Lords Sitting of 26 July 1962

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter

VACCINATION AGAINST FOWL PEST
3.5 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, if they have decided to abandon the slaughter policy for fowl pest, vaccination is not to be made compulsory.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (LORD ST. OSWALD): My Lords, our very large poultry population is spread over many holdings and changes frequently and rapidly. Individual birds are difficult to identify, and it is not possible always to say whether individual birds have been vaccinated or not. For these reasons, and because of the shortage of veterinary manpower, it would be quite impossible to enforce any system of compulsory vaccination. In addition, some counties are comparatively free from fowl pest and we should not be justified in requiring owners in such areas to vaccinate their flocks.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and I feel that I ought, in fairness, to declare that I have an interest in this matter, as on two occasions my poultry have suffered from this disease and have all been slaughtered; and I have been duly compensated. But would the noble Lord not agree that the vaccination individually of large quantities of birds is grossly impracticable, and that for the Government to move from a position of compulsory slaughter to voluntary vaccination can have only one effect, which is to increase very rapidly the incidence of this disease?
LORD ST. OSWALD: No, my Lords, our hope and expectation is exactly the contrary, and we do not see, as my noble friend does, the difficulty in egg producers carrying out the operation of vaccinating their own flocks.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, could the noble Lord give me an assurance, as a ratepayer, that the local authority is not obligated to inspect all these birds to find out whether they have been vaccinated or not?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think my original Answer made it clear that we should not expect that of a local authority.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord also aware that this disease is transmittable to man; and that, indeed, my manager got fowl pest? Is he further aware that I suggested to him that he be slaughtered and I be duly compensated?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may we understand a little more clearly what the objective of the Government is in the change that they have made? Is it merely to save the State from having to pay the compensation, or is it really to provide other means of effectively controlling this dreadful and spreading disease? We have had no clear statement on that matter. There are farmers all over the country who buy birds, say, at point-of-lay stage, perhaps a thousand, two thousand or three thousand at a time—I have never done that myself although I have taken a hundred—and they have found them within twenty-four hours to be infecte with fowl pest and the whole lot have had to be slaughtered. There are much bigger numbers even than that. If you are not going to have vaccination, what is going to prevent the spread of this disease?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, precisely this. The Government are subsidising vaccination to an extent which will bring the cost down as far as the farmer is concerned to a halfpenny or less per bird vaccinated. We hope to have the full co-operation of all egg producers, it being so much in their interests, and we look upon this as the best method of bringing fowl pest under control.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that under this system birds may not be vaccinated until they are two weeks old; before they get full immunity is another two weeks; and in the case of broilers, whose life is about ten weeks, they spend nearly half their life unvaccinated and are therefore prone to disease, and thus prone to spread it?
LORD ST. OSWALD: I am afraid my noble friend has in fact punctured my own limited expertise An saying that; but I will took into the matter, and if I find that he is right in his assumption I will let him know. I did not know that the limit was two weeks; I had understood it was possible to vaccinate before. But my noble friend may be right.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, might I ask whether the Government will undertake that at the end of twelve months they will examine what the experience has been and if the incidence of the disease is spreading they will reconsider the policy?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, what I can give the noble Viscount is an assurance that we will, of course, be watching very carefully and closely the results of this policy.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord say how the Government will be able to watch the results? If, as I understand it, compulsory slaughter is going to be ended, will there be continued registration of the incidence of fowl pest? Otherwise the Government's watching will not he very effective and one will not know twelve months hence what the incidence is.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, certainly we expect to be in touch with farmers to know the results of this policy. We anticipate no difficulty in getting such information as we want.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, as ratepayers will foe interested in this problem, may I ask how much it is expected it will cost, as compared with the previous system of slaughter?
LORD ST. OSWALD: It is anticipated that it will cast about £1 million a year instead of £10 million.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when fowl pest has occurred and there has been compulsory
1118
slaughter, an inspector has had to be notified? Does it now mean that notification will continue? Because if it is abandoned the Government will have no check upon the incidence of fowl pest.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I think I have answered that question. We intend to keep in very close touch with farmers in order to observe and note the result of this policy.

MOLONY REPORT ON CONSUMER PROTECTION
3.12 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now state the date of publication of the Molony Report on Consumer Protection.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, it will not have escaped the noble Lady's attention that the final Report of the Molony Committee on Consumer Protection was published yesterday. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the Government's gratitude to the Chairman and the members of this distinguished Committee for their valuable Report.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while the noble Earl will be aware that I left my Question on the Order Paper quite deliberately, might I ask him whether he realises that I did so because I was under the assumption that I should be given some indication as to when it would be advisable to put down, I think, my fifth Question. Could the noble Earl tell me what went wrong?
EARL JELLICOE: I had surmised that the noble Lady had left her Question on the Order Paper quite deliberately. I think the position, as I understand it, was as follows: as soon as the exact date on which the Commission's Report was going to be published was known, it was decided that it was advisable to inform Parliament. This happened to be a Friday when this House was not, in its

1119
wisdom, sitting. But I understand that my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade took immediate steps to bring the date and fact of publication to the noble Lady's attention.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: That is quite right; I have no wish to labour the point. As the noble Lord will realise, it was too late for me to put down my Question. Might I ask the noble Lord whether he realises with what fascination I would sit in the other place to-day, watching to see how electorally attractive the Government nave found my clothes? I nope they will borrow a lot.
EARL JELLICOE: I quite appreciate that, but I am sure the noble Lady will not wish me to anticipate any statement which may, or may not, be made in another place.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I think this was the case where I asked the noble Lord then in charge of this business—whether it was the same noble Lord or another I cannot remember, because there have been rather extensive Government changes—that my noble friend should be told when she could put her Question down in time to get the Government to say when this Report would be published. It rather sounds as if that has not been kept, and if my noble friend was not told in time to put the Question down for the appropriate day, I feel that she has been let down a little bit.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have endeavoured to explain the position that occurred, and I think the noble Lady said—and it was her Question—she did not wish to labour the point.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It was my supplementary.

SPORTS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
3.15 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to announce their long-delayed decision
1120
on the establishment of a Sports Development Council and, if not, when they will be able to do so.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I hope it will be possible to make a statement on this matter very soon after the House resumes after the Recess.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I would pay the noble Earl the compliment of hoping that he is as dissatisfied as I am with that reply. Might I ask him whether he does not agree that this really is procrastination at its worst? And while I appreciate that a lot might have been lost at Admiralty House last weekend, a lot of other things happened before that. Might I ask him whether he realises that it is not only the House which wants to know this decision but the sporting organisations, who have been most disappointed? Does he further realise that it is quite obvious, although the Government have not said it, that no help whatsoever is going to be given to sporting organisations this summer.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I appreciate the points which the noble Lady has made; but as she herself has pointed out, a good deal of water has flowed under the Treasury bridges in the last week or so. But, in all seriousness, I do not feel that her supplementary question quite takes due recognition of the increased allowances, the increased starts for sports expenditure or expenditure on sporting activities, which were announced by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer on May 8. Total starts this year on public projects for sport and recreation will, I gather, total £27 million.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Might I put one final question? I will not take that up with the Minister now, but leave it for the next Session. Might I ask him, seeing we are all in this mood and nobody wishes any discourtesy to me, whether he would tell me when to put down a Question so that the announcement on the Sports Development Council may be made in answer to that Question when we reassemble?
EARL JELLICOE: I will undertake to do so and endeavour to see that there is no slip.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, what I cannot quite understand is why we have had no explanation at all of the reason for this long delay.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the reason for this delay is the very great number of weighty considerations involved here.

NARCOTIC BAITS FOR WOOD PIGEONS
3.17 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will allow the use of narcotics for the destruction of wood pigeons.]
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, we have been experimenting for some time with narcotic baits in field trials against wood pigeons. The results have shown that these birds can be successfully narcotised but the method involves risks to protected and game birds, and the Government cannot at present authorise their use apart from these field trials. Further research is now in hand to see how far these risks can be reduced.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the damage from these birds is immense, and can he give any idea as to when these narcotics will be used?
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, we are very well aware of the damage done. At the moment we cannot give a date when a narcotic of the necessary safety will be evolved.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what advice he is taking on this question? Are the Nature Conservancy and other bodies being consulted? And may I ask him also to bear in mind the strong views that were expressed in this House about the danger of using chemicals of any kind on nature without regard to the consequences? I should like to add that I support very strongly the Government's cautious approach.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, perhaps I did not point out clearly enough in my original Answer that these field trials are very limited and carried out entirely by the scientists of the Ministry. Therefore their scope, until a narcotic satisfactory in every way is found, will remain in the hands purely of the scientists, each of whom has to be issued a special licence by the Ministry.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, might I ask the noble Lord whether he used the word "narcotise" and, if so, why and what he thought it meant?
LORD ST. OSWALD: To knock out with a narcotic.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in Poland they use peas soaked in whisky and they are achieving a similar result? If the Government Will not allow the use of narcotics, will they consider abolishing the tax on whisky for this purpose?

THE SUMMER RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I beg to inform the House that it is proposed to adjourn for the Summer Recess at the conclusion of Business on Thursday next, August 2.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, do I take it that we still have to live in expectation of being recalled during the vacation, maybe sometime about September 18, or later than that?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I hope to be in a position to make a statement about recall next week. But that, of course, would apply to the normal recall, and not to any special recall.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am not quite sure what that means. I understood that after the Meeting of the Commonwealth Premiers it was anticipated that Parliament would be called together, to approve, if the Government decided to enter the Common Market, that entry.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, there is certainly nothing that I can say now, neither do I expect to be able to say anything next week, about a recall in

1123
September. The passible date that I am referring to is when we should normally be coming back, some time in October.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL
3.21 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PIPE-LINES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FORSCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name: that Standing Order No. 44 be amended by leaving out the words, "shall not any longer appear among the Bills in Progress and". The Motion gives effect to a recommendation of the Procedure Committee embodied in their First Report which the House agreed yesterday. The existing Standing Order No. 44 states:
"When a Bill brought from the House of Commons shall have remained on the Table of this House for twelve sitting days without any Lord giving notice of the Second Reading thereof, such Bill shall not any longer appear among the Bills in Progress, and shall not be further proceeded with in the same session, except after eight days' notice given by a Lord of the Second Reading thereof."
The Committee recommended that a Bill which is subject to this Standing Order should not be removed from the Bills in Progress as it sometimes causes confusion when a Bill which has been removed reappears in the Minutes of Proceedings. The Committee therefore proposed that the Standing Order should be amended by leaving out the words which I read out when I first rose. If this Amendment were made the Bill
1124
would appear in the Bills in Progress as
"Waiting for Second Reading subject to Standing Order 44."
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 be amended as follows:
Leave out the words ("shall not any longer appear among the Bills in Progress, and").—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Standing Order amended accordingly.
SMALL FARMER (ENGLAND AND WALES AND NORTHERN IRELAND) SCHEME, 1962
3.24 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved. It is proposed to make the Small Farmer (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1962, which is the second scheme to be made under the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act, 1959. This Order is similar in most respects to the existing one which it replaces. Apart from a number of small amendments, the major difference is that the new Order raises the upper limit of the man-day requirements for the Small Farmer Scheme from 450 to 500 standard man-days a year. This implements the decision announced at the last Annual Review.
As your Lordships will be aware, the purpose of the Small Farmer Schemes is to make small farm businesses more profitable by giving the farmer advice on a plan to improve his business over a period of three to five years and by providing him with grants to help him to put that advice into practice. Under the existing schemes an eligible small farm business is defined by reference to the acreage of the farm, which must be not less than 20 nor more than 100 acres of crops and grass, and by reference to the standard labour requirements. These are the annual requirements of manual labour needed on average for the production of crops and livestock with an addition for essential farm maintenance and other necessary tasks. They are expressed in terms of "standard man-days" per acre of crops or per head of livestock. A standard man-day represents 8 hours manual work for an adult male worker under average conditions.

1125
At present a farm business must have not less than 250 standard man-days on application, or toe capable of 275 standard man-days on completion of a plan, and it must not have more than 450 standard man-days on application.
Under the new schemes the upper man-day limits will toe raised from 450 to 500. We do not propose to raise the upper acreage limit at the same time, since we consider that priority should toe given to those farmers who, while farming only a small acreage, have by their own exertions increased their cropping and stocking to such a high level that they are outside the present standard man-day limit.
The lower limits for the schemes will also remain the same. We could not reduce the lower limit of the standard man-days test, since the Agriculture (Small Farmers) Act, 1959, provides that grants should toe made only for a farm business capable with reasonable management of giving an adequate return to a person carrying it on as a full-time occupation. Any lower standard man-days limit would not be consistent with this requirement. Nor do we wish to reduce the lower limit on the acreage of the farm, since this would bring into the Scheme some very small enterprises which might not prove to toe viable in the long run and would mean a wasteful dispersal of the available advisory services.
The only change in the eligibility tests in the new Schemes, therefore, is the increase in the upper standard man-day limit to 500. This makes eligible a further 13,000 small farmers. The Ministry estimate that the additional cost for the United Kingdom will be about £2½ million in a full year. The total additional cost over the whole life of the Scheme is expected to be about £10 million. About 66,000 farmers are eligible under the existing Scheme. Extending the Scheme will therefore bring the total up to 79,000 farmers, an increase of about 20 per cent.
The only other important difference between these Schemes and the existing ones is that farms on which there is an uncompleted improvement scheme under the Hill Farming and Livestock Rearing Acts, 1946–56, will no longer be excluded from assistance. This ban was originally imposed because there seemed a
1126
danger that we might pay double grant on items included in both a farm business plan under the Small Farmer Scheme and in a Livestock Rearing Improvement Scheme. However, we are now satisfied that we can prevent double grants toy administrative means without this sweeping prohibition and the ban should therefore be lifted. Except for the changes I have mentioned, and a few other minor and consequential alterations, the new Schemes are in all respects the same as the existing ones.
May I refer here to the Report of the Special Orders Committee and ask my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack to speak to your Lordships about this later, as it is on a purely legal point that it will have to be considered. These new Schemes will be brought into operation on 1st August, and will extend for five years from that date. The last date for approving farm business plans under the existing Schemes will be 31st July. All approvals after that date will be under the new Schemes. This does not mean, of course, that we are revoking the existing Schemes, since payments under them will continue for about five years, but only that the Schemes will be closed so far as new applicants are concerned.
Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that the Schemes have so far been successful, although it is still too early to make an overall judgment. Farmers have responded to the scheme very well, and by May 31 this year 40,809 farms had entered the scheme in the United Kingdom and £13 million had been paid out in grants. When the farm business plans already approved have been completed they will receive a total of over £29 million in grants. The progress being made on the approved farm business plans is very satisfactory, and in some cases has even exceeded expectations.
Some farmers have not been able to carry out their plans, but the proportion that has had to be cancelled is gratifyingly low, being only about 6 per cent. The main reasons for these cancellations have been changes in the occupancy of farms or the farmers' ill-health and only a very small minority are cases where the farmer has not carried out his work properly or has lost interest. In

1127
general, the progress achieved so far shows that the schemes are likely to prove successful in making a large number of small farms more efficient and more profitable, and it also shows that the schemes have been welcomed by the small farmers, who recognise that this help is really worthwhile. I hope your Lordships will agree that we should extend the benefits of the scheme, and that you will approve these Orders to put this change into effect. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Small Farmer (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1962, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
LORD WISE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack replies, I am quite sure that on this side of the House we welcome this Scheme. The Minister has given us much helpful information, and it was interesting to hear that the Scheme as at present in vogue has been successful. The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, also dealt with a point I was going to make, the question of the change of tenancy; but as he has dealt with it I do not wish to mention it further. I do not wish to raise any point on what has happened in regard to the Special Orders, in view of what is to take place in a moment or so; but, generally, we on this side of the House welcome the Scheme and wish it success.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to add my protest at the language of the Ministry of Agriculture. I did not follow all the statement made by my noble friend, but the Government, I gather, have been unable, so far, to form an "overall judgment". What on earth is an "overall judgment"? I believe that the word means absolutely nothing, but is in accordance with this modern habit of distributing the adjective "overall" over the whole of English prose Whether it means anything or nothing. Then I think I heard for the first time the word "occupacy" of farms. Is this another example of the language of the Ministry of Agriculture, or is it a bold bid for the illiterate vote?
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of your Lordships
1128
if I dealt with the points raised by the Report of the Special Orders Committee; and I shall endeavour to do so without making new inroads into the customary use of the English language. The first point to which I wish to draw the attention of the House is that under the Act itself, the Act of 1959, there is power given to the Minister, by Section 1, to make
"payment of grants to any person for the time being carrying on a small farm business of any such class or description as may be specified in the scheme …".
The words "small farm business" are defined by Section 6 as a business which "does not exceed 150 acres" and which
"falls within such other limits as may be specified in the scheme in. question".
So when one looks to see what payments can be made one must turn to the Scheme. But no Scheme made under this Act could enable the Minister to make payments in respect of farm businesses exceeding 150 acres in extent. There is that limitation of the power to make grants cleanly and emphatically stated in the Bill.
The Report of the Special Orders Committee has drawn attention to the words of the Scheme, and states:
"The Committee are of opinion that the draft scheme purports to enable the Minister to pay grants to a person who at the time of the payment is no longer carrying on a small farm business."
The reason, if I understand it correctly, for the expression of that view, is that, in paragraph (4) of that Scheme, the definition of "a small farm business" for the purposes of the Scheme is linked to the time of application for the grant; and paragraph 5 makes provision for payment to a person carrying on the business. I would respectfully submit to your Lordships that the Scheme cannot enlarge the Minister's powers as prescribed by the Act of Parliament, and that, therefore, there can be no question of the Scheme's giving the Minister a power to make grants to farms in excess of 150 acres. If I may say so, I think the Special Orders Committee has served a very useful purpose in drawing attention to the wording of this Scheme. It follows the wording of the previous Scheme, to which my noble friend, Lord St. Oswald, referred.
I have discussed this matter with my right honourable friend the Minister of

1129
Agriculture and I have received his assurance that, if any further Schemes have to be prepared under this particular Act, the wording will be very carefully considered in the light of the Report made by the Special Orders Committee. No one, I think, can say that the Scheme in its present language is not capable of some improvement. I hope that what I have said will satisfy your Lordships that the Scheme cannot, in fact, operate so as to enable the Minister to make grants in respect of farms exceeding in acreage 150.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, might I put to your Lordships for a moment the point which influenced the Special Orders Committee on which I served—the question of the vires of this Order. Paragraph 4 of this singularly dull and unattractive Order provides that:
"A small farm business to which this scheme applies is a trade or business consisting in, or such part of any trade or business as consists in, the carrying out of agricultural operations on land comprised in it where on the day on which a farm business plan is submitted to the Minister for approval the amount of that land … is not more than one hundred acres. …"
Then in paragraph 5 it is provided that:
"Subject to the provisions of this scheme, where the person carrying on a small farm business to which this scheme applies has … submitted to the Minister for approval a farm business plan … the Minister … may pay in connection with the carrying out of the plan … grants. …
The point is this, my Lords. On the day on which the farmer submits his plan he may be carrying on a farm business of only 80 acres. He therefore will qualify for a grant. But supposing between the time he submits the plan to the Minister and a time when the Minister is considering whether to approve it, and so on, the farmer has bought or agreed to buy an extra 100 or 150 acres. There is no provision in this Order which makes him disclose that. I quite agree that if the Minister knows he has increased his holding to over 100 acres, he will not, of course, pay the grant. But supposing he does not know that, the man gets the money. He has done nothing illegal. The whole trouble is caused by the insertion in the Order of the words:
"on the day on which a farm business plan is submitted to the Minister …".
It is very significant that in the Scots
1130
Order, which is the next Order for your Lordships' consideration, those words do not appear. If those words were left out the Order would be unobjectionable from the point of view of vires. I venture to think that there is a loophole here, which I daresay no one will take advantage of, and that is the reason why the Special Orders Committee thought that they were bound to call your Lordships' attention to the doubt which they had.
3.41 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, it seems to me very undesirable, in view of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, has just told us, and also in view of what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has told us, to pass this Order at all to-day. If there is something in it which is palpably—I will not say incorrect but open to misunderstanding, it may very likely mean that there will be legal proceedings as a result of it. We do not know. I think the position is very unsatisfactory when the House is told by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that these words could be improved and, in fact, that the Minister of Agriculture has promised him that in any future Order they will be improved. I have never heard a statement like that before from the Government Benches, or from the Woolsack. It is not the noble and learned Lord's fault at all; he has had to try to put right something that his colleague has done. But it seems to me a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, whether it is possible for him even at this late stage to withdraw this Order and to get it right. People are always complaining about the state in which legislation comes up here. I think it is appalling if it goes away from here as bad as it comes. One of our main tasks is to be a revising Chamber. Let us revise for once, and ask the Government to withdraw it and bring back an Order in proper form.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, by leave of the House, I should like to say a word in reply to what the noble Lord has just said, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard. Lord Goddard has drawn attention to the reasons why the Special Orders

1131
Committee made its Report, and I am grateful to him for the explanation he gave of those reasons. The noble Lord who has just spoken suggested that this Order should be withdrawn and redrafted. I must say that I do not myself see that there is any need for that. I would have thought that the Order could be worked, as indeed the previous Order has worked, without any trouble. I rose before, on the purely technical points, to submit to this House my view that the language of the Scheme, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, referred, cannot and does not enlarge the Minister's powers under the Act. The Minister will in fact be acting ultra vires if he makes a grant to someone who at the time is carrying on a small farm business in excess of 150 acres. Therefore, while, as we often find when we bring in amending legislation, one could improve the wording, and while the wording of this draft Scheme, or of any future Schemes, could be improved in the light of the report made by the Special Orders Committee, I would suggest to your Lordships that there is really no good reason for its withdrawal at the present time.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I do not suggest that the Minister's powers are being increased under this Order. The difficulty is that if a man applies on a particular day, and he is only farming under 100 acres, he is within the scheme. He applies on the footing that he is farming 100 acres. However, before he gets his grant he may have bought another 150 acres and, if the Minister knows that he has done that, then, of course, he will not give him the grant. But if the Minister does not know that he has done it, and still gives him a grant on the Scheme that has been put before him, there is no earthly means by which to get back that money. That is the point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SMALL FARMERS (SCOTLAND) SCHEME, 1962
THE MINISTER OF STATE FORSCOTLAND (LORD CRAIGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Small Farmers (Scotland) Scheme, 1962, be approved.
Moved, That the Small Farmers (Scotland) Scheme, 1962, be approved.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL ASSISTANCE (DETERMINATION OF NEED) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1962
3.46 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FORFOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, on July 3 I made a statement to your Lordships, describing briefly the increases proposed in National Assistance scales. Your Lordships now have in your hands the Statutory Instrument which will give effect to these increases, and the Explanatory Memorandum upon it. The principal change is the increase in the scale for husband and wife from 90s. to 95s. 6d., and the increase for a single householder from 53s. 6d. to 57s. 6d. There are corresponding increases, as your Lordships Will see from the Explanatory Memorandum, for other classes of recipients and, particularly, for blind persons and persons undergoing treatment for tuberculosis. The scales are all tabulated on page 2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. These new scales, of course, like the former ones, are exclusive of rent which is paid in addition by the National Assistance Board.
The main purpose of the new scales is to restore the real purchasing power of the increases which were made in April, 1961. Those increases represented a certain advance in real value on the previous scales. The new ones broadly compensate for the increase in the cost of living which has taken place since then—rather more so, in fact, in the case of the single householder. The date at which the new scales will become effective will be September 24, which is the earliest date that is administratively practicable. The numbers of people affected will be about 2½ million, and the cost, as I think I told your Lordships the other day when I made the statement, will be about £20½ million. I beg to move that the new Draft Regulations be approved.
Moved, That the National Assistance (Determination of Need) Amendment Regulations, 1962, be approved.—The Earl of Dundee.)
3.48 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, on the face of it we are being asked this afternoon to approve a very simple provision—namely, an increase in the rates of National Assistance. I want to address myself to the increase in the rates for a single person and for a married couple—namely, 4s. a week for a single person, and 5s. 6d. for a married couple. I am quite sure that this afternoon there will be no division on either side of the House on this matter; but what we must ask ourselves, I feel, is: are we fulfilling our obligations to those in the greatest need? Surely this is the criterion by which a society is judged. Bearing that in mind, do these sums—and I will repeat them, so that your Lordships can remember precisely what we are asking these people to live on; namely, £2 17s. 6d. for a single person and £4 15s. 6d. for a married couple—meet this test in an affluent society? Again, I would remind your Lordships that of the 2½ million people whom the noble Lord has mentioned as being affected, 1 million—that is one-fifth of all retirement pensioners—seek National Assistance; 73 per cent. of the men are over 70, and 70 per cent. of the women on National Assistance are widows. There are also the deserted wives and their children. The doubts I have entertained, about what I consider is the niggardly treatment of these people, are confirmed when I read the Minister's definition of need.
When this matter was debated in another place quite recently the Minister was asked what was the basis of need, and he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 662 (No. 144), col. 1683]:
"… need is an interesting philosophical question …",
and he took the view
"… that need is not an absolute concept but that in a society of rising standards the concept of need is a rising one. Relativities as well as absolutes come into this".
My Lords, that is a piece of sophistry which has surely been unequalled by a Government speaker in a debate concerned with the simple human needs of the aged, the chronic sick, the widows
1134
and the deserted wives with children. I was certainly not surprised when the Member for Sowerby rose up, lost his patience and cried, "To the devil with statistics! Let us have a picture of how these people live".
I agree; the Minister was baffled. Is there any Minister in the new Cabinet who knows how these people live? Other honourable Members asked that the House should be given a picture—not statistics: they asked for a picture. I should like to suggest to the Minister, who I hope will read this (and it is a new Minister), that he visits a poor area and finds a seat supplied for the aged by the local authority in a London borough. That is a poignant sight. On every day that I come to this House I pass one of these seats. There they sit, gazing apathetically at the traffic. I think that if the Minister went there just once, or even sat on that seat, he could form an opinion of what these people have available for clothing (they are uniformly shabby), for transport and, let us say, for modest entertainment. The Minister could learn that poverty to-day has certainly a relative and an absolute concept.
Now it may be said—and the noble Earl could say it to me—that on the top of this there are discretionary allowances for those who are capable of applying for them. Each noble Lord here may know some person who is in the position of having to apply for extra help. Many of these people do it, but it calls for a certain amount of courage, and it calk for the ability, the energy, to visit the office, or the ability to write a letter to the office to describe their need or to ask somebody to call. Despite these difficulties, 51 per cent. of these people receive discretionary allowances; and for those noble Lords who are not aware of this I would tell them that a discretionary allowance may be an extra 3s. for laundry, perhaps 4s. a week for domestic help and 2s. 6d. for a special diet. Before these sums are granted (and quite rightly) a National Assistance Board officer—and I cannot speak too highly of these men and women; they are a very fine body of people—must call and assure himself that the applicant cannot do the washing or cannot do the cleaning.

1135
The pattern of this scheme was introduced by the Labour Government in 1948, and I had the honour to administer it for about a year and a half in 1950. But like many Acts concerned with social services, it must be adjusted to changing circumstances, and it is quite futile for Ministers in another place to say, "Ah!; eleven years ago you established a pattern ". We accept that, of course. But it seems clear that the revision of National Assistance scales to-day is quite inadequate to meet changing circumstances. I would say that the whole National Insurance Scheme needs reexamination in order to provide adequate pensions, because we did not envisage that the National Assistance Board would be mainly concerned with supplementing the National Insurance Scheme. I may be told by the noble Earl that the graduated scheme in the distant future may help; but, of course, that will operate long after the people we are concerned with to-day have passed beyond material assistance. I am pleading to-day for those who can be helped to-day, and I would ask the Government: why cannot they agree to raising the National Assistance rates to £3 8s. for a single person, with rent, which they get already, and £5 7s. for a married couple? Is that asking them to be too generous?
The Parliamentary Secretary in another place said that this would be a very large figure indeed. It would be, my Lords—£50 million. But I would remind your Lordships that in the last Budget those in this country who pay surtax were relieved of £83 million. Surely, some of that could have been directed to the poorest in the country, the 2½ million who are inarticulate, powerless, without any kind of pressure group in this House or the other place. I would say that the Parliamentary Secretary spoke with more humanity and understanding of the needs of the poorest than the Minister. She agreed that the deserted wives and their children are treated in an uncivilised way. She did not attempt to equate the immediate needs of the poorest to some philosophical concept. I must say, my Lords, that I am sorry that the Prime Minister has not grown out of his misogynist phase and promoted the most brilliant of his younger Ministers—who is, of course, the Parliamentary Secretary to this Ministry
1136
in another place. However, this is too much to hope in the penultimate stage of the Prime Minister's development.
Now I just ask the Minister this. Later on, he is going to consider giving a grant from the Treasury to businessmen who worked in Egypt. The Treasury, I know, is faced with pressure from different Departments. I ask him whether, before he gives unqualified approval to this demand later on this afternoon, he will consider at this stage increasing the rate of assistance, so that these people, who have not many years—and let us hope that those people in a similar position in years to come will benefit from a graduated scheme—may benefit. Will he at this stage grant this increase? The Government have failed, I believe, after eleven years in office, to devise a scheme which will ensure adequate benefit as a right, and not subject these people to two tests of means: the first for National Assistance and the second for discretionary allowances. May I remind your Lordships that even men who have been injured in their work or who perhaps have contracted some industrial disease are also subject to the two means tests of National Assistance and discretionary allowances. May I ask the noble Earl, therefore, whether he will have second thoughts; whether he will go to the Minister and plead for these people, in order that we can improve the lot of the poorest and the most helpless in this country?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1962
4.0 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I beg to move that these draft Regulations be approved. The draft Regulations for Scotland are similar, and it may therefore he convenient to your Lordships to discuss both together. If that suggestion meets with your Lordships' approval, then my noble friend Lord Craigton will move the Scottish Regulations formally. The main provisions are contained in Regulations 3 and 4. Regulation 3 provides for early retirement with accrued pension and lump sum benefits in two circumstances: in

1137
the event of redundancy, and in the event of an officer's retirement in the interests of the efficiency of the National Health Service.
When we debated the Hospital Plan for England and Wales earlier this year, I explained that, as the Plan is carried out, it should rarely be difficult to find other employment for displaced staff within the Service. Indeed, special arrangements have been made for cooperation between employing authoirties to help to ensure that displaced staff are absorbed elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is only right that provision should be made to meet any exceptions which may occur. Accordingly, Regulation 3 secures that, Where an officer has 'had ten years' service and has attained the age of 55, he shall be able, if retired on the ground of redundancy, to receive at once his accrued pension and the lump sum payment to which he is entitled. The line of 55 years of age has been chosen because it is in accordance with the general practice of the public services, where 55 is the minimum age for paying pensions of this kind.
The pension and the lump sum benefits will not be subject to an actuarial reduction to take account of the earlier age at which they are paid. They will, however, be reduced to take account of the redundancy compensation which has been paid. This seems to be both logical and fair. The same provisions will apply in the case of officers who are retired early in the interests of the efficiency of the Health Service. Such cases should not be numerous, but if an elderly officer finds that the strain of coping with his work is too great, it will be an advantage to him and to the Service that he will be able to retire earlier on pension. The fullest safeguards will be applied, including the right to a personal hearing by the employing authority in the presence of two assessors, one of whom will be appointed by the Minister. The Minister will make the final decision, after receiving a full report from the employing authority and the views of the assessors, if there has been a hearing.
Regulation 4 provides for an improvement in the scales of benefit in respect of service as a practitioner. In 1955 the Government Actuary reported that the superannuation contributions of practitioners who had entered at the normal
1138
age were at a higher level than was necessary to finance their superannuation benefits. At that time, the great majority of practitioners in the Health Service had entered at later than normal age. Since that time the proportion of normal age entrants has increased substantially, and the Government consider that the relationship between contributions and benefits should now be corrected. That being so, two alternatives are open: to reduce the contributions, or to increase the benefits. The professions are unanimous in preferring the latter, and that is what this Regulation does. It provides that, as from September 1, the pension of a practitioner will be at the annual rate of 1¾ per cent. of his total remuneration. The existing rate of l½ per cent. will apply to the remuneration paid up to that date. The lump sum benefits will be raised equivalently.
Both these Regulations, Regulations 3 and 4, have been fully discussed with the professions concerned, and one or two modifications have been made to meet some of their points of view; we have not been able to meet all of them. However, these Regulations are very much to the advantage of those who contribute to the Health Service Superannuation Scheme by giving entitlement to pension in new circumstances and by providing better benefits for practitioners. Therefore I commend them to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the National Health Service (Superannuation) (Amendment) Regulations, 1962, be approved.—(Lord Newton.)
4.7 p.m.
LORD BURDEN: My Lords, the noble Lord has explained these draft Regulations in his usual lucid manner, and I do not propose to object to or to oppose the Regulations. Indeed, so far as they go, they are to be welcomed. But I would suggest to your Lordships that they have to be considered in relation to the problems of redundancy in the National Health Service arising from the Hospital Plan. Here I agree with the noble Lord. As I know from my own experience, every effort is being made in the Service to reduce redundancy to a minimum; but these draft Regulations indicate that some redundancy appears to be inevitable. I will

1139
not develop that point, but I happen to have heard opinions which indicate that it is possible that redundancy, despite every effort made to avoid it, will occur.
I do not propose to discuss the general provisions for redundancy as outlined in a recent administrative circular, except to say that officers in the National Health Service are both alarmed and worried that the new Regulations in the administrative circular are, on the whole, a definite worsening of the terms which have applied to the National Health Service since its inception until two years ago. So far as the present draft Regulations are concerned, I welcome the reduction to 55 as the age when superannuation, in the circumstances outlined by the Minister, may be drawn. I know, of course, the arguments for the age of 55; but, bearing in mind what I have said with regard to the general worsening of all conditions in the administrative circular, it is quite possible that an officer may have had or given 24 or 25 years of loyal and devoted service, and had that to his credit, but if he happens to be under the age of 55, and should his post be declared redundant, he would be entitled, as I understand the position, merely to a refund of superannuation contributions and the terminal allowance, if there happens to be no appropriate post for him in the National Health Service. This does not appear to me to be very satisfactory. In fact, it seems to be both unfair and unjust, bearing in mind what I have said in regard to the worsening of conditions as outlined in the administrative circular.
I do not wish to comment on the second point raised by the noble Lord—that of compulsory retirement for inefficiency—as the Minister in another place gave what seems to me to be fairly satisfactory assurances on the manner in which these cases would be considered, especially the assurance that the officer concerned could be accompanied at the inquiry by a friend or trade union representative, if he or she so desired. We have always to bear in mind that inefficiency may not be due to any inherent weakness on the part of the officer concerned, but to stress and strain and ill-health arising from those conditions.
1140
Finally, while expressing appreciation of the draft Regulations so far as they go, I am bound to say, again speaking from my own knowledge, that there is both apprehension and dismay in the Service at what has been rightly described as a parsimonious worsening of the general provisions for dealing with redundancy as a whole. I agree that the draft Regulations before us make some slight improvement. Of course, we cannot discuss the broad problem on these Regulations, but I thought it only fair and right, knowing the position, that I should bring before your Lordships the fact that while staff and associations accept these Regulations, and although, as the Minister said, the regulations do not concede all that they require, they are fully conscious of the serious apprehension in the Service as a whole about the worsening of conditions which, so far as the National Health Service is concerned, have obtained from its very inception.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Burden, has admitted that these draft Regulations are an improvement. Of course they are, and they could not possibly be represented as anything else. He made some observations about redundancy generally and about compensation for redundancy. I suppose he was talking about the system of terminal payments. But, of course, these Regulations have nothing to do with that, except in one or two minor respects.
LORD BURDEN: They will apply, of course, to a man who is under the age of 54?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the Regulations are concerned with officers who have reached the age of 55, which is another way of saying what I was saying before the noble Lord interrupted. In my opening speech, I explained why the line has been drawn at the age of 55. It is in accordance with the general practice of the public service. Wherever one draws a line, in some sense it is arbitrary, and in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government 55 years is the right line at which to draw in these regulations. I hope that with that explanation your Lordships will see fit to agree to these Regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPERANNUATION) (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS, 1962
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the National Health Service (Superannuation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations, 1962, be approved.
Moved, That the National Health Service (Superannuation) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations, 1962, be approved.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINK (IMPORTATION AND KEEPING) ORDER, 1962
4.17 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Mink (Importation and Keeping) Order, 1962, a copy of which was laid before your Lordships' House on June 28, be approved. I think that it will be for your Lordships' convenience if we consider this Order and the similar Order about coypus together. These two Orders are short and to the point. They extend the provisions of the Destructive Imported Animals Act, 1932, to coypus and to mink. This Act was passed to make effective the measures the Government were then taking to deal with musk rats that had escaped from fur farms and established themselves in considerable numbers over some 700 square miles in Shropshire and adjoining counties, and about 150 square miles in West Sussex, Surrey and Hampshire. The measures proved successful and by 1935 the country was virtually free of musk rats and some 3,000 had been destroyed. So far as we know, there are now no musk rats in captivity or at large in this country.
Wisely, the Act, as drawn, allows us to apply its provisions by Orders to "non-indigenous mammalian species with destructive habits". Both coypus and mink come within this class.
The main provisions of the Act are designed to prevent escapes of these creatures from captivity and to facilitate the recapture or destruction of any which do escape. Under the Order my right honourable friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland will be
1142
empowered to prohibit the importation or keeping of coypus and mink absolutely or to allow them in under licence. We are proposing that the importation of mink should be permitted under open general licence, because we have no wish to impede the importation of these creatures. We do not think that coypus are being imported now and a licence would be needed to import them. We are in consultation with the Fur Breeders' Association as to what conditions we should attach to licences for the keeping of mink and coypus. The Act also requires occupiers to notify the Departments of the presence of coypus and mink at large on their land. It is essential to the success of the campaign that we should know where these creatures are so that we can make sure that they are either recaptured or destroyed.
These are the main provisions of the Act and I should mention that there are penalties ranging from £5 for failure to notify the presence of coypus or mink at large, to £20 for importing or keeping them without a licence. But I should make it clear that although these powers and penalties will be available should the need arise, we hope to achieve our purpose by willing co-operation.
I should like to explain why we need these Orders. Large numbers of coypus are established in the wild in Norfolk and Suffolk and are damaging crops and waterways. These coypus were introduced into Great Britain about 1930, and by 1939 they were bred on some forty farms for their fur. When the war came most of those farms shut down and the coypus escaped. At first they did little but good by keeping down aquatic vegetation, but by 1960 farmers and river boards were complaining about the damage they were causing to river banks and crops, and particularly to sugar beet. To meet this situation, the Minister announced in July, 1960, that rabbit clearance societies in the eastern counties could claim 50 percent. grant on their expenditure on destroying coypus. These societies have been extremely active in co-operating with river boards and drainage authorities in control measures, and between them something like 100,000 coypus have been destroyed. Individual farmers, land owners and farm workers have destroyed many

1143
more. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to these societies and others for their efforts against the coypus. Unfortunately, it has become clear that the present rate of destruction, heavy though it is, is not reducing numbers fast enough, and the coypus are gaining ground.
The Government have, therefore, decided that additional steps must be taken to speed up the campaign. As a "once and for all" measure we are organising a co-ordinated drive against the coypus in East Anglia under the direction of experienced officers who will work systematically over the entire area of infestation. I should make it clear that we do not consider it possible to exterminate the coypus completely, but we feel that the plans we have made will, in two or three years, enable the coypus to be reduced to really small numbers and contained in a few isolated areas. The national agricultural organisations have promised full support for the campaign and I know that we can rely on individual farmers, landowners and workers, as well as on rabbit clearance societies and other bodies, to continue their active co-openation in making the campaign a success.
Now I should say a little about mink. Mink were first farmed in Britain in 1929. There are about 600 known mink farms in Great Britain. The majority of these farms are well run and I should not wish it to be thought that this Order is in any way a reflection on the members of this industry. Nevertheless, mink have escaped in recent years and some of them are reported to be breeding in the wild on the Hampshire Avon, in Devon on the river Teign, and on the Teifi on the borders of Carmarthenshire and Cardiganshire. In the wild state these mink can do serious damage to poultry, fisheries and bird life. There is a history of similar escapes and breeding in the wild in Scandinavia where escaped mink have been allowed to increase over large areas. We feel that we should take steps to prevent this from happening in this country. I hope that I have said enough to convince your Lordships that we need these Orders to enable us to deal with the situation created by these escaped animals, and that we are proposing to use the powers reasonably and effectively. I beg to move.
Moved That the Mink (Importation and Keeping) Order, 1962, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
4.23 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, I should like to say from this side of the House that we welcome this Order, as we welcomed the previous Order this afternoon. What the noble Lord has said about East Anglia being overrun by these coypus is perfectly true. Our chief pest troubles at the moment are with coypus and pigeons. Considerable damage has been done to crops, river banks and streams and will no doubt continue to be done unless these coypus are kept under restraint. I am one of the lucky ones, because I have never seen a coypu on my land; I do not want to see any, and for that reason I hope that the operations will be successful.
The noble Lord referred to penalties under a previous Act, and I understand that these penalties are fairly embracing. I do not know whether it is possible, when information is circulated to farmers, for some notice to be given of the penalties which may be incurred. I was interested to note in an article in my county paper that the Ministry of Agriculture are in Norwich advertising for qualified operators for employment in an intensive campaign to destroy coypus in Norfolk and Suffolk. This is an excellent advertisement, and I hope that it will be successful in obtaining the skilled operators who are required. There is one matter that I should like to raise which perhaps the noble Lord can deal with, and that is the cost of destruction. If this is carried out by one of these operators from the Ministry, is there any cost to the farmer, or is it borne entirely by the Ministry? With those few remarks, I wish success to the Order and I hope that it will be effective in dealing with these pests.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COYPUS (IMPORTATION AND KEEPING) ORDER, 1962
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Coypus (Importation and Keeping) Order, 1962, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UGANDA INDEPENDENCE BILL
4.27 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I have At in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of She purport of the Uganda Independence Bid, has consented to place Her Majesty's Prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The object of the Bill is to provide for the Independence of Uganda. I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased to know that it was the unanimous wish expressed at the Independence Conference that Uganda should remain in the Common wealth and be under the sovereignty of Her Majesty the Queen, as Queen of Uganda. It so happens that it is almost exactly 100 years since the explorers Speke and Grant discovered the headwaters of the Nile and it was from this date that our association with Uganda began. It is now 68 years since the Protectorate was first declared. During these years Uganda has been growing into a nationhood. Its peoples have been learning to work together to create a stable and happy country. There is a growing spirit of co-operation in Uganda and in recent years a read basis of political unity has been worked out. The Munster Com-mission (which your Lordships will remember was the Relationships Commission) did much to promote this spirit of unity, and I should like to record the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government to the noble Earl, Lord Munster, who led the Commission, and to his distinguished colleagues Professor Wade and Dr. Marshall.
At the Independence Conference which was concluded on June 29 at Marlborough House, arrangements were agreed which offer a permanent solution to many of the long-standing problems which have faced Uganda. The most important and baffling of these problems
1146
has been the welding of the traditional kingdoms of Buganda, Ankole, Bunyoro and Toro into a modern structure of Government The Report of this Conference is contained in Command Paper No. 1778, which was recently laid before Parliament. Uganda, perhaps more than any other British territories in Africa, has been notable for the exceptional strength of its tribal loyalties and institutions. Buganda, with its central position, with its highly developed system of Government, its Kabaka, and its traditional Council the Lukiko has tended to overshadow the rest of the country. The other kingdoms and districts have also been equally concerned to preserve their individuality. They have all, however, been willing to make sacrifices in order that the new Independent Uganda should have sufficient strength and cohesion to play its part in the affairs of the modern world.
The difficult question of the position of Buganda was to a large extent solved at the Lancaster House Conference last year. The work of the Independence Conference last month was greatly facilitated by this preparatory work. A federal relationship between Buganda and the Central Government had then been agreed, and a satisfactory relationship has now been worked out between the other Kingdoms and districts and the Central Government. Noble Lords will remember that the Central Government, under the leadership of Mr. Obote, has been in office for less than three months. None the less, during this short time much constructive work has been done.
The success of the Independence Conference was in no small part due to the confidence which Mr. Obote and his Ministers were able to inspire in the delegates from all parts of the country. Having myself sat for many hours in the Constitutional Committee, I was able to see this for myself. I should like to pay my tribute to the painstaking care and obvious sense of responsibility with which the Uganda delegates set about their task. I am bound to say that again and again during the course of the Conference regional interests were pressed; but equally, my Lords, when there seemed some danger that these regional interests were being over-emphasised, the good sense of the delegates prevailed, and they reminded themselves that their

1147
purpose was to achieve a Constitution which would benefit Uganda as a whole.
There was one issue at the Conference which proved incapable of solution by agreement. This was the dispute between the Kingdoms of Buganda and Bunyoro over the so-called "lost counties". As your Lordships will remember, the Prime Minister appointed a Commission consisting of three Members of your Lordships' House, under the chairmanship of Lord Molson, assisted by Lord Listowel and Lord Ward of Witley, to advise the Government on this difficult question. Those of your Lordships who have read their report will, I am quite certain appreciate the immense care and close consideration of all the facts with which they discharged their task.
Like the Munster Commission, Lord Molson's Commission treated the problem of the "lost counties" as a political question and not as a juridical one. Their report, your Lordships will remember, recommended that two of the counties, Buyaga and Bugangazzi, should be transferred from Buganda to Bunyoro. We entered upon the Independence Conference with the conviction that this would be the best solution to the problem, if the two Kingdoms could be brought to agree to it. But, my Lords, in the event, Buganda were adamant that there should be no transfer of territory. They maintained that the territory concerned was lawfully theirs, and, furthermore, that Lord Molson's Commission had to a very large extent acquitted them of charges of discrimination.
As there could be no agreement, my right honourable friend had to weigh very carefully the consequences of an imposed decision. He took fully into account the Commission's warnings of the risk of serious disturbances in the future if nothing were done. He also accepted their view that the atmosphere was quite unsuitable for holding a referendum in the short time available before the promised date of independence. He therefore decided upon a solution which gave the responsibility of the administration of the two counties to the Central Government for a period, and with it the responsibility to give the people who live there the opportunity by a referendum to decide their own future
1148
in conditions of peace and security. It is our belief that this solution will give security to the peoples concerned, and should greatly reduce the threat to peace and good order at this crucial period in the life of Uganda.
As your Lordships know, the view was urged in another place that there should be written into the Constitution a date before which the referendum must be held, or, at least, that a public declaration should be made in Uganda that a referendum will be held, without necessarily putting a date to it. An undertaking was given that these views would be put to Mr. Obote and this has been done. Mr. Obote is now embarking upon discussions on the practical implementation of the Conference's decisions. I am sure that your Lordships would not wish that by anything we say here to-day we should complicate the issue in Uganda.
My Lords, turning to the Bill itself, Clause 1 is in the normal form and provides for the fully responsible status of Uganda. Clause 2 deals with nationality matters consequent upon the attainment of independence by Uganda. The provisions here are similar to those for Tanganyika. Clause 3 deals with consequential modifications to other enactments. Clause 4 enables loans to be made to the East African Common Services Organisation under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1959, after the Independence of Uganda. This follows the precedent in the Tanganyika Independence Act. Clause 5 interprets the words "existing Constitution Order", which means the Uganda (Constitution) Order in Council, 1962, which was made on February 26 this year. Clause 6 is the short title of the Bill.
My Lords, I think we can look back with pride at the period of the British protection over Uganda, and I feel sure that your Lordships will endorse the sincere thanks of Her Majesty's Government to the British civil servants who have contributed so much to Uganda's progress. We are particularly glad to know that the Government of Uganda is anxious to retain their services after independence, and that the arrangements made under the Overseas Service Aid Scheme have made it possible for many of them to decide to stay on. I think it is right that at this time we should also

1149
remember the part played by explorers, traders, members of the professions, doctors, lawyers, and the like, and above all the missionaries, whose work has been so particularly successful in Uganda. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Lansdowne.)
4.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for the clear and concise way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. My next task is to apologise to your Lordships on behalf of my noble friend Lord Listowel, who has had to go abroad and, to his great regret, has been unable to be hare. He particularly wanted to be here, having been, as your Lordships know, a member of the Commission of which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was Chairman.
Looking at Uganda on a map of Africa, one is struck by its geographical situation. It abuts on the Congo and the new State of Ruanda-Burundi; on the Sudan in the North; and with the East African Territories; and one is impressed by the enormous importance of stability in Uganda, with its dangerous elements on several sides where disturbances have already taken place. If Uganda can continue to be, as it has been far the whole period of British occupation, an oasis of calm and stability, then we can see this Independence Bill go through with a good conscience and with good hopes for the future. I was speaking only a few months ago with a Canadian friend who had been travelling on United Nations business all round Africa. He said that it was at Kampala that he was struck more than anywhere else by the racial harmony and the general air of tolerance and good feeling, and we can hope that this state of affairs will continue.
The noble Marquess has referred to the unanimous wish of all Parties taking part in the Conference that the independent State of Uganda should continue to be a member of the Commonwealth. I think we can welcome that, and, as the noble Marquess says, we can welcome the spirit Of compromise that was shown by the parties taking part. One could, however, wish that that spirit had gone just a little further. I have seen it said
1150
in a letter from the Ruler of Bunyoro that "compromise is quite unknown to Africans. Yet," he said, "we willingly accepted the compromise proposed by the Molson Committee." The tribal loyalties are there held with great intensity and great feeling; and that tempts one to put over a more general idea: if we look around Africa to-day it is really deplorable to see how the epidemic of nationalism which is sweeping the whole of the world has taken hold of Africa. The fragmentation of that country, more particularly since the colonial Powers left, really puts obstacles in the way of the peaceful future for the continent and gives one cause for alarm.
On a smaller scale we have a manifestation of it in the case of the "lost counties" that are in dispute between the Kingdoms of Uganda and Bunyoro. The Commission of which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was Chairman went into this subject in great detail and came to a unanimous conclusion—and I can say on behalf of my noble friend Lord Listowel that he was entirely in agreement with the Report of that Commission. They recommended a certain course to Her Majesty's Government, and the noble Marquess has explained that Her Majesty's Government also thought that that would be the best solution; but we have to face it that when they saw that they could not get agreement with this solution they decided against imposing a solution while Her Majesty's Government was still in control. Remember, my Lords, that the Act says, in line 14 of the first page:
"… as from the appointed day Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the Government of Uganda or any part thereof."
I and my friends feel that Her Majesty's Government have shirked the responsibility which was theirs of deciding on the solution which they themselves thought was the best. They decided that it would be dangerous to leave things as they are and that a referendum was impossible in the time they had available. Delay, surely, will be dangerous. Two years' delay before there is a referendum will give opportunity for feelings to be inflamed and for passions to be played upon, with every risk that they will lead to a situation which cannot be settled peacefully. A

1151
referendum when carried out by an independent State cannot be supervised by outside impartial authorities.
The changes in the Constitution and territorial changes in the new State have to be passed by a two-thirds majority. Everything depends on the two-thirds majority. At the moment I understand that Mr. Obote is leading a Coalition Government and his principal supporters are the Buganda Party. The Buganda Party have gone on record as saying that they are irreconcilably opposed ever to giving the control of any of the disputed counties to another kingdom. That is what leads one to look on the situation with some alarm. We think that Her Majesty's Government have taken the wrong decision and have shirked their responsibilities. There is hope that the peoples of Uganda who, after all, have recognised the value to them of a peaceful combination to make the new State a success, may see that, no matter what they feel now, some compromise by both parties to the dispute is inevitable.
But that sort of attempt requires mutual confidence on both sides, and the confidence of the smaller of the two disputants, Bunyoro, is not likely to be forthcoming when you get threats expressed like those reported in The Times of July 19, when the acting Buganda Premier said:
"The Kabaka's people had been prepared to invade Bunyoro if Britain had ordered any of the Lost Counties to be transferred."
That is not the kind of language calculated to permit of a peaceful settlement. We can only hope that more moderate counsels will prevail; that the future will be assured; and that this country, which has been, as the noble Marquess said, such a good example of a Protectorate under the British Crown, thanks to the devoted efforts of the British Colonial servants, will continue on its path of independence. We hope that the dispute between these two component parts is settled peacefully. I would extend our warmest wishes to the peoples, all of them, of Uganda.
4.50 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches I very much welcome this Bill. I also appreciate the language that was used by the noble Marquess in moving the
1152
Second Reading. It was a little warmer than that which some Ministers have used in this House in the past on independence Bills. I have sometimes felt that we have missed a great opportunity, in that they have been treated in a rather doleful way, when, from their point of view, this particular period in their history is, of course, a very joyful one. The noble Marquess mentioned one particular class of people who in my experience are very rarely mentioned; and yet in Uganda, particularly, they have had a tremendous effect upon the happiness and wellbeing of the people. The sequence of British association in Uganda has been like this: first of all the explorers; secondly, the missionaries—those are the people that I was glad to hear the noble Marquess mention; thirdly, the civil servants, and fourthly the businessmen.
So far as the first are concerned, the explorers, the noble Marquess mentioned Speke. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know in this very month in Jinja there is a big celebration in honour of Speke. The poor man certainly did not get much honour in his own country; be was called liar and cheat, and all sorts of things, when be was alive. It is a very good thing that after his death, 100 years after the finding by him of the beginning of the Nile, his great achievement should be recognised. When I was in Jinja a month ago I said to them, "I am very glad you are recognising Speke; it is time he was recognised. But there is one memorial to him already; it is a few hundred yards from my residence in London—I refer to the obelisk that is erected to him in Kensington Gardens". But for some reason it is singularly uninformative, since the only inscription on it is, "Speke. Victoria, Nyanza", which cannot give very much information to the people, nursemaids and others, who visit Kensington Gardens.
Then we come to the missionaries. I said that they had performed a great service. When I visited Uganda about fifteen years ago there was an old lady still living there, an old French or Belgian missionary, who 50 years before had walked all the way from Mombasa, through the bush, in peril of wild animals, and wilder men, to Uganda. In fact, of course, the reason the railway was first developed through Kenya was

1153
to take the products of Uganda down to the sea at Mombasa. Then, finally, we have the civil servants, who, as the noble Marquess quite rightly said, played a great part, and the businessmen who have also played their part in the development of this country. I should also like to pay my tribute to nine Uganda Development Corporation, under its chairman, Mr. Simpson, who have made a tremendous contribution to the economic development of the protectorate.
My Lords, I feel that the prospects of Uganda are bright, because, unlike so many countries whose independence we celebrate in this House, it is economically viable. It has a small population for its size—only some 6 million or 7 million in a country the size of Britain—and it has a rich soil, with many natural resources. There is no large settler element there and there is no large racial minority. Such racial minorities as are there are badly needed in the development of the country; and I am sure—indeed, I know—that this fact is understood by the African leaders. Politically, therefore, so far as those problems are concerned—problems which are so acute in other parts of Africa—there is no difficulty in Uganda.
They also need, as the noble Marquess said, and as I know from personal discussions with the African leaders in Uganda, the assistance of the European expatriate officers. Unhappily, I do not feel that they are going to get it; because in Uganda, as in every other country to which we grant independence, at the moment of granting independence we commit an act of extreme folly in bribing the officers who are most needed for the development of the territory to leave it. Just at the moment when their skill and their expertise, their advice and wisdom, are most required they are off, bribed by the British Government. Moreover, a great deal of the money which is at that moment granted by loan or grant to the country from Britain has to be applied to the compensation of the officers, so that money is not available for the development of the country.
I have mentioned this point to your Lordships on many occasions on these independence Bills. The situation has not altered. What should be done, of course, is to do for the civil authority
1154
what the Army does. If the Army seconds officers, as it does in large numbers, it does not expect them to lose all their pension rights or anything of that kind. They remain as officers in the British Army, under the War Office, and when they have finished in the other countries they come back. These civil servants of whom I am speaking should be part of the Home Civil Service. They would normally work not at home, but overseas where they are needed. But the mere fact that they are part of the Home Civil Service, pensionable as home civil servants, would avoid this problem of having to get rid of them and compensate them for exercising their right to leave the territory at this very delicate moment.
With regard to the Uganda Independence Conference last month, there is just one minor matter I would mention: it does not affect your Lordships, but it might cause a little confusion later on. When the noble Marquess kindly made a reference to myself in the course of the proceedings on the Jamaica Independence Bill he said that I had been the adviser to the kingdom of Toro at this Uganda Independence Conference last month. In fact the people who had the advantage, or disadvantage, of my advice were not the Kingdom of Toro but, as it is now to be called, the Territory of Busoga. I mention that because it might lead later to some misunderstanding.
I have been on a number of these Independence Conferences and I am sure that, above all, one has to have boundless patience, especially with Africans. You cannot hurry them; they must know the reason why. They must be satisfied with what is happening; they will take nothing on trust or for granted. It is not often that I have the opportunity of congratulating Her Majesty's Ministers—usually I have to criticise them—but I should like to say that the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, who was, as be has just told your Lordships, the Chairman of the Constitutional Committee, on which I also sat, showed boundless patience and no and of courtesy. In fact, sometimes when we had been sitting from 9 in the morning until about 11.30 at night, I thought his patience was a little too boundless; but, at all events, it was a fault on the right side.

1155
How do we harmonise the need for a strong central Government with the tribal feeling and the attachment of these small territories to their own kingdoms? The noble Marquess said, quite rightly, that this was the main problem at the Conference. It is particularly so in Uganda, because they have such strong attachment to their local kingdoms. On the whole, I think that the solution found at the Independence Conference was the right one, and that there is enough power in the centre, and yet enough authority in the various kingdoms and districts and the territory of Busoga, to allow for the needs both of a strong central Government and of tribal attachments to their own particular districts and kingdoms and territory.
I think we have to understand the difficulties of African political leaders. Your Lordships occasionally read and hear rather flamboyant statements from various leaders, although I am glad to say that this does not apply to the Uganda leaders. These statements are made because to a large extent they are entering what is to them a new world, and there is no comfortable body of political and constitutional doctrine to fall back on, as there is in this country or in the United States, where politicians who are in doubt can always call up some precedent from something that has happened at some time. These people cannot do that. As I say, they are really entering a new world without any of the guide posts which in well-established democracies are always present—sometimes, some of us think a good deal too much present. Therefore, you will find unco-ordinated speeches and you will find rather inflammatory speeches, but I am quite sure that they must not be taken too seriously.
As the noble Marquess said, the acute problem was over the lost counties. Originally, there wore six, and now, as the result of the Report of Lord Molson's Commission, that is cut down to two. There were three courses which we at the Conference thought that the British Government might take. The first was to give the two counties to Bunyoro; the second, to allow Buganda to retain them for all time, as it were; and the third was to do nothing. After some experience of Her Majesty's Government, I must admit that I was
1156
afraid they would take the third course and do nothing. It seemed to me highly important that they should do something. It was quite beyond reason to expect a young Uganda Government to handle a problem of this kind which was, in any case, sixty years ago the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, and on which nothing has been done ever since.
So I was very glad indeed that they took action and did take a decision. It was quite an unexpected one—namely, that the Central Government should administer these two counties for a period of not less than two years, after which the decision should be taken by a referendum organised by the National Assembly of Uganda. I thought that was quite an imaginative proposal. It was a decision which was accepted by the Uganda Government. It was a great step forward. Mr. Obote, with great courage I may say, accepted the decision, and I think it may well be that it will be found in time to be the right one. The only question in my mind is whether there should be a maximum period as well as a minimum one—in other words, whether the referendum must be held within a certain period of time. But, on the whole, I think it is perhaps just as well not to include it in the Constitution. If a declaration can be obtained from the Uganda Government, so much the better. All these things will be in the hands of the Uganda Government, and I personally have every confidence in Mr. Obote. I think he is a remarkable man and, so far as he is concerned, I am sure he will carry out any obligations to the letter.
So far as Clause 4 of the Bill is concerned, I am pleased to see that the Colonial Development and Welfare Act will be made applicable to the East African Common Services Organisation, after Uganda Independence. This is definitely a step in the right direction. As your Lordships know, the East African Common Services Organisation took over responsibility from the East African High Commission and they administer a number of common services, such as the railways, the posts and aviation. I am certain that this tendency will increase as time goes on. In fact, quite recently Mr. Mboya said, on a future East African Federation, that the three territories—that is Uganda,

1157
Kenya and Tanganyika—and Zanzibar could no longer shy away from the question. He said:
"They not only have so much in common, but are so interdependent that it would be futile for any leader to ignore the logical consequence of this interdependence. Call it a federation or anything else, but it must be a workable and viable unit, formed by courageous leadership, far-sightedness, and the ability to accommodate the sensitivities, weaknesses and legitimate interests of the various sections of our community."
I feel sure that we should all support Mr. Mboya in that expression of view.
There is only one other point I should like to raise, and that is on the future of the East African. University. As your Lordships know, this is spread over various colleges throughout the three territories. The main one, and of course the largest one, is Makerere in Uganda. It is beautifully sited, and I think it is quite likely that, after independence, the headquarters or part of the headquarters of the University will move to Entebbe. That again is a beautiful little place, and in every way suited for the headquarters of a university. But beauty does not in itself, although it is a valuable constituent in a university, mean that the university is going to be successful; and I urge the United Kingdom universities to give all the help they can to the new University of East Africa. The University certainly needs it. In my opinion, it is vital that university development should be on a large scale in the next decade, because there is a great shortage of African professional men—technicians, managers, administrators and so on. This can be made good, in my opinion, only by an expansion on sound lines of the University.
Finally, I fed that the future for Uganda is particularly bright; and I must say that for the rest of East Africa I feel that the clouds have a silver lining. I am sure that with our help and sympathy, and the help and sympathy of the United States, of various international organisations, and other European countries, like Switzerland and West Germany, we can really help to develop this vast, undeveloped and under-populated area of the world. The blue-print for progress is there. It needs to be put into operation. There is a great deal of moaning in this country over East Africa, much of it unnecessary.
1158
Only to-day I had a vast sheaf of paper posited to me. This conitinually happens. This one starts off in a most lugubrious way:
"There must be few who have any illusion left about Kenya now."
This is by a man who claims to know a great deal about it. Well, I do not think there is any need for pessimism about any of these territories. What they need is help, support, and encouragement, not people going around the City of London, Wall Street, Zurich, and so on, running them down. In my view, if we in this country and the people in the United States and elsewhere do our part, then they will do theirs, and their future will be a happy one right throughout East Africa. My Lords, we on these Benches send our best wishes to Uganda for a most happy and prosperous future.
5.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT WARD OF WITLEY: My Lords, may I begin by asking for the customary indulgence which your Lordships extend to those who are addressing the House for the first time? To-day, I join that growing, but I hope still select, band of Peers who have the distinction of having made two maiden speeches in the same Chamber. Indeed, it was almost from exactly this same seat that I made my first maiden speech in January, 1946, when your Lordships' House was temporarily another place and when these Benches were the Opposition Benches. I am glad to note that the little red button which, in my nervousness while waiting to speak, I detached from the upholstery, and which I have preserved in my stud box till to-day, has been replaced by another. I only hope that I shall not now receive a bill for it from the Treasury.
My Lords, I have never regarded myself, and certainly no one else has ever regarded me, as an expert on Colonial Affairs, and I ventured to intervene briefly in this debate to-day only because I was one of the three Privy Counsellors, under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Molson, who, at the request of the Prime Minister, visited Uganda last January to inquire into and report upon the long-standing boundary dispute between Buganda and Bunyoro. Anyone who has once been to Uganda will, I believe, always take a close interest in its future development. For one cannot

1159
fail to be captivated by the beauty of the country and by the kindness and charm of its people; nor can one fail to recapture much of the magnetism which compelled the great Victorian explorers to return there again and again, determined, in spite of immense hardship, danger and disease to uncover the wealth of secrets it held.
So, my Lords, I am glad to welcome this Bill which gives Uganda her independence as a sovereign Power within the British Commonwealth. I believe, like other noble Lords who have spoken before me, that Mr. Obote and his Government will guide the future progress of their country with wisdom, courage and statesmanship, and I wish him every success. I should like also to add my own warm tribute to all those members of the British Civil Service whose wisdom and devotion to duty over so many years have brought Uganda quickly and smoothly to independence. Many have elected to stay on; and their knowledge and experience will still prove to be invaluable to the new Government.
But, my Lords, even in a maiden speech which I know must not be too controversial, I cannot refrain from expressing my disappointment that it was not found possible to get agreement between Buganda and Bunyoro over the lost counties dispute before the date of independence. As the noble Marquess has said, our Commission recommended that two of the counties should be returned to Bunyoro and that the other four should remain in Buganda. We also recommended that Mubende Town should be placed under the administration of the Central Government. Those recommendations were accepted without reservation by Her Majesty's Government and, I think, by Her Majesty's Opposition as well. The Omukama of Bunyoro, although disappointed that we had not recommended the return of all the territory, generously agreed to this compromise in the interests of peace, stability and the unity in Uganda as a whole, and he renounced all claim to the four remaining counties. And if there could have been an equally magnanimous gesture by the Kabaka of Buganda, the problem would have been solved and the dispute settled for all time. But, unfortunately, the Kabaka, doubtless
1160
with the Kabaka Yekka breathing down his neck, refused to cede any territory at all.
This put my right honourable friend the then Colonial Secretary into a very difficult position. Whether or not he left himself enough room for manœuvre; whether or not our Commission was appointed too late; whether or not this nettle might have been grasped earlier and linked with the date of independence—all these are matters of argument which I prefer not to develop now, but to leave to other noble Lords if they wish to develop them. In any case, it is always easy to offer advice with the benefit of hindsight, especially from the back seat. But the point is that the Molson Commission recommended a solution which was welcomed by the Government as being fair and sensible, and which depended upon obtaining the agreement of both parties to the dispute before the date of independence. It is very disappointing indeed to me that the agreement of one Of these parties was not forthcoming. However, all that is now water under the bridge and the important thing is what is going to happen in the future.
As we know, my right honourable friend produced an alternative solution Which was agreed by Mr. Obote, but, unfortunately, by neither the Kabaka nor by the Omukama. It is that these two counties of Buyaga and Bugangazzi should be placed under the administration of the Central Government for a minimum period of two years and then a referendum held at some appropriate time to determine the wishes of the people. I have read carefully the arguments put forward in another place that there should be a maximum period within Which the referendum must be held as well as a minimum cooling off period, and I must admit that I have some sympathy for the views expressed; but I very much doubt whether it would really be practical politics. One reason (and I think my noble friend Lord Molson will agree) Why our Commission was so anxious to get this matter settled before the date of independence was precisely because we felt it would be impossible to bind the Uganda Government to settle it after the British had gone. And, of course, the same thing applies here. One cannot bind them to stick to a maximum period.

1161
It may be asked: "If you lay down a minimum period, why not a maximum one?" But, of course, they readily agreed to a minimum period. As every Chief Whip knows, there is no difficulty about agreeing to speak for a minimum of ten minutes; but to promise to limit one's speech to a maximum of ten minutes is quite a different matter. In any case, I am sure Mr. Obote wants to get the matter settled. Indeed, I believe that both the major political Parties in Uganda want to gat the matter settled, although I am not so sure about the Kabaka Yekka, which unfortunately holds the balance of power. But, certainly, Mr. Obote will be in the best position to judge the right moment to hold a referendum, and certainly in a better one, I think, than we are now at a distance of two years away.
Whether or not a referendum will work at all depends largely upon the kind of administration which the Uganda Government establishes in the two counties in the next two years. Certainly, it would not work now. As we said in our Report:
"a referendum would inevitably fan the flames of tribal feeling, would invite intimidation, and would create a situation in whch no lastng settlement could be expected. At worst it could lead to bloodshed."
I cannot help feeling considerable doubt whether this will not be equally true two years from now. Certainly, Mr. Obote is shouldering a very great responsibility. There will be—and I am sure he realises it—much preparatory work to do in the selection of local chiefs, for example, and insistence upon absolute impartiality in their administration. Supervision must be both independent and strict. Security arrangements must be efficient and unbiased.
In that connection, I wonder if I might ask the noble Marquess, when he replies, whether he can give us any idea of the position with regard to the two companies of King's African Rifles in Uganda; whether he is satisfied that they are properly equipped and there in adequate numbers to deal with any troubles that may arise; and, if not, whether he will assure us that the Government will give them all the help they can. Much will depend upon the two tribes themselves. Any needling of one another, and, particularly, any acts of lawlessness, will tend to perpetuate an
1162
atmosphere in which a referendum is impossible. But we can only look on the bright side and hope that things will change considerably in the next few years.
My Lords, having said all that, and I hope I have not been too controversial, I should like to congratulate my right honourable friend now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and also the noble Marquess, on the success of the Constitutional Conference. There were, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, pointed out, many difficult problems to be resolved other than that of the lost counties. That they were resolved was due not only to the skill and diplomacy of my right honourable friend, but also to the spirit of co-operation shown by the Uganda delegates. This augurs well for the new Sovereign State, for sit is only by a determination to build a united Uganda, in which the nation comes first and tribal loyalties second, that the people of that fascinating country can look forward to the happy and prosperous future they deserve.
5.25 p.m.
LORD TWINING: My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley, on his maiden speech? It was a felicitous speech, and I listened to it with great pleasure. Although he dealt with this intractable problem of the lost counties, he was able to speak with sympathy and with authority. I am sure your Lordships will wish to hear the noble Viscount on many occasions in the future in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, it was my privilege to serve in Uganda from 1923 to 1938, first in the Army and then in the Administration. I know the country well, and I count among my friends many Uganda Africans from the most lowly to the highest in the land. As the noble Viscount has said, anyone who visits Uganda must be struck by the beauty of the smiling countryside which has been so wall endowed by nature. This is reflected by the happy look on the faces of those who live there. They are an intelligent and well-mannered people, who go about their business with a dignified poise suggesting a natural pride in their land and their way of life. If during the last few years there have been political stresses and strains, most of these have been resolved by the mature

1163
good sense of the people and the statesmanship of their leaders.
Uganda is notable for the strength of the monarchical system. The Kingdoms of Buganda, Bunyoro, Toro and Ankole cover a large part of the total area of the country. I have always thought that the British Administration tended; to underestimate how deeply rooted monarchy is in the minds and the loyalties of the people. In Buganda the Kabakaship is regarded as being sacrosanct. It is the outward and visible sign of their history and of their sense of nationhood, while at the same time it carries with it a certain undefinable but, nevertheless, powerful mystique. I have known two Kabakas, and can testify to the devotion and loyalty shown by their subjects, both to their office and to their person. The same is true of the other Kingdoms. It is therefore not surprising, though it is none the less gratifying, that they accept our gracious Sovereign, not only as Head of the Commonwealth but as Queen of Uganda.
Uganda possesses a peculiar geographical feature, which I believe is to be found in only one other part of the world, in Central Asia. There are parts of the country, on its western extremities, which are situated 1,000 miles from the sea in every direction. I mention this to emphasise that the country suffers from the disadvantages of being both landlocked and remote. This makes the transportation of imports and exports a very costly business. Nevertheless, it has prospered, but it is dependent on a lifeline, which is the railway to the coast. This is a single-line mountain railway, climbing to over 10,000 feet above sea level before descending to the port of Mombasa. Uganda has contributed substantial sums to the development and equipment of the railway and the port. Both are extremely well equipped and efficiently operated.
Uganda has always been unenthusiastic about any proposals for a Federation of East Africa, or even for any form of closer union. Her people have feared domination by Nairobi. But, being sensible and realistic, they recognise that some form of association is essential to their wellbeing, and they are prepared to make the best bargain they can. They would, I believe, like to see the port of Mombasa neutralised, so that it would
1164
be under the control of no one East African Government. They have accepted the East African Common Services Organisation, and it is certainly in their best interests that this form of inter-territorial co-operation should continue.
But, my Lords, because of their remoteness we may expect to see, in the course of time, a development which could make Uganda one of the most prosperous countries in Africa, an industrial country serving the interests and exploiting the potentialities of the Lake Victoria basin. Within a radius of some 250 miles of Lake Victoria lies a huge area which rises from some 1,800 feet above sea level on the Uganda-Sudan border to over 10,000 feat in the Kenya Highlands. In this area almost any crops requiring tropical or temperate conditions can be grown. Within this area, too, is a large and rapidly-increasing population which provides a source of labour and a considerable and growing consumer market. Hydro-electric power is available at the source of the Nile at Jinja in almost unlimited quantity. There are natural communications provided by a great system of waterways which have been linked by man, by air, by railways and by a splendid road system. Here are the makings, my Lords, of a future common market in the centre of Africa.
Much has already been done by far-sighted British administrators, and I should like particularly to mention the names of Sir John Hathorn Hall, Sir Andrew Cohen and Sir Frederick Crawford. But future development will require an immense amount of capital and technical resources. I believe that Uganda and its six neighbouring countries can in time provide a sufficient number of efficient and well-qualified technicians, but large-scale financial aid and capital investment will be needed from outside. It is therefore of the greatest importance that independent Uganda should earn a good name for political stability, and as a safe place for capital investment. Given proper planning and the right conditions, this part of Africa could be transformed during the next 25 years. If, as is likely, Uganda turns to us for help, I hope that we shall not be backward in showing our confidence in this new member of the Commonwealth.
In the meantime, the short-term prospects seem to be favourable. The

1165
Government has shown already that it has a strong sense of responsibility and is facing up to its problems with moderation and a sense of purpose. The only cloud on the horizon is the problem of the "lost counties," which will require good statesmanship to solve, but I will not dwell on that as it has already been touched upon. I should like to pay a tribute to the work of the missions, as did the noble Marquess. To-day, Uganda is largely a Christian country. It is true that in the past there has been strong rivalry between the Protestants and the Roman Catholics, and even today this tradition persists to some extent in the political field. But a Christian spirit prevails which can continue to play a vital part in the life of the country. It is this spirit and the maturity of the people that give one confidence that the country's course is "set fair," and that it can exercise a stabilising influence in this part of Africa. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join in an expression of sympathetic good will to this, the latest of our former colonial territories to gain independence and to become a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
5.33 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, though I have not the unequalled experience of the noble Lord, Lord Twining, of Uganda, I am very fond of the country and know its people well. Therefore, I should just like to say how much I welcome this Bill, and to congratulate Her Majesty's Government, and the Uganda delegations, on the successful outcome of the Conference. The road to independence has not been altogether smooth, but it has been a great deal smoother than in the case of many of the other States in Africa which have found, or are about to find, independence. It has, in fact, escaped many of the unpleasant events which have occurred along its borders.
There is one fact, however, which is not always remembered about Uganda; that is, that when we arrived there were many political institutions which were then in existence, and had been for many years. We did not have to teach them the idea of a Parliament. Although their Parliament may have been more like this House than the other, it nevertheless existed. It was because these
1166
institutions existed that Her Majesty's Government chose to use them, and have used them, with indirect rule, for many years most successfully. That is perhaps why peace has, on the whole, reigned over the past years. When I was last in Uganda a great deal of concern was expressed that Her Majesty's Government might seek to destroy those institutions and put in their place a modern Constitution. They felt that this would be entirely contrary to what they would expect from the United Kingdom, whose traditions and whole way of life are based on existing institutions. Therefore, it seemed only right and proper to build on the existing institutions. To destroy them and impose a Westminster Constitution would have been entirely alien to the African world. In fact, it has not always worked in other parts of Africa, as we well know. If changes are to be made, let them be made by the Africans now, through their own institutions.
My Lords, I wanted merely to say, briefly, how pleased everybody is that the Conference succeeded so well. I am certain that, in the future, not only will Uganda be a shining example to those countries on their west, in the Congo, and also to their east, in East Africa, and in Tanganyika, but that it will also be a concrete example of our good intentions towards the independence of our colonial territories.
5.36 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, like every other speaker to-day, I welcome this Bill, and I hope that it will inaugurate a period of happiness and prosperity to Uganda when the country obtains its independence. I am also very happy to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ward of Witley upon his admirable maiden speech, which gave me special pleasure after the long and agreeable association that we had on the Commission.
But, my Lords, I should not have risen to say those two things if I did not feel bound to make certain remarks about the settlement which has been imposed in the lost counties dispute. I do not intend to speak on the merits of our Report. I think that I am justified in saying that it has been accepted as fair and reasonable by everyone except the parties to the dispute. I share the

1167
disappointment that the appeal that we made in our Report to Buganda to make a generous move towards a settlement has not been accepted. As my noble friend has said, our proposal was that, of the six counties, two, Buyaga and Bugangazzi, where the Bunyoro were in a large majority and were obviously very much attached to the Omukama in sentiment, should be returned to that Kingdom, and that the other four should continue to remain with Buganda. My Lords, we did not recommend a referendum. We thought it unnecessary, and we thought that it was likely to be extremely dangerous, likely to inflame political opinion and likely to lead to intimidation and violence.
In view of the refusal of Buganda to accept these proposals, my right honourable friend who was then Secretary of State for the Colonies felt obliged to impose a compromise. I feel that this compromise is unduly favourable to Buganda, which is the more powerful of the disputants, and is unfair to Bunyoro. It is, of course, arguable that it is desirable that there should be a referendum in those two counties in order to ascertain what I think is already quite obvious—namely, that they wish to be returned to the Kingdom of Bunyoro. I cannot think, however, that it is reasonable to lay down that that referendum should not take place for two years, without any firm assurance that it will take place at any time.
My Lords, I will certainly heed what was urged by my noble friend Lord Lansdowne: that nothing I say should complicate the issue. Our desire was to act as peacemakers in this dispute, and I am still hoping that peace may come as a result of the compromise that has been imposed. My Lords, we said that it was most desirable that this dispute should be settled before independence. We foresaw that there was a great danger that under the 1961 constitution the Prime Minister of Uganda would be dependent upon a bloc of representatives from Buganda, and we said in paragraph 103 of our Report
"that the Federal status in an independent country, which Buganda is to enjoy from October 9, 1962, would make it relatively easy for the Kabaka's Government, if it so desired, to obstruct the implementation of a settlement."
1168
And we said in paragraph 105 that
"if a Prime Minister of an independent Uganda were dependent upon the Buganda bloc for staying in office, he would find it difficult to support any concession to the Bunyoro."
My Lords, that is exactly what has happened. The 21 representatives of Buganda are all nationalists, and Mr. Obote is dependent upon their support for remaining in office. It therefore appears to me to be important that the demands which were made by both Parties in another place should be heard, and that an assurance should be given by the present Government of Uganda that the referendum will be carried out at a reasonably early time. I share the doubts expressed by my noble friend Lord Ward of Witley, that the passage of time may not necessarily lead to an assuaging of these passions, but that in fact the feelings may become more inflamed as time passes. I am quite sure, therefore, that the next thing which should happen to make a settlement likely would be that some assurance should be given that the referendum will in fact be held.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was not quite correct when he said that Buganda had accepted this compromise. It is said in paragraph 69 of the White Paper that, at the final plenary session, the Buganda delegation stated that the decision of the Secretary of State was wholly unacceptable to them.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that correction, but if I said "Buganda", it was a mistake, a slip of the tongue. I meant to say that the Uganda Government accepted it, not the Buganda Government. I was there at the time and I knew very well that Buganda had not. I apologise if I made a slip of the tongue.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am much obliged. The slight difference between the words "Buganda" and "Uganda", however familiar one is with them and their etymological origin, sometimes makes it difficult to hear which is actually said. But the fact that, up to the end, this compromise was not acceptable to the Government of Buganda, makes it all the more desirable that an assurance should be given by the the Government of Uganda that this

1169
referendum will be carried out at a reasonably early date. My Lords, there is a great opportunity open to Mr. Obote and to his Government. Whatever I may have said in criticism of Her Majesty's Government for this compromise, it has this outstanding merit: that it leaves open to the Government of Uganda, and to Mr Obote in particular, a great opportunity even now of settling this matter, and of making sure that the independence of Uganda brings about a settlement of this ancient and distressing dispute.
5.45 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, although, perhaps, the speeches which have been made in your Lordships' House this afternoon will not be so closely scrutinised in this country in view of other speeches which are being made at the same time to-day, it is quite certain that they will be very closely scrutinised in Uganda. It is for that reason that I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate for the Wholehearted welcome that they have given to the approaching independence of Uganda; and, furthermore, I should like to thank them for the thoroughly justified praise, if I may say so, that they gave to all members of the Uganda delegation in London, and, in particular, to Mr. Obote, the Prime Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Malson, speaks with the weight of great authority and experience, and, of course, it is natural that he was, as indeed all of us were, disappointed that the solution which he and his Commission thought out so carefully was, in the event, beyond application. I am not going to go into the details of the negotiations which led my right honourable friend the previous Colonial Secretary to reach the decision to which he came. But I can tell your Lordships this: he did not reach this decision without the most careful consideration, and without long and patient discussion with the panties concerned. I have taken note, of course, of what noble Lords have said about the question of an assurance that the referendum should be held.
May I be allowed to add my very sincere congratulations also to the noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley, on his speech? I was interested to hear how he
1170
had considered the question of the minimum and the maximum periods, and, in the end, had decided to reject the idea of a maximum period. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, although he criticised the decision to which Her Majesty's Government have come, said this—I hope I shall not misquote him:
"it does leave it open to the Government of Uganda to make this great contribution itself towards the future peace and prosperity of its country."
My Lords, I suppose it must truly be said that we in fact failed to reach the answer. We tried, but it appeared to be beyond our reach; and, after all, politics is the art of the possible. We had to think very seriously whether we might not, by a solution to which we were very much drawn, in fact inflict upon Uganda a dreadful wound. And so it was that my right honourable friend reached the decision to which there has been reference this afternoon.
It is, of course, the earnest desire of us all—those of the Commission and all of us in this House—that this decision will, in the end, be proved to be right. I, for my part, have a very considerable degree of optimism that it will so turn out, for the reasons which have been so admirably stated by other speakers in this debate this afternoon: that there is among the people of Uganda a clear sense of nationhood; a realisation that if their country is to continue to be, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, described it, an oasis of calm and stability, it will be necessary for them to work together in a spirit of compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Twining, with his great knowledge of the country, referred to the necessity for political stability in order to attract the necessary development capital. Here again it has been our hope that the actions of Her Majesty's Government will indeed ensure the political stability which is so necessary for the attraction of investment capital to Uganda.
The noble Viscount, Lord Ward of Witley, asked me a specific question about the King's African Rifles in Uganda. I am informed What the 4th Battalion of the King's African Rifles, consisting of three rifle companies and a headquarters, will become the nucleus of the Uganda Army on October 9. Britain has undertaken to meet the cost

1171
of this force from then—that is, the date of independence—until March 31, 1963. This would be at the cost of about £200,000. We are doing our best to ensure that the weapons and equipment of the Battalion are handed over in good condition and complete to the regular scale.
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for having inadvertently the other day, when we were discussing Jamaica, described him as the legal adviser of Toro. Of course, this was a slip of the tongue. I knew perfectly well that he was advising the territory of Busoga. I should also like to thank him for his kind remarks about my chairmanship of the Constitutional Committee of the Conference, and to apologise to him for the effect of my patience upon him.
There was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised, with which I think I must clearly state that I disagree; it was on the subject of overseas officers. In fact, we do not bribe the overseas officers to leave these territories at the moment when they can render such useful service. The Overseas Service Aid Scheme, to which I referred and upon which the noble Lord is well informed, is specifically designed to encourage our overseas civil servants to remain in these territories, and I am happy to say that it is having its effect. The latest reports available show that slightly more than one-third of those concerned in the territory of Uganda have given their notice. I should like to point out that they receive compensation, whether they stay on or not. Of course, there is a small advantage if they stay on—and that is the purpose of this scheme: they can commute an additional one-sixteenth of their pension every year. I think that it is true to say that this Overseas Service Aid Scheme is being effective and is encouraging our valuable overseas officers to continue in their work.
I have no doubt that the good wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who knows the country well, will be well received when they are read in Uganda. In conclusion, I should like to add my own words in praise of Mr. Obote. The solution which Her Majesty's Government have decided upon was a great test of Mr. Obote's
1172
courage. Other noble Lords have referred to this. It will require courage for him to carry out the responsibility which he has assumed, the responsibility of the administration of the two lost counties. At this very time he is engaged in conversations on the practical application of the decisions of the Conference, as I said in my opening remarks. We have drawn his attention to the anxieties which have been expressed in another place, and I will see to it that he will also be informed of the anxieties which have been expressed in your Lordships' House this afternoon. I do not think there is anything further that I would wish to add, except once again to thank noble Lords for their generous attitude and to add my sincere good wishes to the people of Uganda and to the new Central Government.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO INDEPENDENCE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

BRITISH SUBJECTS' EGYPTIAN CLAIMS
5.57 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN LORD KILLEARN rose to move to resolve: (1) That, as it is now nearly six years since British subjects were deprived of their property and means of livelihood in Egypt, it is fully time that their claims were finally settled; (2) That, since it is clear (from the figures already given in Parliament by Her Majesty's Government) that the £27½ million paid in compensation by Egypt in February, 1959, falls very far short of what is required to meet the claims already agreed and those still to be made, Her Majesty's Government should now carry out the pledges made in both Houses of Parliament, by the grant in aid forthwith of sufficient funds to meet the assessed claims, mindful that it was on the strength of these pledges that Parliament accepted the Financial Agreement with Egypt of February, 1959. The noble Lord said: My Lords,

1173
I rise to put before your Lordships the Resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before I get down to discussing its terms, I would apologise for bringing up such an old, old subject. Your Lordships must be tired and weary of this thing. It goes on for years and years, and never seems to get much forwarder. Yet it is a cause which some of us feel deserves all our support and pertinacity, even if it does sometimes weary your Lordships. This is the eighth debate we have had on this subject—eight solid, full-blown debates. And the Parliamentary Questions on it are like the stars in Heaven. I have counted up to at least 30, and I should think as many in the other place. And still we have this question with us; and, so far as I can make out, it is going to be with us for all time. That is why I put this Resolution down, to bring it up, as I hope, with a round term.
That brings me to paragraph 1 of the Resolution, which simply says in plain English:
"That, as it is now nearly six years since British subjects were deprived of their property and means of livelihood in Egypt, it is fully time that their claims were finally settled."
I cannot believe that in any quarter of this House there can be any dissent on the principle which I there enunciate. Before I go on to paragraph No. 2, here is an extract from a letter which I have only just received. Oddly enough, it comes from Kenya. The writer was one of the pillars of the British community in Egypt all through the war, and now, with his wife, he is living in Kenya. He says this:
"We ourselves have not had even a pocket handkerchief released from Egypt, and our present funds are frozen there and undergoing a sharp drop in value at the hands of Nasser."
That is only one of dozens of letters; we are all getting them. These are miserable and heart-rending cases.
That leads me to make this observation. I find it difficult to speak on this subject without a certain degree of emotion. I am not frightfully emotional—none of us is. But for 12½ years I lived, with my family, with these people in Cairo, in fair times and foul times, and throughout the war. A more loyal community I defy you to meet anywhere. That is, I suppose, in a sense, a sort of commonplace; you expect to find that.
1174
But they are not always put to the test of a war within 30 miles of their gates. I can tell your Lordships from personal experience that we had Rommel within 30 miles of us; we could hear his guns but there was not a quiver among my community. That is saying something.
Many of these people with whom it was our privilege to work put large funds into British Government securities; in fact not only substantially but morally they helped to maintain a stable basis for the British troops operating in the desert. Those are the people on whose behalf I am speaking. Some of them were poor; others were rich. But the time came when, owing to the failure of British policy (I personally backed that policy) these people were thrown out, neck and crop, with not a thing—many of them with not even a toothbrush: property, stocks and shares, houses and everything else were seized. At that time, I am glad to say, public opinion here was very much roused about it, and the Government did a certain amount. There was the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, and his Commission, and many of these people were placed. But, by and large, the matter remained, and still remains, outstanding.
Your Lordships may remember that during the war we used Egypt's harbours, ports, lights and what-have-you; and it was arranged at the end of the war (I think very generously; but I was not there then) that we should pay Egypt £400 million sterling for the privileges which she had given us. As I say, that was for saving her national existence. It seems a curious thing for us to pay for; but, never mind, we did it. Anyway, they had here credits of £400 million sterling. The years go on, and we come to the events at Suez. By that time these sterling credits, as we called them, had been reduced to roughly £100 million sterling. I obtained from the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, some weeks ago, a figure which showed that in February, 1957, the amount standing to the credit of Egypt was £93 million.
Now, my Lords, I should like to read the second paragraph of my Resolution.
It says:
"(2) That, since it is clear (from the figures already given in Parliament by Her Majesty's Government) that the £27½ million paid in compensation by Egypt in February, 1959, falls

1175
very far short of what is required to meet the claims already agreed and those still to be made, Her Majesty's Government should now carry out the pledges made in both Houses of Parliament, by the grant in aid forthwith of sufficient funds to meet the assessed claims, mindful that it was on the strength of these pledges that Parliament accepted the Financial Agreement with Egypt of February, 1959."
I take your Lordships back to the sterling credits. When the events at Suez occurred there was a contain amount of pressure brought to bear that these funds, which were perfectly good sterling in this country, should be held as security. There was a lot of fal-lal (if I may use that word) that it was contrary to bankers' practice, and I do not know what. Anyhow, on May 16, 1957, the then Foreign Minister used these words in the House of Commons [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 570, col. 584]:
"The blocked accounts are our security for the claims of British subjects against the Egyptian Government. We have no intention of whittling away that position. The House can be sure of that."
Well, my Lords, I could not have asked for a more explicit assurance. I would remind your Lordships that alt that time these funds stood at £93 million, according to the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, I come back to paragraph (2) of the Resolution, under which we accept in full and final settlement from Egypt the sum of £27½ million. I will just read to your Lordships what the Treaty says:
"The Government of the United Arab Republic shall pay to the United Kingdom the sum of £27½ million sterling in full and final settlement."
So we have not another kit coming out of Egypt; we cannot go back and say that we want any more; that is full and final settlement, and we have taken the £27½ million.
Against that we have (I can give a rough estimate) what I may call the short-fall, the difference between what we received and what I am asking for. The Foreign Compensation Commission are a very estimable body, of whom one hears nothing but good. It is through them that these claims have to be put forward—in fact, they have to do the distributing of the £27½ million; and they are proceeding to do so. They have on their files (that is, they have accepted agreements) claims for Egyptianised
1176
property—property which has been nationalised in Egypt—of between £60 million and £65 million.
Then there is the outstanding claim, which is, I know, the difficulty, of the sequestrated property. I am afraid that I am not being very clear, my Lords, but I hope that I am not getting too confused. Under the Treaty the property of British subjects was divided in two different classes. There was the property which Egypt nationalised and took over, which included all the bigger companies, of course, the things that were worth while; and there was the sequestrated property, which belonged to the smaller firms, and which, under the Treaty, was to be restored to its owners. The £27½ million, just to remind your Lordships, was to cover two things: it was to cover all claims in respect of property referred to in paragraph (c)—that is, the Egyptianised property; and, secondly, all claims in respect of injury or damage to property, the sequestrated matter, which under the Treaty was to be restored.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, could the noble Lord give any indication of a breakdown of those figures?
LORD KILLEARN: Which figures?
LORD PEDDIE: The amount in the corporate bodies and the amount due to individuals.
LORD KILLEARN: I obviously cannot do that; and I doubt whether the Government can do it.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think that I might be able to help there.
LORD KILLEARN: I hope so. I have not got the sources. What it comes to is that the bulk of the bigger corporations have been nationalised. Shell is on a seperate basis altogether; I believe that they made a separate arrangement, and they do not come into this question at all.
I have here a long list of assurances of all kinds which have been given at different times by the Government. I will not quote many, because they are very tiresome. But on April 11, 1957—this has been quoted before and I quote it again—the Prime Minister said

1177
[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 568, col. 1296]:
"It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure from the Egyptian Government restoration of those assets in full, or alternatively complete compensation."
That sentiment was echoed here, and we presumed that it was sincerely meant. How one is to reconcile that with the acceptance of the signature of the Treaty of 1959, I completely fail to see. I am skipping a bit now, but, various things happened in the interval. There have been ex gratia loans up to a certain amount to keep these poor people alive. Then in 1959 there was the Financial Agreement negotiated I think, by the Treasury, under which the Egyptian Government agreed to pay this £27½ million.
In due course this Agreement came before both Houses of Parliament. And in both it had a very chilly reception. It was accepted by this House, certainly—and I think also by the other House—only because of the assurances from the Prime Minister, among others, by which it was accompanied. In fact, if your Lordships read, as I have recently read again, the debate at the end of March. 1959, you will find it clearly set out that that, and that only, was the reason we allowed it to go through. Many of us said: "Thanks toe we have not to vote on this thing! We could not possibly vote for it, and we are devoutly thankful that we are not forced to vote against it. The reason we are not forced to vote against it is because of the assurances given by the Prime Minister and others" (and here I come back to my thesis) "about the shortfall." That is, the difference between the £27½ million and the totality of the claims. I am afraid that that is all rather involved, and perhaps not very clearly put.
I can quote the Prime Minister's promise again. On March 16, which was two days before our debate, they had a debate in another place and these words were, of course, quoted here [OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, Vol. 602, cod. 150]:
"While we will not here and now pledge ourselves to make any fixed addition to the total of £27½ million, as has been suggested in the debate, I can say now that the Government will watch how this works out and will play their part in reaching a settlement which will be reasonable and fair, and we do not
1178
exclude a further contribution from public funds."
That was a pretty guarded statement, it is obvious. I can anticipate the answer I shall receive on this matter: that it is not right or sense to ask the Government to take on an unknown liability. They said that before, and they will say it again. They said it in another place a couple of days ago. To my mind, that means that this shortfall is postponed until the Greek Calends. Why? Because claims have to be presented to the Foreign Compensation Commission here, which has its rules, and which insists on proof of ownership before it will register and accept a claim for assessment.
So far as nationalised claims are concerned, they go through fairly easily, because it is not difficult to prove the ownership of these big corporations. But for the unfortunate individuals, it is in many cases quite impossible. I can quote thousands of cases of men whose property is in Egypt, and they just cannot get the papers. In some cases they are burnt and non-existent. In other oases it is just Egyptian slowness, shall I say? At any rate, the net result is that these unfortunate individuals, these de-sequestrated people, if I may use the phrase, are not in a position to put their claims in to the Foreign Compensation Commission for registration. So far as I can see, they will go on until the end of time. So if the noble Earl tells me that it is totally unreasonable to ask for compensation without the papers, he must tell us what we should do. My answer is that you cannot get the papers.
After ail, a Government governs. The Government have the machinery and can do the whole thing. I feel, and have felt for a long time, that some body should be set up, if it cannot be the Foreign Compensation Commission—I do not know if it can or not—empowered to finalise these claims. After all, it is six years since this happened. These people are dying off, just like the rest of us, and eventually the problem will solve itself. I am callous enough to believe that that is the intention. I know the heart of my noble friend, Lord Home, is in the right place, and so is mine, I hope. At any rate, it seems to me that the answer given is completely

1179
fatuous. Your Lordships know the expression of the Greek Kalends. I do not suppose anybody thinks of that now. It means forever and ever. These people cannot get the papers—it is a physical impossibility; therefore they cannot present claims; their claims cannot be totted up, and so on.
Let me come down to bedrock. As stated in my second paragraph, we have received £27½ million. On the same day, for reasons best known to ourselves, and nobody else, we released £41 million, which was the residue of these credits. We took £27½ million in full and complete discharge of every liability, and we released £41 million, which was our only security. Madness! Absolutely crazy! If it had been a case of a trustee who had done this sort of thing, where would he have found himself? Honestly, I cannot find the right Parliamentary language to describe the situation. So my Resolution, as put down, is that the Government should at long last get in and somehow finalise this charge. Do not be held up by the Egyptians and the follies of their courts. Really, this is too much. Are we a Government or are we not? Cut across it. Finalise what the shortfall is. According to my information, we have got £27½ million. The Foreign Compensation Commission have accepted nationalised properties up to £60 million to £65 million. Those interested, that is to say the owners of de-sequestrated property, reckon the damage to their property at another £15 million. Add £15 million to £65 million, and you get £80 million. Take away £27½ million which we have already, and the shortfall, which I am talking about, ends up at £52½ million. Now I have finished. I hope that I have managed to make an extremely complicated question clear. It is very involved and a difficult thing to understand. I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, (1) That, as it is now nearly six years since British subjects were deprived of their property and means of livelihood in Egypt, it is fully time that their claims were finally settled.
(2) That, since it is clear (from the figures already given in Parliament by Her Majesty's Government) that the £27½ million paid in compensation by Egypt in February, 1959, falls very far short
1180
of what is required to meet the claims already agreed and those still to be made, Her Majesty's Government should now carry out the pledges made in both Houses of Parliament, by the grant in aid forthwith of sufficient funds to meet the assessed claims, mindful that it was on the strength of these pledges that Parliament accepted the Financial Agreement with Egypt of February, 1959.—(Lord Killearn.)
6.20 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Killearn for raising this subject once again. The only thing that I think he got really wrong in has speech was that he was likely to be able to anticipate my reply. I should be very surprised if he had any idea what I was going to say, and I tope he will feel after I have finished that things are rather different from what he anticipated. A year ago I told your Lordships that I would try to find a settlement to these matters which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, has raised; first of all, a settlement of all those things which were unresolved in the Financial Agreement of 1959; and, in addition, I would do my best to recommend a solution to the whole problem in due course which would mean Chat compensation for damage to property, both sequestrated and Egyptianised, would, in all the circumstances, be fair.
As the noble Lord has told your Lordships, there are really two related problems here. We have to ensure that the 1959 Agreement is rapidly and properly carried out and, at the same time, that when the Egyptian Government have met their obligations, Her Majesty's Government see that no undue hardship is suffered by those who were not sufficiently provided for by the Agreement of 1959.
I think there is no difference between the noble Lord and myself on the analysis of this problem. He and my noble friend Lord Salisbury and some other of your Lordships have from time to time asked me to try to devise ways and means of getting Egypt to pay across the exchanges the monies due to those claimants whose property has been sequestrated, because if they wanted to realise their property they were not in

1181
the event able to take their money out of Egypt and therefore could not enjoy it here. I have a great deal of sympathy with the plea made by the noble Lords, and I hoped that to-day I should be able to came to this House and report agreement with the Egyptian Government on this matter. The fact that I am not able to come and report agreement is not that there is any matter of principle in dispute between the Egyptian Government and ourselves, but, as your Lordships know, it takes a good deal of time to prepare documents which are very complicated, and this has taken a few days longer than I expected. And I would ask your Lordships not, at present, to take the Press accounts of what may come out in a few days' time as accurate, because they are not accurate at all. But when I am able to come to the House, and I hope lit will be before we rise, I believe that your Lordships will find the solution of this particular pant of the problem satisfactory.
I will say what the objectives are that I now have in mind in this Limited part of the settlement. The settlement should ensure, first of all, that all monies due for transfer under the Financial Agreement of 1959 are paid as applications are approved; secondly, that all problems arising out of the Financial Agreement of 1959 should be cleared up in a specific time; and that it should not be long; thirdly, that improved machinery should be set up both in Egypt and in this country to speed the matters up so that the claims can be approved as quickly as possible; and in that I have a good deal of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Killearn has said. I hope also that this new arrangement will cover the speedy production of papers which are necessary for the assessment of claims and things of that kind.
But, of course, the main point of the settlement that I have in mind is that the transfer of cash and bank balances within the limit of the £5,000 in each case should be quickly settled; and I can forecast that, if I am able to sign this Agreement with the Egyptians in a short time, the settlement I have in mind will achieve all these objectives which I have now outlined to your Lordships.
I first raised this matter with Dr. Fawzi after some debates in your Lordships' House, and the Lord Privy Seal
1182
took it further with Dr. Kaissouni; and our conversations with the Egyptians have borne fruit. I must report to your Lordships that I am pleased with the spirit that has been shown on both sides in the discussions and that our working relations with the Government of the United Arab Republic have been very good. I am now quite convinced that both Governments share the desire that all matters concerning the Financial Agreement of 1959 should be cleared up and should no longer be an impediment to the development of good relations between the United Arab Republic and ourselves. There are certain matters of nuts and bolts, as I have said, but I hope to give your Lordships news shortly which I think your Lordships will approve, because this is what a number of my colleagues have been pressing on me for a good long time.
I want to say one word, which my noble friend Lord Killearn did not say, about the officials who were dismissed in 1951. I think it is known that Her Majesty's Government advanced £100,000 after the signature of the Agreement of 1959. Six months ago we advanced another £100,000, and the balance of compensation to be paid to officials which will be set against the recent advances by Her Majesty's Government are at present under discussion in Cairo. Again, I hope before very long to report some progress. Therefore, what I have spoken about so far is the 1959 Agreement; and I look forward to the possibility of settling all the problems under that Agreement in a comparatively short time.
LORD KILLEARN: Under that Agreement?
THE EARL OF HOME: Under that 1959 Agreement; because I am now coming on to the other.
The next matter to be settled then is the claims of those individuals and companies whose claims have not been met in full but have suffered loss to their property, as the noble Lord has said, in that they were either Egyptianised or sequestrated. The 1959 Agreement was not perfect, but it was the best we could get. It was better than no agreement and, although I know my noble friend does not like it, Parliament thought it was better than no agreement because

1183
it approved it. Both Houses approved that Agreement, although a good many noble Lords had reservations. As the noble Lord said, he himself had reservations, and so did a good many others. But the 1959 Agreement and Parliament's approval is one of the basic factors of this situation. It altered the situation that prevailed before, and the ministerial statements that had been made before were superseded by the statement of the Prime Minister, which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, has read. Nevertheless, it was recognised that this Agreement was not entirely satisfactory; and, in so far as it was not satisfactory, the Government accepted the fact that at some point they would have to find more money. And I will repeat what my noble friend has already said—the statement of the Prime Minister that
"The Government do not exclude a further contribution from public funds over and above the sum of £27½ million provided in the Financial Agreement."
The Agreement itself, therefore, and the Prime Minister's statement govern these claims, and the Government accept that more money will have to be found.
In order to assist the House—and the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, asked a question about this—and to measure the problem in what I call the next and, I hope, the final round of settlement, I will give the House one or two facts. Up to now over 83 per cent. of the claims before the Foreign Compensation Commission are receiving 90 per cent. of the assessed losses. Over 83 per cent. of the claims are receiving 90 per cent. of the assessed losses. Thus, over four-fifths of all the claimants have received nine-tenths of their claims. I know there are still hard cases, and where there are hard cases I hope that the machinery for mitigating them is fully and immediately used. These figures I have given to the House may seem very odd—particularly that four-fifths of all claimants have received nine-tenths of their claims—but it will become apparent why it is so when I tell the House that one of the claims is something round a figure of £17 million and that three others amount to over £3 million, and so there are a number of very large claims still to be assessed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Could the noble Earl say what are the
1184
names of the people who made these very large claims? Are they individuals? Are they great firms?
THE EARL OF HOME: I suppose it is legitimate to say Who they are; in fact they are large firms and one of them is a bank. The British-American Tobacco Company have the claim of about £17 million; the Tunnel Portland Cement, £3½ million; and Barclays Bank, £3¼ million. Those large claimants have had something like 25 per cent. of their claims, and even that, as the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, will see, runs into a good many millions. I give these figures really to help your Lordships and myself to consider what the next step should be, because what I think the House will be interested in are the claims of individuals, and in particular the claimants for comparatively small sums and those in the lower and middle ranges of claims. I am certain it is for those claimants that the House will feel very concerned, and it is to those people and their claims that I will direct my attention in what I would call the next and I hope, as I say, the final round.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, if I may intervene, while the noble Earl is on figures, there is one other piece of information which he may be able to give us. Of the claims that have been settled, what proportion is in respect of Egyptianised claims and what proportion is in respect of sequestrated property? In other words, has the bulk of the money been paid out on one class of claims as opposed to the other?
THE EARL OF HOME: I think my noble friend Lord Dundee has those figures and he will give them. Therefore, when we consider this sort of case in which there are very large claims still ahead of us, I think your Lordships would wish to apply two criteria; one is the criterion of hardship and the other the criterion of equity, and that would be right, bearing in mind that the people who have to find any extra money which has to be found are, of course, the taxpayers of this country. I am very much aware of the hardships that individuals suffer when they are caught up in events over which they have no control.
To some extent, as the noble Lord has said, this is a risk run by those who live and make their work outside this country. And Her Majesty's Government

1185
could not, in all circumstances, all over the world, accept in general that in all such cases they should be the residual risk bearer. But I am afraid that this is all too often in this modern world the case, that British residents cannot get all the exchange that they wish out of a foreign country. We always do our best in these cases to minimise loss in every way.
But in this particular matter which is the subject of this Motion I would sum up in this way. Her Majesty's Government accept the obligation to supplement the monies available under the Agreement with further sums to prevent hardship and to promote equity. What I have said amounts to this. I hope that before the House rises next week I shall be able to make an announcement which will clear up once and for all the differences between us and the Egyptian Government over the 1959 Agreement and enable the transfer of monies to take place. Then I hope we shall consider the topping up, as it is known, and make it, in all the circumstances, fair and equitable.
I stand by the pledge which the Prime Minister gave in 1959. I want us to get on with the job, to do it as quickly as we possibly can, because I want as much as the noble Lord does to see this matter liquidated once and for all. These are subjects, as he says, which arouse emotion and we should not be human if they did not arouse emotion. I do not in the least object to his Motion on the Paper, because I share the objectives and I want to give these people a fair deal. In due course, therefore, I will come before your Lordships' House with a definite proposal on the residual obligation that we have accepted.
I do not know what response my noble friend will make to this reply which I have made to his Motion. I do not know whether he will go into the Lobby. I must say, I rather hope not. In a few days I am going to be able to announce something for which noble Lords themselves who are interested in this matter have been asking me for a long time. I have promised to apply my own mind and the Government's mind as fast as we may to settling the other problem, which is the topping up of the £27½ million. I say to your Lordships something more. When I saw Mr. Fawzi, the
1186
Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic, I really did so because I believed it was high time, after many years of bad relations, for us to mend our relations with Egypt, and he reciprocated that sentiment. I believe that if we can make this financial settlement which I have outlined, that will be a start in better relations with the United Arab Republic, which is one of my objectives. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will not divide the House; but if he does, I would ask my noble friends who share these objectives that I have had and who want to see a fair deal for the people here and also the start of an era of better relations with Egypt to support us in the Lobby.
6.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the first thing I should like to say is that most of us in this House, I think, feel an unbounded admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, for the energy and persistence with Which he is pursuing this campaign on behalf of the people he knew so well when he was serving in Cairo. I think many of us go a long way with him in his campaign and in his feelings and his determination to right what he considers is a grievous wrong to a number of British subjects, although not all of us, perhaps, certainly not all my noble friends on this side, would go to the length of following him into the Lobby on the exact terms of his Resolution. I would congratulate him on this occasion because his persistence has been rewarded and he has drawn from the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary something that seems to me really worth while—something which is "jam tomorrow", but it is not a very distant to-morrow—and it looks as if the deadlock that has persisted over these many years has been broken.
In thinking of this problem I should like to go back to the debate we had on the Financial Agreement of 1959. I notice that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, in moving the introduction of that debate, said that the right course would foe to wait until we saw what emerged from the return by the Egyptian authorities of the sequestrated properties, and the work of the Foreign Compensation Commission. Apart from the question, of what the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, calls the short-fall, the difference between the total claims and

1187
the total payments toy Egypt under the Agreement, I think the most important thing is the question of the former sequestrated properties.
What has now been the result of the Agreement? Bow have the different Articles been carried out? I think we can take it that Article II, by which Her Majesty's Government undertook to remove the Exchange Control and in fact to release the sterling balances, was carried out promptly. In Article III the Government of the United Arab Republic undertook, immediately on the signature of the Agreement, to terminate all the measures which had been taken under the Emergency Regulations of 1956, and to return all British property. If your Lordships look at Annex B, which details the method of carrying out Article III, your Lordships will see that
"The Sequestrator-General shall ensure that within three months after the date of the receipt of each application … the property concerned be released and handed over by the Sequestrator-General."
My information is that that undertaking has never been carried out. In fact, I am told that the average time between the receipt of the claim and the signature for the release was over one year. Nevertheless, nearly 5,000 claims had been forwarded or submitted by the end of last year—I think that that figure was given in another place. As the time limit in the Agreement was twelve months, and no claims were admissible after twelve months from 1959, presumably there are no more. Of those 4,960 claims, I am told that at the end of the year 3,300 agreements to release had been signed or were awaiting signature—that is, three-quarters or more. But that is only one stage in the restoration to these British subjects of their property.
The next stage is the application for the release of the £E5,000, which was later amended to £E1,000. The only figures I have seen show that 260 people applied for the £E1,000, and in 231 cases the applications were approved. I hope that the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to say whether or not these figures are correct and perhaps bring them more up to date. But the enormous difference between the total of 3,300 agreements to release signed and only 260 applications for the £E1,000 seems to me to require some explanation.
1188
Is it, as the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, has told us, that the formalities required by the Egyptian Government are so complicated, and the workings of the administrative machine in Egypt so slow, that all these 3,000 people have had their property theoretically released but are not yet in a position to claim the money? I should be glad to know whether it is due to friction in the works, so to speak, or whether there is any other explanation.
My Lords, the figures I have been mentioning relate to those whose property has been de-sequestrated and who wish to realise as much of it as they can. In regard to the claims for loss or damage during the period the property was sequestrated, I have been told that by November of last year, 777 claims, totalling £1,600,000, had been put in, and those were assessed. There were, in addition £2½ million worth of claims not yet assessed. That makes £4 million in all. At the same date, £600,000 had been paid out in satisfaction of the £1,600,000 worth of claims put in. Can we be told whether those figures have changed by now? We believe that a great deal more than £4 million represents the amount of damage suffered by sequestrated property. If that is so, we should like to know how the process of putting in the claims and getting them dealt with is progressing.
I should like to raise one other aspect of this matter—namely, the general economic position of the Egyptian Government. We were told last year that Egypt had appealed to Her Majesty's Government, and pleaded inability owing to shortage of sterling to meet the full £E5,000 on each claim which they had agreed to release under the Agreement. Her Majesty Government accepted that, and also the fact that each claimant could realise only £E1,000 worth of his property. What I should like to ask is whether Her Majesty's Government were satisfied that there was substance in the plea of the Egyptian Government. Were they really satisfied that the Egyptian Government had not the sterling needed to realise the sums agreed? Had they no other foreign currency? Could they not call on some other resources? We read in the papers of other activities of the Egyptian Government. It is hard to believe that

1189
they were, as they said, unable to allow the release of this amount of £E5,000 on each claim.
Egypt has been receiving dollar aid on a pretty large scale. I understand that some 600 million dollars have been paid to Egypt in the last ten years by the United States, and I am told that the new agreement in process of negotiation with the United States provides for another 600 million dollars in the next three years. That is a substantial amount of money, and if they have obtained all these dollar assets, surely they can meet a sterling claim of a comparatively small amount. It has been said, and I do not know whether it has ever been disproved, that a large amount of the American dollar aid has gone into the purchase of arms from the Soviet bloc, and that such purchases are going to amount to some £100 million between 1961 and 1964. The Egyptian arms budget is going up this year, by about 15 per cent., to a figure of £138 million. Finally, there was a report in The Times last Monday with the title "Egypt tests Rocket Missiles at Desert Site". Cairo Radio stated that Egypt had now joined the ranks of the rocket-producing countries. The Egyptian newspapers were delighted, President Nasser was delighted, and the journalists, many of them from the Soviet bloc, were shown these rockets which were displayed as proof that Egypt had joined the ranks of the rocket-producing Powers.
In view of those factors, Which cannot have escaped the attention of the Foreign Office, I wonder what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to persuade the Egyptian Government to honour the Agreement. The noble Earl, Lord Home, told us just now that he has in fact had considerable success. I would suggest that people in this country "who read their newspapers expect that Egypt should be persuaded to act a good deal more generously, and to be much more prompt in honouring the Agreement to which they have put their signature, than they seem to have been hitherto. We shall look forward with great interest to the noble Earl's statement which he hopes to give us before we rise next week. I note with great satisfaction that Her Majesty's Government accept (I think the word was) the obligation to supplement the change under the Agreement.
1190
In view of that, I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, that he has gone a good long way towards his objective, and I, personally, should not feel it was worth dividing the House on this question.
6.53 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I differ from my noble friend Lord Killearn only on one matter in his speech, and that is on his apology for bringing up this matter again, because I think that your Lordships in all parts of the House admire the noble Lord for his persistent efforts on behalf of these handly-treated British nationals. Although the hour is late and the House is thin, I am sure we all agree that Parliament is ever willing to receive the pleas of, and to give consideration to, oases of individual or collective unfairness or distress.
My Lords, the speech of the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary, for which I would thank him, is certainly helpful, and an advance. But if I may make one criticism of it, it is this. It seemed to me a speech in which the positive statements were in the direction of helping the Egyptians and aiding the facilities for them to implement the 1959 Agreement. The basic responsibility which many of us feel that Her Majesty's Government have for the citizens, particularly the hard-pressed ones, is still not clearly admitted. The Foreign Secretary foreshadowed the culmination of the settlement he promised to your Lordships a year ago. He said he hoped to arrive at some agreement with the Egyptian Government in a few days, and that that agreement would allow the transfer of all funds to settle the approved applications under the 1959 Agreement in respect of the sequestrated persons. That is my interpretation of what he said.
My Lords, that may be very satisfactory, but it does not cover the desperately important point that so many of these people are unable to get their claims approved. They can never get to that stage because of—and I regret to use the word—the intransigeance of the Egyptian authorities and their resistance in so many different directions. The 1959 Agreement gives almost endless opportunities for bureaucratic delay and obstruction, and there is nothing in the speech of the Foreign Secretary, except

1191
that some better administrative machinery will be devised in this country and Egypt. There was nothing in the Foreign Secretary's speech to give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will bring strong pressure to bear upon the Egyptian Government to introduce a system which will approve claims—a system very different from that which has hitherto persisted.
THE EARL OF HOME: I think, my Lords, that we must wait and see what the terms of the Agreement are; and I cannot reveal them. The noble Lord will have noticed that I said we wanted to improve the machinery on both sides in dealing with this matter, and also that we would deal with it in a specified time. I cannot tell him exactly what the time will be, but that does make a lot of difference.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Indeed, it gives a degree of reassurance, which is welcome.
My Lords, the other defect, if I may be allowed to refer to it in that way, of the Foreign Secretary's speech, was this. We know that there is going to be a shortfall, and we know that Her Majesty's Government have said they will look favourably upon a payment towards that shortfall. But I do not see—unless the new procedures are so very different from what we have suffered in the past—that it will be possible, in any reasonable time, to define the shortfall in exact terms of money, which of course is necessary before the Treasury can sanction grants. My Lords, the Foreign Secretary used a disappointing phrase which I took down. He said that he was sorry Her Majesty's Government could not accept direct responsibility for compensation of those (and these were his words) "caught up in events over which they had no control." It would have been fairer to say, "caught up in events for which Her Majesty's Government's policy was directly responsible." There is a very considerable difference there. This is a unique case of a claim for compensation for which responsibility is on Her Majesty's Government.
I shall not weary the House in any way by repeating the reasons for the Suez policy, to which I did give, and do
1192
give, full support. But we went into Suez to protect the lives and property of Britishers. If we went in to do that then, surely it is not unreasonable to ask Her Majesty's Government to accept direct responsibility now for the action they took then. There is no need for me to re-argue the case in detail, as has been so ably done both to-night and on other occasions by the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, and other noble Lords. All I would say is that, while grateful to the Foreign Secretary, I am disappointed that Her Majesty's Government still will not accept direct responsibility for the compensation of these British nationals, who have suffered from our own policy and our own actions; and that Her Majesty's Government, while showing good will and the general intention to do something, will not come down to the House to-night and say that they are determined to accept the responsibility for proper compensation, and then go to the Egyptians and get what they can out of Egypt. We used to be told that the more the British Government gave to British nationals, the more it encouraged Egypt to do less. That argument is fallacious now—it has gone. To-day we know exactly how far Egypt will go; and, my Lords, we should like to know how far Her Majesty's Government will go, in a direction more positive and further than that which the Foreign Secretary indicated to-night.
7.3 p.m.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, I do not want to detain your Lordships very long, particularly as much of what I would have said has already been said by others, probably better than I could have put it. I have rather mixed feelings, if I may say so, about what was said by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary. I think we know that he would like to help us over this matter, and I have always felt that he used his best endeavours to that end. I think we are all glad to hear that positive steps are being taken initially to get the Egyptians at least to observe their obligations, and that is certainly the first step. I would agree with the noble Earl there. Of course, as has been said by other noble Lords, one of the most important things is to try to get these claims formulated, because so long as the Government's attitude is that they cannot even consider

1193
assisting these people any further until they know what the total bill is, and as we can never know what the total bill is until all the claims are in, we obviously remain in a state of complete impasse. I do not know how successful the Government are likely to be with the Egyptian Government in this respect, or how long it will take, but certainly I would agree that that is the second priority.
There are other aspects which I should like briefly to touch upon. May I say a word about the 1959 Agreement? The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary said, perfectly truthfully, that Parliament and noble Lords accepted the 1959 Agreement. The 1959 Agreement was the best we could get, although it was imperfect. It is true that we accepted it, some of us rather reluctantly, but I think some of us accepted it because we had been given assurances by Her Majesty's Government that, in view of the imperfections of the Treaty—this, at any rate, is the way I understood it—they would do something positive at a later date, which quite reasonably at that time they felt they could not be very precise about, not merely to rectify the financial injustices of the 1959 Agreement—because, after all, £27 million in settlement of debts worth £80 million cannot be regarded by any standards as a very satisfactory Agreement—but to deal with the actual defects of the Agreement itself.
The main defect, about which I should like to remind your Lordships if I may, is the very real injustice between the two classes of claimant, and I think this is so important that I must say a word about it again. It was purely fortuitous, whether you were Egyptianised or sequestrated. In point of fact, on the whole the big companies were Egyptianised and the small man was sequestrated, and, obviously, the worse of the two was to be sequestrated. So it was the small man, the poorer man, who got the worse deal. As I say, that was purely fortuitous, and I think the Government's theory all along has been that it was perfectly fair compensation if you gave a man back his property in Egypt, you de-sequestrated, and you gave him cash in sterling for the damage that had been done to his property in the meantime. I do not think that that is remotely fair.
1194
Let us take two men with virtually equal properties. Let us say that they each have £100,000. The man with £100,000 who is Egyptianised gets paid £50,000 cash sterling in this country. The man who has the misfortune to be sequestrated gets the damage up to the date of the Treaty, and not a penny after that. His property may remain sequestrated for two years or more after that. He gets that in sterling, and he than is left with an asset which is probably virtually valueless and, at any rate, frozen. If the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary is successful, and the property is still worth £5,000, he may in a year or so be able to get £5,000 out of Egypt. I cannot feel that that is fair as between these two sets of people, and I think it is all the more inequitable since it so happens that the people who are the hardest hit are the smaller people.
I noticed particularly that the noble Earl said in his speech that the Government wanted the settlement to minimise the hardship and to be equitable. That is not an exact quotation, but I think it is the sense of his words. I think that is what we all want. But I do not think the Government can do that unless they are prepared, in dealing with this question of compensation, to remove a very real injustice which was built into the 1959 Agreement. I do not know whether that is going to be possible or not. I find it encouraging that the noble Earl has renewed the pledge given by the Prime Minister that additional funds will be made available—we do not know on what sort of scale and, above all, we do not know how these funds are going to be applied after they are made available. I am encouraged by that, but I still feel, like my other noble friends, that it is a pity that the Government could not have gone further and said that they have a real responsibility, and realise their real responsibility for these people who, in the opinion of some of us, were the victims of Government policy. I do not think there is any more I need say about that, except that there have been rumours of the possibility of sterling loans to Egypt. I saw that in the paper. It would be most unfortunate if any form of sterling loans were made to Egypt, until this issue had been resolved.
7.10 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not intend to keep the House more than a very few minutes this afternoon. This subject has been discussed so often that it is not necessary to recapitulate the arguments at any length. I should just like to sum up the position that has been taken up by my noble friends and myself. All of your Lordships have heard the arguments a hundred times over, and I hope that you have all formed your own conclusions about the situation of the many Suez claimants; and not only of the great firms, of whom the Foreign Secretary spoke this afternoon, but, in particular, of the individuals. many of them retired people, old people, too old to start life again, who have been largely ruined as a result of the Suez operation.
My Lords, I supported the Suez operation. I was a member of the Government that embarked upon it; and I still think that they were right. But I cannot hide from myself that these people are casualties of those operations just as much as if they had actually been wounded in battle. Indeed, again and again the Government have given clear indications that they recognise that the Suez claimants have a right to be compensated. The Prime Minister himself has used words that leave no doubt of that. As the House has been reminded again and again, as far back as 1957 he stated in the other place [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 568, col. 1296]—and it was quoted in your Lordships' House last week:
"It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure from the Egyptian Government restoration of those assets"—
that is, the assets of the claimants—
"in full, or alternatively full compensation".
Yet, two years later, on 1959, the Government signed an agreement with the Egyptian Government which made it absolutely certain that the claimants would not receive full compensation from the Egyptians. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself seems to have recognised this, for at the time that Agreement was debated in another place he made a statement in which he said (the Foreign Secretary has quoted it this afternoon) that he would not exclude a further contribution from public funds. Behind that declaration, if they will forgive me for
1196
saying so, the Government seem to some of us to have sheltered (I can use no other word) ever since.
My Lords, 1959, 1960, 1961 and 1962 have passed; and each year it has become more obvious to any ordinary, rational man that the Egyptian Government do not intend to pay one penny more than they are forced to do. They have been putting every conceivable dicuffilty in the way Of de-sequestration of the property. Even when property has been de-sequestrated, it is often re-sequestrated; and, in any case, it is almost impossible for many British owners of assets in Egypt to get those assets, even in liquid form, transferred out of Egypt. Each year we have drawn the attention of our Government to this fact—a fact which I should have thought had become crystal clear to everyone—and each year we have had the reply, given with the utmost courtesy, as it was given to me by the Foreign Secretory the other day and repeated this afternoon, that the Prime Minister had made it clear in 1959 that he did not exclude a further contribution from public funds. Though this time, I must confess, the noble Earl went one step further and added that the Prime Minister had this matter very much in mind.
My Lords, as I listened to him I had a vision of exactly the same reply being given by the Foreign Secretary of the day—and I expect we should all hope that it would be the noble Earl, Lord Home—in 1972, in 1982 and in 1992, on and on, year after year, until such time as all the claimants were dead. I do not think any of us has any doubt of the Foreign Secretary's own sympathy in the matter. He has shown it on numerous occasions in the past, and he has shown it clearly in what he has said to us this afternoon. Moreover, we realise very well the handicap he has been under to-day in being able to give only a very bare outline of what he is trying to achieve for these unhappy people.
But, my Lords, what he has not been able to say, and what no Minister up to now has been able to say, beyond the vague statement made by the Prime Minister three years ago, is that Her Majesty's Government recognise direct responsibility themselves to see that

1197
proper compensation is paid; and paid in time to be of some use to the claimants. They always seem to be using their good offices with the Egyptian Government. They never seem to say: "If the Egyptian Government will not pay, we will"—except in the most general terms: this year, next year, some time they will pay.
My Lords, we already know very well that the Egyptian Government will not pay nearly as much as is required; and I am beginning to believe that Her Majesty's Government will never say that, for the simple reason that the Treasury are absolutely determined that in no circumstances shall any Government accept responsibility for compensating British people for losses overseas, even though those people have suffered through no fault of their own but purely as a result of the policy of their Government, and even though, as in this case, their own Prime Minister has described "restoration of their assets in full or, alternatively, complete compensation" as their right.
The Treasury, my Lords, are pretty powerful people, but I nave been comforted by recalling an experience I once had a good many years ago, when the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, was leading this House and I was leading the Opposition. In those days, after the 1945 Election, When the Labour Party had a large majority in another place and the Conservative Parity had a large majority in your Lordships' House, Lord Addison (who was a very wise man, as we all know), for the purpose of facilitating the passage of Labour Government Bills through the House, had the good idea of calling meetings of himself, myself (as I say, I was leading the Opposition) and the senior officials of the Department concerned with particular Bills, to go through those Bills before the Committee stage to see how far Opposition Amendments could be rendered acceptable to the Government. In one particular case the departmental officials—I will not say which Department—were being particularly obstructive, and as each Amendment came up they produced what they regarded as unanswerable objections to the making of any concession. Eventually, Lord Addison's patience became completely exhausted, and he turned to them and said, "You do not understand the
1198
position at all. It is not you who govern this country; it is Parliament that governs this country".
My Lords, I thought at that time, and I still think, that it was an extremely profound remark; and what is true of Government Departments is, if I may say so with all deference, true even of Governments. It is not Governments, ultimately, under Her Majesty the Queen, who govern this country: it is Parliament. It is to Parliament that we have been appealing for three or four years, and to whom we have been appealing to-day. Is it the wish of Parliament that this situation should continue and go on in that way? It is for that reason that we have constantly brought the matter up in your Lordships' House. Is Parliament prepared to allow these people to be denied any longer that full restoration of their assets, or, alternatively, complete compensation, which the Prime Minister has declared to be their right?
We feel sure that the Foreign Secretary has done his best; he has the respect and affection of us all. But it is not the Foreign Secretary alone who is concerned in this; it is the Government as a whole. The noble Lord, Lord Killearn, may feel that we ought to look in more detail at the new proposals which the Foreign Secretary has foreshadowed to-day before proceeding to extremes. I could well understand that very likely it would be the right course. But if he puts his Resolution to the vote, I personally shall support him in the Lobby. In any case, I hope he will continue to return to the attack, and return to the attack again, until these miserable people get justice.
7.21 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, this is a question on which it is very easy to be contentious in debate. I think that what your Lordships would like me to do, in replying to this short discussion, is rather to be factual; and because I think this is a rather complicated subject, I think your Lordships want to know more about the facts of the case up to the present moment. Whatever your Lordships may decide to do about dividing or not dividing, I think you would rather I tried briefly to answer some of the questions which have been put, rather than to enter into the broader

1199
issues of controversy with which we are so familiar on this question.
My Lords, these claimants have always been divided, I think, into two main categories: those who have claims to compensation of one kind or another, on the one hand; on the other hand, those who owned property in Egypt, all of which probably has been sequestrated, but there may or may not be any claim for damage, and the point is that they cannot get sterling payments made to them because of exchange difficulties. My noble friend Lord Lloyd argued that their case is very much worse, and is bound to be worse in the long run, than the case of those whose property has been confiscated, because those whose property has been confiscated (I shall give a few figures in a moment) have at least received something, and have the prospect of receiving something more, whereas those whose property has not been confiscated have only the prospect, which up to now has been doubtful and not fulfilled, of receiving £E5,000. Of course, their prospects in future must depend, and can only depend, on the exchange position, on the ability of the Egyptian Government to make sterling payments.
The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, asked whether we were satisfied that there really had been exchange difficulties, and that they might not have contrived to make these comparatively small payments—or, rather, I should say, transfers; he was quite right in drawing that distinction. They are transfers, because the property belongs to the owners in this country, and one ought not to call them payments to the owners of Egyptian property in this country. It is the case that Egypt has been short of foreign exchange over the past years, mainly due, we think, to the failure of her cotton crops. The Suez Canal dues, paid in sterling and other currencies, have for the most part been used for the maintenance and improvement of the Canal. Last year Egypt had a deficit of £17 million in her trade with this country. She exported only some £4½ million worth of goods to us, While she bought some £22 million worth from us. Therefore, it was largely owing to the shortage of sterling that the Egyptian authorities delayed allowing transfers to be made until March, 1961, and then
1200
they were able only to give this £E1,000, which I think is worth about £870 sterling, on transferable accounts.
Now when my noble friend the Foreign Secretary said that he would hope to be able to make an announcement next week, it would be confined to two things: one, the general desirability of speeding up machinery for settlement of all kind of claims, but, in particular, to get an arrangement—which, of course, I cannot anticipate now, because we cannot say anything about it until it becomes definite—which will enable these undertakings to transfer up to £E5,000 to their rightful owners in this country under the 1959 Agreement to be implemented within a reasonably short period of time: in fact, possibly the shortest period of time in which they could have been paid under the existing machinery of formulating claims to ownership of the property. My Lords, that is what we hope to do, and except for the point about machinery to speed up everything, it has nothing to do at all with compensation. Except in that indirect respect, the statement which my noble friend hopes to make next week will not have anything to do with the amount of compensation payable out of the £27½ million. That again falls into two categories, which my noble friend Lord Lloyd also emphasised: those who were claiming compensation in respect of nationalised, or, rather, "Egyptianised" (as it is usually called) property, and those who have had their property returned, but who are able to claim sums in damage, which may, of course, be relatively small, in some cases trivial, in relation to the total value of the property.
I will now try to give only a few figures. I do not want to trouble your Lordships too much with statistics, although this is a subject which needs, I think, some expounding of statistical facts. I will try to give only the facts both in relation to undertakings and in relation to the present state of the account as between the claimants and the Foreign Claims Commission. I shall not argue with my noble Mend Lord Salisbury the question of whether we ought morally to pay in full all the amount claimable in compensation by those who have had their property confiscated.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, the point I was making was that the Prime Minister himself said that they ought to be paid in full.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes, my Lords; my noble friend quoted, I think in the couse of supplementary questions the other day, the statement of the Prime Minister on April 11, 1957, that:
"It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure from the Egyptian Government restoration of those assets in full, or alternatively complete compensation".
I think I would read that to mean compensation from the Egyptian Government.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the point is that the Prime Minister said that they ought to have either one or other of those two things, and they now know that they are not going to get it from the Egyptian Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Yes; but I could not accept, as a matter of historical fact, the implication that, if the Egyptian Government did not pay full compensation, it then became the obligation of Her Majesty's Government to do so. And I am sure that my noble friend Lord Salisbury did not think that at the time, because about only ten days before the Prime Minister made the statement, the noble Marquess, speaking in your Lordships' House on this subject, said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 939]:
"A much wider question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winster. He asked what would be the action of the Government in the event of the Egyptian Government rejecting claims altogether. There will, of course, come a time when the Government must decide on that point, which is, for the moment, an entirely hypothetical one. … If I said to-day that if the Egyptian Government refused to pay the debts, Her Majesty's Government would shoulder them all, it would just be asking the Egyptian Government to repudiate all debts; and that is the last thing that any of us wants to do."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not recede from a word I said, but that was before the signature of the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. When that Agreement had been signed, we knew the full extent of the Egyptian contribution. What the Government were afraid of at that time was that if we offered to pay, then the Egyptians would not pay so much, but after the signature of the Agreement we knew just how
1202
much they would pay, and it was not enough.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: But, my Lords, the Prime Minister's statement, which the noble Marquess quoted, was also before the 1959 Agreement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, does that mean that the Prime Minister withdrew from his statement of 1957?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No more than the noble Marquess withdraws from his.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I shall not withdraw on mine. I said that it was unnecessary for the Government to say that they would take full responsibility for the debts of all these claimants while it was uncertain how much they could get out of the Egyptians. The Prime Minister said that he accepted that these people had a right to full compensation.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: From the Egyptians.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But what the noble Earl is saying to us in effect is that the Government reject an obligation to compensate these people.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I am saying exactly the opposite. No obligation was undertaken. The Prime Minister said that he was endeavouring to obtain from the Egyptians full compensation, and when the Government were asked in your Lordships' House what would happen if the Egyptians could not pay, he said that Her Majesty's Government would not shoulder them all.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, but this is an important point. At the time I made that remark, negotiations were still going on with the Egyptian Government as to how much they should pay, whether they would pay more or whether they would pay less. If at that moment the Government had said they would pay in full, obviously the Egyptians would have said they would pay nothing. But when the Agreement was reached, it was made absolutely clear how much Egypt would pay. From that moment, I felt—and it does not differ in any way from my earlier statement—that Her Majesty's

1203
Government should shoulder the rest of the burden.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, my point is that this cannot have meant that we were undertaking to shoulder the balance. At the time these negotiations were still in progress our object was to obtain full compensation from the Egyptian Government, and I am only arguing that this does not in fact impose any obligation on the British Government to come along, if the Egyptians did not give full compensation, and pay it themselves. We have always explained that and emphasised that every time the subject has been discussed over the last five years. This is not a new argument I am putting forward. This has been said again and again. When the agreement was debated in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lord Hailsham, in talking about the question of supplementation, quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this effect [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 215, col. 93]:
"that neither this Government nor any other Government in this country have ever accepted a commitment to make good losses suffered by British subjects in foreign countries. We could not possibly accept a commitment of that kind, but we are anxious to see a fair outcome of the matter."
I am not arguing that we ought not to give more money. As I will say in a moment, we intend to do so. But I must refute and rebut the suggestion that the words used by the Prime Minister in 1957 ought to be taken, or ever have been taken, or could be supposed by any reasonable man to be taken, to involve the undertaking that the Government would be fully responsible for paying compensation, and for making up the full gap between what the Egyptian Government pay and what the compensation claims amount to. I put it to your Lordships that it is highly misleading to make any assertion to that effect, because it is an assertion which cannot be supported by the Prime Minister's words or by the circumstantial evidence or by the subsequent statements which have been made within the last five years, repeatedly and clearly, both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
Having said that, I would again remind your Lordships that the Prime Minister did say in 1959 that we did not
1204
exclude a contribution from public funds to supplement the amount which can be recovered from the Egyptian Government. As noble Lords pointed out, the chief thing we need now is a speeding up of the assessment of these claims, so that we can be in a position to see what would be a reasonable and fair contribution from the Government, as my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has indicated in this speech. I should like to indicate to your Lordships the factors which I think seem likely to bear most upon this question, which we cannot answer now, of how much what is called the "topping up" ought to be. I am not going to take long over it, because I know that none of your Lordships wants to prolong this discussion needlessly. But my noble friend Lord Lloyd and the noble Earl opposite did ask for a little more about the "breakdown" between the different classes of payments.
I do not think that I need spend long on the provisions of the last Order in Council, which I explained to your Lordships in December, under which claimants of up to £5,000 receive 90 per cent. of the amount assessed; those between £5,000 and £50,000 get 90 per cent. of the first £5,000 and 60 per cent. of the balance; those between £50,000 and £500,000 get 90 per cent. of the first £5,000, 60 per cent. of the next £45,000 and 35 per cent. of the balance. Those over £500,000 get the same up to the first £500,000, and 20 per cent. of the balance over that.
On June 30 of this year, there had been 584 Egyptianisation claims assessed; the total amount being £42,887,000. That is a good deal more than the figure which I gave to your Lordships last December. There has been some speeding up since then, though not nearly so much as we should like. After assessment, the claims (this concerns, so far, only Egyptianisation, and not compensation) fell into the following categories. Up to £5,000 there were 414 claims assessed; the amount claimed was £449,890 and the amount payable under the present distribution order was £378,719. These claimants have received, or will receive, 90 per cent. of their claims. Then, between £5,000 and £50,000, there were 118 claims, amounting to £1,818,000. I should just like your Lordships to see the pattern; the proportion

1205
of large claims and the proportion of smaller ones. The amount payable under the present distribution order is £1,166,000. Between £50,000 and £500,000, there are only 40 claimants and their claims amount to £6,800,000, of which very nearly £3 million (£2,914,000) is payable under the present order. Above £500,000, twelve claimants have claims amounting to £33,743,000—that is, out of a total of £44 million-odd. The amount they receive under the present distribution is £7,766,000. I do not want to elaborate this or to draw any morals from it but I just want your Lordships to see the pattern.
My noble friend Lord Lloyd asked, would we compare with the damage claims for returned sequestrated property. They, of course, take much longer to assess. They are also a comparatively small total compared to the nationalisation claims. On June 30, 1,224 sequestrated claims had been assessed. To complete the picture I ought to give our estimate of the claims still to come in for nationalisation claims. I gave your Lordships a figure of £44 million assessed. We estimate that there may be about another £17 million to come.
LORD LLOYD: My Lords, these are sequestration claims, are they?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: No. I have gone back to the nationalisation claims. We estimate £17 million, in addition to the £44 million. So your Lordships will see that more than two-thirds has already been assessed.
On the sequestration claims, 1,224 claims have been assessed. The amount at which they have been assessed is only £2½ million. The amount claimed had been, for the sake of interest, £3,700,000. There is a much bigger gap between the amount claimed and the amount assessed in the case of these claims for damages, than there is in the Egyptianised property claims. This, I think, is what one should expect.
LORD KILLEARN: The majority of the people whose property has been sequestrated have not been able to put claims in yet.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I would not say the majority.
LORD KILLEARN: I mean a large part.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: I gave your Lordships last December an estimate which was the best I could do—it was only an intelligent guess—of what the final total amount of the sequestration claims was likely to be. The best estimate that we can make is that the total amount of claims for damages at the end of the day will be about £10 million compared perhaps with over £60 million for nationalisation. In these sequestration claims, as they are called (I think it is perhaps less confusing to call them damage claims, so that they do not get mixed with the larger question of sequestrated property in general), of up to £E5,000, 1,122 applicants have had their claims settled at £1,060,000, of which they get £914,000 under the present statutory Order in Council. That has gone through already. For amounts between £5,000 and £50,000 there are 96 claimants; the amount assessed is £900,000; the amount which they are receiving under the present distribution is £646,000. Above £50,000 and up to £500,000 there are only six claimants, for £531,000, of which they are entitled to receive, under the present distribution, £248,000. And above £500,000, there are, so far, nil.
Your Lordships will now have, I hope, a rough idea of the pattern of how this is going and how it is working out. Up to now, only about half of the £27½ million has actually been disbursed. We hope that the process will be greatly accelerated before long, and, as my noble friend said, we hope that it will soon be possible to envisage a final date at which all claims under the 1959 Agreement may be finally settled. When we have got that in our minds it will be possible for the Government to present to Parliament what they think is a fair and reasonable amount of additional money, as the Prime Minister has undertaken, to be provided from public funds.
I have tried to give your Lordships the figures which I know some of your Lordships would like. I do not wish at this moment to draw any further conclusions from those figures than I have done, because I think the important thing at the moment is to get all the

1207
facts clearly and in their right perspective before we can finally judge whether the measures which we will take to bring this matter between ourselves, the Egyptians and the claimants to a final conclusion shall be presented to your Lordships and to another place.
7.46 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, before I go any further—I do not wish to prolong the debate—there is one point which the Foreign Secretary made: that the Treasury would never accept liability for British subjects damaged or suffering abroad. I want to controvert that at once.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will read to-morrow what I said. I was talking in terms of damage which might be done to British property abroad generally. I was saying that in the general proposition the Government could not accept an obligation to make up in full damage done to British citizens everywhere. The noble Lord has served in many countries, and he knows of cases in which you cannot transfer foreign exchange. What I said was in the general context. I went on particularly to say that in this particular case the Prime Minister accepted an obligation.
LORD KILLEARN: I fully accept that. I misunderstood the noble Earl. We have always maintained, and still do, that this is sui generis. What the noble Earl has said clears up the point.
I should like, first of all, to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and those who have stayed long enough to listen to it. Frankly, my own instinct would be to divide the House, because I think this is a matter of intense national importance. On the other hand, there was a strong appeal from the noble
1208
Earl the Foreign Secretary not to divide, because he has certain proposals or declarations (I am not sure which) which are coming before Parliament next week.
THE EARL OF HOME: Well, I hope so. I cannot promise.
LORD KILLEARN: In the light of that, and with a rather thin House, it does not seem to me that I should be justified in dividing it. Just look at the empty Opposition Benches. The noble Earl made a most delightful and helpful speech, but there is obviously no interest in this matter, as your Lordships can see, which I think is rather unfortunate, because it is a question of national honour. So if I ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Resolution, it is simply and solely because I think the House is rather thin. It is not big enough for a question of this national importance to be decided upon, especially with the full Front Bench sitting there. I have had this position before. It is heavily weighted, and it would be most unfortunate to divide and to be defeated; I should not like that at all. But I will not divide, mainly because the Foreign Secretary made an extraordinarily interesting and helpful speech, as we knew he would. He has made certain proposals, which I suppose will come up very shortly, and I do not think it would be fair to the House to divide until we know what those proposals are. In addition, the Minister of State more or less suggested that it would be better not to divide, and I certainly do not propose to ignore that request. So, all in all, I ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Resolution.
Resolution, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at nine minutes before eight o'clock.