Lords Sitting of 20 July 1960

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I was to have asked a Private Notice Question, but I understand that Her Majesty's Government could not promise that a statement would be made in another place to-day.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, that is quite correct. My noble friend will be making a statement at approximately half-past three on the position in the Congo; and there will also be a statement on the future of the Territorial Army.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
TYNE TUNNEL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
CROYDON CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I beg to move that the two Sunday Entertainments Orders which stand in my name upon the Order Paper be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Widnes, be approved;
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Dawlish, be approved.—(Earl Bathurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
2.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS BOROUGH rose to call attention to the Report for 1959 of the Colonial Development Corporation and the Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the financial structure of the Corporation; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I wish that arrangements for this important debate could have been more opportune, but I gather that there are political calls in other directions which account for the thin attendance in your Lordships' House. I hope that that will not be understood as detracting from the importance of the case to be submitted and the importance which we attach to the reply to be given by Her Majesty's Government, through the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
The Report of the Colonial Development Corporation has always been, to us, a matter of considerable interest. We have followed its course through the early years of trial and error, when a great endeavour was made in circumstances which were exceedingly difficult and troublesome and brought in their train losses on some projects which had to be abandoned. But, looking back over the years, I think it should now be clear to us how very worthwhile has been the work of the Colonial Development Corporation; and the Report for 1959 is, I think, a very great tribute to that factor. I am sure that Members in all parts of your Lordships' House will welcome the very encouraging progress which is recorded in that Report. The position which has been attained so far

517
is in itself a great tribute to those who have given very long service and to personalities such as the noble Lord, Lord Reith, a former chairman, and Sir Nutcombe Hume, the present chairman. I hope that Her Majesty's Government may be able to assure the House that they agree with our ready welcome of the story of growing and encouraging success revealed by the Report.
I am not going to deal with any details in the Report, first because I am not myself an expert; and, secondly, because I feel that perhaps it is better, on an occasion like this, in opening the debate, that I should deal with three or four main factors, and leave room for other people in the House to contribute and perhaps cover the whole ground, to enable the noble Earl to reply. Outstanding, however, is the factual figure which is shown in the Report: that is, that since 1955 there has been an increase in net revenue from trading and investment from a figure which stood at only £625,000 surplus to £2,273,000 surplus; and, when we have taken many other contingent factors into account, the Report makes it clear that the balance of profit has risen since 1955 from £409,000 to £1,334,000. I should think that even the Government, with whom it seems to me the Corporation have had to contend from time to time during their long and varied experience, will now agree that this is a very successful record of activity.
But, my Lords, the Corporation quite clearly suffer from two main difficulties—these have already been outlined in another place—on which, perhaps, I can expand a little. First of all, their activities, successful as they are, are in danger from a possible slowing down because their capital is likely to be insufficient to meet all the requirements for their varied operations. Secondly, there is the difficulty about the losses incurred in the Corporation's earlier years of trouble. I want to ask at the outset the specific question: What are the Government going to do about that problem?
The Corporation are under the obligation to pay interest on their borrowed capital, and that has become an increasing burden as the years have gone on, with the different bases upon which the rate of interest has been fixed from time to time. But they also have the obligation to repay that capital, including the
518
capital which has been lost in the earlier ventures, some of which had to be abandoned. They have the obligation, also, that in the rendering of their Report they should, if at all possible, show the Government that they break even on the year's operation. These three things together make a very considerable task. The Corporation long since came to the view that the cumulative effects of the difficulties I have outlined in these two propositions would make the position insupportable. I do not need to remind the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that we debated that insupportable position at some length last year, and to me it is a matter of great personal disappointment that the views that were expressed from all parts of the House last year have not led to a firm Government decision and an enabling measure to set the Corporation on the road to further development and success.
Your Lordships will remember that when this position was the matter of, shall I say, controversy between the C.D.C. and the Executive Government before that debate took place, they had agreed as a Government to set up a Committee, which we refer to briefly as the Sinclair Committee. That Committee was to consider what was at that moment to the Corporation an insupportable position, considering what their capital commitments were likely to be in the future and what the prospects were of being able to obtain money beyond the present limit that can be borrowed from the Government—how they could possibly borrow additional capital, with the unsatisfactory capital structure that they were working under, in view of the early losses and the liability to pay continuing interest not only on the losses but on the cost of the Corporation's activities in what is called the fructifying period of development work.
We hoped very much in our talk last year—most of us had time, I think, to read only a sort of transcript copy of the Sinclair Report—that before we met again to discuss another Report the whole thing would have been dealt with, put in train, and a capital reconstruction carried out which would enable the Corporation to deal with their difficulties. That Committee was set up. I must emphasise that nobody had any

519
criticism to make of its composition: it was a first-class Committee. It had a very able chairman who not only was a great leader in industry and in finance but had done a great deal of Government service for the country, in the course, especially, of war time; and he was assisted by men who were experienced in commerce, finance, industry, expert management and, above all, in the financial sense—those who could look at the capital structure position and be able to call upon actual precedents in private finance in corporations in which similar actions had to be taken from time to time, in order to bring likely success in the future to a particular company and to put the capital position on a sound basis. It was in the light of that that we read the Report of the Sinclair Committee and we all praised the fact, I think on all sides of the House, that this capital reconstruction might take place.
This Committee, your Lordships will remember, were appointed in April, 1959. With all the complexities to be gone into, with all the evidence to be called and visits to take place, they produced that very expert Report in three months, and in our debate before the Recess last year we were able to look at a transcript of it. Now here we are, on July 20, within two days of a year from the date of the signing of the Report. I ask the noble Earl to-day to tell us what has been done; and, if nothing has been done, why it has not been done. If the laymen in Parliament—laymen as regards some of the details of the position which the Sinclair Committee were studying—have had sufficient ordinary Parliamentary training to be able to understand the Sinclair Report and to assess what its effect might be upon the future success or failure of the Colonial Development Corporation, how is it that the Government have not been able to act on it in twelve months? Before I sit down to-day I hope to be able to convince your Lordships that, in the circumstances in the Commonwealth, especially in relation to the rest of the world markets and sources of supply, we really cannot afford to waste time in making decisions such as those to which I have been referring.
The question I therefore put to the noble Earl—I put it in a rather different
520
form, but I should like to put it in this way to-day, in view of the delay—is: will the noble Earl clearly indicate what are the reasons why no action has so far been taken on the Sinclair Report? Am I right in saying that the members of the Corporation accepted the recommendations of the Sinclair Committee? And, if so, what are the objections to the attitude of the Corporation upon the Report of the Sinclair Committee? Because we really ought to understand exactly where we are. The other question I should like to ask the noble Earl is this: in the course of this twelve month period, how many consultations have taken place between the particular people in the Government dealing with this matter and the members of the Corporation? When was the first consultation on the Sinclair Report; when was the last; and when are we going to hear what results the Government wish to see coming out of those consultations? We feel so deeply about this matter that we think we are entitled to ask these detailed questions to see what has been standing in the way of progress.
Now I would say a personal word to the noble Earl. He has probably anticipated that I would say it, because something along the same line was said by my colleague in another place. It is perfectly true that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, is not an executive member of the Government for central policy. He is, of course, the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, and there is a Secretary of State for the Colonies, who is the senior Minister. But no one can hide the fact that the noble Earl has himself been intimately connected with the work of the Colonial Development Corporation, and we know enough about the noble Earl to feel that he would be sufficiently anxious to get a success for this Corporation; and, on the particular matters to be studied upon the Sinclair Report, I do not think the noble Earl can plead that he is a layman.
As I understand it, not only is he a Minister of fairly long experience, with access to the advice of all the technical experts, but he seems to have come back into Government circles from the City, with a knowledge of finance corporations and the like. Why on earth has he not been able to bring such influence to bear as would induce the Government to

521
come to an early decision upon this matter? That is personal to the noble Earl. It is not said in any way in order to be personally injurious—nothing of the kind; but we should like to know how it is that, with all this duality of experience, as Minister and of the City, he has not been able, in twelve months, to come to a decision such as a board of directors of a corporation would have arrived at in one month. Twelve months have elapsed without any real action being taken. Of course, I hesitate to suggest that he should leave any section of his personal loyalty to the Minister, but it would be very nice to know what he himself really thinks of the Sinclair recommendations, and how long he thinks it ought to be before they are in operation.
In general, I think we can deduce from the events in this matter during the last three or four years that the Executive Government have been fighting what might be called a rearguard action against—I will not say the majority, but certainly the larger proportions of the membership of both Houses of Parliament. Because, as was pointed out in another place, they have called upon ten different Ministers of the Crown to try to persuade Parliament that the Government were right and that the primary representations that were being made were wrong. In this House, we have had the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack pleading the case; we have had the very distinguished and respected Leader of this House, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations; and we have had the noble Earl, Lord Perth; and I think there have been seven other Ministers in another place, varying, one might say, from the Secretary of State down to the Minister of Works. And, of course, the Treasury are always being brought in, at every conceivable stage of operations, to clinch the fact of their opposition. I think, therefore, that this really has become a sort of issue between the Legislature and the Executive; and we are taking the opportunity once more in Parliament of bringing, further Legislative Assembly pressure upon the Executive to try to get something done.
The fact of the urgency of the problem is, I think, clearly indicated in the Report of the Corporation. The Corporation is
522
already committed by its present projects to £115 million out of the total of £130 million, which is the ceiling which is set upon their borrowing from Government sources. Of course, it is perfectly true, my Lords, that they are able, under their statutory power, to obtain another £20 1million from other sources. But what sort of chance have they in going to the public money market with a capital structure such as they have been left with at the present, with no reconstruction on the four separate categorical lines suggested in the Sinclair Report? What sort of response would be met by any general appeal to the market for that other £20 million? Indeed, if one thinks of the chaotic position of the money market—the difficulty in getting new funds—largely resulting from the economic policy of the Government, with the bank rate varying from 4 to 5 per cent., and from 5 to 6 per cent., and with overdraft charges at 61 to 7 per cent., what sort of chance have they of being able to borrow the other £20 million at such rates that the overall surplus they must make every year will be obtainable in connection with all their other commitments?
Of course, that is a very poor position to be in, and it must all the time make the Corporation hesitant about considering new applications that are being made. They need to be certain of their ability to obtain the funds to advance; and for these funds they ought to have complete Government backing in these days when, in spite of losses in some areas, they are showing these concurrent surpluses. What sort of hope can they have for the future unless something can be done about it? I resent very much this grave delay in bringing into being the capital reorganisation, and also the delays in certain other respects. There is another matter which I think is partly affected by this hesitancy. One good thing has emerged gradually during the last three or four years; that is, that as a result of their long operations the Corporation have steadily built up a staff of experts in management who not only provide advice in the earlier stages of schemes but continuously help to secure efficient and successful management in every section of their schemes.
There are a large number of institutions, both international and local—in-

523
stitutions like the International Monetary Bank—for providing money for development. But whence comes the experience of management, the expert and constant attention to detail, the precaution to avoid losses and the maintaining of the highest rate of efficiency? If we cannot get a firm foundation in the Corporation's capital structure and confidence in the future borrowing of money, what is going to happen is that the area of operations will gradually decrease and create a lack of confidence in the staff of experts they have gathered together, with the result that members of the staff will leave for something giving them greater security and prospect of advancement. That would be a great pity indeed.
in present world conditions, about which I will say something more before I sit down, it is now proved that the Colonial Development Corporation, from the headquarters and staff here down to all the managers and staff of the schemes scattered throughout the Commonwealth, present a constant connection between the centre of the Commonwealth and the scattered territories that are being helped; and in this changing world this is a vast asset, from which we can work when dealing with changes in world trade and world markets. I have said before in your Lordships' House that over the last forty years I have had to change my views about the development of the Commonwealth and I would say that before we get into a panic about this or that foreign market, however essential is may be—and most of them are—we should be very careful before we do anything, or hesitate to do something, which might do harm to the continuance of the steady development of our Commonwealth relationships.
Your Lordships must have listened with great interest to the reply of the noble Earl the Leader of the House the other day, when he reminded us of the high percentage of our imports and exports with Commonwealth countries. At this stage in the development of world trade, I hope that we shall not lose sight of the fact that the biggest danger is that any changes in foreign markets open to us mean a reduction in our market, both ways, with the Commonwealth. We ought not to leave untried any method
524
that would continue to expand the Commonwealth market. Moreover, in continuing and expanding goodwill in Commonwealth trade, we can go far to extend in the minds and hearts of the people, especially of the older Commonwealth countries, their feelings of loyalty to the home country, and also impress the people in the newer nations with the fact that our goodwill in granting freedom to them is not the only thing we can do for them.
This is a crucial moment in our Commonwealth relationships. The stubborn resistance of the Government to any suggestion that the Colonial Development Corporation should take any part in new projects in the emergent territories—those territories which have come from colonial status into complete independence—is to be greatly regretted. I am quite aware that it may he in the minds of Ministers, and particularly of Treasury officials, that constitutional difficulties are likely to arise. But we have not been hesitant during the past few years to put money into world organisation funds to deal with other undeveloped countries, which are not in the British family of nations at all. So why, because we see a country attaining independence within the Commonwealth, we should not continue to consider every kind of way in which we could help, I do not know.
I want to be quite fair. I am sure that it will emerge in the debate that where schemes have been started in colonial territories before they attained independence, any request that is specially made by the Corporation for further capital necessary to secure the success of a project would be considered. I know that that is so. But what about new ventures? So far as I am aware, at present a new venture in an emergent territory is absolutely barred. It is already barred in the cases of Ghana and Malaya. Within three months, it will be barred in Nigeria, and next year in Sierra Leone, and later the West Indies. These are all serious matters. These losses are bound gradually to reduce the operational sphere of the Colonial Development Corporation and to disperse this extraordinarily valuable collection of personnel trained in management—not only the Corporation's own staffs, but also the innumerable representatives of British firms in

525
private enterprise, with whom the Commonwealth has been constantly engaged. The result will be to cause a serious breakdown of all this structure of connections and contacts.
What will be the general effect if the Government's hard-and-fast policy is not reversed? I have already dealt with the effect on staff, and I need not expand that further. But I also want to draw attention (I hope that I am in order, and I think I am on the general wide issue) to some of the contingent factors in world markets, world countries and production. We have had all the debates about the development of the European Common Market, the Community of Six, and one has asked from time to time what is the likely effect upon our general position in Commonwealth trade. I take the fact as being assured that the integration of the Six means that they can, on the whole, produce a product for export more economically than would be the case if they were all in competition with each other.
When I look at the result upon, say, Germany, the last twelve months' record that I have seen (I do not think it was an actual calendar year, but it was twelve months) shows that, partly as a result of German investment, as well as for other reasons, but mostly from the economic improvement in their position by integration in Europe, Germany's trade with the Commonwealth in one year had increased by 10 per cent., while our own trade with the Commonwealth had decreased by 5 per cent. It would require actual examination to get the proper calculation in relation to the size of the figures concerned, and that I have not had an opportunity of doing; but the percentage I have given indicates the general trend.
Moreover, we have seen the most extraordinary development, in my view, of the industrial export and financial policy of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics. The situation is vastly different from the position when my colleagues and I in the Government left office in 1951. It is quite clear that one of the great aids to Russia's growing power in this matter is the amount of actual market integration she gets within the whole of her satellite States. Of course, their treatment of their citizens has had a great deal to do with the steady and compulsory progress of their
526
own production, distribution and balance under a planned economy for export. Moreover, by much more insistent and perhaps more questionable means they impress their position on these markets.
Let me take, for example, the position revealed to me in the Jewish Observer last Friday, July 15. It is strange to me that, somehow or other, our own communications to our own people—apart from the overseas wireless service—in these matters do not get over to our population or to the populations of the countries we desire to influence. The Jewish Chronicle said:
"Moscow has thrust its weight in full measure behind the so far unsuccessful attempt by the United Arab Republic to convince the newly independent States of Africa that they are compromising their independence by accepting aid from Israel."
Then it goes on to quote—I need not trouble your Lordships with it— various phrases from two broadcasts which were put over—on Friday, July 8, in English, and on Saturday, July 9, in French—to the African peoples warning them, in obviously severe language, about taking into their help the experts which have wonderfully grown up in Israel in the last twenty years.
Incidentally, the manner in which the Israeli people have applied science to their own internal economic development has been most striking, particularly in the position in which they have found themselves, surrounded by nations under the influence of the United Arab Republic and of the Soviet Union, and especially since we lost our great influence there after 1956. They have been able to make friends with both African and Asian nations, to arrange an exchange of certain goods—in spite of the boycott they suffer in the Suez Canal—and to offer expertise in certain industries and production, especially agriculture, to the territories which need that kind of help and development. So where does Russia come in now? I think of the days when this country under various Governments was faced with the constant Communist support of any effort by which the Israelis, when Britain had a Mandate, could evade the quotas of immigration. Now the Communist States are right on the other side. Here in Africa they use language in these broadcasts threatening the liberty of new African States as to what

527
would be done if and when they were to take into their help and advice Israeli expertise.
That may sound to the noble Earl, Lard Perth, who is to reply, a little wide of the mark of the Report of the Colonial Development Corporation. But is it? We are debating this afternoon, first, the question: why has not the Corporation's capital structure been altered in such a way that they can move forward to success? And the second thing is that we want to plead for greater powers to the Corporation, and wider areas of opportunity for the emergent nations who have come from colonial status to independence. If in the case of 'these emergent territories I have referred to by name we are not allowed, through this Corporation, to do this work, to whom would they turn?
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): Would the noble Viscount explain to me to what work he is referring? After all, the Corporation are able to provide management and technical assistance if it is required. They, like Israel, provide it if the country concerned is anxious to have it.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: It is easy for the Minister to turn aside the dynamic of the attack we are making in this respect by saying, "Let us confine it to whether we can supply one or two particular things", but I do not leave it there. I am referring to the whole question of whether the Government are prepared to deal effectively with any new requests from the emergent territories.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME): It is important that we should get this right before the debate proceeds further. The noble Viscount said, in effect, that we do not do anything for an emerging country. But in fact we made arrangements with Ghana, Nigeria and Malaya for just the facilities for which he is now asking, and those kind of arrangements go on.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I have already referred myself—I think it was perhaps before
528
the noble Earl came into the Chamber—
THE EARL OF HOME: I am sorry.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH:—to the fact that certain arrangements have been made in continuing projects which started during their Colonial status and which would require perhaps further financial help. Also, in the case of asking for a particular expert to help with the scheme, I am sure the Government would not hold that up. But I am asking whether that is sufficient.
THE EARL OF HOME: If the noble Viscount will allow me to say so, that is not anything like the whole story. It is true that schemes can be carried on and new capital can be injected into them. It is also true that the Colonial Development Corporation can make management available to an independent Commonwealth country, whether on old schemes or not, if it wants it. What we do is to make a comprehensive technical and financial scheme for aid to the new territory when it becomes independent, and that scheme is again under review with the country concerned. There is nothing to prevent technical assistance to an independent Commonwealth country.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Then I find it extremely difficult to understand the continued repetition by the former Colonial Secretary, both in regard to the West Indies and other territories, that this could not continue as a matter of financial help in these emergent territories on new schemes. I have never seen that contradicted anywhere.
THE EARL OF HOME: I will leave it to my noble friend.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Unless we can put a great deal more heart into this business, and a more promising certainty of being able to obtain the expanding funds required to be really effective, then I am certain—if you remember the intervention of Russian oil into Cuba; if you remember about the intervention being attempted in the Congo and in other parts of the world which has been going on fairly continuously—that in the end you will

529
find that, instead of being able to continue the progress we have made already, we shall be in a receding and retrograde position. I hope that that will not happen.
Before the noble Earl the Leader of the House came in I said how devoted I ant to this question of development, not only of Commonwealth trade, but of the building up of the Commonwealth and the fellowship which can be associated with that trade. I hope very much that we shall get a better answer to-day. I direct: particular attention to the threat of the Common Market. I direct particular attention to the infiltration methods of the U.S.S.R. at the present time in all parts of the world, particularly addressed only ten days ago to Africa. I ask the Government to enable the Corporation to stimulate its accumulating and encouraging success of the last two years by being given a confident hope of further help to come. I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I 'think we shall all be glad that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has raised this very important question before we adjourn for the Long Recess. The Report itself is worthy of debate. As usual, the Corporation has presented an admirably clear Report—this time even clearer accounts than usual—and has shown that it is doing admirable work in a great many parts of the world. I do not want to go into the details of that Report, but I wish to confine myself, in the short space of time I shall occupy the House, to one single proposition which figured prominently at the end of the speech of the noble Viscount: that is, what should be the scope of the activities of the Corporation, and in what areas ought they to be exercised? That is a very big question—indeed, it is the fundamental question of the whole of this matter. But I think I can say what I want to say about it fairly shortly. I want to say it quite definitely, because the noble. Viscount said that in the course of 40 years he has sometimes changed his mind. Well, in the course of twelve years I have changed my mind on this, because I think that circumstances have entirely changed.
530
When this Act was passed—in 1948, I think it was—the activities of the Corporation were confined to colonial territories. That was based on the assumption that the independent Commonwealth countries, as they attained independence, would be entirely self-supporting; that they would be what, in the jargon of to-day, I think is called economically and financially viable; that they would be in a position where, if their Governments wanted money, they could come on the money market and borrow, just as Canada, Australia and New Zealand have borrowed in the past, and that their commercial and industrial undertakings would be financed commercially by again appealing to the money market or by partnership with firms in this country. Indeed, it was almost one of the sine qua nons of independence that they should be financially sound and self-supporting. On that hypothesis it was quite reasonable—and I entirely supported it at the time—that the Colonial Development Corporation should be limited to the colonial territories, and should not have power to operate in what used to be called the Dominions.
But the situation has turned out to be something entirely different—the wind of change—and, as my noble friend the Leader of the House has indicated, what has happened is that these emergent territories (good luck to them, and I am sure they will become self-sufficient and self-supporting) all get large dowries on remarriage, as it were, into the Commonwealth, and they get other financial and economic support year by year. In those entirely changed circumstances, surely there is a strong case for reconsidering the position and allowing the Colonial Development Corporation to continue to operate in those countries where that Corporation has done such excellent work. It is an entirely changed situation.
Surely the Corporation has exactly the qualities that are needed to do that. It has tremendous experience. It has experience of individual countries and the accumulated experience of twelve years of work. Of course it made mistakes in the early days—all of us make mistakes—but, like wise people do, the Corporation has learnt from its mistakes, and the admirable financial showing of

531
the Report to-day in the new developments and their current developments indicates how wise and discriminating but, at the same time, imaginative, the Corporation has been. It has become that with experience. It has an excellent Board, and I am sure we shall all in this House be delighted that that Board has been strengthened by the addition of the noble Lord, Lord Howick, who has o recently joined us—a wise High Commissioner and a great Governor.
As the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has said, the Corporation has an extremely expert staff, getting more expert year by year—exactly the kind of staff we want to investigate propositions and to decide whether they are the right thing to go into or to co-operate in or not; and the right staff not only to investigate but, as the last Report of the Corporation shows, to supervise the propositions when they are started and the Corporation has put its money in. It also has impartiality and independence. It has gone into successful partnership with commercial companies in these different territories, and one of the wise changes—I think it was negotiated by the noble Lord, Lord Reith, and has been carried forward—is the increasing tendency, when it invests money, to go into partnership with a commercial undertaking, whether in that territory or in this country. It has gone into partnership with local interests. It is acting, as the Report shows, as the expert agent for the International Finance Corporation, and I think—Lord Ogmore will correct me about this—it is acting as agent in some cases for the World Bank. Surely those are about twenty pretty good reasons why the Corporation should in these entirely changed circumstances—and I emphasise that—be allowed to carry on.
Of course, these self-governing countries must create confidence. They must establish security. As we should all agree, more particularly to-day in the conditions of the world to which the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, has referred, never were those two conditions more important. But if they do establish confidence and conditions of security, then they are entitled to help. And the whole policy of the Government—and it is a new policy; we used not to have to do it for the old
532
Dominions—and, indeed, the policy of the free world, is that where the right kind of conditions are established, then those countries should be entitled to help, and it is enormously important that that help should be wisely given.
There is not a great deal of money in the world for investment. We have "never had it so good", and all that; that is quite true; but, at the same time, development of any enterprise to-day costs about three times the capital that it did before the war. You have only to look at a thing like the Kariba Dam. It is a tremendous success, but look at the enormous cost. So it is very important that, while we should find as much money as we can, we should give that money to the most deserving enterprises. And if we do that we shall create further confidence, and the creation of that further confidence will attract more capital to those countries. In fact by working in that way—and how can we do it better than through this Corporation?—we shall be carrying out what I thing was the wise principle my noble friend Lord Salisbury laid down in a debate the other day. He said that of course we must give help, but that it ought not to be indiscriminate; each case ought to be considered on its merits. I do not believe that anybody in any quarter of the House will disagree with one word that I have said up to now.
If my premises are right, is not this Colonial Development Corporation admirably fitted to do that job? I hope it will be given the opportunity. I am making this profession of faith—a new faith, if you like, or rather a new restatement of faith—in entirely changed conditions. Indeed. I am not dogmatic about this, but I think it is well worth consideration whether it would not be wise to go a bit further even than that and have one single Government-financed Corporation operating in all these territories. I do not know whether the Minister of State will be able to give an answer about that to-day. I hope he will not give us a negative answer. There is really no politics in this, and I do not believe a negative answer would be at all satisfactory to any quarter of the House. I read in the newspapers, who always know about these things, that we are going very soon to have a new Government—I do not

533
mean noble Lords opposite. We are going to have a re-shuffle and re-deal on a large scale. I hope we are not going to lose any of my noble friends in the process.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: A capital reconstruction.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: A capital reconstruction, yes; but they are not going into liquidation and they have got very little to write off. I hope we shall not get just a negative answer to-day, and that when we do get a new Government they will have a new look at this.

THE CONGO
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, before we go on with these speculations, perhaps I may make my statement in answer to the Question which the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked earlier. The Foreign Secretary is making the statement in another place and he says:
"From what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already said when he spoke on the 14th of July, the House will know that we are giving our full support to the United Nations' action, and tonight the Security Council will meet to hear a progress report from the Secretary-General. I hope there will be general agreement that we have good cause to be grateful for the speedy and efficient manner in which Mr. Hammarskjoeld and his staff have begun discharging the difficult duties laid upon them by the Security Council. United Nations forces and assistance teams have been got out to the Congo very quickly. This has already improved the situation. The United Kingdom played their part in this.
"In response to an appeal from Mr. Hammarskjoeld we are providing food. We have also provided aircraft to help carry the Ghanaian contingent.
"In our view it is very important that all the offers of help and supplies should be channelled through the Secretary-General. I hope that when the Security Council meets this evening they will give unanimous support to Mr. Hammarskjoeld and agree that he must be left a large measure of dis-
534
cretion in discharging his task. I am sure the House will agree that if the operation continues on the lines on which it has begun, the United Nations can be certain of receiving our full support."
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I sometimes get an opportunity of seeing what is going to be said, but on this occasion I have not had it. I should like to examine the statement in print tomorrow. But it seems that the report made to the other place to-day is a report of progress of the changeover in order to secure conditions of peace in the Congo, and I think it is very much to be welcomed. The statement of the Foreign Secretary seems to be in support of what we were advocating from both sides of the House earlier in this situation: that we should do all we possibly can as a country to help the collective action of the United Nations in this matter.

FUTURE BUSINESS
EARL ST. A.LDWYN: My Lords, I think this might be a convenient moment for me to inform the House that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will not now be moving his Motion on management in industry next Wednesday, largely because there are a large number of Amendments to the Charities Bill, the Building Societies Bill and the Administration of Justice Bill which we shall not receive back from another place until Friday at the earliest, and I am afraid Wednesday must be devoted to consideration of those Amendments.

THE COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
3.38 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, before dealing with the subject of the Motion that is before the House, may I, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, welcome the statement that has just been made by the noble Earl the Leader of the House, and particularly the help which is being given to the Congo.
To come back to the subject of the Motion, whenever I listen to any important debate in this House I am almost

535
certain to receive one very refreshing main impression; that is, that, whatever the problem before the House at that moment, there is quite certain to be somebody in the House who knows everything about it, backwards and forwards, and is a master of the subject under discussion. This House is an assembly equipped with special knowledge of every special, and particularly every difficult, subject. To-day, in addressing the House on the Colonial Development Corporation I am unfortunately in the position of presenting a picture of the exact opposite, of bringing before noble Lords not special knowledge of the subject but my very special ignorance. For whatever reason, I have never learned anything about the management of money. Though I have talked a good deal about the way in which people other than myself should manage money, I have never managed to learn the language of the management of money. I may add that until the last day or so I had not intended to say anything in this debate, but two factors led me to change my decision.
The first was a request from my noble Leader on these Benches that I should take part and should support, as I think all the Members on these Benches wish to support, the principle of the Motion that has been moved by the noble Viscount on my left. Naturally, having undertaken to speak, I have studied with all my brains, hard as I could apply them to the subject, and to the best of my limited financial understanding, the Report of the Committee under the Chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, which was published in September, 1959. I found it full of language which I personally have never met or used before, about "finance house business", about "equity capital" and many other things. But I could get the impression that the Report was admirable in its temperate but strong reasoning, and before I conclude I shall quote what seem to me to be the most reasonable paragraphs.
My second reason for wishing to be allowed to speak—and on this occasion I shall be very short—is that, quite apart from its financial and technical importance, the work of the Colonial Development Corporation has a direct bearing
536
on making a better world for all of us. I want to emphasise that point at once. The Colonial Development Corporation was born at a moment when World War II was just finished, when we were hoping to see a world free for ever from the fear of war. We in Britain set out at once to raise the standard of life in every part of the world for which Britain had responsibility, by financing economic development through the Colonial Development Corporation.
At the beginning, the scope of that Corporation was much wider than it is now. We had many more Colonies and fewer independent members of the Commonwealth; and if the decision of 1958 is maintained, the scope of the Colonial Development Corporation will grow steadily narrower as the number of independent members grows. That may be right. It may be that there is some excuse or reason, which has entirely escaped my limited intelligence, for having two bodies to do two jobs that are very much the same and different only in the fact that they are dealing, on the one hand, with nations which have already become independent, and on the other, with those which are anxiously emerging into independence. I find it difficult to see why, for one and the same job in character, there should be two entirely different bodies.
If that is the gist of the argument that has been put up against the noble Viscount on my left for rejecting one of his proposals for restoring the former scope of the Colonial Development Corporation, let me remind your Lordships of the circumstances in which the Colonial Development Corporation came into being. They were, the hope of lasting peace and a determination to make a better world for all in the world, using such extra powers as we could for the purpose. We all know that less than a year ago, with Mr. Khrushchev's proposal of total disarmament, the end of war seemed in sight. We know that this year has been less hopeful. But I do urge that we should continue to act on our hopes of 1948 of a better world for all, because the alternative to peace is destruction.
I remember that, speaking in the recent debate in this House on international affairs, I urged that a large part of the savings that would come from

537
ceasing to spend money on armaments should be handed over to the United Nations, or to some other such body, for raising the standard of living in all countries throughout the world wherever that standard was low. That kind of blessed activity could not be limited to countries without self-government, making foreign control by somebody outside a condition of help. That, if I may say so, is what is done by Khrushchev or under the Soviet system. We all know how the Soviet acts. She helps people like Hungary, but on condition that they are kept Communist. She helps East Germany in order to keep them Communist Then we have Cuba and the Congo. This is carrying on a cold war against America, and is a criticism of, and an attack on, everybody else. May I suggest that that is not the kind of policy that we want to pursue. We ought, equally, to help people who are still tied to us by some kind of friendly string getting ever and ever looser, and those who have become fully emergent. Why should we distinguish between the two types? May I suggest that our motto—I should like this for the Colonial Development Corporation as for any other body—should not be "Prosperity for you, on condition that you do what we tell you, and on condition chat you are controlled by us", but that our policy should be "Prosperity for all nations in the world with independence".
Coming back to the admirable Report of the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, I should like to quote paragraph 43, where there are summed up the considerations resulting from the study of the financial conditions and organisation of the Corporation on which they are reporting. That paragraph reads:
"Consideration of these matters has led us to the conclusion that it is not possible for the Corporation to continue to carry out the purposes for which it was set up as described in Sections 1 and 2 of the Act and, at the same time, to meet the obligations laid upon it by Sections 14, 15 and 16, unless there is a change either in its financial structure or in the nature of its activities."
I suggest to your Lordships that that is an argument so temperate as to be irresistible. Let me add that there is a risk of imperilling the work of the C.D.C. in having another body doing the same kind of work for people in the Common-
538
wealth. That argument, I suggest, has not yet had a good answer. I shall be only too happy if Her Majesty's Government are able to-day to give a real answer. Certainly I hope that they will reconsider this, question and will think differently.
Therefore, with all humility about my own understanding of the financial details, I would urge upon Her Majesty's Government that, having before them the closely reasoned Report of the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Reeve, and his colleagues, they will approach all its detailed proposals with deep sympathy and will attempt to understand and apply them. Let them do what I know from experience is one of the hardest things of all to do in this country—to persuade the Treasury to say "Yes" more often than "No" on terms of borrowing or repayment or treatment of past loans to the Colonial Development Corporation or any of those problems. Those, my Lords, are details. On the bigger question, which has been quite fairly raised, I would suggest that Her Majesty's Government should seriously consider rescinding the decision taken in 1958 which excludes from the help of the Colonial Development Corporation any part of Her Majesty's Commonwealth that has become independent. I have nothing more to say. I hope that the Government will consider the plea that is made Ito them for letting this wonderful organisation go on and prosper without duplicating it in other ways; and that they will accept the plea we put to them.

THE TERRITORIAL ARMY
3.52 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the debate again, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War has just made a statement in another place on the future of the Territorial Army and I thought it would be for the convenience of your Lordships to repeat it here. The statement runs as follows.
Her Majesty's Government have decided upon a reorganisation of the Territorial Army. Recruitment in the Territorial Army is going well, and volunteer strength has risen from 70,000

539
in 1957 to about 120,000 to-day. But the rôle and organisation of the Territorial Army needs to be adapted to modern defence requirements, having regard to the ending of National Service. Its rôle will lie in the reinforcement of the Regular Army at home and overseas, in support of the civil power, and as a framework for military expansion.
The Territorial Army will have to be ready, if necessary, to act with speed. It must therefore be sharpened, with stronger and better equipped units. Efficiency will be more important than mass, and we accordingly propose to keep the active volunteer strength at about its present total.
Divisional and district headquarters Will be amalgamated, and traditional titles will be retained. The primary rôle of these headquarters will be administration and support of the civil power. The Brigade will be the largest fighting formation.
The number of units now in the Territorial Army is geared to a total establishment of 300,000. But with the ending of National Service reserve liability, this will become a totally unrealistic figure. Moreover the peace-time volunteer strength cannot maintain so many units at a viable figure for unit training. So a feature of the reorganisation must inevitably be a reduction in the number of units of all arms. Our aim will be to keep units in peace-time at approximately two-thirds of their establishment. A volunteer reserve will be formed from men who have finished their service in the Territorial Army, and on mobilisation this reserve will be used to bring units up to establishment.
For the reduction in the number of units we shall proceed by amalgamation rather than disbandment, and in close consultation with the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. We shall be guided by the need to preserve a nation-wide cover. The changes which will result will be published in the autumn.
The Territorial Army has suffered from a lack of modern training equipment. We now intend to provide the reorganised force with scales of some of the more important items in current use with
540
the Regular Army, including rifles, wireless sets, armoured cars, scout cars and transport. This process will begin this year. As a result of this reorganisation we shall have a more closely knit Territorial Army, with units at a higher strength, and better related to its modern rôles. It will be better equipped than ever before in its peace-time history, and more able to train realistically for its important and diverse duties. It will be more youthful and will, I believe, have an even greater sense of military purpose.
My right honourable friend has presented the outline of this plan and the reasons for it to the Territorial Army Advisory Committee and to the Chairmen of the Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. I am glad to report to the House that they have agreed both to its need and its purpose, and the Government believe, therefore, that it will have the support of the Territorial Army as a whole.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I find it a little difficult to comment specifically upon this statement. I am not quite sure that I understand it all and whether the total overall strength available to the country is to 'be specifically reduced, or whether, taking the contribution of both Regular Forces and Territorials, it may be argued that the available strength is not to be reduced. On that I am not clear from this statement, Which deals entirely with the Territorial Army. I am a little anxious on the basis that it is stated that it is proposed to keep an establishment of only two-thirds, and yet, at the end of the statement, confidence is expressed that we shall be able to maintain greater youth in the organisation. What is the limit to be placed on the service of a volunteer Territorial? And if the units are to be confined Ito two-thirds of the establishment, are men to be put out after so many years' service, or will it be necessary to restrict youthful entrants because the two-thirds establishment cannot be exceeded?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the total strength of the Territorial Army will be its volunteer strength at the moment. This will be something in the region of 120,000 or thereabouts—which is the number of volunteers at

541
present. I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Viscount's question about the length of service a man may be allowed to do in the Territory Army, but the idea is that we shall keep these fewer units at much higher strength than units are at the present time. The number of units will come down, but their strength will considerably increase; and the remaining one-third will be found from Territorial reserves.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I believe that, in general, the statement is on the right lines. In fact, it follows to some extent what some of us put forward in the debate on Wednesday last. There are only two points on which I should like reassurance from Her Majesty's Government. First, in any reduction that takes place, will the Government take the greatest care to get the consent of the local units? Because, as the noble Lord knows, the Territorial Army is based to a large extent on local tradition and very much on local patriotism, and that has to be borne in mind. The second point is, will the noble Lord and the Government take great care over this two-thirds establishment position? Like the noble Viscount, I am not at all sure about that, and having been a unit commander in the Territorial Army I know how difficult it often is to work a regiment, a battalion or a company, on a two-thirds basis. That is very difficult for training purposes and administration. If a regiment or battalion is in a position to recruit up to 100 per cent., is there any point in keeping the total down to the two-thirds basis?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I believe that to suggest "consent" here would be carrying it a little too far. My right honourable friend has assured the House that he will consult Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations, and no doubt he will take into account any representations made to him. His idea is to carry everyone with him. With regard to the second question, I will pass on the noble Lord's observations to my right honourable friend.
LORD LAWSON: My Lords, is representation on the local associations to remain as at the present time? The noble Lord knows that it is vital to the Territorial Army associations to have a close connection with the community.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure that that is so. I could not say about the numbers, but I am quite certain that it is the intention of my right honourable friend to keep the local associations going as strongly as ever before.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, before we pass on to the next Business, I must say that I know quite well that this plan for the Territorial Army which has just been announced by my noble friend represents a great deal of careful thought and work on the part of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War and his advisers; and it also, to my thinking, represents much closer consultation with the Territorial Associations and people who know the affairs of the Territorial Army first-hand than we have had, in my recollection, in certain cases in the past.
That leads me to say one more thing, which is that I agreed very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, when he said, I think, that it is not only a question of the plan's being right but of the implementation of the plan; that is to say, the consequential matters which have now to be discussed with commands, as my noble friend mentioned, must be handled in the same generous and far-sighted spirit as the main announcement, if full success for this announcement is to be reached.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am sure that the Secretary of State for War and the War Office will be very happy to receive that bunch of flowers.

THE COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
4.2 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD TWINING: My Lords, in resuming the debate, may I first say that when I saw this Motion on the Order Paper I thought that your Lordships were being asked to do some crystal-gazing, because until the Order Paper I received this morning was issued it was the 1960 Report that we were going to debate and not the 1959 one. So I consulted my crystal and saw that this unwritten Report would be signed by my noble friend Lord Howick; who would continue to deplore the fact that

543
the Sinclair Committee's recommendations had not been brought into effect; that it was still regretted that there were insufficient funds available, and they could not be used for those countries which had received their independence—a growing number by then, my Lords. But this morning we were brought back to earth.
And may I say that I feel that this is an occasion on which we should pay a tribute to Sir Nutcombe Hume, whose last Annual Report it is. He has been associated with the Corporation for a long time, and until last year, when he became chairman, had been Deputy Chairman since 1953. In that period, when Lord Reith was Chairman and the Corporation was brought to its present satisfactory state, Sir Nutcombe was the Deputy Chairman. I have seen him in the field and I have seen him in the office and I know what a lot of wise guidance he has given to the Corporation. I am sure that this will be continued by the noble Lord, Lord Howick, whose experience and knowledge are very considerable.
There are two questions which I think may well be asked about the activities of the Corporation. The first is: has the Corporation fulfilled the purpose for which it was set up? The second, in simple language, is: what of the future? I have seen the work of the Corporation in several territories and I was not surprised that some of the earlier projects were unsuccessful. But to-day it has 88 projects in 27 countries, representing an investment of £100 million and a further £15 million committed, and I think your Lordships will regard that as a great achievement. It has really made a great contribution to these countries and has been much welcomed by the leaders there. That, I think, provides an answer to my first question.
It is true that one still hears criticism of the Corporation, particularly from those who are connected with the City and private enterprise. I think that a great deal of this is unjustified and due to a lack of understanding of the manner in which the Corporation must work, and perhaps a little irritation and impatience at the controls which are necessary in dealing with the investment of public money. But I would add my own small
544
criticism. It is that there seems to be a reluctance to obtain local financial participation. In East Africa, for instance, where there are eighteen projects—and some of them are excellent—there are only one or two in which the Africans have been invited to participate. I believe that it is possible to bring the Africans into some form of partnership and that it is very important to do so. There are no projects there, so far as I know, where there has been an opportunity for what I call omni-racial participation.
The second question really revolves around how much money is going to be available and in how many countries the Corporation can continue to invest money. I find it difficult to believe that the sum still available—£15 million of Exchequer money and an additional £20 million which can be borrowed with Treasury approval—will be adequate, even for those countries which are likely to remain dependent and, therefore, to qualify for investment of the Corporation's funds. Since the Corporation was set up, the value of money has diminished and, though the sums sound very large, they in fact will go a very little way in so large an area. It is, therefore, of great importance that local Governments should be consulted on priorities and that projects should not be selected haphazardly on a "good idea" basis.
On the question whether countries should qualify for investment in new projects once they have obtained independence, I would say that this seems to command two points of view. The Government's attitude, as I gather from reading the Hansard of the debate in another place, is that it is not proper constitutionally for a sovereign country to obtain financial investment of this sort which is subject to the approval or veto of the Secretary of State for the Colonies. This is a perfectly logical argument; but we, as a nation, are not noted for being logical in our practices, and we demonstrate this here by allowing the Corporation to continue to operate existing schemes in independent countries, and even to invest additional capital in these projects, although the Secretary of State is still the authority in the matter and the reports and accounts of these enterprises must be laid before Parliament.

545
I think it would be wise not to shut the door to these newly independent countries, but to allow them, if they so wish, to take advantage of the money at the disposal of the Corporation and the experience and know-how which has somewhat painfully been built up. These newly independent countries will need more money than ever before, and while there are some where nationalistic feelings may prevent them from turning to this sort of assistance, there are others whose susceptibilities are not likely to stand in the way. I hope, therefore, that it will be possible for those independent territories which wish to continue having assistance from the Corporation to be permitted to do so, although this may mean the provision of additional funds to be put at the disposal of the Corporation.
Finally, my Lords, I must say that I regret that a decision has not been reached on the recommendations of the Sinclair Report. Informed opinion seems to favour the eminently sensible conclusions reached by this distinguished Committee. This is another example, perhaps, that the mills of Church House grind slowly; and your Lordships have not been given an opportunity on this occasion to see whether they grind exceeding well. Should a decision be made, I hope that your Lordships' House will be given an opportunity to debate it.
4.9 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, there is one aspect of the subject to which reference has not been made and which I believe may be one of the difficulties in the way of the expansion of the work of this Corporation, quite apart from the limitations imposed by the size of the surplus of our balance of payments. I suggest, my Lords, that the constitution of this Corporation was misconceived when it was drawn. It was the result of a marriage of incompatible ideas, and it is therefore not surprising that many should find its offspring somewhat barren.
I found the realistic Report of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, one of the most depressing Papers I have read recently. It brings out the irritation and frustration that the procedure of the Corporation involves, without any evidence of adequate compensations. Tremendous efforts have been made, by
546
those who have given service to the Corporation, to perform some useful tasks, but the frustration inherent in the constitution and system of control can only gradually wear down the initiative and enterprise which is necessary to generate momentum in an organisation such as the Corporation has established. Surely the time has come when so much should be recognised. Then the way would be open to remodel the constitution. We can accept the fact that the Government are committed to providing £130 million on loan to the Corporation. The way will also be open to rearrange the terms of this loan in a businesslike way, with a long term for repayment. Being already committed, the realities of the situation must be faced.
My Lords, normally I do not believe that lasting benefit derives either from hidden subsidies or from the establishment of enterprises unlikely to become economic and profitable rapidly. But this is an established organisation, and if Parliament still feels that the Corporation can make a special contribution to colonial development then there is a case for making the terms of the loan already authorised generous rather than strictly commercial. It would then be possible for the Corporation to go to the public for additional money, raised by the issue of a participating prior stock. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Twining, has mentioned, it is very desirable to attract local money, and very important that this should be an increasing factor in financing the work of the Corporation. This would give small investors an opportunity of taking part voluntarily in overseas development under British auspices, which seems to me to be preferable to a system under which the Government raise more forced loans by taxation, which in my opinion is an abuse of the power to tax.
It is of the utmost importance to secure good arid experienced management. When it has been obtained, the right thing is to trust the management of the Corporation. Decisions on its operations, within the limits of the finance authorised, should be left to the Corporation, as the Committee of Enquiry very rightly suggests—"to the commercial judgment of the Corporation" are the words used by the Committee of Enquiry. My Lords, the Corporation has been fortunate in having a

547
Chairman who has shown great ability in building up to success many and varied enterprises, and I am sure we are all sorry that his term of office should be coming to an end.
I hope that the Government will decide that the time has come not only to amend the financial structure of the Corporation, as the Committee of Enquiry suggest (because that was all they could suggest under their terms of reference), but to amend also the constitution under which the Corporation operates. If they do that, I believe that the Corporation, by reason of the experience they have gained, can not only perform a useful task in colonial territories, but also, if so invited, give advice within the resources they have available in territories which have moved to independence.
4.16 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, once again we are indebted to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition for bringing this Motion before your Lordships' House, as he did last year. I owe him an apology for not being in my place when he made his speech, but I am afraid that it was quite unavoidable. As he knows, I should have been here if I could. On the other hand, if his speech was anything like the one he made last year, I do not think there will be very much between us.
I want to deal first with the first part of the Motion—that is, with the Annual Report of the Colonial Development Corporation. First of all, I want to draw attention to the paragraph on production, on page 9, where it is set out that, as a result of direct projects and subsidiaries undertaken and controlled by the Colonial Development Corporation, there has been, in the territories in which the Corporation operates, a total production of £18 million. In addition, as a result of that production, there has been a great stimulation of other developments by private industry; and I think that when we come to consider the balance between direct projects and subsidiaries, on the one hand, and finance house business, on the other, that paragraph on production is most important and should be always borne in mind.
Very recently, in the debate in another place, the suggestion was made by the
548
Secretary of State that perhaps more finance house business should be indulged in in the future. Now your Lordships will remember that it was only two years ago, and in the immediately preceding years, that the Corporation was being very much criticised for indulging in finance house business at all Now it is suggested that it should do more. I put it to your Lordships that it is not very easy for the management if they are going to be first told to do one thing and then another. I really rather question whether they should be given instructions of this sort at all, as they are supposed to be responsible for a commercial undertaking on a commercial footing. It is quite obvious, of course, that the more finance house business they do the easier it is to make a profit, and I only hope that it is not perhaps a Treasury idea that they should do more of this finance house business in order to enable them to pay the interest which is outstanding. Already, this finance house business, in numbers of projects, is equal to about 50 per cent. of the projects undertaken. But, if your Lordships will look at the balance sheet, on page 17, you will see on the assets side a total of £67 million, and that, after taking off the £8 million for complete losses which the Corporation wishes to have written off, £39 million of the remaining £59 million in assets is already attributable to finance house business and £20 million to direct projects and subsidiaries. So that there is already a proportion of two to one in favour of finance house business. And I should have thought that that was sufficient.
Coming back to direct projects, one must bear in mind the direct impact of these projects on the population in the territories concerned. Most of them are agricultural. Though I know that loans to Governments for housing, hydroelectric power and other schemes are very good and raise the general standard of living, these things affect the rural areas the very last, and it is important that direct projects should continue in rural areas. The improvement of agriculture is the key to the solution not only of the economic problem but also of the political problem in these countries.
It is moist interesting to see that the Colonial Development Corporation are tending to branch out into a number of smallholder schemes. There is one for

549
rice development in British Guiana, one for wattle in Southern Tanganyika, one for tea in Kenya and one for tobacco in Nyasaland—all more or less in the embryonic stage. Surely those are the sort of projects to be promoted by the Corporation, which can improve the standard of living of the population of rural areas, set them on their feet and then teach their neighbours around them.
This brings me to the tobacco project at Kasungu which I criticised so much last year. The difficulty about making criticisms of a detailed nature is that we are a year behindhand. When I made my criticisms, I spoke of a £45,000 loss at last July, but in fact the position was as set out in the Report now, showing a loss of £13,000. By the time I criticised what was going on, the management had been out there and taken action, reorganised the project and got back to where they were before. The season ends approximately in July and the new season, at any rate as regards seed beds, starts in July and August. It does not run parallel with the Report. That is the difficulty. I have been out to that project since and given it a thorough examination over a whole day, and spent the night there. The reorganisation has been complete. There is a new, first-class, experienced young manager, with a complete team of two section managers and mechanic, all from one of the biggest tobacco farms in Southern Rhodesia, and they are running the project on a thoroughly sound basis. The problem is to get the money back, because the Treasury has cut them off with the proverbial shilling. They have enough to continue for one year and now for a second year. But this is a great anxiety for the people engaged on the project. I mention this because I am anxious that this project should go ahead. I think that it has got over its bad time and that it has really first-class management.
Attached to the nucleus estate are smallholders—at first six, and now twelve, Africans. Last year they made an average income of £109. This is very high indeed for an African in that part of the world, where the average is something like £15 a year. The scheme is intended to provide 60 smallholdings, and until it does, the overheads cannot be covered. At present it is being subsidised by the
550
Nyasaland Government to the tune of £9,000 a year, because they are so keen on it. If this kind of project can be encouraged and spread, I believe that the Colonial Development. Corporation will really be carrying out the purpose for which it was set up. This is the sort of project, difficult in the first stages, which should be persevered with and encouraged, not only by the management but also by the attitude adopted in the Treasury.
Turning to the second part of the Motion, I would say that it seems to have two aspects—the Sinclair Report and the question of operations in independent territories. May I deal with the latter aspect first? I do not want to cover the ground so ably covered by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. I would merely add to what he said about the Colonial Development Corporation's staff. It is true that they are allowed to continue to operate in West Africa and in Malaya, but, in point of fact, as they cannot expand their operations those operations are bound gradually to contract, if only by the Corporation's following their own policy, which has now been confirmed by the Secretary of State in another place—that they should divest themselves of successful projects by selling them to private enterprise and use the money in a sort of revolving fund. It will result in cutting down staffs. The important point is that the Corporation cannot recruit any more staff, apart from the staff's own fears for their future. It is very much like the situation in the Oversea Civil Service which we talked about two weeks ago. It is important that these people should not be wasted and should be able to give the benefit of their experience and knowledge to the territories concerned. But they can do that only by being allowed to expand in the independent countries of the Commonwealth in the way the noble Earl has said.
I do not want to go into the Sinclair Report in detail. Its contents are well known to your Lordships. We were just able to mention the Report in our debate a year ago. I put down a Question on March 1, and in reply to a supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, Lord Perth said that he hoped to have decisions on the Report in a matter of a few weeks. That was nearly

551
five months ago, and it transpired in a debate in another place that the Secretary of State had not even had a meeting with the Corporation. I know that there are difficulties—exchanges with the Treasury—but twelve months is really too long. Possibly the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will tell us that since the criticisms made in another place there has been a meeting with the Corporation, but certainly there cannot be any result. As Parliament is going into the Long Recess at the end of next week, I think it is only right that we should be given an undertaking that we can have a decision on this which we shall be able to discuss when we resume in the autumn.
Perhaps it is significant that in another place all the Conservative speakers, and in your Lordships' House the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and myself, have been pressing the Government the whole time on the general set-up of the Colonial Development Corporation. There was actually a Division in the other place, and the Conservative speakers—and they are the ones who matter, because they know about this subject—did not vote for the Government. Perhaps that is more significant than the numbers of those who did. It might even be that if there were a Division in this House the noble Earl and I should find ourselves abstaining in like manner. I hope that the Government will pay some attention to the seriousness of the situation.
There is one last plea that I would make. Perhaps I have been a little hard on the Government and on the Treasury, and it may be that we are all in a certain measure to blame, because time and time again on all sides of the House, here and in another place, we ask the Treasury for more money. Of course they have their job to decide on priorities. I only suggest to people on all sides that we should decide our own priorities in our own minds and recognise that the Commonwealth and Colonies, and not perhaps the National Health Service, is the top priority. I have nothing against the National Health Service, but I see that there was an increase of some £45 million in one year, representing half the total so far invested or spent by the Colonial Development Corporation in over ten years. Have we got our sense of priorities right? After
552
all, how much more can we afford to give our own people? There is no National Health Service in these colonial territories; there is not even a decent medical service, even if you can pay for it, in many of them. Therefore I suggest that if we can sink our Party differences in some of these respects and make it quite clear to the Government and to our own Party leaders that we want the money to go, in the first place, to Commonwealth development and to colonial development, then perhaps the Government's and the Treasury's hands will be strengthened.
4.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I think I should say, first of all, that we should like it to go on record from this House that we do appreciate the magnificent job done by the staff of the Colonial Development Corporation, from the top to the bottom, and that we wish them well. The purpose of this debate is, we hope, to help those members of the staff in their work and to help them to do the jobs, in which we feel present conditions are hampering them.
Now I should like to refer to the Sinclair Report, which is one of the sections of the Motion in the name of my noble Leader. In that famous paragraph 43 of their Report they come out quite unequivocally on the subject. A year or two ago Her Majesty's Government chose an exceptionally distinguished trio of men to go into this question and to advise them, and here we have the flat statement, that they have come to the conclusion that
"it is not possible for the Corporation to continue to carry out the purposes for which it was set up…unless there is a change either in its financial structure or in the nature of its activities."
One could not have anything straighter than that. The Government have sometimes been rather choosey in what recommendations they accept from their Commissions and Committees, but here is something so straight, and coming from such an authoritative quarter, that I do not see how they can fail Ito meet it. Time has gone by since the Committee reported, and we feel that the Government should now be able to tell us what they have decided to do.
The debate in another place was most enlightening. The Colonial Secretary

553
dealt, quite frankly up to a point, with the criticisms made. On the question of the financial structure, one of his first points was that the Corporation should make its capital revolve, by which, he explained, he meant that they should sell those undertakings which were going concerns and devote the money to something fresh. Let us just look at that proposal. What would it mean? That would mean, surely, that wherever there was an undertaking which was bringing a substantial return on the capital invested the Corporation should sell it. As the Corporation's job is to assist in those marginal aspects of development where here is a good deal of risk, and since, in the nature of things, there must always be a substantial proportion of their undertakings that do not pay, or at any rate do not pay for some time, it means that they are going to be asked to sacrifice a profitable investment and re-invest in something that may not be profitable. That cannot be a sound commercial way of doing things.
The Secretary of State said that they should borrow from private sources the £20 million which they are authorised to borrow. But, as other speakers have pointed out, they cannot offer an attractive investment to the private investor while they have this financial burden and problems unresolved. The proposals made by the Sinclair Committee have been supported by many noble Lords with much more experience than have, and it seems to me that the Government should tell us, to-day if possible, what they have decided to do.
Then we come to this old question of investment in independent territories. There is something rather depressing about coming back to this subject, because it has been brought up so often. It is like going through a sort of ritual: we put the arguments to the Government, and the Government make their stereotyped reply. They have never, to my mind, convincingly demolished the arguments in favour of more participation in independent countries. We have had most powerful support from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who is quite convinced on the subject, and equally powerful support from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, with recent experience of some of the investments, and from the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge. Why the
554
grant of political independence should suddenly change the character of a country has never been explained. If the country was in need of assistance for development before independence, how can it suddenly cease to be in need afterwards?
The Secretary of State said that he did not think the conditions under which investment from the United Kingdom could be made were consistent with full independence of these emerging countries. Assistance to the under-developed countries of the world is now being given on an enormous scale. Every sort of international authority is giving money in exactly those ways; and it is being given by varying methods. Some have tighter control than others, no doubt, but what under-developed country has ever said that its independence is inconsistent with the receipt of financial and other help in its development? Do not let us forget that the basic furniture of civilisation and society is lacking in many of these countries. Roads, water supplies, schools, houses, and all the rest, have to be provided. Some can be provided by Colonial Development and Welfare funds, but there is a great deal more that needs grants, and almost every noble Lord who has spoken this afternoon has maintained that the Colonial Development Corporation should be allowed to continue to help in these countries.
The noble Earl the Leader of the House intervened when my noble Leader was speaking, but I did not think his intervention really cleared up the question. We all know that the C.D.C. is empowered, with the permission of Whitehall, to increase its investment in any existing project of Ian independent country, and we know also that it is allowed to supply the management and the know-how without the finance. But surely it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which some other organisation would be asked to finance a project and the C.D.C. to provide the staff. It does not seem a realistic way of doing things at all. I think what worries so many noble Lords—many have mentioned it this afternoon—is the effect on the future of the personnel of the Corporation to see it condemned in this way to a gradually narrowing scope. The Corporation has built up an extremely successful staff in many parts of the world. Their prestige has been growing. I think there is a

555
very high quality of entrants into the service. That will stop if the future is either uncertain or is plainly going to be severely contracted. If the Corporation cannot offer a good career, and a good prospect of a career, with a pyramid of promotion, it will not attract the best entrants into the service.
My Lords, that is not the least of the reasons why we think the Government should come to a decision at once. On the general question, finance and development in the Commonwealth, noble Lords will have seen that the Chairman of the C.D.C., Sir Nutcombe Hume, mentioned in a speech not long ago that there was a possibility that some link between the Commonwealth Development Finance Corporation and the C.D.C. would be very profitable. We know that he has also been in touch with the international organisations—the World Bank, the International Development Association and others.
There has also been a suggestion that the establishment of a Commonwealth Bank—something on the lines of the World Bank—would be one solution to the problems of Commonwealth development finance. The C.D.C. might then be converted to one of the Bank's main agencies. Its internal organisation could remain as it is, but the general policy and the provision of finance and general decisions regarding priorities would be taken out of the hands of the Colonial Office and vested in the directors of this Bank. The Colombo Plan could also be linked with it, and the funds contributed by various Commonwealth countries to the Colombo Plan could be brought into the scope of such a bank. I should like to know what Her Majesty's Government think about this proposal. In any case, what we hope to hear from them is a firm decision that they accept the terms of the Sinclair Report.
4.47 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, as various other noble Lords have said, we are indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for once again bringing up the subject of the Colonial Development Corporation's Annual Report and the Sinclair Report. I think the noble Lord, Lord Twining, when he looked
556
into the crystal ball, may have been right in two respects, but I am satisfied that I can tell him that in one respect he is wrong—that next year he will not find in the Report that the Sinclair Committee's Report is still under consideration.
It seems to me that the debate to-day has really been divided into three parts. One has been the Report itself; the second, which arises from the Report and which is of immense importance, has been the scope of the Corporation's activities and the question of Commonwealth aid generally; and the third has been the question of the Sinclair Report, about which I shall be able to say something but not give any final decisions. The Report itself, as several noble Lords have said, is clearer than ever and better than ever. I think it is both right and proper that we should at this moment pay tribute, as the Report does, and as they say in the Report, to the splendid work of the noble Lord, Lord Reith, in the years 1951 to 1959. After all, it is quite true that things are now being done well, but I think the main foundation may properly be attributed to those years.
The other thing about which I am particularly happy in the Report this year, because it has been something about which in past years there has been a good deal of discussion and blame on the Government which I, for one, would say was not justified, is the question of the relationship between the Corporation and the Government. Here I am glad to see in the Report that there is satisfaction expressed at the relationship, both with the Commonwealth Relations Office and with the Colonial Office.
Coming to the results of the Report, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and others that it is good. Indeed, we are approaching a time when what was the first requirement of the Corporation, namely, that taking one year with another it should break even, is very nearly being reached. I say "very nearly" because these things are always very difficult to follow. Technically, you could say that that position has already been reached to-day when you see the profit figure as it is given. But it is misleading, because the profit figure includes a capital amount of £300,000. On the other hand,

557
that is offset by some £400,000 which they have not taken into their profits but which their subsidiaries have earned. If you ignore the interest due on the fructification period which has not been paid (if you look at the appropriate column you will find it listed as £1,400,000) you can see that the profit is as shown, £1,300,000;but if you take it into account, as you must do, as it has got to be paid sooner or later, subject to what may come out of the Sinclair Report the result is £100,000 short of breaking even one year with another. That, I think, is a very satisfactory result.
One wonders how it has been achieved. Has it been that they have had a windfall here or there—one or two good results? I am glad to say, No; it is a very general improvement in the great number of different enterprises they have undertaken. That, I think, is a particularly satisfactory situation. I had better be a little careful when saying how well things are going; otherwise somebody may say, "If that is so, if everything is so rosy, perhaps the idea of reorganisation is not necessary at all". I do not think that that is the case, and accept what the Corporation say in paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (11): that they cannot bear the load of both interest and capital repayment that is at present laid upon them. We have seen what that has meant in the past: capital losses, some £8 or £9 million; then this deferred interest of somewhere between £10 and £12 million. So that if you try to estimate on a strict accounting basis what has been the cost to the C.D.C. to date, either in actual losses or interest which has not been paid but which the Government have, nevertheless, had to pay to the people they borrow from, you do get a figure of £20 million; and I think it is important to bear in mind that, good as results appear this year, to date the Corporation has cost the Government £20 million. I am hopeful that in the next decade they may catch up, but I think we should be wrong if we looked at the Corporation as the answer to all development. I should not wish you to think, because I say that, that I in any way decry the very great things the Corporation has done, and in particular (I think the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings) how often they stimulate local production and encourage local people in a way that is of the greatest value.
558
At this moment it might be appropriate for me to turn to the question of the scope of the Corporation and the areas in which it works. We have found, as I say, that the Colonial Development Corporation itself appears unhappy about this. We have heard the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and, more importantly, if I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Swinton—I say more importantly because he says it represents a change of mind so far as he is concerned we have heard the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge and, I think, other noble Lords, expressing great worry on this point. I have listened to their speeches with great care, and it seemed to me that the worry falls under two heads. One is damage to the Colonial Development Corporation itself, and the other is damage to the Commonwealth, since the independent countries cannot get the benefit of money from the Corporation for new projects.
Let me take, first of all, the question of damage to the Colonial Development Corporation itself, and in particular to its staff. I have tried very hard to follow the argument about damage to its staff. I find that not only have various noble Lords pleaded this but that also in the Report there is this sentence:
"It should not constantly be threatened with a contraction in its scope".
It is true that as things stand to-day its scope is contracted, in the sense that once a country has become independent it cannot put money into new projects there. But it does continue with existing projects. Do you suppose that if any ordinary commercial company is told, when it has gone into some business or other and it is going pretty well—which I think is the case with many Colonial Development Corporation businesses in these independent countries—that because completely new business cannot be started up the outlook for the managment is very serious; that in fact they really do not know where they are and it is most worrying for them? I frankly do not understand that. It seems to me that if you have a good business you can go on with it; you do not have to worry; you are the management and your purpose is making that business good. The Corporation is in a position to do this. I cannot follow the anxiety to the management that various noble Lords have talked about in those countries where they are doing good business already.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I put this to the noble Earl? It is part of the policy, and I think very sound policy, that as the businesses develop well and become profitable, the Corporation should hive them off. If they hive them off, unless they can go into new business, there is no work for the staff.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I take the point of the noble Earl. But, surely, if they hive them off, if they have got, which presumably is the case, a business which is their own business, something they own themselves at the moment, the staff in that business would go on with it. You would not at that moment say to all the management: "I am sorry. We have sold the business. Out you go". The people who bought it would want to continue with the staff.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Has he not overlooked the fact that the policy of the Corporation is to train up and bring in residents of local countries?
THE EARL OF PERTH: Yes, but, of course, everybody does that who is working in any country; it is a perfectly normal thing to do. You bring in local management and take them into a growing business These are not going to be static businesses. The hope is that they will develop like any other business abroad. There is a second point in this connection: we are not saying that the management has to stop in that particular business. If one of the Governments, or some other enterprise—the World Bank, for instance, with whom we read the Corporation is in touch—wishes to use the services of the management on something else, they are certainly at liberty to do so. I do not believe that such a case has arisen as yet. I do not know quite why that is, if the Corporation's management is unique and superlative; it may be that although it is very good there are other managements also very good.
I would also add one other point on this question. We are particularly anxious that when a country becomes independent there should be enough business in that country to ensure that you get what I might call decent management, or that it is worth while for the Corporation to have decent management there. May I give an example of what we have in mind? The Corporation, for
560
one reason or another, was rather slow at helping Nigeria. Very little indeed was done until the prospect, or the certainty, of independence arose last year. Then the Corporation—and I am not blaming them; I think it is most natural—made a particular drive to catch up. The result is that over the last year we have approved projects in Nigeria of some millions of pounds—much more than ever before. We did that quite deliberately, although Nigeria was near to reaching independence. We said, "It is important that you should have good management ready, and a worthwhile amount of money for it to spend". mention that fact to bring out a point which I think is most important in connection with the anxiety of the staff in various cases, and to try to show that I do not really believe that this—
LORD LATHAM: Would the noble Lord forgive me, but is not the example which he has so kindly cited complete proof of what the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said? Why did you hurry to intervene and invest the money before independence arrived?
THE EARL OF PERTH: That was the decision of the Colonial Development Corporation, not mine. All I said was that we were not going to stand in the way of it when they asked to do it suddenly and quickly. Rather did we encourage them to do it, with the thought that it would ensure them a good stake in the country for good management.
LORD LATHAM: If I may say so, the noble Earl used the word "we"—"we hurried the investment of money in Nigeria".
THE EARL OF PERTH: Very well; I stand corrected, and will say that the Colonial Development Corporation hurried. I am most ready to make that change, but I shall probably use the word "we" because I look upon the Colonial Development Corporation as something for which we have—as indeed is the case—not only a direct responsibility but a real interest, and we should do all we can to help.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Is my noble friend still not right in his intervention that by proceeding, as with regard to certain loans

561
in the West Indies, in this particular instance you have to hurry to do it before it is too late and the countries become independent?
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think the reason is, as I tried to point out, without casting any strictures on anybody, that Nigeria had been curiously neglected in the past.
Now let us come to a question which is of great importance and about which the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, rightly expressed concern—namely, the anxiety about help to the Commonwealth and, more particularly, to the countries which have just become independent in recent years. First, I think it is important that we should have a sense of proportion as to what the Colonial Development Corporation may represent in relation to other help. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, and certainly other noble Lords, who expressed great anxiety about the capital available to the Corporation for its general use. I will come back to that in a moment. The total money made available under successive Colonial Development and Welfare Acts amounts to £315 million, and the Exchequer loans available to Colonial territories is another £100 million. I mention those figures to give a proportion in relation to the Corporation's investment in the Colonies.
Then we come to the increasingly important question of the Commonwealth countries which are now independent. There, we ("we" in this case being Her Majesty's Government) decided that the right policy to follow was Government-to-Government help. We thought about this a great deal, and we decided that in such cases the right course to follow if those countries wanted additional help for their development, was to provide it direct. One of the thoughts behind that was that the Government of the country concerned probably knew best what were the right priorities for its development. It may be a wrong assumption. But, remember, they are independent countries. They have their five-year development plans, or whatever they may be, and presumably they know in what order they want to develop their countries. It was with that much in mind that the Commonwealth Assistance Loans were invented. These Commonwealth Assistance Loans
562
are becoming a more important feature of help from this country. For example, figures over the last three years show that, whereas two years ago in Commonwealth Assistance Loans we provided £7 million, last year we provided £26 million, and this year the estimate is one of £40 million.
Again I would make the point about proportions. The Colonial Development Corporation last year (I think it was its record year) committed altogether £13 million. Of course one would like to make available more than the £40 million in Commonwealth Assistance Loans which we are making available this year. But noble Lords know the problem that we are up against. It is the problem of overlending and not weakening our exchange position. That is something we have to keep in mind. But let us not forget that there is a vast amount of money which will come—and nothing must he done to stop it—from private enterprise. That almost always proves to be at least an equal, if not a greater, source of help to these territories. That is most important.
Then, as regards these newly independent countries, we have further help from outside sources in the world. I think it is human nature, and certainly a natural tendency, that when a country becomes independent, other countries become ready and anxious to help it, both from a trade point of view and from a political point of view. One has seen that happening in the case of Ghana. There, American money has gone in, apart from private enterprise sources. Then, of course, one gets money coming from the World Bank, and from the International Finance Corporation, which is an associate or affiliate of the World Bank. There is also the newly formed International Development Association, to which only this year the United Kingdom have subscribed capital of £47 million. We are, in fact, doing a great deal for these newly independent countries, either directly or indirectly, and if for some reason or another any of them says: "In connection with that Commonwealth Assistance Loan which you have made available to us we have a problem of management in this or that particular. Can we use the Colonial Development Corporation?", of course the answer is, "Certainly, if you so wish." In practice, what they may

563
be more apt to do is to take some private group working in the country, or having great experience and highly specialised knowledge of it—for instance, the great Steel Works of India—and they get a steel consortium to help them train the people. I think that is a normal and natural course.
Then, apart from the money side, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough made great play about Israel and the help she was giving in one way or another with her technicians. I think that is splendid. But so are we.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: I did not use the argument in that sense at all. I introduced it to show the steps that Russia was taking to prevent even what assistance Israel could give. I was not praising the amount of assistance that Israel could give. She is a small country. What I was trying to show was that the way to do it was to give all the help possible, otherwise they will have to turn to other countries like Russia.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am glad of the explanation, if I misunderstood what the noble Viscount said. I quite agree that it is an important thing to do all one can to help. I wanted to make the point that we are doing a great deal, quite apart from the money side. Look what we are doing in the way of technical assistance. My noble Leader said that as soon as a country becomes independent we make a special arrangement with her to provide all the technical assistance she may ask for on a reasonable basis. And I do not have to repeat to your Lordships what you all know so well—the immense effort we are making in relation to education; and, after all, technical aid and education is every bit as important as the money side. But I remain firmly of the opinion that the main thrust, purpose and attention of the Colonial Development Corporation must and should be with the Colonial territories. I have tried to show your Lordships that that does not mean that the staff have to worry. Undoubtedly there is a great deal more for them to do. It certainly does not mean that the independent Commonwealth countries are neglected; far from it.
564
Having said all that, when so many of your Lordships speak as you have spoken, we will certainly study the debate with great care. Perhaps one of the values of the fact that I have been unable to comment on the Report of the Sinclair Committee, or to answer it, is that I shall be able to show my colleagues the very important things which have been said by noble Lords to-day; and we shall have the advantage now of being able to take them into account; so perhaps some good comes out of the delay.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question? He has been very helpful in not closing the door. I gather it was said in another place that there were constitutional objections to allowing the Colonial Development Corporation to function in the self-governing territories. That is a point I never really appreciated, even when I was supporting its exclusion. I supported its exclusion because I thought those territories should be self-supporting, but I cannot see the faintest constitutional objection. What is the difference, constitutionally, between giving £300 million loans from Colonial Development and Welfare Funds for which the right honourable gentleman the Colonial Secretary is responsible to Parliament, and for which he has to get a Bill or an annual Vote through Parliament, and allowing a Government Finance Corporation to do a bit of work in those territories? Constitutionally, I cannot see the faintest objection there. There may be other objections, and I should be glad if the noble Earl could clear up that point. He has not advanced it, so I gather that he does not differ from it.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not think I should be drawn into constitutional argument, although I believe that there is a constitutional point here.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, I wonder if I could ask for an explanation of the doubt the Government have over saying "Yes" to what has been urged upon them to-day? The noble Earl the Leader has spoken as if it were a matter of unassailable fact that for the independent nations we must act Government to Government; but I have always understood that our Government, even in this country, had advisers. Is it not a

565
question of whether it is necessary for those advisers to be somebody quite independent of the people who are dealing with the non-independent countries? Is that-not sufficiently the same problem? What is the reason for insisting that our advisers, for the independent people should be quite independent of the advisers for the non-independent people? I will not ask the noble Earl to answer that question now, but perhaps he will think it over.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I will certainly think it over again, but I have endeavoured—though clearly I have failed, so far as the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, is concerned—to explain why we believe that the machinery is adequate and that the right course is that which we are following—namely, that Government gives to Government, and that it is the independent Government which decides the priorities in relation Ito the aid it asks for and the projects to which it shall be devoted. If the Government should then wish for additional advice it is open to it to get it from whatever source it chooses, including the Colonial Development Corporation.
LORD BEVERIDGE: My Lords, would it be impertinent for me to suggest that, as National Insurance has undoubtedly benefited this country by being put under one advisory authority, a similar step might be of some advantage on this similar problem of helping economic development in other countries connected with us, wherever they are, to bring them a little nearer together?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I am not sure that I follow the noble Lord After all, I am talking of five-year development plans—very large affairs—which the Colonial Development Corporation, quire frankly, have never suggested that they should enter into.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, surely the noble Earl is confusing Colonial Development and Welfare Assistance with investment by the Colonial Development Corporation. He speaks of five-year plans, but surely these have nothing to do with investments that might be thought desirable by the Colonial Development Corporation.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, that is exactly my point. Whether it is a development plan drawn up by an independent Government or a plan drawn up by a dependent Government, in neither case is the Colonial Development Corporation called in. It is the Government of the country concerned which decides its plan and works accordingly, whether helped by C.D. and W. money or anything else.
If I might finish with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Swinton, I would not wish him to think from what I have said that the door is open for a change, for I do not believe that it is. I said that I should be- glad to look and see whether there were any gaps in what we believe to be adequate machinery for the purposes of helping independent countries. Having dealt with that matter at some length, because I think that it is in a sense perhaps the most important point which has arisen, and one which I believe is also open to great misunderstanding and certainly to difference of opinion, I should like now to come back again to the general view as it is set out in the Corporation's Report. I will not go into it at very great length but there are one or two points that I should like to make.
The question of local association has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Hastings. In paragraph 5 of the General Report which is headed "Commercial and Local Association" the point is clearly made that wherever possible the Corporation does work in with local governments, local statutory bodies and local smallholders, or tries actually to bring them into a project, as in the case of tea. They set up their own tea plantation and factory and had a number of smallholders in. They were encouraged by being shown how tea could be grown and processed in their own factory. I know that some private enterprise companies are doing the same thing. It is right that this aspect is being given special attention by the Corporation, for we feel that here they can do something which is not quite commercial, bearing in mind their purpose as laid down in the original Charter.
I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Twining, should say that there was not enough association with

567
local interests. On that account, having read the policy expressed in the Report, I can only believe that the local interests, for one reason or another, are shy of joining in. But I believe that recent experience has shown that such things are now going better. Again, on this question of partnership there is the interesting new example of the association of the International Bank with the International Finance Corporation, a Dutch corporation and the Colonial Development Corporation all working together in Tanganyika on a sugar scheme, though this is too recent to be mentioned in the Report.
I am quite clear that the more the Corporation can join in with others, the better. That shows that they can make full use of their management and their skill; and it shows, also, that their capital can be made to go further. If your Lordships will look at paragraph 7 of the Report you will see that that refers to various training schemes which are being undertaken. It says that a country sometimes needs skilled, experienced management even more than loans, and shows how they are doing all they can for partnership with the local people; and that is right. They are doing that by training them on the spot, training them overseas, and even giving them scholarships. I am sure that that is a lesson which all private enterprise is learning, and nothing could be more important to the receiving country.
I shall not go into any detail on the Report and the results of any one of the various subsidiaries that are listed, but I think it was my noble friend, Lord Hastings, who raised a very important point—namely, that they have this year, out of direct projects which they run, produced £18 million worth of primary production which has been sold, and that has given great encouragement. One sees the pattern of the sort of thing they are very apt to do in such things as housing schemes. To us, housing schemes, perhaps, seem a normal and a natural thing. We all know about building societies and it is no problem here at all. But in almost all colonial territories there is no such machinery, and one of the things the Corporation has done—and it has a special skill and knowledge now which is of inestimable
568
Value—is to start up housing schemes, whether in Malaya and Borneo or in Africa or in the Caribbean.
Then we see to-day one or two very big businesses with which they are dealing. There is in Swaziland the Usutu Pulp Company. They have the timber and they have joined up with Courtaulds in a great project; they have a great pulp mill and it has transformed that country. Then there is the Borneo-Abaca scheme, which is a fine scheme that started at the beginning of the Corporation's activities when they were under the chairmanship of Lord Trefgarne. That is showing very good results and having a great influence on the country itself.
Now, I think, if I may, I will turn to the Sinclair Report.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think that the noble Viscount, a little with his tongue in his cheek, made various personal points in relation to this—that one, as a banker, should be able to decide after a year, and so forth. Of course, if a year has gone by it is a distressing thing, and I, for one, regret that we cannot in this debate say in detail what is the outcome of consideration of the Sinclair Report. We have now started (and this happened not because this debate was taking place to-day but in the normal course of preparation) our discussions with the C.D.C. itself.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: When?
THE EARL OF PERTH: Earlier this week. The noble Viscount laughs, but I can assure him that not only was the preparation of this matter difficult; it was necessary to take great care in getting it right. We might have moved too quickly, but it is very important that we find the right answer. As I say, it is very helpful to have had the speeches of noble Lords to-day, because we shall be able to take those also into account. But I can say this—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, who expressed anxiety about how we are going to treat the Sinclair Report—that not only are we going to treat it with sympathy but, of course, when it comes from such wise and experienced hands it is going to bear very great weight. As

569
a matter of fact, I do not expect that we shall follow it exactly. Here is a Report which is really worked out on the assumption that the Corporation is perhaps a private commercial body, whereas, in fact, it is a Government-financed body and there is the problem of accountability to Parliament. I think it was in the Sinclair Report itself that that difficulty was recognised, and I am sure that noble Lords will understand that it is one of the things which has made it most difficult to decide on exactly what is right. But we are very near the end of that. As I say, we have started our talking with the Corporation and we shall, as soon as we can, be issuing a White Paper setting out our decisions. I should hope—but I cannot be certain—that that will be out during the Recess; and that will give us an opportunity, if it is so wished, to debate it in the autumn or in the winter.
Perhaps I can give one or two hints now of our thinking—it has been mentioned also in another place—on what I call the use of the funds. As was rightly pointed out, until recently we were a little anxious at the amount of investment that was going into finance-house business. This is a term which has become a term of art. It may mean loans either to statutory bodies or to private enterprise companies. Over the last several years the situation has altered; the climate of confidence has considerably changed in many of the colonial territories, and the sequel has been that it is more difficult, very often, for statutory bodies to borrow in the City of London. So we also are inclined to change our mind on the policy to be followed, and I do not think that that is something of which we should be ashamed. And I do not think it is something which the Corporation finds difficult, because it has been a gradual change; it is a change which they know well, and it does not rule out a continuing investment in equity. Rather does it show that, whereas at one time we felt that they were going a bit too far in finance-house business, now, perhaps, we do not mind if they do so. It is not going to be difficult for anybody in the Corporation to work on that basis.
But certainly there will be a continuing equity interest, and we like that very much when it involves partnership. As
570
I think the noble Lord, Lord Grant-chester, said, it is important that, wherever we go, we should trust the commercial judgment of the Corporation. I would say, quite firmly, that that is our policy. Occasionally, there may be an odd reason of policy or some point which causes us difficulty, but in general we think we can work on that principle as it was laid down in the Sinclair Report, and I am sure that that is right.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? It is my concern that the Corporation should not be given direction by the Government to increase their finance-house business against their own better judgment; and it is my concern that that should not become so great a proportion of the total investment (I said it is already two-thirds) that there would be little left over for those direct projects which are one of the very important aspects of the Corporation's work.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I remember very well what the noble Lord said, and it is certainly one of the points we can bear in mind when considering the final way our decisions go on the Sinclair Report.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, does the noble Earl mean by his statement that henceforth the emphasis will be upon investment in prior charges and not in equity?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I said that whereas until now there had been a feeling that it was going too far in the way of investments in finance business, owing to changed conditions I think the tre d is probably the other way at present; and I tried to show why it seemed to us that that is a right direction for it in the circumstances to-day.
When we come to the future, the question arises—the point was made by various noble Lords—has the Corporation enough money? They have, as we know, a balance of £15 million which is still available from the Government, and they have the potential borrowing of £20 million from outside sources. Now it is quite true that, until we have got the capital reorganisation ready, or the "new look", or whatever you like to call it, it is a very difficult thing for the Corporation to borrow from private

571
sources; but certainly the will of Parliament was that it should be possible for the Corporation to borrow from outside sources, and we will see that that is carried out within reason. It seemed to us that the best method would be to deal with the requests that might come up on what I might call an ad hoc basis rather than to lay down a general direction about the ranking of all money borrowed from outside. It is much better to look at each project which may come along when there is an opportunity, and decide together what is the right method of handling it. I think that that is both a practical and a proper method to adopt.
LORD LATHAM: Provided always, of course, that you do not borrow short and lend long.
THE EARL OF PERTH: That, of course, goes without saying; but I think we can leave that as an instance of commercial judgment for the Corporation itself.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Could I ask, with regard to getting money from private sources: are you going to enable this Government Corporation—and it is a Government Corporation—to borrow on at least just as favourable terms as the Government of the day have given to a private enterprise steel concern?
THE EARL OF PERTH: This is money which the Corporation will borrow from private sources, not from Government sources. Therefore, clearly, it will have to pay whatever the going rate is for borrowing from private sources. You would not expect anything else.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: Then you are proposing to treat the Colonial Development Corporation on far less favourable terms than a private steel trust in this country.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Certainly not; on exactly the same terms. If you look at what has happened as regards the steel companies, they do borrow from outside sources, and they do borrow at the market rate. We are proposing exactly the same thing.
Now, we have the £15 million from the Government, and we have the £20 million from outside sources. Then, as
572
has already been explained, we are intending that there should be a revolving fund; and, clearly, that revolving fund is automatic in so far as loans are concerned. When you make a loan, your loan is gradually repaid, probably over its own life, so there will be money coming in on that revolving basis for new investment. Apart from that, one would have the possibility of selling year by year some of the equity investments, and of using that money for new investment. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who made the point, "That is all very well, but does that mean to say that you are going to get rid of the profitable things and then go into bad ones?" I have got two comments on that. I do not mind getting rid of profitable things if I get a good price for them. If I put £1 in and I can get £2 for it, that is fine; that is good business.
LORD LATHAM: It is relative.
THE EARL OF PERTH: It may be relative, but it does show the value of profitability. Then, when the noble Earl says "Go into bad things" I say, "I hope not." I hope the Corporation will go into good things. It has had such experience, and very often its judgment has turned out right. So, in general, I think that that policy is the right one. As a matter of fact, the Corporation has already begun to do it. If your Lordships will look at the Report, you will find that they—
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am sorry to interrupt, but the noble Earl says that he hopes the Corporation will go into profitable business. Has he forgotten that its job is to develop the country—that is, to conduct investigations, explorations, pilot schemes and the rest? Surely he is forgetting that that is part of the function of the Corporation.
THE EARL OF PERTH: Certainly not. I have not forgotten that at all. What I would remind the noble Earl is that the purpose of the Corporation, or its charge, is to break even one year upon another; and if you invest in a company and £1 becomes £2, or even £5, for all I know, and then you sell, you have got that amount more money to put into other ventures. As I have said, you will find on looking at the Report that

573
this is something which the Corporation has already been doing. It had an important investment in Chilanga Cement. In fact, I think it had almost the whole investment originally. Then it sold a considerable amount to local interests. That is the right policy. It has been doing the same thing, with a company called Bird & Company. I think that is splendid, and that provides the sort of revolving fund that one wants to see.
LORD LATHAM: Does the noble Earl agree that if this policy is pursued and is successful, then this corporation will cease to be a Development Corporation and will become an investment company?
THE EARL OF PERTH: No. My point is exactly the opposite. If all that happens is that it makes an investment and sticks to it, then it is an investment company, and that is wrong. If, on the other hand, it is a revolving company, then it is a developing one; and I think that, if the noble Lord will think of it, he will see that that is right.
LORD LATHAM: Perhaps it would be more precise to say a property company.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I do not understand what that means, either. When I look at the different types of investment which the Corporation has been making, it has got, as far as I know, not a single property investment as such. We will leave it at that. Now I have said that I am hoping that, very shortly, we shall be having a White Paper which will give our final decisions on the Sinclair Report. I have regretted that we have not been able to tell your Lordships during this debate exactly what has been decided, but I can assure your Lordships that I am as anxious as any other noble Lord to get this thing finished.
Now it remains for me to thank those members of the Corporation who have contributed to the results we see to-day. Many people have to-day said, quite rightly, how much we owe to the present Chairman, Sir Nutcombe Hume. I am not at this time going to make any very detailed remarks on his tenure of office. He has still got a little while to go, and we shall not see the full results until the next Annual Report. I think that that would be the more appropriate time
574
to go into more detail. Then, one has to express thanks to the Board and staff, and to the management overseas—which, I agree with every other noble Lord, is a splendid management. I hope that some of the things that I have said today will remove any anxieties they may have, or any anxieties which might have been caused by what other noble Lords have said. My hope is that good relations between us will continue, and that next year, if we have a similar debate—and I for one always welcome such debates—we may find, not only that there is a new Corporation in the sense that the results of the Sinclair Committee will be known and acted upon, but also that the results will be even better than they are this year.
5.38 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: First of all, my Lords, I should like to hank all the noble Lords who have joined in this debate. Secondly, however, I would say, with regard to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Perth, that I feel that he has had to plead "guilty" to the main charge this afternoon: that is to say, he has no real excuse whatever as to why the Sinclair Report has not been acted upon. I have never in my life heard a weaker defence. Here is a vastly important recommendation—that a Government Corporation, the Colonal Development Corporation, should have its capital structure reorganised. An expert Committee reports within three months; and then, for twelve months, you have no real, formal meeting or consultation with the Corporation itself—in fact, not until this week. That is an amazing situation to reveal.
THE EARL OF PERTH: If I may say say, I think that is just about the right word—no "formal" consultations. That is just night.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: All we have is a formal failure at the end of twelve months—twelve months of having done nothing. That is a most extraordinary state of affairs. When I hear the arguments about the difference between what aid can be given to independent States and what aid can be given through the Colonial Development Corporation, I am not very much moved. After all, there is one thing to be said for the special

575
work the Government have undertaken through the Colonial Development Corporation. That is, that there are many things to be done in developing territories, whether they are independent or still of colonial status; things which these countries need but in which private capital, as a rule, will not invest, because of the doubt whether they will satisfy the investors' profit requirements. Therefore, I am not at all moved by the argument put to us this afternoon.
There is a great deal to be said for the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge: that the requirements of the independent territories within the Commonwealth could be better met by the use of one organisation. And the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, asked: what are the constitutional difficulties? In the changing circumstances of world trade and changing political circumstances, I do not see why the Government could not by now have altered the actual title of the organisation, if that was necessary, in order to retain both the advisory service and the management, and at the same time widen the scope of the aid given. It could be called the Commonwealth Development Corporation, because we already have Commonwealth Assistance Loans. But I can see no harm in offering the Commonwealth aid of the kind which is offered through the present Colonial Development Corporation. However, that question can come up for consideration at a later date.
In the meantime, I find the Government guilty of not having done their job on the Sinclair Committee Report, which is now twelve months old. I find them truly guilty. And we shall watch with great care what is the next step to be taken. The noble Earl smiled broadly at the end, as if quite content to have an annual debate. If he goes on mishandling the affairs of this Corporation from the Government side as he is doing now, I can promise him that he will have much more frequent trouble. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CYPRUS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a/, and. to be printed.
NIGERIA INDEPENDENCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

CARAVAN SITES AND CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BILL
5.42 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of this Bill.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I beg to move this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Prohibition of use of land as caravan site without site licence]:
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I regret that it should be necessary for me to move four Amendments at this stage. I can assure your Lordships that they involve no change of substance in the Bill, to which we have given careful and prolonged consideration, and that they are only minor drafting points. Your Lordships will appreciate that not only have we made very considerable Amendments to this Bill while it has been in this House, but that we have been working to an unavoidably tight time schedule, which has placed a heavy burden on the draftsmen to keep pace with us. I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("purpose") and insert ("purposes").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Notices under sections 30 and 33 of Act of 1947]:
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 45, after first ("and") insert ("subject to the provisions of that Schedule").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Interpretation, transitional provisions, and extent]:
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 24, after ("thirty-six") insert ("and section forty").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule [Enforcement of notices under sections 30 and 33 of Act of 1947]:
EARL. WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 17, leave out ("section") and insert ("paragraph").—(Earl Waldegrave.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships for more than a few moments in moving that the Bill do now pass, for we have already devoted many hours, including two days in Committee, to a detailed yet wide-ranging examination of the Bill. Our time has been well spent and our discussions have proved very fruitful. Since the Bill was received in your Lordships' House it has gained several new clauses and two new Schedules, and has been improved in many other respects; but our discussions have, I believe, contributed even more than the amendments which now appear in black and white in the Bill.
The interest which so many noble Lords have shown in some of the wider issues—and I have in mind particularly the need for the strictest control over the exercise of compulsory purchase powers and the importance of safeguarding the green belts, National Parks and other places of natural beauty—will be widely shared outside this House. What has been said in these discussions will, I am sure, carry great weight with all those who will have the task of administering this Bill when it becomes an Act.
578
I hope I may be permitted to say how greatly we are all indebted to a number of noble Lords for the work that they have put in and the help that they have given. We were indeed fortunate in having the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, with us throughout our deliberations on this Bill, and I wish he could have been here at this moment. His knowledge of this subject is unrivalled, and the part he played throughout our discussions has been both courteous and constructive. The noble Viscount, Lord Gage, probably knows as much about the theory and practice of local government as anyone in the country, and his contributions have been most valuable. Points of interest to those concerned with National Parks and the preservation of the countryside, have been most carefully and cogently argued by several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. And a number of Scottish Peers have been of great assistance to us on the parts of this Bill which affect their country. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, as one who was almost unsuccessful in getting any of the precise suggestions I put forward adopted in the Bill, I should like to pay my tribute to the great courtesy with which all our Amendments were examined, not only by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, who is not the Minister responsible in the Department itself, but also by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the Department itself. I do not know whether it is the sort of thing that the noble Earl wishes, but it does encourage one to try again.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, may I say, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Silkin, that he had hoped to be here this evening but has had to leave to go to another appointment elsewhere.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL
  The Queen's consent signified, and Bills reported with Amendments.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (FOWEY) BILL
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (YARMOUTH (ISLE OF WIGHT)) BILL
  Reported, with Amendments, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.