not only because of his advice but through discretion.
I believe that that was rather the attitude of people in the East, particularly in Malaya, in my day; but from one or two instances I have observed personally I am not sure that it is quite the attitude towards the African in Kenya. I believe that the social contacts in a country like Kenya are quite as important as economic or constitutional contacts, and I would ask Europeans, Asians and Africans to treat each other with courtesy and consideration. For then, I am quite sure, a great many of the problems will disappear The new Governor, Sir Patrick Renison, at the opening of the new session of the Legislative Council on November 10, said:

1045
"There is a new Government in England with a new Colonial Secretary and a new Governor in Kenya. In the glowing spirit of challenge and adventure which I find so strikingly around us here, let us put the darkness behind us and look bravely to the future."
My Lords, I commend the spirit and the words. I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in rising to offer a small contribution to this debate I should like for the sake of convenience to take it up where the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, left off, and to make one or two comments on some of the analogies he drew with Malaya, Ghana and other places. To take his last point, no-one would deny that an increase of social contact is a desirable thing, and if one hesitates to admit that it is an immediate possibility, that is not to condemn the idea, but merely endeavouring to be practical about it. If I may say so, the analogy with the East is not a true one. I spent 25 years of my life in Malaya, so I feel that I am qualified to speak on that country, and there is no comparison here between the miracle—admittedly—of racial amity which prevails in that country to-day. To compare the position of the Malays and Chinese with that of the Europeans and Africans in Kenya is to draw an entirely false analogy, because the Malays, in their life, could not do without the Chinese, their superior skills and so forth; and they offered, generously, a position which would enable the Chinese to work in partnership with them.
The proper parallel to that would be for the Africans in Kenya to show a little more goodwill, for Mr. Mboya to come forward and say, "We cannot do without Europeans. They have built up our country and we hope they will stay in partnership with us," for that is precisely the spirit we all want. But we cannot ask that from the Europeans; it must come from the Africans. The Europeans have already shown goodwill.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I take up that point of the noble Lord? The Malays had political power in Malaya. The Chinese had economic power. The Malays were prepared to allow the Chinese to have an adult vote and thus gave away, to a large extent, their political power. Europeans in Kenya have political power and I am asking them to do there the same kind of
1046
thing the Malays did—to waive their overwhelming political power.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I entirely appreciate the noble Lord's point, but he overlooks the fact that the Malays were giving a share in political power to a race which was their superior in intelligence and culture, and in its position in the world. So there is not a true analogy there. But I do not want to take up too much time on that particular point; there are so many others—for instance, the noble Lord's comparison with Ghana. He prophesied a tremendously prosperous future for Kenya if the country were immediately handed over to the Africans. But again the analogy—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not like to keep on interrupting, but the noble Lord must get his quotations right, because this is a very serious matter. It is no good making a slick debating speech on this question; it is very important. The whole point of my argument was not that we should immediately hand over Kenya to the Africans—that was not the point at all. The whole point is that we must immediately train the Africans to take their proper place. So the noble Lord, if he is quoting, must really, I beg of him, quote me correctly.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I am sorry if I inadvertently misrepresented the noble Lord. But is that not precisely what we are trying to do and have been trying to do for some time? As to this idea, for instance, of the prosperity of Ghana, nobody would deny that, and I least of all. But, again, the parallel breaks down because the prosperity of Ghana has been built and is to-day resting very insecurely, as we see if we look at it, on cocoa—cocoa is essentially the agricultural industry of the people of the country—whereas the position in Kenya is that the prosperity of that country has been built up on the agricultural enterprise of a small number of settlers, as they have been called, and they are the people whom Mr. Mboya wishes to drive out of Kenya. There is nothing secret about it: Mr. Mboya has made this statement himself in public There would be a proper parallel if cocoa had been grown by a race which had chosen to settle there, a small minority, and if the Africans had said to

1047
them either "Go", as Mr. Mboya has said to the Europeans who have built up his country, or, as we should like them to say, "You have rendered great services to us. Please remain and assist us to carry on." That is my comment on that, my Lords.
I listened with great appreciation to the noble Lord's sketch of the early history of Kenya, with which I have no quarrel whatsoever. But I was a little surprised that from him, of all people, there should come this plea once more for Jomo Kenyatta. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord has seen the oaths which were sworn by members of the society of which Jomo Kenyatta was the founder and the father. They are the most bestial things which have ever been known, even in Africa. It is not right to call them sub-human; it is not right to call them bestial, because that is an insult to the ordinary wild animal. They are the most repulsive things that have been known. I have seen these oaths and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has seen them, too. How can anybody plead for the release of this man who led his own people astray to that extent, and who to-day is being hailed by some of Mr. Mboya's colleagues annd friends as the great man of Kenya who should be restored once more to a prominent position? No Government worth its salt would dream of releasing such a man; and the chief sufferers, if they did so, would be the Africans in that country.
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House any longer on these points, but I felt I ought to comment on what were, in my view, false analogies. But in dealing with this question of Kenya (I am not referring to the noble Lord but to what happens in the Press outside), neither the smug enunciation of beautiful principles nor the blatant assertion of infallibility and the merit of strong action is going to take us very far. One wonders at times whether a debate of this kind does any public good, because the dancer is that criticisms, sometimes justified, expressed of Government and their action may mislead the public into thinking that the Government are wrong fundamentally, whereas I think that most of the criticisms which can fairly be made are rather superficial. The difficulty about Kenya is in asserting the
1048
truth and the facts about almost anything. Think how long it has taken to kill—and it has not been killed in Kenya yet—the untruth that the White Highlands were once occupied and owned by Africans and were stolen by settlers, every word of which is quite untrue. To-day the venomous and lying propaganda which is published in Cairo by the paper called the New Kenya, which is with some foundation supposed to have some connection with nationalist leaders in that country, has to be seen to be believed; and, my Lords, it is also common knowledge that misrepresentation of the truth is almost the common stock-in-trade of many nationalist leaders in that country.
The terms of the Motion seem to me, with due respect, to be twisted round rather the wrong way. The situation in Kenya is the result of political, economic and social causes, and it is constantly changing as these political, economic and social influences act and react upon each other. My Lords, what is, once more, the present situation in Kenya? Politically, Europeans, Africans and Asiatics are deeply divided racially against each other and domestically among themselves. There are three European Parties in that country; there are three African Parties, with Asiatics divided in their support of both of these sides, and they are contending groups. The majority of Europeans seem to be willing to go a long way to meet the aspirations of African opinion, while many moderate Africans are beginning in increasing numbers to support the idea of interracial partnership.
There is, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has mentioned, to be a Constitutional Conference in London on January 18, and the latest news is that all the African delegates, deeply divided as they have been up to date, have agreed temporarily to sink their differences in order that they may speak with one voice when they come to London. Presumably that means that extremist views will hold the field. It means, undoubtedly, that Mr. Mboya will be the leader. As I have said, Mr. Mboya is a self-confessed revolutionary who wishes—he has said so—to clear Europeans out of Kenya; and not only Europeans, for he has no use for Asiatics either. He wishes to create a purely African State. He

1049
represents irreconcilable African extremism, careless of what the economic consequences may be. The European delegates, as I have said, are hopelessly divided at the present moment, and this does not make a very bright outlook for the Conference.
Now the two important announcements recently made by the Kenya Government and by this Government have been set before your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, and I therefore need not refer to them in detail. There is the coming abrogation of the Emergency Regulations, by which 2,500 or 3,000 detainees are shortly to be released; and there is the very important declaration about the White Highlands. May I say a word or two about that? The White Highlands are, in principle, to be thrown open to the competent farmer of any race. The Government have decided that husbandry and not race shall be the criterion for the ownership and occupation of land in the Highlands. It is the declared policy of the Government to ensure that the basis of tenure and management of agricultural land shall be similar throughout the land of Kenya, regardless of race or tribe, so far as local economic and agronomic factors will permit. There can, I think, be no question of the wisdom and the fairness of this policy. Change is inescapable in a changing world, but change has to come at a reasonable pace to be acceptable—and that is why it has taken so long for this change to come.
As the noble Lord mentioned, Kenya has six million African inhabitants, and will have double that number in twenty-five years' time; and there are fewer than 5,000 Europeans now engaged in farming in the White Highlands, out of a total European population in Kenya of about 65,000. In this connection one has to consider that it is the primary endeavours of Europeans that have made possible the services of education, medicine and welfare which have given Kenya her present place in the world. European producers occupy some 6 per cent. of the country's land surface, and have been responsible in the past few years for about 46 per cent. of the gross national product of Kenya. In the allocation of funds to local government institutions for services to Africans, subsidies to the tune of about £10 million a year have been given from revenue which has been collected from non-Africans.
1050
In short, my Lords, European agriculture has underwritten all the advantages and opportunities which other communities currently enjoy. If the European farmers were to leave Kenya, the country's economy would crash to the ground. As it is, the activities of Mr. Mboya and his colleagues have kept much capital investment out of Kenya already, and have caused organisations already there to adopt a cautious policy towards further investment in the country.
Now there is no question that the time has come for broadening the basis of this country's economy. It is hoped that, by progressive removal of the barricades of historical habit, the land asset can be utilised and shared by all the people of Kenya. One has only to reflect on what would be the result if Mr. Mboya had his way to reject the arrogant and irresponsible claims which he now makes to power in that country: the elimination of European enterprise would so obviously be a disaster. I need not weary your Lordships with a detailed study of that side of it, but we must consider what it is that Mr. Mboya is asking for. He wants responsible self-government in 1960, and universal suffrage, too—relying, no doubt, upon the emotional appeal which he has to a largely illiterate people, and the African tendency to believe in unquestioned leadership. Democracy, my Lords, is not endemic in Africa, as I have often said before. The African does not believe in tolerating any opposition, and certainly does not believe in our form of democracy. One is apt to overlook the fact that, with all the education which is being given to him, at the moment he still does not take that view of a desirable Government.
Behind the political din there remains one of the real problems of Kenya, about which, up to date, very little has been done, or has been able to be done. On the economic side, it is a poor country with an increasing population and an undue proportion of arid and unproductive land. It is not the land in use which is the problem in Kenya; it is the land which is not used or which has been abused—which has not been properly used—which is the real problem. The truth is that the Kikuyu Reserve contains some of the best and most fertile land in Kenya—better that the White Highlands—but it has been misused, partly owing to the system of land tenure,

1051
which leads to the abuse of land: and that is the reason why, naturally, the Kikuyu looks enviously upon the well-run estates of the European farmers in the Highlands. Much of the land, if given intelligent planning and necessary capital, could raise the national income of Kenya very considerably. But what Kenya needs more than anything in the future, while this goes on (which is again relevant to Mr. Mboya's claims), is stable and good Government: and no attempts to appease unappeasable people like Mr. Mboya should be allowed to cloud a keen preception of that fact—that stable and sound government is a basic condition of being able to do all these things for that country.
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that we can reasonably expect that, as racialism begins to whither away in the political and economic spheres, so also, in the social sphere, the irksome attitudes and the admittedly discriminating differences which are there to some extent to-day will also slowly disappear. But there is no hope of being able to wipe them out with one stroke of the pen, either by legislation or anything else. May I also emphasise that the racial antipathies in Kenya, and in some other countries, are not anything like so lively and look nothing like so threatening on the spot? They are not so patent or so potent as they are in the Press of this country. The problem of Kenya's future is not insoluble, granted a Government which is determined to guide that country to a just balance of all the interests involved, which means a refusal to pander to extremists of any race or colour.
In conclusion, may I say that we have in Kenya, as Governor, one of the most distinguished members of the Colonial Service, an able administrator, trained to translate intelligent sympathy into timely action, and we have a Secretary of State renowned for his vision and his capacity for unbiased pursuit of a sound policy, both of them inspired by courage and sincerity. They have also inherited the goodwill of their predecessors in office. As I see it, we ought to give unstinted support to the men who are tackling these problems. By all means, let us discuss the possible policy and examine the principles which should animate it, but let us do so with restraint so as not to hamper the Governor, who
1052
has executive responsibility on the spot, or the Secretary of State, who is responsible to Parliament for the general policy pursued. It is no contribution to the future peace and prosperity of Kenya to overlook the economic facts which govern political and social advance, nor should we ever forget to give credit to the courage and capacity of the Kenya Europeans, who have been so largely responsible for the country's progress and for the hope of better life for the Africans.
Not in your Lordships' House but in the Press of this country, one finds so much untimely praise of Africans who are opposing the Government on the spot, and so much sympathy for those who are opposed to our own kith and kin who are trying to face difficulties in that country. If I may, I would conclude by quoting the last two lines of some verses written by Sir Alan Herbert long ago, when it became fashionable in certain circles in this country to praise the Russians and their achievements.
"Honour the Kremlin, boys, but now and then—
Reserve a word of praise for Number Ten."

RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC
3.54 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I wish to state that at two o'clock this afternoon a joint announcement by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United Arab Republic was issued in the following terms:
"The Governments of the United Arab Republic and the United Kingdom have agreed to re-establish diplomatic relations at the level of Chargé d'Affaires."
Her Majesty's Government welcome this development. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of all the work done by the Swiss authorities in looking after our interests in the United Arab Republic during the last three years. We are deeply indebted to the Swiss Government, to the Federal Political Department, to the Swiss Ambassador in Cairo and to all the Swiss staff concerned.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his statement and to join with him in expressing our appreciation of all that the Swiss Government have done in looking after our interests during this difficult period. This is not the first time we have had to thank the Swiss Government for coming to our assistance on similar and other occasions. It is a valuable thing that there exists a Swiss Government which is available for these occasions. Our thanks to them are in no sense perfunctory. I am sure that all of us are really sincere.
We welcome the re-establishment of relations with Egypt. It is never a good thing that diplomatic relations between countries should not exist, and naturally this is a welcome development. I should like to ask two questions. The first is: are there any conditions, stipulations or arrangements between the two parties to which this resumption of relations is subject? If so, I think that your Lordships' House ought to know of them. Possibly a White Paper may be published, setting out the terms on which this resumption of relations has taken place. Secondly, we all hope that this resumption of relations will assist in speeding up the financial settlement between our two countries, and I should like the noble Marquess to say whether that is so, and whether any discussions have taken place on the financial questions.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, before the noble Marquess replies, would he also tell us what is the position of Mr. Zarb? Is he to be released or not?
LORD REA: My Lords, I should also like to welcome the statement which the noble Marquess has made and to endorse the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. We have great reason to be thankful to the Swiss Government in many ways. It is a particularly pleasant matter that always we can rely on them fully for completely honest and dispassionate help in all sorts of trouble. The position as outlined by the noble Marquess is welcome. If I may speak in the vernacular, I think that I might almost say, "This is where we came in." After three years we are back at the beginning, and I hope that progress to the point where negotiations were broken off will soon be arrived at. At the same time, we should feel grateful that this young Republic is growing up
1054
and has the sense to get in proper touch and build up relations with the more senior and, perhaps, older nation.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, whilst welcoming, as I think everybody must do, this step towards the re-establishment of normal relations, I should like to ask whether this step on the part of Her Majesty's Government indicates that they are satisfied with the manner in which the terms of the recently signed financial agreement are being carried out by the Egyptian Government, in particular, in regard to the funds released to British subjects under that agreement.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether he could say if this resumption of relations with the United Arab Republic is to be followed by a similar resumption of relations with Saudi Arabia.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am sure that it will be a source of great satisfaction to the Swiss Government that the thanks which have been expressed by Her Majesty's Government should be repeated in all quarters of your Lordships' House. As regards the question of conditions, which was put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, there are no conditions. As regards the question of the speeding up of the financial settlement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, also referred, I think we may take it that the reestablishment of diplomatic relations will certainly assist us to get over such difficulties as exist.
The noble Viscount, Lord Long, asked me what was the position of Mr. Zarb. Of course we deeply regret that Mr. Zarb is still in custody. Here again we hope that the resumption of diplomatic relations will assist us in furthering the interests of Mr. Zarb. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, that, rather than look back, let us all look ahead. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, the position is, as it has always been, regarding the Saudis that there is no obstacle whatsoever to the resumption of diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That was not quite my point. I asked whether this happy reunion with Egypt would assist both sides in coming to recognition in the case of Saudi Arabia.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I think I must repeat what I said in your Lordships' House before: that there never has been an obstacle. It is conceivable perhaps that this may assist. A Saudi Arabian representative, as I think your Lordships know, has been holding discussions with the United Kingdom Mission in New York. I understand that they are still in the exploratory stage, but we have every hope that there may be a satisfactory issue of them.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the noble Marquess's reply, I should like to ask this question. He said that he hoped this resumption of diplomatic relations would assist a financial settlement. Will he express the hope that this resumption of diplomatic relations will speed up other forms and directions of failure of the Egyptian Government at present to implement fully the agreement? I have in mind, in particular, Article 7 (2), paragraph 1 of which said that there should be no racial discrimination in the entry and exit permits of those wishing to go back to the country. There is evidence that there is racial discrimination against Jewish people. May I ask the Minister whether the Foreign Office will take that, and certain other directions in which the Egyptian Government are failing this agreement, into consideration?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I am not prepared to go into the details of whether there is or is not discrimination. Let it suffice for me to say that with the re-establishment of diplomatic relations we shall, of course, conduct our affairs in the way we always do; and if there are any problems of this nature, I can assure the noble Lord that every care will be taken to look into them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, but will care be taken to raise them? We all look into them. The question is: Will they be raised? Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to finish what I am going to say. There are matters which are causing great anxiety. Now that diplomatic relations are being resumed, there are means by which these matters can be raised with the Egyptian Government, which we were always told there were not before.
1056
There are two, in particular: the question of the restitution of the property of British subjects; and the matter of anti-British propaganda which, as the noble Marquess knows, has been going on for a number of years over Africa and emanating from Cairo. I cannot ask for an assurance to-day, but I hope the noble Marquess will go so far as to say that these are matters which can properly now be raised with the Egyptian Government.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Yes, my Lords.

THE SITUATION IN KENYA
4.5 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, the two speakers who have preceded me in the debate are both noble Lords with tremendous experience and authority, who always speak in this House with considerable knowledge and whose speeches are listened to with great respect. I am afraid that I cannot claim to speak with anything like the authority of either of those two noble Lords. I am, however, somewhat comforted by the fact that the two experts disagreed fundamentally on almost every matter that has been raised in the course of the debate so far. So far as guidance to the House is concerned, the House is in exactly the same position as it was before the debate commenced, and therefore I can speak as if I were speaking with a clean sheet.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who opened the debate, was so eager to jump in, possibly in front of his former friends on his left, in raising this matter before the Recess, as he said, that I think he has lost his normal eye for timing. I wonder what the noble Earl who is going to reply can possibly say this afternoon on the constitutional question. We are to have a Conference on January 18 at which all the political Parties from Kenya will be present; at which our own Secretary of State is to preside, and where he will be in the position of holding the balance between the parties.
LORD OGMORE: May I ask the noble Lord this question? If this is going to be the doctrine that one must never have any debate in this House, however many

1057
years have passed without one, because a Constitutional Conference is pending, why is this doctrine not applied to Central Africa, on which there have been so many debates before the holding of a Constitutional Conference?
LORD SILKIN: I was not laying down any doctrine; I was speaking about this particular case, where we are, so to speak, holding the reins and where we are endeavouring and hoping to get agreement among many different parties in Africa. In other circumstances it may be very proper to hold a debate: for instance, if it were a question of our putting forward our own views at the Conference, in order that different sections of the House and different sections of opinion might be expressed. But, as I understand this Conference (I may be wrong), that is not the case here. This is a Conference at which the various African parties are going to be given an opportunity of expressing their views, in the hope that as a result of the discussions some agreement can be arrived at among them.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, who also speaks with tremendous experience and authority, that I do not think he rendered a great service to the success of this Conference in the constant and repeated attacks he made on Mr. Mboya. The noble Lord may agree or disagree with his views—we are all entitled to have our views—but I think it is untimely at this stage, a few weeks before this Conference, to take the opportunity of attacking the views and the personality of one of the important participants in the Conference. That, I hope he will not mind my saying, is not the best way to achieve success. I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, that the speech he made is exactly the sort of speech that is made on every similar occasion by those who are reluctant to advance the cause of independence as speedily as some may consider appropriate. I know that it is customary to pay lip service to the cause of freedom and independence: that it is hound to come some day, but that it must come very slowly, and that we must prepare the people for it. That is the orthodox traditional formula on these occasions. It is because, in a debate of this kind, it is almost inevitable that
1058
views will be put forward such as those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that I think it would have been better to defer this debate until after the Conference had taken place.
An additional reason for deferring the debate is this. The Secretary of State is leaving on a visit to Kenya next week. All of us who have at heart the cause of the advancement of the Colonies, and the gradual steps towards independence and their remaining in the Commonwealth, are greatly encouraged by the new outlook, the more promising outlook, which we have seen in our new Colonial Secretary. I feel that he ought to be given a chance to go to the country, to see the country, to talk to the people there, to form a judgment, and to come back and tell us what he thinks. One further reason why in my judgment this debate is premature, is that, while we all welcome the ending of the Emergency Regulations, we do not yet know what will be the form of the permanent legislation we are to see in their place. If it is merely to be a matter of putting the temporary legislation into permanent form, then, of course, the later stage will be worse than the former. But we do not know, and I should not wish to pre sume that that will be the case. I would hope, indeed, that we shall get rid of emergency legislation, whether in the form of regulations, or whether in the form of permanent legislation, and that it should be possible to give Kenya once more a chance of living a peaceful and orderly life.
There is one other thing I want to say, and that is on the question of the White Highlands. I appreciate the offer that has been made by the Kenya Government to permit people of all races in Kenya, white, black or coloured, to acquire land in the White Highlands, and that the only criterion will be good farming. But if this is to be more than a paper gesture some assistance must be given to the good farmer to acquire land, whether by way of purchase or lease. There may be many good farmers among the Africans or the Asians who cannot possibly hope to acquire land in either of the ways mentioned. Therefore this will be an entirely empty gesture, unless they are assisted in some form to acquire land where they are capable of making

1059
good use of it. I hope that the Government will take that point into consideration.
I wish to conclude, because, having taken the view that this debate is untimely, I do not wish to start up a fresh debate. Generally, I would say that we ought to move towards giving the people of Kenya the feeling that there will be no restrictions, inhibitions or differential treatment as between Europeans, Africans and Asians. I think that should be the note of the progress. Indeed, if there is to be permanent legislation in place of this temporary legislation, would it not be possible to incorporate in that permanent legislation some steps of a positive character? Instead of saying simply in this legislation "Thou shall not," would it not be possible to say also that these are things which we propose to do in the advancement of a cause which all of us agree must ultimately come—which some of us think should come more rapidly—but which in any case we ought to make a gesture on and take a first step. I believe that if it were possible to make an announcement immediately before the Conference with regard to the White Highland land, and if we were prepared to introduce legislation, or to incorporate in the legislation something on the lines that I have suggested—some positive advancement of the position of the Africans and the Asians—the atmosphere for the success of the Conference which is to be held would be much brighter, and there would be a reasonable chance of a successful issue from it for the benefit of all parties who are connected with Kenya and who earnestly desire its welfare.
4.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I agree very much with a great deal that has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as to the timing of this debate. I intervene only for a few moments because when once a debate has been staged in this House it is read a certain amount in this country, but it is read with most meticulous care and in great detail, as I know, by men of all races in the territories which we debate. I shall try to say nothing which could prejudice the success of the Conference.
1060
I hope I shall say nothing which does not show that I want more than anything—and I have had a long connection with Kenya—to see the successful partnership of all the races in that country.
I think we in this House, on all sides, desire not only to wish well to the very able new Governor who has gone there, but to pay our tribute of gratitude to the Governor who is leaving, Sir Evelyn Baring, for a long, devoted, sympathetic and courageous service in that country. People have talked to-day about the small, hard core of Mau Mau that is left. I did not hear anything from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about what I regard as one of the most remarkable achievements in the whole administrative history of the British Empire, and that is the rehabilitation of 99 per cent. of the Mau Mau, many of whom had been terrorised by these disgusting oaths and other things into their insurrection. With infinite patience and great skill these people have been rehabilitated in agriculture. Indeed I believe that the general feeling in the Kikuyu Province to-day is incomparably better than it ever has been. That is, without question, the result of the work of Sir Evelyn Baring and all those who, with his encouragement and support, have worked under him.
My mind goes back to the time when I first knew Kenya, and I agree with the description which was given of the quite deplorable state of African agriculture, with some of the best land being denuded. There was that extraordinary system, under which a cow was currency; it was the bride price, and a bad cow was worth as much as a good cow. The last thing anybody was going to do with a cow—there was not much chance of milking it; there was not much milk given—or a beast was to eat it. The Masai had a diet of blood and milk, which did not greatly invigorate the cattle. And then there came a new devaluation of the agricultural currency, if I may so put it, in that somebody discovered that ten goats were equal to one cow. So the goats proliferated, and there is nothing which destroys land and causes more erosion than the goat.
It is wonderful how good can come out of evil. As part of the rehabilitation there has been an incredible improvement in the agriculture of the Kikuyu and, indeed, of other parts. I particularly want to say this because when I

1061
was Secretary of State I set up the Carter Commission on the White Highlands, and very able work they did, not least in telling the true story of the White Highlands; and I know what enormous benefit to Kenya and to the Africans in Kenya good farming of the White Highlands has been. I am very glad indeed that the step is being taken now to open the White Highlands to African or Asian farmers. I think that the time is ripe for it in every way, because I believe that African agriculture has greatly improved. I accept, and I am glad it has been laid down, that the standard is not going to be race or any political consideration; that the standard of whether you are or are not to have a farm in the White Highlands is competence. I hope that the Agriculture Committee in Kenya will be more satisfactory in enforcing good farming than some of the county agricultural committees have been in this country, but I say that in passing. I am quite sure of this—and I know something of these Africans—that when you have got good African farmers on the land in the White Highlands, nobody will be keener to maintain the high standard of good farming and keep the bad farmer out than will be the African farmer himself.
I must say I was quite amazed at the irresponsibility with which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, advocated the release of Kenyatta and his hard-core followers.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I did not advocate that. Neither the noble Earl, nor the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, listened to the speech. If they had listened, they would know that I did not advocate it; I said that the onus was on the Government to prove it was necessary. I should have thought that that was an axiom. I said I did not myself believe he was so important a person as people seemed to think. I did not advocate his release.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: That is very interesting. It is rather like the subtle distinction we had between killing and murder; I never could quite see the subtle difference. I believe the noble Lord once held some minor office of colonial administration. If that is so, I say that the way he talked to-day is utterly irresponsible, and I say, moreover, that if, contrary to the considered
1062
judgment of the Governor on the spot, approved by the Secretary of State, who must, with that responsibility, make the judgment, there were any attempt to release this man and this hard core of followers without their full approval and their being satisfied that it could be done with safety, you might destroy the whole tremendous work of rehabilitation which Sir Evelyn Baring and his people have carried out. Nobody, let me assure the noble Lord, would resent it more than those Kikuyu who have been rehabilitated and now, without fear of the terror that was brooding over them, are able to conduct their lives and their agriculture in peace.
I would say one word about the constitutional talks. I am sure that the last way in which we can help those constitutional talks is to try to tell the representatives, whether they are the African, the European or the Asian representatives, or the Secretary of State, exactly what they are to do before they start. I do not think that that would be at all helpful. I would only say this, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said. I cannot for the life of me understand this obsession of "one man, one vote." It is quite true that we have come to it here, but we have come to it over not only a century but centuries, and we are quite ready for it. We are a wholly responsible electorate, as the last General Election showed. I remember some very wise words once said by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, when we were in a Government together, about the risk of applying the Westminster model indiscriminately all through the British Empire. It is not at all a safe thing to do, to copy Constitutions, unless you can also assimilate characteristics. The reason the British Constitution works well in this country and in many of the other Commonwealth countries is that we share similar ideas of tolerance, fair play, ability to compromise, and so on. You have only to look round to see that independence and freedom do not at all necessarily mean the same thing. I can think of countries where independence has been given in the sense of sovereign government, but where there is little freedom for opposition or for anybody else.
I am in favour of the common roll as against pure communal representation, but I do not believe in "one man, one

1063
vote." I do believe in qualifications, which should advance because the whole of the Africans will advance. I believe in the qualification of education, and—I am not ashamed to say it—in these countries a little property qualification; and things may be weighted so that good education counts for more than property. But if you go for the fetish of "one man, one vote", you will, in fact, get a communal roll and not a common roll, because if you give equal votes to five million Africans and there are 100,000 Europeans and 80,000 or 100,000 Asians, what does it mean? Of course it means that you are giving community vote and community representation. Those things—they are simple facts; nobody is going to deny them—should be present in the minds of all of us. We all want to make progress, and as rapid progress as possible, on the road of partnership; but, as we have seen in Kenya in the aftermath of Mau Mau, the greatest benefit that this country has brought to the Dark Continent is liberty, freedom, justice and the rule of law, and the health and prosperity which our Colonial Services have brought. The best service we can render to those who are going into this Conference is to give them understanding and encouragement, and not least realism.
4.30 p.m.
LORD CITRINE: My Lords, I shall not detain you long. Like a good many others in this House, I have what is probably a general knowledge, from what I have been able to read in the Press and elsewhere, of conditions on the continent of Africa, and in Kenya in particular, but I can profess none of the intimate knowledge which has been displayed by the mover of this Motion or by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. I have had some slight experience of contact with Africans, particularly those who have been active in the trade union sphere, as well as some of those in the political sphere. I also had the advantage of serving on the West Indies Royal Commission of 1938, which of course had the problem of dealing with what was virtually an African, or predominantly African, population in a completely different setting from that of Africa. It was my opportunity, in my Trades Union Congress days, to travel widely and to meet a good many of those
1064
who are now aspiring to self-government, and to be able to gauge in some measure their personal qualities and approach to that subject.
Broadly, I have only one qualification to make to what the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said. Whilst always ready to listen to experts, I have never bound myself to accept their opinions. I think that is, broadly, a feeling which is shared by anyone who is responsible for the conduct of a large organisation, because when there are many experts, as we have seen to-day, they do not always agree in the kind of advice they give. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, at least in his Jamaican days, showed a progressive outlook which commended itself very much to myself and to other members of the West Indies Royal Commission. So I should be the last to accuse him of not possessing a progressive mind, or one that was not sympathetic to the aspirations of the native population of Kenya to secure self-government.
I think that what some of us found rather disturbing in the course of our travels to different countries was the rather too exclusive environment in which British Governors and their officials are almost naturally compelled to function. I myself felt, particularly when I was in the West Indies, that it would be of great benefit if our colonial servants (if I may so call them) in the countries I visited had the opportunity to mix more with the coloured population, in order that they could familiarise themselves more intimately and more closely with their views. I found too great a tendency to accept interpretations of the conduct, and indeed the aspirations, of coloured people made perhaps by those who were not entirely disinterested, as for instance the planters in the West Indies. I make that point not with any acerbity, but because it seems to me to entitle us to some measure of reticence and reserve in accepting what appears to be official opinion.
I myself, with, I suppose, most noble Lords in this House—I am sure with the noble Earl who spoke before me—have very deep sympathy with the aspiration of the African people for self-government. I am not one of those who entirely believe all that is said by the claimants of self-government. I know how, in my trade union days, I had to be extremely prudent before accepting all

1065
that was said to me on the merits of a case by my own members before meeting the employers, and I do not think any experienced person would be ready to accept everything that is said by Africans regarding their claims, or the merits of the particular view they are putting forward. None the less, basic sympathy with them in their claim, I think, must be in the hearts of everyone in this House.
I have been troubled on occasions, as others must have been, about the measure of readiness for self-government of particular parts of the African community. That is always difficult to gauge at a distance and when one is not living in the community, and it may easily be that in particular cases self-government is being sought after before those who are likely to be the self-governors have learned the basic principles of democracy as practised in this country. There have been signs—they were referred to by the noble Lord, without mentioning names in particular—that give one cause for concern in that respect, in the recently confirmed status of self-government upon parts of Africa. I believe that at the base of all these things is confidence. If the Conference which is to take place in January next year starts off with suspicion as to the aims of the British Government in its general attitude and its desire for a wider measure of self-government, then the Conference will be a failure. In passing, I may say that I sometimes feel that we are not completely appreciative of the measure of self-government which has been given to communities, or conceded to communities other than the European communities, by successive British Governments in the past twenty-five or more years.
I should like to conclude with a question to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. I listened to his words but perhaps I did not hear all that he said. I heard the quotation with which he concluded, and with which most of us would entirely concur: that in the pæans of praise that we give to other countries and nations it is as well to remember some of the good things that have been done by British Governments. I entirely accept that. But did he apply that same quotation in reverse to the African population of Kenya? I listened carefully to his extended references to the merits of the
1066
white community, and what that community had done in Kenya, but I failed to hear anything from him that was really in praise of the African community.
5.39 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, there has been some query as to whether it was appropriate to have this debate to-day rather than at some other time. I would only say this: that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, did me the courtesy of asking whether it would be convenient or inconvenient for us to have the debate on the Motion which he had had down for some time, before the Christmas Recess. I said that we were quite ready to face it, and, having listened to various noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, I believe that, on balance, it has been valuable to have this debate. I am supported in this by many of the wise things that have been said by one noble Lord or another. At the same time I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, recognises that I shall not be able to speak at any great length on constitutional questions, as such, ahead of the Conference which is to be held in January.
At the same time, I feel sure that it has been useful to hear the view of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, on such questions as inter-racial relations and, more importantly perhaps, for the people of Kenya to know that the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, supports the latest moves that have been made in relation to the "White" Highlands. Again, I believe we shall all benefit from the wise words of toleration from the noble Lord, Lord Citrine, which will give us some important guidance when we get into the Conference. I hope that not only we ourselves but those of all races who are to come to the Conference will take note of what he has said. At any rate, I assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will consider most carefully all that has been said this afternoon. The debate comes at the start of what, I hope, are new and happy times for Kenya and a new chapter of progress towards self-government. We have come to the end of the Emergency, after seven years of Mau Mau. The Governor is making an "Act of Grace" in respect

1067
of all who committed offences in connection with the emergency before November 10. Those people are to be pardoned. Again, many restrictions on movement and on political activity are to be reduced or abolished.
Perhaps it will be useful if I touch straight away on the question of the Detained and Restricted Persons (Special Provisions) Bill. This is an ad hoc measure designed to hold certain persons detained or restricted under the Emergency Regulations as their release would present a security risk in their home areas and in the Colony generally, Copies of the Bill are in the Library of your Lordships' House. The task of reclaiming these persons will be carried on under the Special Commissioner recommended by the Fairn Committee. Your Lordships will know what a carefully chosen Committee this was, with Mr. Fairn himself, a leading prison administrator and also a leading member of the Society of Friends, as Chairman; Sir George Beresford-Stooke, for some time Governor of Sierra Leone, and Canon Bewes, a missionary with great experience in Africa. All of those members of the Committee recognised that in relation to some detainees there was a social and psychological problem and a task which had necessarily to be solved over a considerable period of time; and that for that purpose detention and restriction were undoubtedly necessary.
The Bill does not, however, contemplate or provide for fresh detainees, save in regard to certain terrorists who are at large, or certain individuals outside Kenya. The point I wish to make is that the category of those to whom the Bill will apply is known, is defined and is limited. That is of first importance and meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin.
There has been mention this afternoon of Jomo Kenyatta. I do not want to get into a controversy about this, but I feel that it is important to mention one or two of the facts. First, it should be clearly understood that the case of Kenyatta and his associates does not come within the orbit of the Emergency Regulations. They were found by a court of law to be guilty of managing and being members of an unlawful society, namely Mau Mau; and when sentencing them the magistrate said:
1068
"I shall also recommend that you be restricted."
Accordingly a restriction order was made, in accordance with the law passed in 1949 during the time of the Labour Government and used by previous Governments. When Kenyatta was actually released from prison he was removed to Lodwar where a house had been built and furnished and where he now is. He has been given a subsistence allowance for himself, his wife and children; and I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would like to know that the last reports I have say that his health is satisfactory. No one can forecast the very distant future in such cases as that of Kenyatta, but ultimately the issue rests, and must rest, with the Governor in Council. That is the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and I entirely agree with him that in the last analysis the responsibility lies there; and we are happy to leave it in that way.
The second Bill that is to come in, with the end of the Emergency, is the Preservation of Public Security Bill, a copy of which is also in the Library of your Lordships' House. That Bill is an insurance against future troubles and is, as it were, a notice to would-be trouble makers. Regulations will provide for some control of political organisations and public meetings, but they have not yet been published; and in relation to them the Governor has said that he will not be guided by race or by politics but purely by his judgment of the needs of law and order. And he has said:
"I hope that experience will show that I do not need to use these controls. I intend in the coming weeks to give sufficient rope to judge for myself how much, if at all, they must be used."
In this new chapter for Kenya, issues which, to date, have deeply concerned and divided the country—such as, for example, that of land tenure or political advance—are now being the subject of much debate in Kenya, which I am sure is a very good thing. And, as has already been pointed out, with this new chapter there are new people to act in the story—a new Secretary of State and a new Governor. But it must not be forgotten that it was the former Secretary of State, Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd, and the former Governor, Sir Evelyn Baring, to whom several noble Lords, and particularly the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, paid such right tribute, who patiently and with

1069
imagination over the years, and with the help of people of all races, have laid the foundations which may make new and, I hope, happier things possible in the years to come.
The Motion has been very widely drawn, but I do not think it is any the worse for that. It covers the political, economic and social sides of Kenya. In a word, it covers the life of the nation. The factor which is common to all these questions, political, economic and social, and which, indeed, dominates them, is, of course, the racial one. For Kenya to make any progress all four races must work together and move forward together. The one unchanging theme in the policy of Her Majesty's Government in past years, whether it was a Labour or a Conservative Government, has been progress on a multi-racial, or I prefer the term, non-racial basis. The latest outlines on this theme are to be found in the then Secretary of State's Despatch of November 24, 1958, and the statement that he made in another place on April 22 of this year. That statement was widely welcomed at the time. I believe that it will repay further study by one and all before the Constitutional Conference in January.
I will go over some of it again because I think it is of such importance. The statement laid down the conditions which must prevail in order that we shall eventually be able to hand over authority with a good conscience. Our responsibility was, and is, to all the inhabitants in Kenya of all races and communities, both backward and advanced; to abandon such responsibility prematurely would be a betrayal. These words, however, are not an idle excuse for us to drag our feet. We are doing, and will continue to do, all we can to help the people of Kenya onwards. We recognise that the progress of these people is not always easy. As is so often the case of multi-racial States, as various noble Lords have said, there is that curious, all-pervading atmosphere, very often of fear—fear lest one race may dominate or discriminate against others; and here we find it in Kenya as in many other territories. But it is essential that all citizens of Kenya play their part together—and they all have an immense part to play in the development of the country. Your Lordships will recall that it was to
1070
meet this fear of discrimination that the Council of State was set up in 1958, and I think it has, without question, already proved its worth.
It may be worth while to touch in some more detail on the conditions that were laid down in that statement to which I referred. The first condition is concerned with political and constitutional considerations and how Her Majesty's Government must be satisfied that the power will be exercised by people through representative Parliamentary institutions which they would not abuse. Having said this, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to go into any detail on immediate constitutional possibilities, which, of course, is the main purpose of the January Conference. I would just say that in a sense the work for that Conference has already started. Professor W. J. M. MacKenzie, who is Professor of Government at the University of Manchester., was appointed to advise all the parties to the Conference, and he is now making his second trip to Kenya. As your Lordships probably know, the elected members of the Legislative Council will be invited to the Conference, and one of the purposes of the Secretary of State's visit to Kenya at this time is that he may meet many of the people who are to be over here and make personal contact with them before the Conference. I am sure that that is a good thing, particularly when he can meet them on their own ground.
The second condition was general acceptance in the territory that every race and community has its part to play in public and economic life and that Kenya is the home of them all. That is a condition which cannot be achieved by a Government Bill or Government ukase. It depends on the co-operation of all individuals in Kenya. There are, I think, some promising signs that things are moving in the right direction—for example, the new land policy, which is that land shall be treated, in a word, non-racially on the yardstick of its efficient use.
Early this year, a first step was taken in the African areas with legislation to modernise their system of land tenure, together with the provision of certain safeguards for its use; and in October the Kenya Government made their proposals for land other than native lands. As

1071
the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, these were bold proposals; and both in the "White" Highlands and in the native lands land transactions must from henceforth be judged on the basis of good husbandry and not of race. That basis of good husbandry, I think, means that the risk (which I believe was seen by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore) of fragmentation will not be there, because, after all, if there is over much fragmentation, it is not good husbandry, so it will not happen in that form.
The proposals have been attacked by what I call the Right Wing of the European settlers in the Highlands and, perhaps, by the Left Wing of the Africans, the latter on the ground that in practice it will not make much difference and does not satisfy African land hunger. I think that there is a confusion here. The question of African land hunger is something quite separate from the question of good husbandry and how land can be held. But reverting to the announced intention of the Government on land tenure, I think that the very fact that it has been attacked on the Right and on the Left probably means that the Government are about right. But the Government have not yet introduced a Bill, and their reason for that is that they want to hear every opinion and make quite sure that when they do introduce this Bill they have taken those opinions into account and have gone as far as they can to get things right.
It might be useful for me to digress for one moment on what has been done in the way of land consolidation and improvement over the last years. I would not be so gloomy about it as my noble friend Lord Milverton, but rather let me give you one or two of the facts. In Kikuyu-land to-day, in the Central Province, there are now 200,000 farmers who are freehold owners, and this process is steadily going forward throughout the Province. Steps have been taken in the Rift Valley and Nyanza Provinces along the same lines, and already half of Central Nyanza and large areas elsewhere in Nyanza Province have taken steps towards land consolidation, which in its turn will mean its more efficient use. These things which go on outside constitutional and political debate are, I believe, the things which really count and
1072
are laying the foundations of the wellbeing of the country.
As a matter of fact, this particular development in land is already paying important dividends for the African people. Although commodity prices have fallen in the last year or two years, the value of the cash crops that have been produced by the Africans has risen by nearly 20 per cent. to somewhere around £6 million. It is not a very great deal in relation to the output of the settlers in cash crops, but it is important progress, and I feel confident that with the figures I have given and the move that has now started it will go further. It is, in fact, an agrarian revolution that has taken place in a very few years, whereas in this country such an agrarian revolution took centuries to achieve.
Then there is another promising sign: that Kenya itself is tackling these very difficult problems which they had not really dared to face up to before because they were so difficult racially. Apart from land, they are now tackling the question of multi-racial schools. It is a difficult thing to tackle. Your Lordships know all the fears and feelings that it can raise, but more and more people are thinking about the problem and a voluntary start has already been made.
The third condition in the statement, my Lords, was that an improving standard of living can reasonably be expected with overseas or, indeed, local capital being confident that it will be fairly treated and will therefore either come in or stay in. I do not have to tell your Lordships the importance of this. Let us look at one or two of the figures. Exports from Kenya at the present time are, in round figures, £30 million a year; imports are £60 million. Now that difference has to be met either by help from Her Majesty's Government, which has been given in some degree, or, far more importantly, by capital from overseas. Without that continuing inflow of capital, or if something happened which made those who are already in the country wish to get their money out, one can see what desperate needs would arise. The whole progress of Kenya—the whole of its economic progress; and, more importantly, the whole of its social services, such as education and health, and its constitutional progress—would be checked, if not put back a long way.

1073
I cannot therefore, go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore: that all that is needed is independence, and that then capital pours in.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not want to over-simplify it. What I said was that there has always been an argument—we have heard it in this House for years past—that independence means disaster. That is what I was pointing out: that, in fact, up till now independence has often meant an enormous economic expansion—as in Malaya, Ghana, Nigeria, and so on. So that is not necessarily an objection to independence.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am glad the noble Lord has made that point clear. I confess that I misunderstood him. I thought he said that all that is needed is independence, and that then capital pours in. But I think we all understand that what is essential in relation to capital coming in is confidence. Now confidence in Kenya has double importance: not only for overseas capital coming in, but for people who have already got their money there. My Lords, I would only say this: that confidence is a very tender plant. It can shrivel up overnight; and all the inhabitants of Kenya, of whatever race, must do all they can to cultivate confidence and to woo the investor.
The last condition which occurred in the statement was that there should be a competent and experienced Civil Service which has a reasonable proportion of local people and has the prospect, in time, of being wholly recruited locally. If one looks back at the history of various territories which at one time or another we governed and which are now independent, I believe that there is scarcely anything which we have given to them which is of equal importance to the fact that their Civil Service and their Judiciary have been mirrored on the traditions of the public service of this country. I do not wish to derogate from the work of the political leaders in India, but I personally believe that the strong and proud tradition of the Indian Civil Service has perhaps done more to hold India together and to enable it to advance than any other single thing. If this is a right judgment, then surely it must be our aim to do all we can similarly to build up the Civil Service in the various countries remaining in our
1074
charge. I know that every Colonial Government is doing its best to this end.
Let me give one or two figures for Kenya, which will also show your Lordships how much remains to be done. Leaving aside the figures for other races, in December, 1955, there were 68 Africans in senior posts in the Kenya Civil Service. Two years later there were 149; and now the figure is approaching 300—a very considerable advance. But, my Lords, we have to look at those figures against a total service of something like 4,000. We are determined—and the expatriate officers of Kenya are themselves doing all they can to help in the process—to get more and more locally recruited officers (and that means, in particular, the Africans) into the service; but it takes time. I do not wish it to be thought that we are insisting that there must be a 100 per cent. locally recruited service before self-government can be given. Of course not. But what I do say is that there must be reasonable certainty that there is a sufficient number of local people already in the service, already in senior posts, and, perhaps more importantly, in what I call "the pipeline"—the pipeline through education—before one can be satisfied that the time for self-government has come.
My Lords, I have mentioned education, and if I do not elaborate on education it is partly because I have been talking rather a long time; but I should not wish your Lordships to think that its importance is in any way neglected, by myself, by my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary or by the Government of Kenya. We know the tremendous efforts that they are putting into its development. Eighteen per cent. of its total net expenditure is being used for educational purposes.
I will just touch on the question of the Royal Technical College, because the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised the subject; and he gave me notice that he was going to do so. What happened was this. About a year ago there was a Working Party on Higher Education in East Africa under the chairmanship of Dr. Lockwood, who was then Vice-Chancellor of London University. Their task was to advise on the pattern of future development. The Committee made three main recommendations. The first was that the Royal Technical College in Nairobi should be reorganised

1075
and should become a University College in which both academic and profesional courses would have equal standing. My Lords, it takes time to carry such things into effect. There need to be talks with the various heads of faculties; and also one has to draw up various plans—and, indeed, a distinguished architect, Mr. Chitty, is going out next month to advise on such questions. The second recommendation was that there should be an inter-territorial University College in Tanganyika by 1965 or 1966, or as soon afterwards as possible. The third was that there should be a University of East Africa created not later than 1966, to which the existing university colleges that is, Makerere, in Uganda; the Royal Technical College in Kenya; and the planned Tanganyika College—would be associated as constituents. My Lords, I think the pattern there is an encouraging and exciting one, and it has been accepted with enthusiasm by all the East African Governments.
I do not want to enter into the controversy which I think the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, debated on social relations in Kenya at the present time; but I think I might mention an article, which may interest many of your Lordships and which happened to appear in the Daily Mail of to-day. I think it paints a picture of a very satisfactory relationship, to the astonishment of the reporter who went there. Again on this question of race, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, was at fault, or was mistaken, when he mentioned the three European Parties, and so forth. I think it is important to remember for example that the Party of Mr. Blundell is not a European Party; it is a non-racial party, and this has been true of one or two of the others as well.
Lastly, I will touch on one or two points that have been raised in the debate. I do not think I can possibly accept that Mr. Mboya is an immovable object, or that he or anyone else who will come to the Conference has made up his mind what he is going to do and will stick to it. I earnestly hope that when the time comes they will all be motivated by a much higher desire, namely, the good of Kenya, and I hope that that motive will prevail. It seems to me at times that too much attention is paid by
1076
the most able and most devoted citizens of our colonial territories to constitutional questions. I think that economic and social progress is at least of equal importance. In all these fields in Kenya, the important thing is that everyone accepts and works to the end that the African partner should progress, and progress fast relatively to the other races. I appreciate that in underdeveloped territories the Government, whether administrative or executive, plays a more important part in the daily life of the people than in more advanced countries. I understand, therefore, that those who want to lead their people—and I have particularly in mind the African leaders—are deeply concerned with political advance, but I believe that at this time this should not be an end in itself to the exclusion of all else.
The aim of the Government's policy in Kenya is well known: it is to establish Parliamentary institutions representative of the people, and responsible self-government. Therefore it is my strong hope that those taking part in the Conference—and many of them I count as my friends—will not seek control for any one race or any one group. Rather do I hope that they seek a stage in development which will enable the best of them, whatever may be their race, to participate in Government, to learn the art of administration and to help in achieving a fair standard of living in a Kenya free from oppression in any quarter. Then, when the time does come for self-government, the Kenyans will be able to take over effectively and fairly; and we shall rejoice.
5.13 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for what I think has been a forthright and encouraging speech, one that will bring a great deal of satisfaction to those of us who are interested in Kenya. I am also grateful to the noble Earl for the care which he has taken in answering the points of which I gave him notice. With reference to the allegations by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that I was "grossly irresponsible" in putting down this debate for to-day, I think that by now your Lordships will have seen clearly that I did consult the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and that if there had been any doubt in my mind and in that of the noble Earl, any feeling that this was an

1077
inappropriate time, a dangerous time, a damaging time, in which to have a debate of this kind, I should not have put down this Motion. But the noble Earl raised no objection. In fact, he thought, on balance, that it was a good thing. So I hope that your Lordships will not agree that there are the slightest grounds for the noble Lords to attack me for being irresponsible. I was also rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, attacked me for "rushing in" with this debate. I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for nine years and it seems rather late in the day to attack me for "rushing" into a debate. There was no rushing. The Motion was on the Order Paper and a date for it was arranged through the usual channels.
As regards Jomo Kenyatta, I have no brief at all for him, and I dislike the Mau Mau oaths taken by people in Kenya. I was making a point of principle, which I would make whether the man's name was Jomo Kenyatta or John Smith. The noble Earl did not disagree with that, and in fact gave the reasons. I should think that no democratic Government would disagree with my point. If a man is held after his sentence has been concluded, then the onus is on the Government to declare why they are doing so. I am certain that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would agree that that is a basic principle of law in a democratic country. As regards the attack on Mr. Mboya, I knew nothing about Mr. Mboya except what I have read in the Press. But if it is any satisfaction to Mr. Mboya, I would point out that nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has said about him has been so had as what the noble Lord said about Dr. Nkrumah a few months ago, when the noble Lord attacked him even more bitterly.
LORD MILVERTON: Is the noble Lord referring to me?
LORD OGMORE: Yes, I referred to the noble Lord as Lord Milverton.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, any attack by me on Dr. Nkrumah in your Lordships' House has entirely escaped my memory. I think that the noble Lord is confusing me with some other noble Lord. I should be glad if he could give me the reference.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, if my memory is at fault, I apologise to the noble Lord, but I shall look it up. I
1078
certainly recall debates, in which both the noble Lord and I were engaged, in which the noble Lord made very caustic comments about conditions in Ghana.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, I am afraid that I must interrupt the noble Lord. I remember making speeches about Ghana, but it certainly would not be true to say that I made caustic remarks.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, of course I accept entirely what the noble Lord says. I am sure that his recollection of his own speeches is far better than mine. But I assure Mr. Mboya, if he is worried about what the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has said about him, that a true assessment of the position with regard to him was given by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, who, I think, put the position perfectly fairly to-day. I think that his comment upon the leader in an Africa territory is what we would all support, rather than the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.