AID TO COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES

HL Deb 17 July 1962 vol 242 cc549-96

3.48 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the need for increased technical and financial aid to underdeveloped countries in the Commonwealth, with special reference to the report of the Department of Technical Co-operation, to the contracting field of operations of the Colonial Development Corporation and to the special requirements of East and Central Africa in view of the deteriorating economic situation and the impending loss of technical and administrative officers; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, when I put down my Motion for this afternoon I had little idea that so many of the old familiar faces on the Government side of the House would have disappeared. However, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, who always answers our debates with so much skill and charm, is still in his place.

I refer to these Government changes which have already been mentioned only because they have a direct bearing in two respects on the subject of economic aid and development, which I am asking your Lordships to discuss. First, they indicate—and I hope that the Government will agree with me—that a great deal of rethinking about policy must be going on. I cannot believe that this is a case of new faces without new policies. Indeed, I would strongly suspect that without new policies the verdict of the public would be that these dismissals were a panic measure in face of electoral unpopularity. I hope and trust that the Government are thinking out new policies at the present time, for there is no field of policy in which a new direction is more urgently needed than that of economic aid and support for the development of the less developed areas, countries and dependencies in the Commonwealth.

The second respect in which these changes have a bearing on the debate this afternoon is that they show an important administrative readjustment between two of the Departments concerned with the Commonwealth, the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. These Departments will now operate for the first time in their history under a single Minister. As your Lordships will recollect, the merging of these Departments was urged something like two years ago by the Select Committee on Expenditure and I think many people agreed at that time that, with the shrinkage of our colonial responsibilities, such a merger was desirable and would have to come about. There has been difference of opinion, of course, about the timing and the extent of the merger between the two Departments. In my view, the Government have in fact chosen the earliest moment at which it is possible for one Minister to combine the two jobs. We shall see whether he succeeds, but he certainly would not have had a chance of succeeding if it had been done, say, even a year ago.

What I am unhappy about is what appears to be the incompleteness of the merger and its likely impact on opinion in the new Commonwealth countries. I myself would have preferred a complete integration between the two Departments in a new Commonwealth Office, and that, indeed, is what was recommended by the Select Committee on Expenditure. It seems to me that under the new departmental label the Colonial Office is, in fact, preserving its identity. I hope it will not be thought for a moment that, as an ex-Colonial Office Minister, I have not the greatest respect for the Colonial Office or an enormous appreciation for what it has done in the past, but I think that the time has come when this Department has to take its rightful place in history, and to yield the stage to the Commonwealth Office. I also hope that the Government will take away the remaining economic functions of the Colonial Office and give them, possibly, to a new Department, an expanded Department of Technical Co-operation, dealing with financial as well as technical aid. I am sorry that the Government appear to have been half-hearted, and that they have not made administrative changes of a more sweeping character, which would have shown the outside world that we are, in fact, leaving the era of Colonial rule and the era of Empire, and entering a new era of cooperation and development within a free Commonwealth.

However, the most deplorable and, I think, unnecessary mistake is to call the new Minister the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth and Colonies. This will, I am afraid, be regarded as an affront in the new Commonwealth countries. Anyone who has lived in a Commonwealth country in Africa or Asia, knows how intensely these countries resent being lumped together with surviving British Colonies. The fear of neo-Colonialism, whether or not it is justified—I think very often it is quite unreasonable—is a very real fear. I am quite certain that it will cause the Secretary of State considerable embarrassment, which could easily have been avoided, when he visits Commonwealth countries—as I hope he will do because that is one of the most important duties of a Secretary of State—to go about with the title of Secretary of State for the Commonwealth and Colonies. My Lords, surely it would have been quite easy to drop all reference to the Colonies in the title of the new Department and in the Secretary of State's title, and to call him simply the Secretary of State for the Commonwealth. That, I should have thought, would have been the simple, the correct and, from the point of view of the outside world, far the most satisfactory answer.

I am glad the Government have dropped the word "Relations" from the context of the Commonwealth Relations Office, because, of course, the new Department will be administrative as well as diplomatic, so that the word "Relations" would have been inappropriate. But the lack of imagination which the Government have shown in effecting what I believe will be a very useful administrative change will make it that much more difficult to bring the right sort of co-operation in the economic field between the Government here and the Governments of the new Commonwealth countries.

My Lords, let me now direct the attention of the House to the terms of my Motion, which deal, first of all, with economic and financial aid in the broadest sense. Here I have to say that I am not at all satisfied with the present policy of the Government. I am far from satisfied by the Government's decision to freeze aid to the Commonwealth and the Colonies at its present level. I am convinced that we must give more aid in both money and skill if we want the new and underdeveloped countries in the Commonwealth to make a real success of self-government. In the eyes of the world their failure will be our failure. We cannot possibly wash our hands of them once we have launched them out on the sea of independence. Our influence in the Commonwealth, with the influence of the Commonwealth in world politics, will depend primarily on whether we are able to give these countries the economic support, backing and help they need to develop their economies and to improve conditions of life for their people. If we succeed in doing this their Governments will be stable and friendly; if we do not succeed their Governments will be unstable and possibly unfriendly, too.

How far are we falling short at the present time of their aid requirements? The amount of support the poorer countries in the world will need from the rich countries has been set out in a Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The main recommendations of this Report were accepted last year by the General Assembly of the United Nations, when it endorsed the principle of making 1960–70 a development decade, and of course this was accepted by Her Majesty's Government. The economic aid requirement set out in this Report is 1 per cent. annually of the national income of the wealthier countries. I should like if possible to have from the noble Lord opposite an estimate of what we are doing. If, in fact, we are giving £180 million a year in aid—I am talking not of private investment; I am talking of public money that is given as aid in loans or grants—which is the figure given by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies in the House a short time ago, our aid (if my estimate of the national income is correct, and I hope the noble Lord will put me right if I am wrong) is already running at only a little less than 0.1 per cent. short of the required minimum; and that of course is a great improvement on the past. But I am sure we should not be satisfied by this performance, both in view of our relative wealth, and in view of the risk that the other conditions relating to world trade, for enabling these countries to reach the point of sustained economic growth, may not be fulfilled.

Let us compare ourselves with another ex-Colonial country, France. France, with a much smaller population in the French Commonwealth, and of course a smaller national income than ours, is giving 1.4 per cent. of her national income for aid at the present time.

My Lords, we can only try to do what is practicable, and I think that we must look at the practical side first and foremost. We must look at what our own citizens are prepared to give. If production at home expands and our national income increases within a reasonable period of time from the present level of 2 per cent. to the 4 per cent. target which I believe is the aim of the Government, then we shall be able to increase this minimum figure of aid expenditure without increasing taxation or asking our own people to make any sacrifice of their existing standards.

An answer that is often given to this plea for more expenditure on aid is that we cannot do it without upsetting our balance of payments, but let us remember that trade deficits are transitory and do not affect all the wealthy countries at the same time. Surely it is the duty of the countries with favourable trade balances to help out the countries with unfavourable trade balances. This was recognised, your Lordships will remember, by O.E.E.C. when it set up the European Payments Union to overcome these difficulties in trade relations between European countries. At the moment, Britain and the United States have an unfavourable trade balance, but several European countries are earning more than they spend. All these countries—both the countries with favourable trade balances and those with unfavourable trade balances—are represented in O.E.C.D., and surely one of the most important tasks of this organisation should be to prevent fluctuations in world trade lessening the flow of aid to the underdeveloped countries. I hope the Government will explore this possibility, if they have not already done so, with their fellow members of O.E.C.D.

I have spoken in rather general terms about the need for increasing the amount of our financial and technical aid. I should now like to direct your Lordships' attention for a moment to the machinery we have for administering aid, and to some of the most urgent and difficult problems with which we are confronted at the present time. The new Ministry of Technical Co-operation, for which the noble Lord is speaking, started work a year ago. I think it is exactly a year ago—last July—that it began to function; and, very commendably, it has not lost any time in publishing a Report of its stewardship during the first nine months of its existence in Whitehall. I think everyone would agree, looking at that Report, that it has made a good start—as one would expect of any Department under the ægis of Sir Andrew Cohen. At the same time, it is severely hampered by the limited scope allowed it by Government policy. It can send out an expert to advise about the growing of crops or about forestry, but it cannot provide the money even for a pilot scheme to make sure that the expert's advice is carried out.

We read on page 12 of the Report—and I venture to quote these words: There is also a need to co-ordinate technical and financial help, men and money. These two kinds of aid are complementary". That statement, I should have thought, is obviously true, but the Government have hitherto insisted on divorcing these essentially complementary forms of aid. They will not allow the same Department to deal with men and money, and this results in the somewhat ridiculous situation described on page 8 of the Report. We there find that the Department—that is, the Department of Technical Co-operation——

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to which Report he is referring?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am referring to the Report of the Department of Technical Co-operation.

LORD HASTINGS

There are two—Command 1698 and Command 1740. I am sorry to interrupt.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am referring to Command 1698, page 8, under the heading "Colonial Development and Welfare". What we read there surely presents a ridiculous situation. This Department handles most of the Colonial Development and Welfare grants allocated for central use—that is, mainly for research; agricultural research, medical research and so on— because these things are on an interterritorial basis; but grants given to individual Colonies remain with the Colonial Office. Surely, a dichotomy of this kind cannot be justified by logic or common sense. One Department should deal with the administration of all Colonial Development and Welfare money, which would then have a much better chance of being spent in the best possible way, because money and advice would be linked. In fact, what we need is a single Department to handle financial aid; and I think it should deal with long-term loans as well as grants (although I have been talking up to now only about grants) and, of course, technical aid, which is now dealt with by the Department of Technical Cooperation.

I think it should be headed by a Cabinet Minister, who can hold his own with the Treasury, because somebody would be needed in the Cabinet who could argue with the Chancellor. I am not suggesting you should increase the size of the Cabinet—that would be a rather ridiculous suggestion—but why not give a Minister without a Department, such as the Lord President or the Lord Privy Seal, responsibility for aid? Your Lordships will remember that the Lord President used to deal with the Department for Scientific Development and Research, though that has now gone to another Department. This is surely just the sort of thing that a Minister without a Department should be able to take on. I also think that the head of this Department—and, indeed, the head of the existing Department—should be a Permanent Under-Secretary and not a Director-General, because it is just as important that the head of the Department should be able to talk on equal terms with the heads of other Government Departments.

My Lords, in this respect, regarding machinery, may I commend to you the American model? America gives more aid in money and personnel than any other country in the world, which is generous but right, as it is in the best position to afford to do so. After a fairly long period of administrative trial and error, the United States has channelled all its aid through the Agency of International Development, which works under an Under-Secretary of State in the State Department and in that way is responsible to the President. But all aid from the United States is dealt with by this single department, which in the United States is called the Agency of International Development.

I am sure that the new Department of Technical Co-operation is doing all it can to encourage fully-trained technicians to go out and serve short periods overseas. Indeed, that is the need at the moment, and that is the need which this Report stresses. In fact, a full-time service like the Overseas Civil Service (what used to be the Colonial Service) is now out of date, and what is required is people who can be seconded by the Government or sent out from their professions to serve for short periods in overseas countries pending the time that their place can be taken by locally-trained personnel. But the trouble in Africa is that British technicians are leaving much faster than they can be replaced. In fact, we are taking technical aid away more rapidly than we are giving it; and a number of years must elapse before there are sufficient trained Africans to take the place of the Europeans who are going. I am thinking particularly of Eastern and Central Africa, where the number of Africans with a higher education is extremely small, and very much smaller than the number of such Africans in West Africa.

May I give one or two examples to show the seriousness of the present position? In Kenya there is not one single African veterinary surgeon, and no one training who will be completely trained within the next couple of years. What is going to happen to the livestock industry in Kenya if all the European veterinary surgeons leave? In Uganda, there is one African electrical engineer. What is going to happen to the cotton industry in Uganda if the European electrical engineers leave? The noble Lord, Lord Molson, and I were in Uganda at the beginning of the year, and we both realised at that time how important—how essential, indeed—for the cotton industry, the hydro-electric power station which runs from the Owen Falls Dam is; and power, indeed, is the key to industrial development in Uganda.

My Lords, the impression that I got in Uganda—and I will not speak for my noble friend Lord Molson on this—was that at least half the British technical and administrative officers would go within the next year. In Kenya I would imagine the exodus would be even more serious. Therefore, what I have said about British replacements being too few and too late is lamentably true in East Africa. What I think the Government must do is to stop the exodus. It is not enough for a new Department to do its best, as it is doing, to ensure that more men, more engineers, more teachers, more agricultural officers go out from this country; that is not enough. What must be done is to slop the exodus, and that can be done only by guaranteeing the careers of personnel in the key technical services. It may be too late already, but that is the only way of doing it if it is still not too late to stop this flow.

The only way of guaranteeing their careers is to incorporate these men—I am talking now only of technicians, not administrators—in the home Civil Service, and then to second them to service overseas. That is how the French do it. I was talking just now to the Ambassador of one of the French African countries. He has not lost any technical personnel. Frenchmen are doing all this work, and they were doing it before the colony became independent. Why is that? It is because these technicians will go back to metropolitan France after they have finished their stint in that country because their careers are guaranteed. It is tragic that we have not done the same thing. It may be too late, but I hope the Government will look at the possibility of doing that now.

This exodus of technical experts threatens an economic collapse in East and Central Africa; and the other threat to economic collapse is, of course, falling revenue and increasing Government expenditure. I have Kenya and Nyasaland in mind. In Kenya the economy is running down owing to the flight of capital and the Joss of technical skill. We are paying at the (present time about £2 million a year towards the Kenya budget, and there is no reason to suppose that this deficit will not go on after independence. In fact, independence is extremely expensive, and one would expect the deficit to increase. In Nyasaland we are now meeting a budget deficit of about £1½ million. When Nyasaland becomes independent and leaves the Federation—and although the Government have said nothing about it, I cannot imagine that this is not what is at the back of their minds—Nyasaland will, of course, no longer get the money it has at the present time from federal taxes. So the deficit is bound to be greater.

I hope that in both these countries, and in other countries, if it should so happen that we get the same financial situation, we shall adopt the French practice of continuing to subsidise annual budgets after Independence. The alternative is bankruptcy, and possibly chaos. The idea of giving independence to a grant-aided colony would have made the hair of most of the senior officials in the Colonial Office turn white about ten years ago. But, my Lords, we must face the present and not the past, and we must adopt new financial policies to deal with the economic plight of these countries which are nearing independence or have just attained it.

In conclusion—and I am sorry I have wearied your Lordships for so long—I should like to say a few words about the Colonial Development Corporation. I have tried in the course of this afternoon to cover this enormous field of aid and development, and I could not really say that I had made even the best possible attempt if I had not said something about the Colonial Development Corporation. We have just had this Report for 1961, and I think it shows that it has made extremely good headway under its able new chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Howick of Glendale. But, again, this Corporation is greatly handicapped by Government policy. Government policy prevents it from making the best use of its opportunities for investment and development overseas.

Of course, the Colonial Development Corporation is very far from being an agency for administering financial aid; on the contrary, it has to operate like a commercial concern, and earn a profit with which it can pay its way. But the trouble is that the Government will not allow it the financial structure of any company operating overseas. It is expected to behave and to operate like a company, but it is not allowed the financial structure which enables ordinary British companies to operate successfully overseas. Surely any private company of which your Lordships can think in a colony, or indeed in an African or Asian country, would be able to write off its losses at the expense of its ordinary shareholders; but the C.D.C. is not allowed to write off its losses in this way. An ordinary company would be able to take risks with its equity capital; but the C.D.C. is not allowed any proportion of its capital as equity capital with which it can take risks when it chooses a new project. So this wretched Corporation has to go on carrying the financial burden of its past mistakes—and no corporation or company in this particularly difficult and hazardous field of marginal investment does not make mistakes—and it also cannot take the risks in its future operations that a marginal investor should be able to take. I think no one in this House would say that the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, is not a man with a great knowledge of sound business practice. And yet the Government have simply ignored some of the most important recommendations in the noble Lord's Report.

Even more alarming than this, my Lords, are the signs that the operations of the Colonial Development Corporation are beginning to run down because it is cut off from colonial territories as soon as they become independent. May I give your Lordships two examples of this? The number of new projects under consideration fell from 38 in 1960 to 26 in 1961. The amount of additional capital committed to new or existing projects fell from £13,300,000 in 1960 to £6,300,000—less than half—in 1961. More than two-thirds of the total capital commitment of the Corporation is locked up in Africa, but unless the Government change their policy the Corporation will be completely out off from Africa, apart, of course, from completing or continuing existing projects, and, of course, for the time being at any rate, apart from Kenya and the High Commission territories. But how can the Corporation be expected to pay its way, which was the responsibility placed upon it by Parliament, if it is cut off in this manner from its main field of investment? I hope the Government will not delay any longer the decision to allow the Corporation to start new projects in independent countries which need these projects just as much as any colony does.

It would follow, of course, from this decision that the name of the Corporation—and again we get back to the obnoxious odour of the word "colonial" in many parts of the world—should be changed (because otherwise I do not think it would be acceptable to these independent Governmemts), from "Colonial Development Corporation" to "Commonwealth Development Corporation". I have ventured to cover this very wide field, and to suggest various lines of policy which I hope, the Government will consider and which I hope even more may be adopted in the fairly near future. This is a matter of the utmost urgency, and the longer the delay in planning these new policies, the greater the loss to ourselves and to our friends and neighbours in the less-well-off parts of our Commonwealth. I beg to move for Papers.

4.20 p.m.

LORD CASEY

My Lords, we must all be most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for giving us an opportunity of discussing this vitally important matter. I only hope that the fact that relatively few noble Lords have put their names down on the list of speakers for to-day does not reflect a lack of interest in the subject, because I think it must be agreed that the importance of helping the underdeveloped countries to get on their feet economically and socially is beyond dispute. I know that several noble Lords who would have liked to speak on this Motion were stopped from doing so by other and inescapable pre-occupations.

The noble Earl started by referring to the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations to make the 'sixties the Development Decade. I think that to-day's discussion is particularly appropriate in point of time by reason of the fact that the Economic and Social Committee of the United Nations is now in session in Geneva discussing this Development Decade. I am sure that many of your Lordships are aware that the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations stated that their major project was to double the individual incomes and the national incomes of the underdeveloped countries in the course of the next 25 to 30 years. In the Development Decade, this arrives at an overall annual rate of growth of 5 per cent. I do not think that these objectives can be regarded as over-ambitious, by reason of the fact that the average personal income in the underdeveloped countries is between £20 and £30 sterling a year—and I suggest, nearer £20 than £30—against the background of an average income in the developed countries of something like £430 a year.

In pursuing the general subject of development and international aid, anyone who attempts to set down a list of priorities is immediately launching himself on to a sea of controversy, but I think that there would not be a great deal of discussion about the view, which I hold personally and which I think is held very widely, that one of the highest priorities is the training of individuals in the underdeveloped countries. That is a task which falls squarely on the shoulders of the Department of Technical Co-operation. From such contacts as I have made in this new Department and from what I have read, I venture to agree with the noble Earl that this young Department is tackling its task with vigour and a great promise of success.

The number of individuals from the underdeveloped countries, particularly from Asian Commonwealth countries, who are in training in this country every year, is a remarkably large total; and, of course, that is not the end of the story. Every other developed Commonwealth country is doing its best to help in directions consistent with its own resources, and the United States of America, as the noble Earl has reminded us, is also expending enormous sums in aid to the underdeveloped countries. Even my own country, relatively small and with by no means large resources at its disposal, has spent something like £35 million sterling on both economic and technical assistance under the Colombo Plan in not much more than ten years.

I have another figure in respect of Australia which might conceivably interest your Lordships. At the present time there are close on 10,000 Asian students under instruction at schools, universities, technical colleges and the like, the minority under the Colombo Plan, the great majority as private students. I think that 10,000 is a substantial number. The number has been growing ever since the end of the war, and the Colombo Plan, apart from the good it did, had the effect of bringing in its train a much larger number of private students who pay their own way and enable us to reach the substantial total of nearly 10,000 young Asians under training in Australia.

The activities of the Department of Technical Co-operation are very wide, as your Lordships will have seen from the Interim Report of their activities. I am not going to attempt to canvass them, except to throw out one suggestion which might be considered by the Government: that is, that while at present all this aid is done on a bi-lateral basis, this could be broadened out with advantage into Commonwealth aid, not on an individual country basis but on a regional basis. The aspects of training which I think might lend themselves to this form of Commonwealth approach and regional approach are general education, medical education and agricultural training. I believe that there is room for a broader approach than the bi-lateral one under which the developed Commonwealth countries are now implementing their plans for educational aid to the under-developed countries.

I would mention a matter which the noble Earl did not speak of when he introduced his Motion, which is not directly concerned with the phraseology of his Motion but which I think is of first-class importance to the underdeveloped countries and about which, as this Motion is particularly directed towards benefiting the underdeveloped countries and expanding their development, I think I may be justified in saying a few words. I refer to the necessity for international commodity price agreements. I believe that this must have a high place in any efforts to aid the underdeveloped countries. These countries rely largely on the export of primary products and raw materials to earn the foreign exchange with which to finance their purchases of manufactured goods. The simple fact is that ever since soon after the end of the last World War the terms of trade of the underdeveloped countries have consistently gone against them and in favour of the developed countries. My own country, which from a certain point of view can be regarded as an underdeveloped country, has suffered from this. The terms of trade have gone against Australia to the extent of 34 per cent. in the last 10 or 15 years. This simply means that a country in that situation has to export considerably more all the time in order to be able to finance the importation of less goods from other countries.

I am well aware that this is no new subject. For myself, I have brought it forward at every international conference in the course of the 'fifties at which it was relevant, in an effort to try to rectify the past adverse terms of trade under which the primary producing and raw material exporting countries have suffered. But it never gets off the ground, largely for the reason that in the past the United States and, I think I am right in saying, the United Kingdom and other developed countries have shown a notable coolness to this question of the pursuit and extension of international commodity price agreements. There has, however, in the last few weeks been a notable change on the part of the United States; and what the United States have to say on a subject of this sort, by reason of their great resources and position in the world, economically and otherwise, is of great importance. Only in the last week or two Mr. Adlai Stevenson, the American representative to the United Nations, has gone on record as saying officially on behalf of the American Government that the United States will be willing to co-operate with Governments of goodwill in searching for solutions to commodity price problems; and he recommended that this matter should be approached on a pragmatic basis of individual consideration, commodity by commodity. That, to me, gives a great deal of hope: because if the attitude of the United States has, as I believe it has, dramatically altered in recent times, then the way is open for a practical discussion of these matters.

International commodity price agreements are not completely new things. There have been in recent years real attempts to hammer out international commodity price agreements in respect of a number of commodities. Those that come readily to my mind are coffee, cocoa, tin and rubber. There is, of course, a great additional field to be covered, particularly, I think, in respect of cereals (including perhaps most prominently wheat) meat and many other commodities. I believe that this general subject of international commodity price agreements lends itself to international co-operative action by the liberalisation of import policies of the developed countries, on the one hand, and measures of restraint by the exporting underdeveloped countries on the other.

I am conscious of the difficulties and problems in the way before successful schemes of international commodity price agreements can be arrived at. The obvious difficulty that has always been quoted in the past is that if agreement were to be reached on the price of a particular commodity which was higher than to-day's international price this would stimulate the production of that product in the country concerned, which would indeed be an embarrassment by reason of the large unabsorbed stocks of that commodity in the world. That points to the fact that the countries seeking to benefit must themselves undertake to exercise reasonable restraint to prevent overproduction of products that are the subject of international commodity price agreements. That is the point that I wish to put before your Lordships for consideration. I believe that, with the swing in governmental opinion in the United States, the time is ripe for this subject to be made a much more practical one than it has been in the past, when the United States and, I believe, the United Kingdom were antagonistic to it.

On another aspect of aid—that is, the general subject of economic, financial and technical aid—as I understand it, the United Kingdom Government believe themselves to be obliged to place a ceiling on the total of economic and technical aid. I do not quarrel with that, because, as the noble Earl who introduced this Motion said, account has to be taken of the question of the balance of payments of the United Kingdom. I think this country cannot risk having any further menace to its balance of payments by reason of increased aid to the underdeveloped countries, or for any other reason. If I have a suggestion to make on this matter, it is this. Of the two forms of aid, on the one side economic and financial, that is not administered by the Department of Technical Co-operation, and on the other, technical aid, from my experience of this matter in the past on behalf of Australia I think that technical aid brings quicker and better results in the relatively longer run—it is not very long—than grant aid or loans. If there were to be any reconsideration of grant aid and loans, on the one hand, and technical aid, on the other, my instinct would be to increase technical aid, even at the expense of a certain amount of grant aid and loans.

The noble Earl who introduced the Motion, for reasons that are obvious laid the accent on What the said on Africa. While not for one moment quarrelling with that, I would remind your Lordships that the Commonwealth countries in Asia represent in point of numbers something like 84 per cent. of the total population of the Commonwealth, and that the present Colonies and independent countries of Africa represent a very much smaller percentage. I would remind your Lordships of another figure that is always in the front of my mind: namely, that the papulation of India, at present approaching close to 450 million, is appreciably greater than the total population of Africa together with the total population of all the Latin American States. I think that highlights the importance of India in the scheme of things in the Commonwealth. That is what leads me to venture to remind your Lordships that, while Africa is of high importance, we should not forget the Asian countries, which, as I say, in point of numbers are vastly more important than the African countries.

I should like to mention one other matter that I think is relevant to this discussion, and that is the Freedom from Hunger Campaign that is now being conducted in the United Kingdom, with the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in charge. They are in the course of collecting what I expect to amount to £3 million, £4 million or £5 million, or maybe more. A great deal of this money is collected in the areas of local government bodies in this country and by non-governmental societies and associations, who are adopting, as I understand it, the project of financing agricultural institutes in underdeveloped countries and maintaining them for a number of years until they are appropriate to be taken over by the Government of the country concerned, either a Colony or one of the newly independent countries. I believe that there are likely to be something over twenty of these agricultural institutes, and this is generally recognised to be a highly practical form of aid. The agricultural institute project generally will be greatly advanced by the activities of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign as conducted in the United Kingdom.

I apologise for having spoken art such length, but I have nothing more of consequence to say that has not already been said by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I would only repeat that I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Earl for giving us the opportunity to discuss this highly important question.

4.39 p.m.

LORD TWINING

My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for giving us the opportunity to debate this subject to-day. It is one the importance of which can hardly be exaggerated if stable conditions are to be established in a large part of the world during the next few years. The Motion deals particularly with the aid which could be given to underdeveloped countries of the Commonwealth, with special emphasis on the needs of East and Central Africa. If to-day we are dealing only with countries within the Commonwealth, it must be said that this is really a world problem, and that our aim must be to bring about a general improvement in economic conditions throughout the world.

Excluding Red China, with its 650 million people, there are more than 100 countries, with a population of 1,250 million people, which can be described as underdeveloped, and about a quarter of these, with some 600 million people, are within the Commonwealth. Many of these countries are desperately poor, and while the main impetus for economic growth and social betterment must come from within these countries themselves, the fact is that most of them are lacking in capital and technical resources of their own and must turn to those countries which are better off for aid.

The crux of the problem is to ensure that economic growth can be maintained at a more rapid rate than the increase in population. In some countries—India, for instance—this is very difficult to achieve, because of the very high birth rate. In East Africa, the rate of increase in population is about 1.75 per cent. per annum, and in recent years the growth of the gross domestic product has been about 5 per cent. per annum. This indicates that there has been a very real gain in per capita income, but the average African income is deplorably low. In Tanganyika, for instance, it is only something like £6 a head a year. It is clear that efforts will not only have to be sustained to hold this improvement, but must be stepped up if any substantial betterment of the standards of living is to be achieved.

I should like to make a few remarks about -the usual pattern of development, because we must keep our feet on the ground. The first necessity is to appraise the requirements and potentialities by a thorough economic survey. In East Africa, such surveys have been undertaken in Tanganyika and Uganda by the World Bank, and have resulted in admirable and authoritative reports which are being used as the basis for development programmes. I feel that it is regrettable that such a survey has not been done in Kenya. Once a general programme for the next period of, say, five years has been drawn up, it is necessary for the major projects to be the subject of thorough and detailed investigation. These are not always popular locally, as they cost a great deal of money, take time, and sometimes show that cherished ideas are impracticable. Moreover, few Governments are equipped with the means to undertake such investigations. Sometimes assistance can be obtained from the Special Agencies of the United Nations; but failing this it is usually necessary to employ a firm Which specialises in this sort of work and has available the necessary experts and technical equipment. But these investigations are very important, and if schemes are to be financed by grants of aid from other Governments they should be insisted upon.

The next step is to select priorities. The ideal is to deploy available resources to the best advantage. But local political leaders are usually in a hurry to produce spectacular results, and tend to back their own hobby-horses. There is also the temptation to embark upon large and costly projects for the sake of national prestige. This often leads to the creation of white elephants, which become a financial embarrassment to maintain. I may say from my own practical experience of Africa that that continent is littered with the follies of the past. If we wish to ensure that the aid we give will be well spent, we must steer a delicate course that will avoid the irritation caused by attaching tire-same conditions, yet will reduce the risk of the money being wasted. It is generally accepted that priority must be given to infrastructure projects. These include the improvement of communications, the provision of prime movers, the development of water supplies and the establishment of educational, medical and other social institutions.

To match this development, the public service must be strengthened, in numbers and quality. This is a field in which the Department of Technical Cooperation can play a big part. Infrastructure projects are in their very nature long-term, and are unlikely to produce rapid economic results. They require a great deal of finance, and although local Governments can sometimes make contributions from their own resources, or from such loans as they are able to raise, they will be largely dependant on grants, either from international organisations or from those Governments which are willing to give aid. Only a few of these projects can be undertaken by local departmental resources, which means the employment of outside contractors. Fortunately, there are a number of reputable firms available and capable of doing the work to high standards.

If it is necessary to give priority to infrastructure projects, it is equally important that schemes of economic development which will bring quick results should be launched. To a large extent these must depend on the local population. If enthusiasm can be aroused and sustained, if modern methods can be introduced, and if sufficient funds can be made available, worthwhile results can be attained in a relatively short time. But, over and above this, there are also other economic projects which require the investment of risk capital and the requisite know-how to ensure that they are operated efficiently.

Sometimes industrialists can be persuaded to come in on their own, and often they are offered favourable inducements to do so. But there are many cases in which they are prepared to enter the field only in partnership either with Governments or with some organisation such as the Colonial Development Corporation. I have watched the work of the Corporation in many countries since its inception, and have seen it suffering from the inevitable growing pains, until it has reached its present satisfactory position when it is making a profit. There can be no doubt that the Corporation has done much very good work which could not have been undertaken by any other means. It would be the greatest pity if it were not permitted to continue to invest in former colonial territories which have gained their independence. The Corporation's Annual Report for 1961 indicates that this matter is under consideration, and as the matter is urgent it is to be hoped that a favourable decision will not be long delayed.

If we take stock of the various means by which we are offering aid, we find that it includes financial grants and loans. Only last Thursday your Lordships' House gave a Second Reading to the Colonial Loans Bill, which raises the limit of the aggregate amount of loans to be guaranteed by the Treasury from £100 million to £150 million. Then there is the investment by the C.D.C., to which I have already made reference, and assistance from the Department of Technical Co-operation, particularly in respect of the provision of staff. In addition, there is the investment of private capital, as well as the assistance given by foundations, trusts, and religious and other bodies.

The future policy of the Department of Technical Co-operation has been described in Command Paper No. 1740, entitled Recruitment for Service Overseas, which was recently laid before Parliament. I am bound to say that this policy causes some disappointment. It seems that an opportunity has been missed in not creating an Overseas Service recruited from the professional and technical officers of Her Majesty's Oversea Service whose careers have been cut short by the granting of independence to the Colonies in which they were serving. Many of these men are well qualified; they are very experienced, and are devoted to their work. It is sometimes argued that they would be unacceptable to former colonial Governments, but from the conversations that I have had with African politicians I do not believe that this is generally true. The majority would be acceptable, so long as their employment would not slow down the process of Africanisation. Most of these African territories are likely to be in desperate need of technical staff at all levels, and it will be many years before they will be able to satisfy their requirements with their own qualified people.

If it is true that these men are unacceptable because of their former colonial service and outlook, the same might be said of many of the staff of the Department of Technical Co-operation who have been transferred from the Colonial Office, including most of the professional advisers who have played an important rôle in the formulation of Colonial policy. I hope that it is not too late for this question to be reconsidered.

A question which also requires consideration is whether we are right in giving our aid direct to our former colonial territories or whether it would not be better for us to make our contribution to one of the international agencies. The problem of underdeveloped countries is a world-wide one and immense in its scope. It is quite beyond the capacity for any one country to meet all the needs, and it is desirable that the best use should be made of the limited resources available. It is natural that we should want to give direct aid to our friends, especially those with whom we have ties through membership of the Commonwealth. In the same way, other countries like to give their aid to those territories with whom they have much in common, be it geographical, strategical or political. I do not think we need attach too much importance to the idea that is sometimes mooted; that direct aid from one country to another has some sinister neo-colonial significance. This is a criticism to which African political leaders are vulnerable, but if we offer aid in the right manner the criticism may be disregarded as being irrelevant. In my view there are some activities which would best be coordinated by international bodies: medical requirements, research, meteorology are all matters which could with advantage be so organised, and doubtless there are others; and this should be kept to the fore in our future thinking.

Finally, my Lords, I should like to say that in granting assistance to less favoured countries we have a record of which we can be proud. We have given as generously as we can, and it adds up to an impressive total. We must not relax in our efforts, and when we are in a position to increase our contribution I sincerely hope that we shall do so.

4.53 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

My Lords, I hope that it will not be taken amiss if I say at the outset that I am highly disappointed in this debate. I do not, of course, mean in any way because of the quality of the contributions that we have had or the fact that it has taken place. After all, when there take part in a debate not only former colonial Governors, Governors-General, Commonwealth Ambassadors and Ministers, and Ministers in our own Government, that is a formidable galaxy of talent. But it is unfortunate that all those posts and positions are compressed into three persons.

What is, furthermore, most disturbing to me (and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, will not take this amiss) is that, high though our regard for him is, and mine personally, I feel that a debate on a subject of this importance ought to have a Cabinet Minister to answer it as an indication of the importance which the Government attach to this subject. Had the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, been in the Cabinet, as I am quite sure he should be, we should be extremely happy. But the fact that he is not is no fault of ours, and it only serves to underline the fears which many of us expressed a year ago when the Department of Technical Co-operation was set up: that this is not something which the present Government regard with the urgency and importance that they should, but something that is looked on simply as a minor sub-division of an existing Department of State to which no very great atten- tion need be paid. I hope that, as a result of this debate, there may be some eventual change in the attitude if not of the present Government, at least of the country, towards this highly important subject.

First of all I should like to deal briefly (my noble friend Lord Listowel has already covered this point very adequately) with the need for people in the developing countries. People must come first. No matter how much money or how much material aid is given, unless the people are there to see that that money and material are properly used the whole operation will be wasted; and I would suggest that it would be a mistake to regard the supply of people as solely the supply of technicians. Administrators also are needed; and administrators are available. The unfortunate part of it is that many able and experienced administrators have now left the Colonial Service under relatively generous terms and are no longer available, not for working in the countries of which they already have experience—I realise that there may be difficulties there—but for working in other and similar countries. And, in spite of the views which I know have been put forward, officially and semi-officially, as to the difficulty of arranging this, I am still unconvinced that it is not possible to set up some form of Commonwealth Service whereby former servants of the Colonial Office may be made available to the newly independent countries; not simply sent to those countries and paid for by those countries, but sent as part of our own Commonwealth Service, complete with the security attaching to that; and, above all, with the pensions attaching to that type of service.

Besides administrators, there is need for a great many technicians of one kind and another—agriculturists, veterinary surgeons, medical specialists, and the rest of it. There is no doubt that at the present time such people are available, but they are disappearing and moving out of circulation into other jobs. I was told only the other day of an instance of a man in Bast Africa with a very wide experience in helminthology, a subject of which there is very great need for study in all the underdeveloped and developing countries, and in which there is a very great shortage of people having the qualifications of this man. He lost his job out there, and he came back to England. But the institute which wished to employ him in that subject—possibly to do research of value to the whole world, possibly pending his finding a job somewhere else in the same subject, in which he is an expert—was unable, because of a shortage of funds, to employ him. And that man has now gone to take up a job as a general medical practitioner in Scotland. He is a good general practitioner, but because of the inaction of the Government, he is unable any longer to use that special knowledge of which there is such need, though he is one of the few people having it.

While we are still on the subject of manpower, of people, there is one other suggestion that I should like to put forward for the consideration of the Government. I suggest that there should be instituted for Commonwealth students who are in this country what I believe are known as sandwich courses so that they can obtain practical experience during their vacations, in between their actual academic learning, of the problems of factories, of production, of the technical side of engineering, or whatever it may be, so that when they go back to their own countries they will have not only the academic qualification of a degree but also a substantial amount of practical experience in the actual constructional work, or whatever it may be, which they will practise or supervise in their own countries.

In addition to people, there is, of course, need of money; and that money can come from, in broad terms, two sources. It can come either from Government or it can come from private investment. I think we are rather inclined to neglect the amount of money which could, given the proper conditions, come from private investment to be invested in these overseas territories. Much has gone there already, but there are many people, many firms, many businesses, which are discouraged from such investment by risks which are not the normal business risks but risks of a purely political kind. They fear expropriation; they fear change of Government; they fear things of which, as businessmen, they have little knowledge and over which they can have no control. It should be possible—other countries have found it possible—to work out some form of insurance against such political risks.

Japan has already done it; Germany has already done it in a somewhat different form; the United States has already done it. A method by which it can be done has been explained by Mr. Michael Brandon in a pamphlet published in Geneva, in which he outlines the activities of a body called the International Association for the Promotion and Protection of Private Foreign Investment. In his words this Association was set up in Geneva in December, 1958, as a non-political, non-profit-making organisation with the aim of co-ordinating non-governmental efforts in this field and of promoting solutions safeguarding the interests of both investors and developing countries. It is significant that Mr. Black, President of the World Bank, publicly called for the creation of such a body. I very much hope that an approach of this kind will not be neglected, and that Her Majesty's Government will do what they can to encourage private investors, as well as Government funds, to go to these countries where they are so much needed.

When we come to the question of Government money, once again I will not weary your Lordships by repeating what has been said by other noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Twining, said that we had a record of which we could be proud in this respect. But it is a record which does not compare very favourably with that of some other countries, not only the United States but also France, who in recent years have spent a great deal more money, have invested far more money in overseas territories than we have. That is something which we should think on seriously; we should not sit back happily, thinking we have done all we possibly could.

But the main point I wish to bring to your Lordships' attention this afternoon, underlining what the noble Lord, Lord Casey, has already so rightly said, concerns the question of commodity prices, because I believe that that is the crux of this whole problem of the speedy development of underdeveloped areas. If I may, I should like to remind you of some words of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in a debate in your Lordships' House on March 28 this year on the International Situation. The noble Earl then mentioned a piece of information with which the Board of Trade had supplied him, for the purpose of an address he gave, and he went on to say OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 238 (No. 57) col. 1059] that this information was that if the price of primary products were to fall by only 5 per cent. that fall would entirely wipe out the whole aid to underdeveloped countries which is now being given year by year by the United States, Britain, France and Germany, amounting to thousands of millions of pounds a year. I asked then if I could be informed by how much primary product prices had fallen since 1954, and the answer was not 5 per cent. but 10 per cent. So your Lordships see that since 1954 the economic loss which these underdeveloped countries have suffered simply by this fall in the price of primary products is twice as much as all the economic aid they are now getting from richer countries. My Lords, that statement is, I think, of sufficient importance, and presents such a terrifying picture, that it is worth devoting rather more time to it. There is a whole bevy of facts and figures which could be presented, and it has been a great temptation to me in looking for them to put forward too many to your Lordships and to weary you unduly. But I will try to give you a sufficient cross-section to show that it is not only one particular line of thinking which has come to this conclusion, but that it is somethiing of which all bodies of responsible opinion dealing with this matter, and with finance and trade in general, are becoming increasingly aware.

The National Institute Economic Review for May, 1962, has a chart showing commodity price changes between the four years, 1948–52, average and the two years, 1958–60, average. There you will see that the prices of the thirteen commodities they take have dropped overall by 7 per cent. in that period; and that is in spite of the fact that three of them have risen considerably. Meat rose 43 per cent. tea 16 and tobacco 12 per cent., whereas fruit, cocoa, dairy products, vegetable oils, sugar, coffee, wheat and cereals have dropped by amounts varying from 4 to 31 per cent. in that period of time.

The United Nations Development Decade: Proposals for Action, a pamphlet issued by the United Nations, put the matter in a somewhat different way. It says: For example, the value of trade in individual commodities has been subject to year-to-year fluctuations which have averaged about 12 per cent Since developing countries are heavily dependent on exports of individual commodities, this high degree of instability often has severe economic repercussions. The resulting losses of foreign exchange may require the curtailment of imports, and thus seriously disrupt development plans … ". And, of course, at the same time as that is happening it is disrupting the production plans and export drive of more highly developed countries. Only recently, on June 25 The Times finance column had a headline "Commodity Prices nearing 12-Year Low Point". The writer of the column said: The contrast of rising aid to the underdeveloped countries and falling or, at best, stable commodity prices is at last causing some concern in the West. The absence of any recovery in commodity prices during the boom periods in Europe and North America has convinced many people that something now needs to be done about it. I hope that it is also convincing Her Majesty's Government that something now needs to be done about it.

From the Observer of July 8 I quote these words:

The underdeveloped countries have run into other difficulties of a more narrowly economic kind. The food and raw materials which form their principal exports have been falling in price for over ten years, while their manufactured imports have become more expensive. Their losses on the terms of trade have more than outweighed all the foreign aid they have been given in this period. … British exports never do well when the prices of primary products are depressed. There again, we are beginning to come a little closer home. This is not simply something which affects people living many thousands of miles away. We are beginning to see something that affects our own people, our own economic development, our own level of employment and standard of living. Finally, from a French paper, Les Echos, which I received only this morning, and which mentions the same subject, I take this extract: The problem is a political one; it is a question of knowing whether the countries which produce suger, cocoa, coffee, rubber, lead, zinc, are going to continue to feel that they are only the poor relations to whom alms should be given, or whether they are going to be able to find in the dignity of work a growing production, a remunerative price and the hope of arriving at last at an appropriate standard of living. Anything else is only hypocrisy. My Lords, we must accept that evidence from so many different sources We simply cannot turn our backs on this and say, "We have given them some alms. We have given them all the aid of which we are capable." We have not done all that we can. As the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, pointed out, we have in fact given away half what we have gained by lower prices in the last six or seven years. You may say, "Why should we do any more about this? What are the reasons for it? "Some of your Lordships may have read the series of articles in The Times recently by Mr. William Clark, the Director of the Overseas Institute, pointing out these problems in an admirable manner, and taken up by letters from people who have said, "Why? Can we afford it? What is the obligation on us to do it?" and the rest of it. There are so many reasons why we must do it; but again, I do not think I can do better than quote to your Lordships the Chairman of the Booker Group, Sir Jock Campbell, whose address is reported in The Times of June 12. He states in his address: I am worried by a growing impression of disenchantment in Britain towards the emergent countries. … Apart from all else, this is wretchedly short-sighted. In 1845 Disraeli wrote … that there were Two Nations in England—the Rich and the Poor. The great modern problem is the gap between the Rich and Poor nations. When Disraeli was writing, and for long after, the general attitude of the rich was that the poor were feckless, incompetent and irresponsible; it was throwing good money after bad to help them, and dangerous to educate them. But the whole British economy has been stimulated to the benefit of all by raising everybody's standards of living and education. I am convinced that broad and lasting prosperity can only flow from narrowing the gap between rich and poor countries. But, in fact, the gap is still widening. I wish that even some part of the resources of minds and money that are now devoted to means of destroying mankind could be devoted to solving this problem. He goes on to say: The British Government should do far more than they are doing at present—especially for the new nations who show that they are ready to make sacrifices to help themselves. Then, speaking from his own personal experience, he gives an example: Taking British Guiana alone, total aid, including Exchequer loans, is running at the rate of about £3 million a year. Yet in 1961 the British Exchequer collected over £8 million in duty on rum from British Guiana ! This, incidentally, is in sharp distinction to the case of Puerto Rico, where, despite sugar purchasing arrangements more favourable than the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, the whole of the United States excise duty on Puerto Rican rum is returned to the Puerto Rican Government". So do not lot us say that we are doing all that we can. We have examples from different parts of the world, from different sections of the community, which make it absolutely clear that more could be done.

But, in addition to the moral arguments as to why we should give more help, there are severely practical arguments also. There is, on the one side, the threat of Communism which will undoubtedly step in if Western democracy and the Western form of capitalism is shown to fail when it meets this challenge of the developing areas; and there is what is possibly even more serious: the very real threat of a world slump. If you take the trouble to look at the movement in agricultural prices and commodity prices in the years preceding the last great slump of 1929–30 and that of the present time it is significant to see what a disturbing similarity there is in many of these figures. If you take, for instance, the ratio of the prices of food and raw textile fibres in this country to manufactured goods, you will see that from 1924 to 1931 that ratio fell to the detriment of food and fibres by 18 per cent. From 1954 to 1961 it has fallen by 24 per cent., and only a few months ago did the actual indexes of commodity prices and manufactured goods prices cross, just as they did in 1928, a year before the great slump hit us. It stands to reason that as primary product prices fall, so is the purchasing power of these countries diminished; therefore, so is the market for our own manufactured goods diminished. I hope that we shall learn from the lessons of those years.

While I am not saying that that was the sole cause of the 1929 slump, it certainly was one of the most important factors leading to it. To-day it is something over which we have the power of control if we wish to use it. The answer lies, as the noble Lord, Lord Casey, has said, in the control of commodity prices. How it should be done is far too complex a matter to go into now. My own preference is for long-term contracts which, after all, the Labour Government so successfully put into operation from 1945 onwards, to the great benefit of the countries who made the contracts and of ourselves. It can be done in that way. But how it should be done I will not on this occasion attempt to show in any detail. But what I would suggest to your Lordships, with the greatest possible urgency, is that no time should be lost in tackling this problem.

It was about Christmas time, I think, that the United Nations called upon the Secretary-General to consult the Governments of States, members of United Nations, to ascertain their views on the advisability of holding an international conference on international trade problems relating especially to primary commodity markets. I hope that we shall support them in doing that and urge them on. But while waiting for that, let us ourselves set up a Royal Commission, a Working Party, a Governmental or Departmental Committee, some body which has the knowledge to go into these highly complex but highly important problems, and which has the authority to speak, and to recommend in such a way that the Government will be bound to listen to what they have to say. Let us not simply shelve the whole matter, so that in two or three years we see the whole thing getting worse and worse before our eyes, until eventually it not only causes the complete dislocation of all our plans for developing the underdeveloped areas, but in fact dislocates our own plans for our own economy in this country. I beg of the Government to look upon this problem not simply as a peaceful way of passing an afternoon in your Lordships' Chamber, but as something Which, second to disarmament, is the most vital problem which faces us at the present time.

5.19 p.m.

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, there is no doubt that we are greatly in the debt of the noble Earl who has brought forward this Motion this afternoon and of all those who have spoken, who have recognised the overwhelming importance of this subject, which I cannot deny. But in spite of the express disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the surprise, perhaps, of the noble Lord, Lord Casey, that there were so few speakers in this debate and such a small attendance to listen to it I hope it will not be thought that it will be any the less important, or that it will not be taken note of by the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, or indeed by the Cabinet. I am sure that what has been said to-day will be most carefully studied, because there have been many helpful suggestions, as well as criticisms, which I think will have their influence in the right quarters.

At the outset of my speech I have some apologies to make on behalf of several of my noble friends who would be sitting behind me on this occasion. It is an unfortunate accident that both noble Lords, Lord Milverton and Lord Tweedsmuir, have gone abroad, and my noble friends Lord Boyd of Merton and Lord Colyton are both engaged in business activities, otherwise all four would have been speaking this afternoon. As for the extra disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Walston, that he had not a Cabinet Minister to reply, of course, that goes back to the original criticism when the new Department of Technical Cooperation was set up, and I can only report his remarks to my right honourable friend—which I think would be rather safer and more agreeable than to suggest that I, myself, should become a member of the Cabinet.

Her Majesty's Government fully recognise the need of the underdeveloped countries for increasing financial and technical aid. But, as the noble Earl himself said and as the noble Lord, Lord Casey recognised, the limits at the moment are set by economic policy, and the noble Earl asked me if I could give one or two figures. In fact, Government investments by grant and loan in the Commonwealth and Colonial territories in 1961–62 were £141 million, to which must be added the other sums given to foreign countries. The overall investment overseas, including private finance, is now over £300 million, which, I am informed, represents 1⅓ per cent. of our national income, so it is already above the level given as the minimum by the United Nations when it approved a motion—

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I may be wrong about this—other noble Lords may have the document which I have not with me at the moment—but I think that the United Nations' resolution referred to "aid" and not "private investment". That is what the figure I dealt with was related to.

LORD HASTINGS

I am glad that the noble Earl has cleared that point up. These are the only figures I can give him for the moment, and that is the situation. Of course, as the noble Earl has said, the money must come from somewhere. He and others are against cutting down the social services at home; and, naturally, we do not want increased taxation. Therefore it will have to come out of increased productivity and the increased national wealth arising therefrom. Going beyond that, I would say that of course this has been recognised in all quarters of the House as a massive international problem—a problem which does not relate only to the Commonwealth and Colonies. The noble Lord, Lord Twining, mentioned the Asian countries outside the Commonwealth, and the United Nations is doing a great deal about this problem. We are also grateful to the Agency for International Development, as I think it is called, of the United States, to which the noble Earl referred, and for the cooperation of the United States, in some cases directly with ourselves. When it comes to co-operation, as one noble Lord mentioned: not only is any cooperation we can get from Western Europe to be welcomed, but, especially if we should go into the Common Market, it is one of the things which should have careful consideration, as no doubt the possibility of Western Europe coming into a general scheme of aid would assist considerably in solving the problem.

I think it was the noble Earl who suggested that some of those countries should help us, as and when necessary, with the balance-of-payments problem. Of course, we are now getting into the world of international finance and international agreements, which I cannot dwell upon this afternoon. But, before leaving that, I think I would mention the very useful and interesting suggestion that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Casey, when he said he thought the Commonwealth and regional approaches might be rather better than bilateral approaches. Of course, an example of the regional approach is the Colombo Plan, and possibly something could be devised, as one sees signs of this being thought about in other parts of the world. Commonwealth co-operation already occurs in the field of education. as I hope I shall have time to show your Lordships a little later on. I think it is quite possible to apply this in other fields, such as those mentioned by Lord Casey. However, I am sure it will have the careful attention of those who have to arrange these things.

Then a great deal was said about the need for international commodity price agreements. The noble Lord, Lord Casey, had a good deal to say on that subject, and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said quite openly that it was the main part of his speech. That again is of immense importance; there is no question about it. It must be dealt with by all Governments combined, and there is no doubt that much of the aid which we and other countries have given overseas has been negatived to a certain extent by falling commodity prices. It is a subject that must be tackled, and I can tell those two noble Lords only that their remarks will be read, and I am sure that the Government, at the highest level, are well aware of the problem and will proceed to tackle it forthwith.

My Lords, if I may now turn to the question of technical aid, that is the Department I represent, and it forms an important part of the noble Earl's Motion. Out of that £141 million spent by Her Majesty's Government in our Commonwealth and Colonies overseas, £28 million is attributable—or will be in the coming year—to the budget of the Department of Technical Co-operation. The noble Earl referred to a White Paper, Cmnd. 1698. I would just apologise to him for making a muddle of it when he was speaking, but there is a later White Paper, Cmnd. 1740, Recruitment for Service Overseas, and I prefer to take the two together because they are very much complementary. If those Papers are read carefully, the figures I give can be taken out of them.

I thought it might be helpful if I were to give a very quick summary of them. Of that £28 million, the majority is spent on the Overseas Service Aid Scheme, which amounts to £14½ million. The Colonial Development and Welfare grants from central funds, for research, higher and technical education, et cetera, will cost £4½ million. Then there is the Colombo Plan, £1½ million; the Special Commonwealth African Assistance Plan, £1¼ million, for the independent members of the Commonwealth. Then the Educational Co-operation in the Commonwealth amounts to £1 million; the United Nations Programme, over £3 million; and various smaller amounts relating to CENTO, SEATO, FAMA and the Middle East Development Division.

Again, if I may dwell very briefly on figures—and this also was mentioned by the noble Earl, I think—there is the question of aid to East Africa. As regards the amounts of aid to East Africa, both financial and technical—and this in particular is of course of interest where countries are becoming independent, such as Uganda; and also Tanganyika, which has already done so—special arrangements are entered into for finance, as the noble Earl knows very well. Among these arrangements are grants in lieu of the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, which would have been received had they not become independent, grants for additional development, Commonwealth assistance loans, interest-free loans for compensation in respect of the Overseas Civil Service officers, and then loans on ordinary terms for commutation of pensions. Without going into the detail of every country, it may interest noble Lords to know that, in the case of Tanganyika, that overall amount came to the sum of £22 million; in the case of Uganda to £14½ million.

Kenya is somewhat different. There, £17½ million has been agreed to be provided by grant and loan, towards a three-year development plan for Kenya—that is, £17½ million out of a total of £26½ million—and £7½ million out of a total of £13½ million for the land settlement schemes. There will be in addition, of course, the participation of the Colonial Development Corporation and the International Bank. In that respect, the Colonial Secretary's statement of July 10 is interesting, confirming the readiness of Her Majesty's Government to finance an extension of that Land Settlement Scheme, to include one million acres over a period of five years. At the moment only 350,000 acres are included.

Of course, Kenya is a special problem, and in addition to this money Her Majesty's Government have had to provide £7½ million in grants for recurrent expenditure in the last year ending June, 1962. The estimate for Kenya for the present year will be £6½ million, which of course includes some special funds for famine relief which will not, we hope, occur again. But there is a very considerable outgoing of funds to Kenya in various respects, and it is of course, as I said, a special problem. The economic side of Kenya, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Twining, will agree, is very largely a matter of confidence and political stability, and we are not likely to get that right until that situation is put right.

There was one point which the noble Lord, Lord Twining, specially mentioned to which I should like to refer. That was the matter of an economic survey, for he said that these excellent economic surveys have been carried out for Tanganyika and Uganda by the World Bank. But I think, perhaps, he has forgotten—although it may not be entirely the same thing he has in mind—that there was an International Bank Mission which visited Kenya towards the end of last year, and its report is expected some time this summer. In addition to that, as a result of the Kenya Constitutional Conference of last April, the Economic Commission was set up, which is already at work in Kenya examining the whole issue of public expenditure and the size of public service establishments. After that it is hoped to follow that up with a Fiscal Commission, whose duty will be to examine means of developing new sources of revenue. So I hope the noble Lord will agree that the economic side of Kenya is not being neglected.

The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made a point which I think I might conveniently mention here, saying that grant aid should be continued after independence, to those countries who before independence had been in need of it; he was thinking particularly, I believe, of Kenya and Nyasaland. That is a subject on which I really do not think I can make any comment. I will draw special attention to that remark of the noble Earl's, and if there is new thinking going on, which the noble Earl hopes and thinks there must be, perhaps that is one of the points which will receive some thought. Overall for Africa, the Overseas Service Aid Scheme cost nearly £10 million in the last financial year, and it covers nearly 13,000 officers, of whom 10,542 serve in East Africa. That gives some pen picture of the situation in those countries in which the noble Earl is particularly interested.

To turn to a consideration of the White Papers, noble Lords will have noticed that the recruitment figures have been falling quite steeply. But by far the largest cause of that is the fact that separate recruiting organisations were set up by Ghana, Nigeria and Malaya after they became independent. That is a very big reason for the fall. To some extent, of course, the political effects of independence must be held responsible, but also—and I think the noble Earl recogised this in his speech—there is a marked change in the requirements of the independent countries, mainly from the career, pensionable officer in favour of the short-term contract officer with specialist qualifications. I shall have more to say about that in due course.

On the other side of the coin, of course, is the all-important question of training. I should like to examine for a few moments what is being done about two matters, recruitment on the one hand and training on the other—not over the whole field, which would be impossible, but over what is, perhaps, becoming the most important technical aid of all, and that is in the field of education where the demand is greatest. The Overseas Service Aid Scheme supplies mainly secondary and teacher-training colleges in the dependent territories with their teachers; and, of course, in Tanganyika as well, which signed an O.S.A.S. agreement. The figure, we think, is likely to go up in the future and a vigorous drive in education is now being made. Noble Lords will please remember that the British Council and the Church Schools also do their recruiting separately.

The National Council for the Supply of Teachers Overseas, which, of course, was set up two years ago by the Minister of Education, under Sir Charles Arden-Clarke, has recently not only succeeded in stimulating interest in the possibility of teachers serving overseas, for which it was set up, hut, in addition, now made a definite agreement with the local education authorities for secondment of teachers. Their general service contracts have been agreed with them and drawn up for them to serve overseas, which provides not only for the maintenance of their pension rights, hut for re-employment on their return, together with a system of terminal grants, which they will receive from the countries for which they work when they finish their contract, and—this I think is very important—an interview fund, so that if vacancies occur at home for which they apply, they can come back for interview and have their passages paid to this country and for the return to where they are serving. So there will he no disadvantage from that point of view, by their finding themselves overseas when it comes to being considered for fresh appointments.

In respect of universities, the Inter-University Council for Higher Education Overseas filled over 200 vacancies in 1961. Of course, these are mostly long-term appointments, and the Department of Technical Co-operation has found that there is also need for short-term contracts, for universities who are expanding all the time and for the many projected universities, as, invariably, the first thing wanted by independent countries who do not have them is a university college. Therefore, the Department has set up a special body under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Morris, Vice-Chancellor of Leeds University, to encourage and facilitate the supply of staff on a short-term basis through the home universities.

Then there is another body set up by the Department in April of this year, the Council for Technical Education and Training for Overseas Countries under Mr. F. J. Pedler. That will be the main channel for recruitment both governmental and non-governmental. The Council is comprised of people not only from education but also from commerce and industry, and it will concern itself, among other things, very particularly, with management and training—and I think that is perhaps a point which will interest the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has not taken part in the debate to-day but whose interest I know; and he actually mentioned this point in a speech he made on the Colonial Loans Bill, to which I was listening, last week.

May I now give two very successful examples of recruitment in the educational field? There is the Teachers for East Africa Scheme. This is carried out in co-operation with the United States of America, and as a result 175 graduates are going out this year to teach in the secondary schools in East Africa. The Government set out to recruit, I believe, a mere 50, and yet, because it was a special operation, they recruited 175. It was perhaps what the noble Earl might describe as a "crash" programme (he has used that word to me in private, I know); an example of where a "crash" programme, a special operation for a specific purpose, can be successful. This was far more successful than it was thought possible—and, of course, it will be continued in the future. Another example is the Nigerian Summer Vacation Scheme, under which 70 men and women from this country are going out to help educational expansion, conducting refresher courses for 1,000 Nigerian teachers. That was started last year, and is also proceeding on an increased scale, and we hope it will continue to do so in the future.

On the other side of education, in the training field, I think all noble Lords who have spoken are familiar with the Commonwealth Educational Cooperation Scheme. This country is going to finance it to the tune of £6 million over five years, providing up to 500 postgraduate scholars and 400 teacher-training bursaries from here at any one time. These numbers are very nearly up to the full now, I think, in only the second year of the scheme, and will be maintained at their full level. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned the question of students in this country. There are 36,000 from the Commonwealth here at the universities, teacher-training colleges, technical colleges and institutions and teaching hospitals. I made a note here that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that they ought really to have practical experience in the professions in which they have been training before returning home to put what they have learnt into practice. I think that is a most helpful and useful suggestion, and I will certainly toning it to the attention of my right honourable friend. I believe something is being done in this direction, though possibly not on the scale that the noble Lord has in mind; but I will bring this point to my right honourable friend's notice.

My Lords, there are other bodies which have been set up, in the fields of medicine and agriculture, for the encouragement of people to serve overseas, and for the secondment of agriculturists and foresters. I do not think I have time to go into the details of that now, because I think I should come on to the very difficult question of public administration, which causes so much anxiety to all noble Lords who take an interest in this subject. Now it is often thought that there is a great wastage of Overseas Civil Service officers. In fact, of course, among those Who have retired and come back, and registered their names with the Overseas Resettlement Bureau—3,300 of them—over 2,000 have been found jobs; and 370 of them have gone to overseas Government appointments, or quasi-Government appointments. So far as the Department of Technical Cooperation is concerned, in this year, out of 240 overseas appointments 57 of them have been filled by officers of the Overseas Civil Service. Nevertheless, many of these admirable people are going out of their particular employment, and it may be thought that they are not being used properly and that they could be used in other ways.

In this respect, I come first of all to the question of compensation schemes. I hope that I am in order in referring here to a speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, last week, and not to-day. He rather thought that people were not being encouraged to stay: indeed, that they were being encouraged to leave. That may have been the case in Ghana a long time ago, but it is not so now. The compensation schemes are nowadays run very carefully, with a view to encouraging the officers concerned to stay and serve those countries in the future.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, for a technical reason, as the noble Lord knows, I am not speaking to-day; but as he has twice referred to me perhaps I may be allowed to ask this question: is it not a fact that the Government are bribing these officers to go, inducing them to go; and that that will continue until we make them part of the home Civil Service? Is that not the real crux of the problem?

LORD HASTINGS

I shall come to the last item in a moment, but it is not true to say that we are bribing them to go. After all, these officers are pensionable officers. They cannot, surely, be forced to stay on. The only way of making thorn stay is not to offer any compensation terms at all, and I do not believe that any noble Lord, in any quarter of this House, would agree to that. The Government would be accused of letting those people down very badly; because then, if they lost their job, there would be no compensation.

LORD OGMORE

That is not my point. My point is that they should be taken into the home Civil Service—if they are prepared to serve, of course. If they are not, that is another matter. Then this problem of pensionability (to use a horrible word) would not arise. Because What these officers are afraid of is that if they go on to the new Government and something happens, they will be left without a pension, whereas if they were taken into the Home Civil Service that would not apply.

LORD HASTINGS

I think that noble Lords are satisfied that the compensation schemes do now offer inducements to stay. There is a peak around the age of 40, and the compensation for a younger officer increases, and his pay, until that age. For older officers, the compensation is frozen at the most favourable point, and it does not diminish after that. Compensation is paid in instalments, whether officers retire or continue to serve; officers who undertake to serve for at least two years in East Africa receive a larger first instalment of compensation; for each year of residential service after the introduction of the scheme an officer can commute for a lump sum an additional one-six- teenth of his pension over and above the normal one-quarter; and officers who retire in East Africa under compensation schemes may be offered re-employment on contract in the same territory. As a result of that, I do not think noble Lords could say that these officers are receiving inducements to go. They are receiving every inducement to stay, and they receive fair treatment at the same time.

Now I have said we cannot oblige these officers to stay—and, my Lords, we cannot deny the fact that there are political considerations in this matter. It is not all Overseas Civil Service officers who wish to stay, for political reasons. I think the countries which are becoming independent realise that, and they can help in this matter by making it quite clear to the officers that they are welcome to stay on. In that respect, I should like to quote what was said by the Prime Minister of Uganda, Mr. Obote, in a recent broadcast. Referring to the civil servants, he said: If they decide to stay on I would guarantee them fair terms of service, certainly not worse than they are getting now and probably better. Their promotion prospects, for example, should in many cases be better than ever. I hope particularly that ex-patriate staff will ponder the possibility of contract service. That, I think, my Lords, is the answer to the point raised by the noble Earl opposite when he suggested that perhaps over half the officers there might be leaving in the next year, after the independence of Uganda. I hope that they will take the assurance of the Prime Minister, and have their confidence restored.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if he has any information whether any of the officers who had given notice to leave have notified a change of intention?

LORD HASTINGS

My Lords, I am afraid I have not that information, but I will attempt to acquire it and let the noble Earl know later on.

I have said already that it is the contract officers with specialist qualifications who are needed more than the administrative officers, and I think we all recognise that. With regard to the question of a career overseas and a Commonwealth Advisory and Technical service, I would say that that has been dealt with very fully in the White Paper, and I will not waste your Lordships' time in repeating what you have already read. But the question of possibly amalgamating these people, or bringing them into the home Civil Service, was examined two years ago in Command Paper 1193, Service With Overseas Governments, and was dealt with in an Appendix. There were various reasons against this; and the comparison with France, I am informed, is not really strictly comparable at all. But the problem has been examined, and I dare say it will be examined again.

The fact is that it is very difficult to guarantee any career overseas permanently except in the positive manner which the White Paper has set forth. They have taken as their basis for the future that of limited periods of overseas service based on a career in this country. Then you can really guarantee a career. But you cannot guarantee it abroad. You do not know the precise requirements of the overseas territories. You do not know the sort of people they are going to need all the time, the periods of unemployment between, and the difficulties of really getting good calibre people to serve in conditions of that sort on that sort of terms. But if we can guarantee them a career in this country and let them go out on short-term service, then the overseas countries themselves will be able to borrow experienced people without blocking openings for their own people. I do not think it is at all a question of the overseas civil servants being unacceptable, in the words of Lord Twining—they were not his own words, but he was saying that it seemed to be that they were unacceptable in former Colonial territories because they were tarred with the Colonial brush. I do not think that is so at all. It is simply that those territories want short-term contract officers, and very often of a different and more technical nature than the bulk of their administrative officers who brought the country to independence.

Therefore, what the Department of Technical Co-operation is most anxious to do—and is, in fact, doing, by examining, profession fey profession, the possibilities of recruiting for the various technical services—is to emphasise the opportunities to private enterprise. That was mentioned, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who referred to the risks of private enterprise in some of these territories and the possibility of insurance schemes. That is again a useful suggestion, and I am sure my right honourable friend will be very interested to read, and to study perhaps, the possibilities of any scheme of insurance against risks of private investment abroad.

But coming to the question of people, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, emphasised the whole time, we must get employers to recognise the value of a period overseas. Some leading people in a few professions and a few industries are beginning to do so, but what is not generally realised in the country at large, or in commerce or industry at large, is the value in businesses in this country of having people go out to the Commonwealth and Colonies and serve for a short period, widening their own horizons, giving useful service, learning themselves and coming back with, perhaps, new knowledge, a fresh outlook, greater maturity, and a greater sense of responsibility. It is this aspect that the Department particularly wish to press upon the private sector of the economy of this country, and to get their co-operation in order to obtain the technical officers required, who will then be based on a sure career in this country, and giving service which is needed in the territories overseas.

The organisation of Voluntary Service Overseas is pioneering this development, but it refers only to school-leavers and apprentices. We want, in addition, the older and more experienced people with specialist training. On the training side, which has been mentioned by, I think, Lord Casey and Lord Walston and probably by all noble Lords, I would say that the Department is now responsible for the training previously arranged by the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office, the Foreign Office, and the British Council, although the latter has a large part of training in independent countries. Over a hundred courses are provided in this country by various educational institutions, public authorities, and other Government ministries. Two thousand a year are coming from dependent territories and 800 from independent territories, most of them domiciled in their own country.

The proportion of expatriates is falling quite rapidly. In East Africa, where it would be expected that it would be less rapid than in other countries, in 1961, 493 people were trained over here, and just over half of them were locally domiciled. So the two wings of the whole policy are not only finding the technical officers required, and the administrative officers, for as long as necessary, but replacing them by these massive training schemes, which (as I think Lord Casey emphasised) is one of the most important aspects of the whole thing. In fact, he said that the provision of technical aid and people is really better than grant aid and loans.

There is a special Committee which has been set up on Training in Public Administration for Overseas Countries. It was set up in 1961, at the end of the year, under the chairmanship of Lord Bridges, to advise on these matters: training facilities in the field of public administration and related subjects provided in this country; and also those local training facilities provided in other countries, and what was done to provide them. For we must never forget the vast numbers which are being trained in the dependent territories themselves, as well as in this country.

Finally, my Lords, I must say a word about the Colonial Development Corporation. I cannot really reply to the criticism of the noble Earl about the need for equity capital. There was the Report of Lord Sinclair of Cleeve which was acted upon by the Government. This has made a great deal of difference to the Colonial Development Corporation—they acknowledged that in their Annual Report. Their Report reads very well. They are doing wonderful work, in spite of the fact that the Government acknowledge that, within the terms of the Act, the field of operations is diminishing. But certainly the Colonial Development Corporation are not wasting their resources, or assets, or energies; they are doing a first-class job.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, on April 12 last, said that the limitations upon the scope of the Colonial Development Corporation are now under review, and the desirability of extending their operations in independent Commonwealth countries is being examined. The Government is intending to complete the review as rapidly as possible, but the proposal raises a number of legal and financial questions which would take a while to resolve. If it is decided to widen the scope of the Corporation, new legislation will probably be required. The Corporation can operate in independent Commonwealth countries only by agreement with the Governments of those countries. But certain Commonwealth countries have already indicated that they would welcome an increase in the scope of the Corporation's activities.

The latest news on this particular subject, my Lords, is that given in another place this afternoon by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and Secretary of State for the Colonies (as he new is) in reply to a question by Mr. Strachcy. Mr. Strachey said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 663 (No. 146), col. 211]: One of the very best things which the right honourable gentleman could do to help would be to extend the Colonial Development Corporation's operation to these newly independent territories—for example, in respect of housing—which would probably do more to ensure the continued development of these islands. He was talking of Trinidad and Tobago. My right honourable friend replied: The right honourable gentleman and I are agreed on this matter. I hope to be in a position to make a statement on that subject before very long. I hope that that will give some encouragement to noble Lords who wish to see an extension of the operations of the C.D.C. Although, of course, I cannot say what the statement will be, at least the matter is receiving urgent consideration.

My Lords, I know that I have spoken for rather a long time. The difficulty has been that while the noble Earl compressed his speech in a masterly manner to an irreducible minimum, he left me to reply to a Motion which comprised material for four debates, instead of one, and, in trying not to skimp the matter, I am afraid I have taken considerable time. Returning at the end of my speech to the noble Lord's general criticisms on the level of policy, I would say that he said that he hoped we were thinking out new policies; that the merger of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office was not complete, and that there should be integration; that we should take away economic aid from the Colonial Office and give it to the Department of Technical Co-operation; that imagination had not been shown in the rearrangement of matters in this respect, and that the Department of Technical Co-operation was too limited by Government policy. These are all matters which will have to be thought about by my right honourable friend the Secretary for Technical Co-operation, and no doubt will receive careful study in higher quarters.

I conclude by thanking the noble Earl for bringing forward this Motion and giving an opportunity to the new Department of Technical Co-operation to show its paces, so to speak. I welcome the kind words that have been said about the energy which that Department is showing. I hope that the debate this afternoon has served a useful purpose and something will come out of it which will please all noble Lords who have taken part in it.

6.3 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord opposite for his excellent reply. He spoke with the thorough mastery of a difficult and technical subject which he always shows. Perhaps the only point of special interest in his speech, from the point of view of policy, was what he told us about the remark of the Secretary of State, in his new rôle, in regard to future operations of the C.D.C. He used the rather guarded phrase, which is characteristic of Ministers who are not able to say anything definite, that a decision would be reached before very long. This matter has been under consideration for three months, since the beginning of April. I do not think that a decision should depend upon future legislation, although it may imply future legislation. I very much hope—and perhaps the noble Lord will communicate this to the Secretary of State—that "before very long" means before the Recess, or at any rate before the Prime Ministers' Conference in the autumn. I am sure that it would give much satisfaction to many of the Prime Ministers who are coming to that Conference if the decision had been taken that the C.D.C. can operate as they wish in their countries.

I should also like to thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I am quite sure that the quality of their speeches made up for the lack of quantity. I should also like to thank noble Lords who have not spoken in this debate, for this reason: the fact that they did not speak did not indicate any unwillingness to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was disqualified because he is a member of the Board of C.D.C. Four noble Lords opposite said that they would have liked to speak, but were prevented from doing so by business reasons or absence from London. I think that it is particularly satisfactory that noble Lords from not only the Labour Party but also the Conservative Party and Liberal Party have shown that they take no less an interest in this subject than do noble Lords on this side and the independent Peers who have spoken.

This problem of world poverty is the most important after world peace, and I feel that it is most desirable that this House should show that all Parties are equally concerned about it and that the House as a whole is deeply interested and concerned. With these few words, mainly of thanks to noble Lords who have taken part, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.