Lords Sitting of 15 March 1962

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

TRANSFER OF BROADMOOR PATIENTS
3.4 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: 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 are satisfied that all persons at present detained in Broadmoor Criminal Asylum are unsuitable for transfer to ordinary mental hospitals or mental deficiency institutions.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the cases of all patients in Broadmoor Hospital are reviewed regularly, and transfers to ordinary hospitals are arranged whenever they are appropriate. There are a number of elderly patients who for medical reasons, have needed treatment in Broadmoor for such long periods that the hospital has become their home. Some of them no longer need the special security afforded by Broadmoor, but have remained there because it has been considered unkind to move them. Nevertheless, some months ago a special examination of such cases was started.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that two weeks ago an old man of 87 died at Broadmoor, having been there for 76 years, during the reigns of six Monarchs and twenty Home Secretaries? Was he one of the cases to which the noble Lord referred? Can the noble Lord say why such people are allowed to remain at Broadmoor so long when they appear to be suitable for transfer to a mental deficiency institution? And can the noble Lord say how frequently these cases are reviewed?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I will try to remember all those questions. The answer to the first one is that the
306
man to whom he noble Lord referred, William Giles, was admitted in 1885, at the age of ten, after being found insane on arraignment on a charge of arson. He was reported to be an imbecile and suffering from epilepsy. He always needed hospital care. At first, and for many years after that, there was for practical purposes no alternative form of care for him than Broadmoor, and during more recent years, when there might have been, it was thought that transfer would have been unkind to him. Of course, that kind of case could not arise today.
The great majority of patients in Broadmoor—and there are nearly 900—are subject to the restrictions described in Section 65 of the Mental Health Act, 1959, which means that authority for detention does not expire at any particular period and the patient may not be discharged or transferred or granted leave of absence without the consent of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. These cases are reviewed at regular intervals by responsible medical officers: at the end of the first year in hospital, again at the end of the second year, and thereafter every two years. During the last ten years the average annual number of patients transferred from Broadmoor to other hospitals has been between 25 and 30 and discharges have been running at about the same level.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what is the cost of keeping a patient at Broadmoor and at a mental deficiency institution?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am afraid that I could not answer that question without notice.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that the only reason for this Question is to try to ensure that in this high-security criminal asylum there are not a large number of old men who could be transferred to other hospitals where more suitable facilities exist in considerable measure?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I appreciate that. I should like to assure the noble Lord and the House that patients are transferred whenever it is considered appropriate. There are three factors which have to be considered when any

307
case comes under consideration: first of all, security, whether it is safe to transfer the patient. Secondly, is it going to be in the patient's own real interests, when he has been there for many years and regards the place as his home and has no other roots? One has to consider whether it would be too unkind to transfer him elsewhere. The third consideration is this. The more of these cases that can be transferred, the better it is for those patients who remain in hospital, because it means that the population is then reduced and there is greater scope for the modern methods of treatment to be applied to those who remain. That is really the position.

I.C.I. SULPHATE OF AMMONIA PRICES
3.7 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: 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 aware that Imperial Chemical Industries are selling sulphate of ammonia in Eire at £12 10s. per ton, compared with the price of over £18 a ton charged to United Kingdom farmers, and, having regard to this firm's near-monopoly position in this material, whether they are satisfied that the price of £18 per ton does not include an unreasonably high profit.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, the Government are aware that sulphate of ammonia from this country has been offered to importers in the Irish Republic at prices in the region of £12 10s. a ton c.i.f. for compounding. I understand that the price to the Irish farmer is substantially more than this figure. To-day's price of sulphate of ammonia to the British farmer is £20 7s. 6d., 6-ton lots, carriage paid buyer's station. The prices which are charged in export markets for small quantities of sulphate of ammonia cannot validly be compared however with home market prices. In these marginal sales in export markets it is often necessary for British exporters
308
to charge a price lower than the home market price if they are to obtain the business in competition with suppliers in other countries who are themselves often exporting at a price below their domestic price. Noble Lords will be aware that in its Report on the Supply of Chemical Fertilisers, published in July, 1959, the Monopolies Commission found that I.C.I.'s profits on the sale of sulphate of ammonia in the home market were not unreasonable and, indeed, that I.C.I., in the development and conduct of its fertiliser business, had shown a conscious regard for the public interest. Since the last year considered by the Monopolies Commission, which was 1956–57, the price of ammonium sulphate sold to farmers in this country has fallen by between 14s. 6d. and £1 2s. 6d. per ton and the Government have no reason to believe that current prices give I.C.I. an unreasonably high profit.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that I.C.I. recently persuaded the Government to increase the duty on sulphate of ammonia for East Germany, on the grounds that they were "dumping", and the East Germans wanted to sell here at precisely the same price at which is selling in Eire? Can the noble Earl justify forcing British farmers to pay this high price and the taxpayers to pay a subsidy? Or would it not be possible for us to appoint the Government of Ireland as our buying agent and sell it to British farmers at £13 a ton? Is that Alice in Wonderland suggestion any less credible than Waldegrave in Ireland?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am aware of the anti-dumping duty. An order under the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act, 1957, imposing an anti-dumping duty of £3 per ton on imports of sulphate from East Germany came into force on March 3. This followed an application made on behalf of all the British producers of sulphate and after investigation the Board of Trade were satisfied that the East German sulphate was dumped, that the dumping threatened material injury to the British industry and that the imposition of the duty would be in the national interest. I think we must keep economic common sense here. When products such as sulphate of ammonia

309
are made in large plants, it is economically sound to export the surplus over home market requirements at a price sufficient to cover prime costs and to make some contribution to overheads. If that were not done, the alternative must be to load all the overheads on to home market prices and thus increase them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are well aware of the usual practice in business of having variable prices. That is all right, provided these spread the carrying of all overhead costs. But we are dealing with supplies mainly to the farming industry, which is subsidised by the taxpayer. Fertilisers are heavily subsidised. And here we are agreeing to an arrangement by which the price of sulphate of ammonia to the farmers is increased, or kept at a high level, because of anti-dumping duty, when otherwise it could have been imported and sold competitively at the same price at which it is being sold in Eire—at £6, or £5 10s. at least, below the present market price. Is that fair to the taxpayer, who has to meet the subsidies on fertilisers? Was that considered by the Board of Trade?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, that was certainly considered by the Board of Trade, and I think, on consideration, that it is fair to the taxpayer. The decision of my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade was made carefully after he considered that there was a substantial threat to the industry. We had had experience previously, as the noble Viscount will remember, of dumped sulphate of ammonia from other countries in Europe. Dumped imports could cause material injury to our established home industry if they were allowed in.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl this: if the Northern Irish farmers decided to forfeit the subsidy presently granted to them, would they be able to secure their fertiliser at £12 10s. a ton instead of at £20?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am not quite clear what the noble Lord means. It is not a question of forfeiting the subsidy. I understand that there is no sulphate of ammonia industry in the
310
Republic and, therefore, they get their fertiliser (it is a small amount; I think it was 8,000 tons only which was exported) where they can. But that does not apply to Northern Ireland.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, I do not think the noble Earl quite understood the object of my question. Presumably the Northern Irish farmer has his fertiliser subsidised. What I asked was: if the Northern Irish farmer decided to forfeit any subsidy from the Treasury, could he secure his sulphate of ammonia at £12 10s. a ton instead of paying £20?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, this is a rather remote hypothesis, which it is always difficult to answer. I suggest that the answer to the hypothetical question is, "No".
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether there is anything to stop anyone in this country or Northern Ireland from buying fertiliser now as cheaply as it can be bought from Eire? Can the noble Earl say what the difference is between East Germans dumping here at £12 10s. a ton and the I.C.I. doing the same thing in Eire?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I hoped I had made it clear in answer to the second part of the Question that in this country there is an established industry for manufacturing sulphate of ammonia which is likely to suffer, and which the President of the Board of Trade has decided will suffer, from dumping. That is not the case in the Irish Republic.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Earl convey to his right honourable friend the Minister that there is some feeling arising out of this in the farming industry that probably they were being over-charged before the time of the inquiry before the Monopolies Commission? Wages and costs and other things have gone up since then, and yet I.C.I. since the hearing before the Monopolies Commission have reduced the prices, and the farmers may think they have been overcharged all the way through. Ought not this matter to be referred again to the Monopolies Commission?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, when we have a careful Report from the Monopolies Commission, which I have here before me, I think we must abide by it. I think noble Lords would like me to say that paragraph 701 of the Report says:
"Neither I.C.I.'s monopoly nor any things done by the company operate or may be expected to operate against the public interest."
That is the finding of the Monopolies Commission.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that there are many in this House who consider that the Minister's reply is entirely unsatisfactory? Will the noble Earl accept from me that the price of sulphate of ammonia shipped to Colombo from Western Germany is to-day £16 5s. a ton? That would give an f.o.b. price of approximately £10 a ton. If it is brought to the United Kingdom, taking into account freight, it would land at approximately £13 10s. a ton. If there was then a duty of 33⅓ per cent. the figure would come very close to that indicated in the Question put down this afternoon. Would the noble Earl also take into account the indications of prices that I gave in this House in a debate on the Courtaulds and I.C.I. merger, when I showed a considerable similarity between Continental prices, taking into account duty, and those charged by I.C.I.? Would he promise to look into the question of taking duty off these items where I.C.I. have the monopoly?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I will certainly look carefully into the figures the noble Lord has given, but I cannot make any promise as to the conclusion to which I shall come after I have studied them.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government not aware that it is common commercial practice where-ever a commodity is in over-supply; and is it a fact that the National Coal Board to-day are selling coal more cheaply to foreign countries than to the subsidised British Railways, and that the same applies to the national steel works?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I believe my noble friend's question is substantially correct.
LORD STONHAM: But is the noble Earl aware that the difference is that the country owns the Coal Board? Would not the solution be to take over I.C.I.?
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I do not think the ownership of various businesses arises out of the original Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to inform the House that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement about Ministerial responsibility in respect of the Federation of Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and my noble friend Lord Waldegrave will be making a statement about the Price Review, both at a suitable moment after 3.30.
UNIVERSITY OF SUSSEX BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FORTH AND CLYDE CANAL (EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS OF NAVIGATION) BILL
House in Committee (according to Order), on Report from an Unopposed Bill Committee.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; report received.

BRITISH MUSEUM BILL [H.L.]
3.19 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, I rise at the request of and on behalf of the Trustees of the British Museum, of whom I have the honour to be one, to move the Second Reading of this Bill to enable the Trustees of the British Museum to lend certain works of art for exhibition in Vienna. I will explain, as briefly as I can, the reasons why the Bill is necessary if this loan is to be made; why it is thought that an exception should be made to the general rule

313
in the case of this particular exhibition; and why the works of art specified in the Schedule to the Bill are of particular relevance to the purposes of the exhibition. Before I do that, may I say that I believe the initiative of the Trustees in this matter is welcomed both by the Foreign Office and, indeed, by Her Majesty's Government.
Your Lordships will have noticed that the Bill has a very limited scope. It seeks to authorise the loan of a few specified works for a brief period. You may wonder why it is necessary that you should be troubled with a Bill with so limited a purpose. But a Bill is necessary because it is held that, so far as the collections at Bloomsbury are concerned, the Trustees have no power to lend abroad, and, indeed, are precluded by Statute from doing so.
The Natural History Department's collections in South Kensington, where the circumstances are very different, are also in a different statutory position. It was recognised some years ago that, in modern conditions, the immense collections of specimens in the Natural History Museum could not be satisfactorily identified and classified unless our own experts—who rank, of course, among the leading taxonomists of the world—were able on occasion to send their material for examination and verification by specialist colleagues abroad. In order to enable current and essential work of the Museum to proceed, an Act was passed in 1955 giving the Trustees discretion as to what they might lend for purposes of research. So far as the collections at Bloomsbury are concerned—and that means all the great antiquities, works of art, books, prints and drawings—the position remains as laid down in an Act of 1924, which defines the express power of the Trustees as being limited to loans for public exhibition in any gallery or museum under the control of a public authority or university in Great Britain.
Your Lordships may ask whether there is any precedent for making any loan, even under the express authority of Parliament, as is now proposed. There is one, and, I am informed, only one, such precedent. In 1946, just after the war, authority of Parliament was obtained to lend the Laycock Abbey revision of Magna Carta for two years to the Library of Congress. This was obviously
314
a most exceptional request, and little, if any, objection was voiced against acceding to it. Indeed, such is the level of learning and scholarship prevailing in your Lordships' House that most of the Second Reading debate on that Bill, and the whole of the proceedings in Committee, turned on the question whether "Carta" should be spelt with an "h" or not. The result of your Lordships' consideration of this question was to delete the offending aspirate which had intruded itself into the Bill as drafted but which, in the words of the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, had never before "disgraced our Parliamentary records".
I come now to the nature of this Exhibition in Vienna. It is being organised by the Council of Europe as one of a series, in which the Fifth Exhibition, illustrating the Romantic Movement was held, as many of your Lordships will remember, at the Tate Gallery in 1959, when this country had the privilege of seeing many important paintings and sculptures from other countries. All the great museums and galleries of the world, so far as I am aware (with the possible exception of the Prado; though on this point I may not be quite accurate) hold themselves free to lend abroad, and in fact do so.
The object of the Vienna Exhibition, which, as I have said, is being held under the auspices of the Council of Europe, is to illustrate European art around the year 1400—a cultural theme of great interest to all European countries, and not least to our own. The works for which the promoters have asked us are of importance to that theme. Out of our rich collection of drawings they have asked for the four which are specified in the Schedule to the Bill, and which were all executed about the year 1400. But they have also asked to be permitted to exhibit what is known as the Royal Gold Cup, a superb piece and, as I am now assured, the only piece of secular plate of importance surviving from that period, and showing in all its magnificence the effect of enamel upon gold. Many of your Lordships have, I hope, seen this Cup at the British Museum, where it is exhibited in the King Edward VII Gallery and, even in that treasure house, stands out as a result of its striking beauty and merit.

315
If I am not detaining your Lordships too long, perhaps I might say a word or two about the history of this Cup. It was made in France in the year 1380 for the Duc de Berry, who presented it to Charles VI of France. On Charles' death, it came into the possession of the Duke of Bedford, then Regent, in days when I think we laid claim for our King also to be King of France. It came into the possession of the Duke of Bedford legitimately, according to the best information. It was transferred by him to England, where it became part of the Royal Treasure of King Henry VI.
The stem of the Cup was altered in Tudor times, under Henry VIII, and later the Cup was given away by James I, on the conclusion of a Treaty with Philip III of Spain, in 1604, to a Spanish envoy, the leader of the mission and Constable of Castile. He, in turn, presented it to a Spanish convent in the diocese of Burgos. And there it remained until 1883. In that year the Abbess being, like some other heads of illustrious organisations, short of funds (in official language: or otherwise "hard up") had the happy thought of realising it; and instead of trying to sell it in Spain took the precaution of sending it by a priest to Paris, where she sold it. Her right to do so was challenged, but not successfully, and the Cup was bought by a French collector. Later, by a sale initiated by a British firm, it was acquired in the market by Messrs. Wertheimer's, who generously enabled the Museum to acquire it in 1891 at the price which they had paid for it.
So, in addition to its immense artistic merit, the Cup has an interesting history, and no doubt it might be said by some people: "Why, after those vicissitudes, should it not be thought best to leave it safe where it is?" But, my Lords, it is essentially, by its nature and its unique character, the type of its workmanship and the date of its execution, the kind of thing which an important international Exhibition would seek to show and which ought indeed to be lent if exceptions at all are to be made.
The fame of the British Museum inevitably means that we shall not be asked to lend mediocre or second-rate works of art or things that can be equally well obtained elsewhere. Some of your Lordships may perhaps wonder if any
316
exceptions should be made. Others may think that the Trustees should have more general discretion than they now possess and that it should not be necessary for them to come to Parliament every time they wish to meet the reasonable wishes of some important international gallery, museum or exhibition. I do not know what your Lordships' view on that question may be, but whatever views are expressed will be very carefully considered, I am sure, by the Trustees.
I think there will be growing recognition that the circumstances have altered, that these endeavours to get an understanding of our common culture are of importance to good international relationships and that transport and technical means for moving things of this kind are more advanced than they were. Many people, I think, will take the view that it seems almost churlish to persist in an entirely negative attitude that nothing can be lent abroad from our vast collections, but I am not raising that broad issue with your Lordships this afternoon. I would submit, with great respect, that that is not the issue before the House; all I am asking your Lordships to do is to approve the loan of these few specified works to this particular and important international Exhibition for the space of a few months.
As regards details of the Exhibition, I ought perhaps to add that the cost of the loan, if we are authorised to make it, will be borne by the British Council. And I will conclude by assuring your Lordships that the Museum authorities will take every possible precaution for the care and safe return of whatever is lent. I might add that they have it in mind that the Cup and the Drawings should be accompanied by a senior and expert member of the Museum staff who will also be able to supervise the arrangements for their display. With these explanations, my Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hurcomb.)
3.34 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I feel that we are very indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for his very clear and charming explanation of the purposes of this little Bill. There will be none among us. I feel, who would wish to resist his

317
appeal. We in this country have had immense benefit and joy from the advantages we have had of seeing the treasures from European collections over and over again, particularly in the 1959 Exhibition at the Tate Gallery on "The Romantic Movement" in Europe, and some little time earlier we all remember the superb display of Viennese treasures in the same gallery. I can only hope that we shall enthusiastically pass this Bill.
I would, however, draw your Lordships' attention to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, made. Whereas, I think I am right in saying, our art galleries, and I think the Victoria and Albert Museum, are free under their statutes or charters to lend their precious things to foreign exhibitions when it appears suitable and subject to proper safeguards, the British Museum, almost alone, is required to come to Parliament with these Bills to ask permission to lend any particular object. It seems to me an unnecessary procedure, for if we can devise a method by which the Victoria and Albert Museum can be trusted to lend the treasures which are in their collection, we can equally give such powers to the Trustees of the British Museum. I hope we shall be able to find time to encourage the Trustees to produce a draft of a Bill giving them the necessary powers to do what the Victoria and Albert and other museums and art galleries can already do without this rather tiresome and, I think, rather paltry procedure.
3.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to convey the Government's support for this Bill—for two reasons. I have the honour, by virtue of my office, to be one of the principal Trustees of the Museum, and, secondly, I was one of the original members of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, under whose auspices the Exhibition will take place; and I should like to add my word with regard to the purpose of the Exhibition.
I am sure that this Eighth Exhibition organised by the Council, being one of Mediæval Art Treasures in Vienna, will be very worthwhile, and I agree with the noble Lord who moved this Bill so admirably and with Lord Wilmot of
318
Selmeston that we have the happiest recollection of the Fifth Exhibition, which was held at the Tate Gallery, on "The Romantic Movement". I think they will agree that it was the most comprehensive review of romantic paintings and sculpture ever seen—one can put it as high as that. It included, of course, generous contributions from our neighbours in Europe. Apart from the intrinsic excellence of the exhibits, it was most important as showing the interdependence of the great streams of European artistic development. Now we have the chance to make some return. I am sure, too, that we have all been delighted this afternoon by the account given by my noble friend Lord Hurcomb of the exhibits, especially of the history of the Gold Cup.
My Lords, I was greatly interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, said with regard to his suggestion of a more general provision. As has been said, the Trustees have always been precluded by Statute from lending abroad, and although, as the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, said, there is a precedent for legislation to enable them to do so in exceptional circumstances. The examples of that are not very common. I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, that I truly understand the importance of his point. As he said, it is a matter for the Trustees to consider, but I shall personally convey his remarks to my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that, from his interest in that part of our national affairs, he, too, will consider it. I think it is a very important point which ought to be considered. I know that your Lordships will have been glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, of the care that will be taken to prevent any possible risk of damage. That is an important matter and one which the Trustees have very much in mind with regard to the treasures in their care.
It is interesting, on an occasion like this, just to spare one moment to look at a triple growth of interest in this country which has certainly taken place since the end of the war. The first is an interest in education, apart from a development in education; the second, increased interest in the fine arts; and the third, I believe, an increased interest in the common cultural heritage of

319
Western Europe. The last, coupled with the first two, can be a matter of great importance for international understanding, and because I believe that the action which the Trustees desire to take, and which they desire us to permit, will help in all those three important matters I consider it an honour and pleasure to support the Bill.
LORD HURCOMB: My Lords, there is nothing I can add to what has been said, except that I am sure that all my fellow Trustees, including the Official Trustees and Principal Trustees will be very gratified by the way in which your Lordships' House has been good enough to receive this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

WEST INDIES BILL [H.L.]
3.44 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Perth.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power of Her Majesty to provide for performance of functions heretofore performed by Federal authorities for benefit of federated colonies]:
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN moved, after subsection (1) to insert:
"(2) An authority set up by virtue of this section shall consist of—

(a) a chairman;

(b) persons representative of each of the territories concerned."

320
The noble Earl said: This Amendment refers to the authority which the Government are proposing to set up to administer the common services in the West Indies, those services from which all the territories in that area have benefited, and from which they will continue to benefit, I understand, whether or not they remain in the Federation, and whether or not they are in any future federation.
On the Second Reading the noble Earl who introduced the Bill was not specific about the common services. He mentioned meteorological services, advisory services of all kinds, shipping services and others; and the object of Clause 2 is to give permission for the establishment of an interim authority to deal with those services. We think that the House ought to know more about what this authority will be; who will appoint it; on what grounds; what sort of person or persons will be appointed. On all these matters so far there has been complete silence from the Government.
This is, after all, a matter which concerns intimately all these territories in the Caribbean. At first sight it would seem self-evident that in these days an authority of this sort should bear some semblance of democratic control; in other words, the territories concerned should be given a say in the authority which is controlling these services. There is a precedent for that in East Africa. For a long time there was an East African High Commission which performed precisely these services for the territories of East Africa. In East Africa there were, I think, more common services than there are in the West Indies. There were, for instance, currency, railways and harbours, Customs and taxation organisations. But in principle it seems to me that the function to be performed in the West Indies is very much akin to that performed in East Africa.
I should like to remind your Lordships of the organisation which exists in East Africa. For a long time it was known as the East African High Commission, but recently, with the political developments in the East African territories, it has changed its name to the Common Services Organisation. So far as I can see, the composition of this authority has not changed, and it has

321
all the features of a democratic organisation, including a Council and a Legislative Assembly. It is composed of elected representatives from each of the component territories; it includes Ministers and elected members of each of the Territorial Legislatures. There will be twelve Ministers who are members of four functional groups, together with nine members from each territory, elected by the Territorial Legislature. The Assembly of the East African Common Services Organisation will have power to pass measures on subjects such as expenditure, civil aviation, Customs and Excise, income tax, inter-territorial research, university education, communications and the public services commissions. There we have a complete democratic Constitution legislating for the common services of the East African territories. Our Amendment does not contemplate anything as ambitious as that. All we ask is that besides the chairman this authority shall include persons representative of each of the territories concerned.
I hope I have explained what is in our minds, but I should like to say that to my friends on these Benches and me it appears that the proposal as it is set out in the Bill is a complete regression to arbitrary rule from Whitehall and a step back from all these years of political progress in the colonial territories—so much so that we can hardly believe that it is really what is in Her Majesty's Government's mind. We should like an explanation of what the Government proposals mean, and for that purpose I beg to move the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Lucan.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I hope I shall not be thought to be in any way discourteous to the noble Earl if, for the purpose of making the statement to which my noble friend referred, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.— (Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND: MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
3.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I repeated now the statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on Ministerial responsibility in respect of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and its constituent territories. The statement is as follows:
"When the Federal Review Conference was adjourned in December, 1960, it was generally agreed that consideration of the future of the Federation should be deferred until further progress had been made with constitutional advance in the Rhodesias and Nyasaland. New Constitutions have now been established for the three territories and the time has come to take up again the problem of the future of the Federation and its relations with its constituent territories. The stage has thus been reached when our relations with the Federation and Southern Rhodesia and our responsibility for the two Northern Territories can appropriately be concentrated in the hands of a single Minister.
"While responsibility was divided between my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary and my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary, the two Ministers were apt to be regarded in some quarters as identified with conflicting sectional interests in the Federation; and for this reason it would not be practicable to secure the desired unification of Ministerial responsibility by transferring the functions of either to the other. Therefore, with the full agreement of the two Secretaries of State concerned, to whose patience and skill in dealing with the respective parts of this problem I should like to pay tribute, I have invited my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to undertake this responsibility. I am very grateful to him for agreeing to do so and for his readiness to add this task to the assistance he already gives me over a wide range of public duties.

323
"Accordingly, from the 19th of March, all the existing responsibilities of the Commonwealth Secretary for the Federation and for Southern Rhodesia, and those of the Colonial Secretary for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, will be exercised by the Home Secretary. The staffs directly concerned with these matters in the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office will be brought together in a single unit which will be wholly responsible to the Home Secretary. As part of his general responsibilities the Home Secretary will assume the ultimate responsibility at present exercised by the Colonial Secretary for members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service serving in the Protectorates. The undertakings given to these officers by Her Majesty's Government will continue unchanged.
"I am confident that this adjustment of Ministerial functions will improve our organisation for dealing with the problems confronting us now and in the period ahead, and will serve the best interests of all the inhabitants of the territories concerned.
"In conclusion I wish to emphasise that this new organisation does not imply any change in our policy towards the Federation or any of its constituent territories. In particular, it does not affect in any way the constitutional status of the Federal Government or of the Governments of Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland; nor does it affect in any way the Government's pledge to the peoples in the Northern Territories as set forth in the preamble to the Federal Constitution, which provided that
'Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue, under the special protection of Her Majesty, to enjoy separate Governments for so long as their respective peoples so desire'.
This was, and remains, a pledge binding on the Government as a whole."
My Lords, that is the statement given by my right honourable friend.
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lards, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for giving us a copy of the
324
statement that the Prime Minister has made. It is obviously an exceedingly important statement at this critical stage in the negotiations which will have to go on in Central Africa. To me, it is one of the most extraordinary Prime Ministerial decisions that I have ever known in my long Parliamentary career. I just do not understand it. I know that the language in the statement concerning the different functions of the Commonwealth Secretary and the Colonial Secretary is carefully drawn; but there are few people, in this country at any rate, who will not consider that the Prime Minister has not been able to resolve difficulties between two of his Ministers at this crucial point. Certainly, having regard to the traditional functions of the Colonial Office in relation to the Protectorates as such—they are always mentioned in the documentary statements concerning the protection of Protectorates—there will be grave misgivings among the African population in the Central Federation in relation to all that has been going on out there for the last two or three years. From that point of view I regret this decision very much.
I should have thought that if there were any question of difference between the Colonial and the Commonwealth Departments it would be for the Prime Minister, with the assistance of his Cabinet colleagues, to consider the matter; and if the Ministers cannot agree there is the usual course open for either one of them to take. I just do not understand the situation at this moment. The noble Viscount will therefore forgive me for expressing my doubts about the whole situation.
In regard to the position of the Africans in the Protectorates, may I ask whether the Prime Minister's decision to make this change was in any way talked over with, or communicated to, the representatives of the African interests in the Protectorates? It would be interesting to know that, because we shall certainly hear a good deal more about it. I hope that I can be told about that. I am most anxious to make sure that there should not be any decrease in, or lack of, confidence as a result of the changes which are being made. I am bound to say that, in so far as it seemed necessary in the view of the Prime Minister to make this change, I personally note with

325
some relief that the Minister chosen is the Home Secretary, although his Department seems an extraordinary one to link to a Colonial and Commonwealth matter. However, the Home Secretary is held in high esteem for a certainly liberal mind in dealing with racial problems. He has a long tradition from his early connection, through his father, with India and the like. I appreciate that point very much indeed; and in the language in which the Prime Minister refers to him in this statement, I think that is confirmed. I hope that this fact may bring some confidence to the Africans in these extraordinary circumstances. I hope that the kindness of the language about the Home Secretary in this statement may indicate that the Prime Minister is at last finding out upon whom his yoke will yet fall.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, without seeking to pursue the noble Viscount's last observation, which was hardly germane to this particular matter. I should like to thank him for the courteous references of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, which appear to go far to mitigate what I think was a mistaken feeling of apprehension and surprise in the earlier part of what he said. This is primarily a convenience in relation to Government machinery, the reasons for which I should have thought would be abundantly apparent from the statement I had made, when noble Lords have read it with the greatest care, as no doubt they will do in Hansard tomorrow.
I think the noble Viscount was quite mistaken in referring to the difficulties between two individual members of the Government. Indeed, if there had been such difficulties, I would have agreed with the noble Viscount that this would not have been an appropriate way to solve it. But, quite clearly, as the statement says, the respective responsibilities of the two Departments are difficult to justify at the present time, and I am sure that not only the Africans, for whom the noble Viscount quite rightly expressed concern, but all the inhabitants of the territories will gain from an improvement in administration. I do not think anybody, of any colour or race, need be apprehensive about this. This is an internal matter of the Government machine. In point of fact, as the statement says (as the noble Viscount will see when he
326
reads it again), the most implicit pledge is contained in it. It contains no difference in policy, and sets out explicitly the pledge of protection which was contained in the Preamble to the Constitution. Being an internal government matter and not a matter of policy, it was not discussed either with Sir Roy Welensky or with the African leaders.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for more than a moment, but I do not yet understand what the noble and learned Viscount means by saying it is convenient at present. Could anything be more inconvenient than suddenly to change the Minister in the middle of all these negotiations?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should have thought nothing could be more inconvenient than having to deal with two Departments instead of one.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, we shall no doubt have an opportunity of further considering this matter in a debate in a few weeks' time. I would put only one question, which perhaps is superfluous because I think it is probably clear from, and certainly implicit in, the statement made by the Leader of the House. As I understand it, this decision makes no change whatever in the powers or duties of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the Federation or any of the territories. Having said that, I must say, so far as I can judge, that this appears to me to be an extremely practical and sensible action on the part of the Government. That is my view, and I am not without some experience in dealing with both the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Office, and also with all the problems of Federation, which I had the honour of piloting through this House.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: In the Home Office?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I have acted as Home Secretary when the Home Secretary was away on some other enterprise. Let me remind the noble Lord, who has been a Home Secretary, that there is nothing the least unconstitutional or improper in this action. It does not require legislation or anything of that kind.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: I agree.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: It is inherent in the British Constitution that any Secretary of State can exercise the functions of any other Secretary of State, and it is a very convenient thing. That being so, from past experience I myself would think that there was every advantage in having one Secretary of State who can take charge of all these matters and look at all the problems of the Federation and of each of these territories as a whole. The first time I ever went across Canada, seeing the variety of different provinces, I remember saying that there appeared to be only one man in Canada who was able to see Canada as a whole and that was the Prime Minister.
I am sure this has nothing whatever to do with any differences between colleagues. It was quite plain when the last announcement was made that the Government were unanimous about it. I should have thought that there was every practical convenience in having one Minister dealing with all the aspects of this matter. And, of course, if we are going to have that situation it must be a very senior Minister in whom the Prime Minister and his colleagues—and, indeed, I think all of us—have great confidence. I would add this, if I may—and I am sure we can all agree on this—that it is characteristic of the public-spiritedness and great sense of public duty of the Home Secretary that he has agreed to undertake this very onerous and responsible task.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for what he has said. He is quite correct in thinking that there is no change in the powers or duties of Her Majesty's Government in relation to this matter; nor, if there were, would this be the appropriate way of dealing with it. It is, as he says, a practical arrangement that has been undertaken for practical reasons and there is nothing unconstitutional about it; and I am glad to have the support of someone of his eminence and experience.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, could the noble and learned Viscount say whether this will involve any transfer of staffs from the two Ministries to the Home Office? Will Mr. Butler now be
328
known as "Home and Colonial Secretary"?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's first supplementary. As I have said, the responsibilities of the Commonwealth Secretary and of the Colonial Secretary in relation to the staffs of the Commonwealth Relations Office and of Her Majesty's Oversea Civil Service in the Territories concerned will pass to the Home Secretary, and my right honourable friend will be concerned for the interests of those affected.
In relation to the future transfers or promotions of individual officers, the responsibility will continue to rest with the Commonwealth Secretary and the Colonial Secretary, as the case may be.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, we are not going to debate this matter now, but, in view of what the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, have just said, I should like to make it clear that our misgivings about this statement are not based primarily on the administration and practical convenience of this change in Ministerial responsibility. What we are concerned about is Central Africa, and we feel that this is going to administer a shock to the Africans in the two Protectorates, which have always regarded the Secretary of State for the Colonies as their champion. This is most unfortunate at a moment when we need the cooperation of the African Parties and the African population in these territories, both in the Federation and in the Protectorates.
The second point is this. We all admire Mr. Butler's ability, but, to put a Minister who has never had any personal experience or special knowledge of Central Africa in charge of Central African affairs at a moment when important and urgent decisions have to be taken about the future of the Federation, is obviously going to handicap him, as compared with Ministers who have already had much experience of Central African affairs.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for what appeared, at any rate in the first sentence or two of his supplementary

329
question, to be an endorsement of the practical reasons underlying this arrangement. I say that without agreeing with the latter part of what he said. I am sure that, when noble Lords opposite have studied the statement carefully, as I know they will, their misgivings will be allayed and they will be able to play the great part which I feel certain they can play—and which I know the noble Earl can play and has played—in allaying any misgivings, which are without foundation, among those with whom they may be in contact in the Continent of Africa. I know, of course, that in most parts of Africa the name "Colonial Office" is recognised as a symbol of protection, and I am happy to think it is so; and it is even so among people who are sometimes ready to attack colonialism.
I am happy to repeat the assurance contained in the original statement, that the special protection which Her Majesty's Government give to the people of the two Northern Territories is exercised by the Government as a whole, and will become the special responsibility of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, of whom courteous things have been spoken not only by the noble Earl but by the Leader of the Opposition. He will, of course, become their sheet anchor.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether this means that Mr. Butler will now be relieved of his responsibilities in heading the Cabinet Committee on the Common Market. Secondly, may I ask what steps the Government are proposing to take in Central Africa, to persuade the people that this proposed new arrangement is merely a matter of administrative convenience?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I am not sure that it is the custom to describe the Chairmanship of Cabinet Committees in public. I think I am limited in some way by convention in that respect. But I can say that the Home Secretary will certainly carry on his special responsibilities for the oversight of the Common Market negotiations. As regards the latter point, of course every step will be taken to show that what I have said
330
is correct. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Perth has only this afternoon been describing to me steps which have been taken in the way of explaining to African leaders exactly what is involved. If I may, I should like to reiterate what I said in answer to the noble Earl opposite: that not only members of the Government but members of all political Parties can assist in this matter.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, regarding the last point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I should have thought it would have been helpful if the House could have been given more detail as to what the noble Viscount means by "practical difficulties". We have not yet heard of a single practical difficulty. What are the practical difficulties?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount should do me the courtesy of following my suggestion that he should read the statement—
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: I have read it right through.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: —and then, if he feels that there is anything else which needs to be put to me, he can do that and I will try to answer him. But I really feel that he is not doing justice to the original statement by suggesting that it is inadequate in this respect.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I read it very carefully before the noble and learned Viscount actually read it out, so I am not speaking without my brief an this matter, which is his statement. There are no real, practical difficulties illustrated in that statement.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, if I may repeat the famous words of Mr. Justice Swift, "Read it again".
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then I must conclude that the real difficulty is the disagreement between the Ministries, which have not been mastered by the Prime Minister.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that in that respect, at least, he is wholly mistaken. It is a question of fact, and I can assure him on the fact.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask whether this now means that we have swapped the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, and that Lord Bathurst will answer questions on this subject?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: No, my Lords, it does not mean that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Then who will now instruct the Minister for the Colonies in this House?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, will still deal with Colonial Office matters, and the spokesman for the new department will in due course be allocated by the Leader of the House, as it is his duty to do.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: You had better get a new set of lessons in noughts and crosses, and see which is going to work out.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I must say, my Lords, that the noble Viscount is not being his usual courteous self in that last observation.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: Do not be so touchy.

THE ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL REVIEW
4.16 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a statement similar to that which my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is making in another place, about the results of the Annual Agricultural Review. I will use his own words:
"I am glad to say that the figures show a continuing and substantial rise in the industry's net income. The forecast of actual net income for the year ending 31st May, 1962, is £431½ million, compared with the revised estimate for 1960–61 of £389½ million. When adjusted for normal weather, the forecast net income for 1961–62 is £413½ million, compared with £387 million for last year and £361 million for 1959–60. The forecast for net output for 1961–62 is also higher than before.
332
"The cost of agricultural support has also risen substantially. The estimate for 1962–63, put in before this Review, is £339 million.
"To come to the individual commodities. A feature of last year's weak market for beef was the number of lower quality animals in the market. Consequently, while we are not changing the guaranteed price, we are making the following alterations in the guarantee arrangements. We are raising the general standard at which cattle are accepted for the guarantee and reducing the maximum weights on which the guarantee is paid. We are also introducing a new standard for lighter, young beasts of good conformation. In order to strengthen the pull of the market we are also widening the stabilising limits which apply to the guaranteed price.
"Where sheep are concerned, the output of mutton and lamb in 1961–62 is expected to be about 10 per cent. above the record figure of 1960–61. There has been a significant increase in the breeding flock, and the prospect is of continuing low market prices and a heavy subsidy. We are therefore reducing the guaranteed price by ld. per lb, and here again we are reducing the maximum weights on which guarantee is paid and widening the stabilising limits. There will be no change in the guaranteed price for wool.
"For pigs we have the flexible guarantee arrangement which we introduced last year to promote a steadier rate of production. Under this arrangement, the guaranteed price came down by 6d. per score in February, and if the forecast number of pigs reaches 11 million there will be a further automatic reduction. The basic guaranteed price will be left unchanged.
"Egg production in the coming year is expected to be significantly higher than the present record level, which satisfies virtually the whole of the demand for shell eggs in this country. There is a real danger that production will exceed demand, and we are reducing the guaranteed price by 1½d. per dozen.
"The guaranteed price for milk was increased last year by 0·8d. per gallon in the expectation that the industry

333
would devise a payments system which would bring home to the individual producer that output beyond a certain level fetches only the manufacturing price, which is unremunerative and reduces the pool price. The industry has not as yet found an answer to the problem, and in view of this and the continuing increase in production there has been no option but to reduce the guaranteed price. The reduction will be 0·4d. per gallon, and the effect of this, together with the continuing increase in output, will mean a reduction of about 1d. per gallon in the pool price which the farmer receives.
"The method of fixing retail milk prices is not, of course, an Annual Review matter. But before I leave the subject of milk I would mention that we are arranging for the retail price of liquid milk to cover in future the full cost of the guarantee. In recent years the general milk subsidy falling on the Exchequer has averaged £8 million to £9 million a year. Taking one year with another, there should be no cost to the Exchequer in future. The retail price of milk will actually need to be increased from 8d., to 8½d. a pint for some six or seven months of the year; about half of this increase is attributable to the decision of which I have just spoken, and the rest is due to other factors such as the rise in distribution costs resulting from the wages award of some while ago.
"The general prospects for cereals, potatoes and sugar beet do not call for any changes in the guaranteed prices of these products.
"As regards production grants, we are extending the upper limit of the Small Farmer Scheme from 450 to 500 standard man-days in order to give special help and encouragement to those small farmers who, because of their rather higher level of cropping and stocking, are at present outside the scope of the Scheme.
"We shall be introducing lower rates of subsidy for fertilisers, which will reduce the subsidy bill by an estimated £2½ million.
334
"Finally, I come to the need for improved marketing. We welcome the increasing emphasis which the industry are placing on marketing, and are anxious to help in this regard. We have worked out with the unions a scheme of grants to encourage marketing research and development, and the Government will make available up to £1½ million over three years to this end.
"The total value of the guarantees for the year 1961–62 was £1,351½ million. After taking increased costs of £19½ million into consideration, the maximum reduction of this figure within the Agriculture Act, 1957, is about £14 million. The effect of this Review is to reduce the value of the guarantees by just under £11 million."
My Lords, full details of the Review will be found in a White Paper which, I understand, is now available in the Printed Paper Office.
4.24 p.m.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, because it is always extremely difficult to follow a detailed statement such as the one to which we have just listened, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I miss the mark while taking an odd shot here and there by asking one or two questions. The first question relates to the figures in the first paragraph of the noble Earl's statement, where it refers to forecasts—estimates—of net income. If I took the figures down correctly, the estimate of net income for 1961–62 is thought to be £431 million, compared with an estimate for 1960–61 of £389½ million.
If those figures are correct, I should like to know why they have been used and, particularly, why they have been embodied in this statement. I raise the point because the Minister in another place, when asked by a Conservative Member on the first of this month, only two weeks ago, whether he would state the figures of net output and net income for each year since 1950, stated that, for 1960–61, the aggregate farming net income was £359 million, whereas in the statement which the noble Earl has just read to this House the figure given was £389 million. The Government have therefore discovered an extra £30 million between March 1 and March 15, when

335
this statement has been read. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell us where they picked up this odd £30 million in those two weeks.
With regard to the question of the various commodities, it would be nonsensical on my part to do more than ask one or two questions. On milk, for instance, I notice that the Minister, to rid himself of any possible subsidies for milk, is insisting that the retail price of milk be increased by a halfpenny per pint, so that in future the consumer is going to bear the burden. May I ask the noble Earl whether the Minister has included in his calculation a possible reduction in the consumption of liquid milk because of the increased price during those six or seven months; or, if that were the case and milk output continued on a level line, the fact that there would be more milk for manufacturing purposes at an extremely low price compared with liquid milk prices? Should we not "meet ourselves coming back" if that unfortunate contingency arose?
With regard to the question of mutton and lamb, I suppose we shall just have to see how the scheme works out—and similarly with eggs. I understand the proposition, and I make no comment today. But I should like to ask the noble Earl a final question: is this an agreed settlement with the National Farmers' Union?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, perhaps I could answer the noble Lord's last question first. I regret that it was not possible to reach agreement with the unions this year, but I should like to say that the basic economic data—net income, net output, cost changes and so on—have, of course, been agreed with the unions as usual.
The first supplementary that the noble Lord asked me was in relation to net income. The noble Lord knows more about this matter than I do, and he did not give me the reference in Hansard to my right honourable friend's remarks, but I will look them up afterwards.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: I am sorry if the noble Earl missed what I said. I said March 1 of this year.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. But he did not give me notice of this question, naturally, and I shall therefore have to look it up. I have not got all the copies of Hansard on the table here. I think that the only possible explanation, if there is a variation in the figure, is this. The noble Lord asked me if my figure was correct—and, of course, it is correct; he will find the figure of £431½ million in Appendix 2 of the White Paper, of which I have the draft here. But he will know as well as I do that there are two sets of calculations which have been published from time immemorial, or whenever it was that they began to be published. The first is called the D.N.I.C.—the Departmental Net Income Calculation—which comes in Table A; and then there is the Raised Sample Calculation, which comes in Table B. These are estimates of income derived in different ways and from different sources. We have always used the two. But I must clearly stick to my guns. He will find that in the White Paper the departmental calculation, which is the one that we always quote first, shows a forecast actual net income for the year 1961–62 of £431½ million. As he knows, we then adjust to normal weather conditions. And when we adjust the figure to normal weather conditions, we bring it down to £413½ million. That is the answer to his first question.
The noble Lord's second question was whether we take into consideration any possible falling off in sales owing to a rise in the retail price of milk. The answer is that that is, of course, taken into consideration. But the estimates we have made are as I have given them.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I should like, first of all, to say that I listened to the beginning of this statement with very great relief, because after we had heard the earlier statement I was wondering whether we were going to hear now, in view of the difficulty of arriving at an agreed settlement between the Union and the Ministry, that the responsibility for handling this matter would be transferred to the Board of Trade and that we should no longer have the noble Earl speaking to us in the pleasant way he always does. After that relief, I must confess that very little has happened which has cheered me up.

337
I should specifically like to ask the noble Earl one question. So far as I can make out from these prices, broadly speaking the arable farmers have got off pretty lightly. In other words, their prices have not been reduced. Admittedly, their costs and wages bills have gone up substantially, but, so far as I can see, there has been no reduction in the price of cereals, potatoes, sugar beet, or the main arable crops.
The entire burden has fallen on the livestock farmers by a very substantial cut in the price of milk, which is the mainstay of the majority of the small farmers; a substantial cut in the price of eggs, which is similarly the mainstay of a very large number of small farmers; a potential reduction in the price of pigs, which is to some extent a small farmer activity; and a reduction in the price of mutton, which if not necessarily the mainstay of small farmers, is certainly the mainstay of many marginal farmers on the Welsh hills and elsewhere.
Would the noble Earl agree with me that this Price Review is undoubtedly a further step toward squeezing out the small farmer? Is it part of a deliberate Government policy to do this? If it is, I would further ask the noble Earl whether, following upon this apparently deliberate action of squeezing out the small farmer and the marginal farmer, with the very modest marginal farm assistance which has been mentioned, any further steps will be taken to make this squeezing out a less painful process than it is at the present time?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, as the answer to the first supplementary is "No," the second supplementary does not arise. It is not a deliberate policy of squeezing out the small farmer. When one sees that we have increased the scope of the Small Farmer Scheme in order to include more farmers in the Scheme, I should have thought that made the position quite clear. As the noble Lord must well know, commodities have to be considered one by one in the light of the market and the supply position. We have, we feel, got the balance in the cereals about right. But there is this dangerous or potentially dangerous situation of over-supply in eggs and milk, and in mutton and lamb. Therefore, there was no alternative but to
338
make the reductions and the adjustments we have made in these livestock products. I would just add that we are, of course, reducing the fertiliser subsidy, and I believe that when the noble Lord comes to read this White Paper which describes the Review in detail, he will say that, on balance, it is a just and fair Review for all sections of the industry. That is the endeavour, and that is what I believe it to be.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl what he means by "a dangerous situation" of "an oversupply of food"? Is it dangerous from the consumers' point of view, the people who eat food and want to buy it cheaply? May I also ask him whether he can explain to me, as one who has no technical knowledge whatsoever of this problem, why it is that, after these vast sums in subsidy are paid out every year, the price of food still remains very, very costly for the housewives and for others who need to buy it in the shops?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, we are having a debate at a later date about these things, when this point will no doubt be brought up. But perhaps I can use, as an alternative to the words "dangerous situation", the words now hallowed by the 1960 White Paper on Agriculture, and say that it makes no sense to produce more of any commodity than the market can absorb. I think that must be the answer to the first question. Food is dearer than it was when it was highly subsidised several years ago. The food subsidies have been removed and the consumer now has his free choice, and that is the reason why certain articles of food may be dearer in the shops to-day.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl a final question, referring to the figures which have already been mentioned? There is reference to a "forecast" an "estimate", and a "revised estimate", and the figures are extremely large. I imagine that it is just possible that there will be "highlighting" in the national Press to-morrow of these figures, although they are just forecasts, estimates, and revised estimates, and may not come within many, many millions of pounds of the actual subsidy received by the farmers. I am not complaining,

339
except that it may be misunderstood in the country that these are merely forecasts, estimates, and revised estimates, which may or may not be wide of the mark.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, might I point out that food in Britain is far cheaper than anywhere else in Europe? It is not the farmers who have caused the price of food in this country to go up slightly; if it is anyone, it is the shopkeepers.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, perhaps I might reply to those two questions. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Barnburgh, need have any fear. These figures have been given in this form for many years now. It has almost become a liturgy. We put them in exactly the same way, and I do not think people will misunderstand the fact that some are estimates. Indeed, if the noble Lord looks at the tables again, he will see that since the days he was in charge of the Department these estimates have often been quite close to the result.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: But, my Lords, when the noble Earl puts in a White Paper two estimates which are £30 million apart within a fortnight it does make one think.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I have not put in a White Paper two estimates £30 million apart in a fortnight. We must agree to differ on that point.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, could the noble Earl explain what this means in terms of increase in the cost of living? For instance, in terms of points, would it be possible for him to say whether these increases to the consumer mean a rise of so many points in the cost-of-living index? Could he also say to what extent the differences between the Government and the National Farmers' Union can be attributed to particular items in the Price Review, or have they rejected the whole thing?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am sorry, but I shall not be able to answer either of those two questions. I have not in front of me in detail the amount that the cost of living index will
340
be affected by the six or seven months' increase of one halfpenny per pint on milk. I do not know the answer to that question.
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble Earl be able to answer it if I put a Question on the Paper?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I imagine that it is perfectly possible for me to give the noble Lord information as to what one halfpenny per pint on milk means in terms of the cost of living index. As to the extent of the differences between the National Farmers' Union and the Ministry, I cannot say what parts of the Review were agreed, or potentially agreed, and what parts were disagreed. I am sure the noble Lord, on reflection, will realise that it would be most unwise for me to do that, and I should not care to do it.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Earl gave a number of figures, but I think he omitted one. I wonder whether he could give it to us. He said that agricultural subsidies were going to be cut by £11 million. Can he say how much the cut could have been under the Act?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I said that it would be about £14 million. With great respect, I would remind your Lordships that we are having a debate on this matter at an early date, and perhaps I could continue my viva voce examination then.

WEST INDIES BILL [H.L.]
4.40 p.m.
House again in Committee.
LORD OGMORE: I have a good deal of sympathy for what lies behind the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and his colleagues, because I think that the whole proposal in Clauses 2 and 5 is vague. It leaves a blank cheque of uncertain dimensions in the hands of the Government, and I think that we ought to have a little more information than we have had up to now. This Amendment is the usual peg on which to hang our arguments. I understand that the Government intend that the authority under Clause 2 is merely to tide over the transitional period. That

341
was the answer which the noble Earl gave me when we
debated the Bill on Second Reading on March 12. The noble Earl added that if at a later stage the various component parts of any Federation that might be set up wanted to carry on, they could do so. I think that that is sensible enough. We do not know what the shape of any new Federation will be. Naturally, we assume that Jamaica and Trinidad will not be in it, and the rest is a huge question mark—or, rather, nine question marks, because there are nine island territories concerned in the future of this area who will be affected by this Bill.
I should like to ask the noble Earl whether in the interim stage—that is, before any final authority is set up—it will be possible to have an authority which will deal not only with the nine territories which will remain as Colonies but also with the two territories which will become independent—namely, Jamaica and Trinidad. I think that the structure of even the authority which the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, proposes will be different if the two comparatively large territories of Jamaica and Trinidad are to remain and have some part and say in the interim authority.
It is very important for us all to realise what sort of area we are concerned with here. I gave some figures on Second Reading and your Lordships may recall that these islands are very small indeed—some 1,392 square miles with 677,500 souls. To give your Lordships some idea what that means, I may say that Wales, which the Government are firmly convinced is not capable of having one Government for itself, is 8,006 square miles, so that we are now dealing with an area about one-eighth or one-sixth the size of Wales, cut into nine separate parts. We are concerned to develop an elaborate system of government for these nine little islands, and one Federal Government.
We have to face the fact that the British taxpayer is going to pay for all this. We have already heard what the taxpayer is going to pay the farmers, and if we take this, too, the taxpayer will be even more handicapped and harassed than he is at the moment. Everybody is putting something on the British taxpayer. Of course, we bear
342
the economic responsibility of these islands, but I want every penny which is devoted to them to go where it is needed, and the people who need it are the poor people who are struggling to make a living on the land. I do not want to give it to the people who are creating a structure of government which not only will be entirely unnecessary but in all probability will destroy the very objective we hope to achieve—that is, to have a realistic Government in these islands.
Recently, I put down a Question to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, to elucidate the position, and as it was a Written Answer and some of your Lordships may not have seen it, I will repeat what the noble Earl said. I asked which of the islands were "Treasury controlled"—that is, which of the islands get a grant to make up the costs of administration, because that is what "Treasury control" means. The answer was [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 238 (No. 47), col. 104]:
"Only the Virgin Islands are 'Treasury controlled', because it is only to the Virgin Islands that grants in aid of administration are made direct by Her Majesty's Government.
"However, under the provisions of the British Caribbean Federation Act, 1956, grants in aid of the Administration can be made to the Governments of the individual territories of the Federation of the West Indies; they would be issued out of grants made by Her Majesty's Government to the Federal Government for the purpose. Control over the budgets of such grant-aided territories in the West Indies is exercised by the Federal Government and not by Her Majesty's Government.
"The Federal Government provided such aid last year for Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, Grenada, St. Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. No grant in aid was made to Barbados."
To put it shortly and, I hope, to make it much clearer to your Lordships than the noble Earl, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, was able to make clear to me why food in the shops costs so much, I would point out that every single one of these nine territories except Barbados is getting a subvention from the British taxpayer now and will continue to do so in future. That is the situation; so that, if neither Jamaica nor Trinidad is going to form part of this authority, it will mean that the British Government not only will be making any provision that has to be made for the administration of these islands by way of Treasury subvention,

343
but would also have to pay a considerable amount of the costs of this authority to be set up under Clause 2. So I would say that, while I entirely agree with the spirit of the noble Earl's Amendment, I doubt whether it would be proper in the circumstances if only the nine territories concerned in this authority should have representatives on the council or governing body of the authority.
It appears, from what the Amendment provides, that the only person who could in fact be assigned, allocated or selected by the British Government would be the chairman. Therefore, there would be nine representatives of the territories on the authority and one chairman, and it would be only the chairman who would be selected by the British Government. There would thus be the extraordinary position that only the chairman could be selected by the British Government, and the other nine members would all be selected by people who would have little responsibility for paying the cost of the authority. As I have said, all of them, except Barbados, are getting subventions from the British Exchequer. I do not think the noble Earl meant that at all, but that, I am sure, is the effect of this particular Amendment.
Therefore, as I say, I feel it would be better in the interim stages not to have any representative of the various islands on the authority, because it may well be that the British taxpayer will have to pay the lot, in which case it is better for the British Government to appoint the authority on the basis that "he who pays the piper calls the tune". What may happen in the future, in the second stage when it develops into a full-blown authority, with perhaps Jamaica, Trinidad, British Guiana, British Honduras and other islands entering into the picture, is another problem; but those are my reasons for suggesting that this Amendment is really premature at this moment and that it would be better to leave the situation in the hands of the United Kingdom Government who will have to pay the piper.
4.52 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, quite frankly said that he was using this Amendment as a peg on which to hang a rather voluminous
344
cloak. I will not follow him in his arguments for or against expensive local administrations, other than to say that I have considerable sympathy with a lot that he said about it. I think, however, the noble Lord has perhaps wandered a little wide from this Amendment, the object of which is threefold. There are at the moment a certain number of services common to the original Federation. We are all a little vague as to just what those services are, and I hope that the noble Earl when he comes to reply will be able to tell us exactly what they are. We know that two ships have been presented to the Federation by the Canadians, and they are undoubtedly a valuable service of communication between the islands. There is also a common meteorological service. I think—although I am not certain—that there may be a common statistical service. It is a most important question as to whether the University of the West Indies is included in these common services. Undoubtedly, it is a service for the whole of the former Federal area, and a most important one; and some steps must be taken to make sure that the University of the West Indies continues in its present form as a service to the whole of the Caribbean area. I would suggest that it should be included in this general blanket of common services unless specific and separate arrangements are made to ensure its continuance.
But, whatever these services may be, there are three things that I think we should all like to see ensured. First—and I grant that this may be the most important—we must see that the services are efficiently carried on and that the fact that the Federation has broken up is no reason or excuse for allowing them to disintegrate or to be inefficiently organised. I am perfectly willing to concede that to have one commissioner appointed by the Colonial Office to ensure that this is done would be a quite satisfactory way of doing it, because he would, without doubt, be an able and efficient gentleman who could see, purely from the point of view of efficiency, that there was no interference when federation came to an end. But we want more; and I rather think from remarks made during the Second Reading debate that noble Lords opposite want more, too.

345
It is clear that on both sides of the Committee we want to do our best to keep the little remnants of federation that remain still alive. We do not want any great barriers or gulfs to grow up between Jamaica and Trinidad and the eight, rather than the nine to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, referred.
LORD OGMORE: The ninth is the Virgin Islands.
LORD WALSTON: Yes; which was not in the Federation, but which apparently is to be included in the scope of the Bill. But whether it is eight or nine, we want them to keep as much contact as possible with Jamaica and Trinidad. These common services, whatever they may be, are clearly a useful way of ensuring that this is done. What could be better than to ensure that there are representatives from these different territories, who, at least on functional grounds—the organisation of the common transport services; the organisation of the meteorological service; the running of the great and important University of the West Indies—can from time to time meet together with a common interest to see that these things are properly done, rather than that they should be efficiently administered by one individual, who no doubt chooses his helpers and advisers, sitting wherever it may be in one central place? There you have the opportunity not only to keep together a little bit of federation, but to make sure that it grows still wider and that you get mutual confidence among these people; because in these cases they will be working for a common purpose, with out any individual island antagonisms, and out of that we hope will grow once more an effective and wider Federation—or a getting together, if you do not like the word "federation". That is the second object that we should have in mind in deciding how we are going to organise these common services.
The third is quite simply our desire and our responsibility to build up in these areas a growing feeling, not only of responsibility but of having a say in their own destinies. They will no longer be simply a Colony, told what to do by Whitehall, told what to do by a Governor, a Commissioner or whoever it may be. At least in certain functions which are important to them they would have their own representatives with their own voices, saying how these things
346
should be run. I suggest to your Lordships that, without in any way running away from what this Bill is setting out to do, without in any way adding to the costs, and without in any way derogating from the ultimate responsibility of the Colonial Office to see that these things are done without ill-effects of any kind, it will be possible, by allowing, as our Amendment suggests, that there should be representatives of these territories there as of right to help run these common services, to achieve these three things which noble Lords on all sides of the Committee feel to be important. I hope that when the noble Earl comes to reply he will tell us he is able to accept, if not the actual wording of the Amendment at least the spirit of it.
5.0 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): I am very glad of this Amendment—not, I fear, because I am going to be able to accept it, but because it enables me to clear up a misunderstanding which has arisen in relation to this clause. But before I embark on that, let me make just one general point. As your Lordships know, Jamaica has said that she wants to be out of the present Federation; so has the Government of Trinidad, and so have the other eight. They have all said that they no longer want to be part of this Federation. That being the case, clearly the sooner we can dissolve this Federation, and perhaps create something new, the better. Therefore, there is a great need for speed in this matter, and to get on with the solution quickly. I think it is important for us to keep this in mind all the way through when we are discussing the various points on this Bill.
Having said that, let me take this particular clause and what is involved in it. To begin with, as the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, it is to provide for an interim or transitional authority. What is this interim or transitional authority to cover? Several noble Lords have asked this question, and I can tell them that the present common services which this authority is intended to cover are: the West Indies Meteorological Service, the University College of the West Indies, the Federal Shipping Service, the West India Regiment, the Federal

347
Supreme Court, Advisory Services in Agriculture, Marketing, Fisheries, Livestock, Forestry, Medicine, Education, Maritime Services, Telecommunications, Civil Aviation and the Postal Services.
All the common services, all of that list, which at the present time are administered by the Federation, must go on. We are all extremely anxious that they should go on; and such territories as Jamaica and, I believe, Trinidad also, have said that they want them to go on. At the same time, we are anxious that they should go on in an interim way for the shortest possible time. So what we are proposing here is purely a transitional and interim arrangement for efficiency purposes. During this interim period, the authority—who would be, as we visualise it, one man appointed by the Colonial Office—would run these things and, at the same time, would bend all his efforts, as we hope will the various units of the dissolving Federation, to achieving something new with the sort of common purpose which has been running as a theme through what various noble Lords have said. In time something may grow from this authority (which obviously is the anxiety of many) using its experience of the common services and with all the territories represented.
I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, who referred to the precedent of the East African Common Services Organisation. Certainly something like that is as much in our minds as it is in the minds of noble Lords opposite. We should desire it to come at some time, but this is not the time for it. When it does come, probably it will not come in the form of an Order in Council but more probably as a result of an agreement between, say, a sovereign territory—such as Jamaica, or even others, maybe, by that time—and those which still are, perhaps, in some form of Federation under our protection in one way or another. It is for that further stage, if I may say so, that this sort of Amendment would have been appropriate. I do not believe that it is appropriate now, given the conditions, and the fact that, for the short time we contemplate, it is purely for administrative purposes and administrative convenience, to make sure that these services
348
are efficiently run during the interim period.
Suppose we follow through with this clause. It is a little too awkward. A chairman is appointed, and there are persons representative of each of the territories concerned. What are to be their functions? Should they do it by vote? I do not believe that, in an interim establishment, that method is appropriate. We may get the organisation wrong and we may want to change it, which we can always do if we find it desirable. But our first thought on it is: do not let us do it by the method of this Amendment. Efficiency is the important thing, as the noble Lord, Lord Walston, said. Contact with the Islands is important. That obviously will happen, because they are very much concerned with all these common services. It is quite inconceivable in practice that the authority would not be in contact with all those who are concerned with these various services; it must be, by the very nature of things.
As I say, for reasons of efficiency, and because it has a specific task at this moment—which is purely an interim one, to run the various assets which otherwise would perhaps have no home, and to ensure there is a smooth change-over in the civil service problems which will arise—that is the job which we visualise the authority would perform. It is in no way, I assure your Lordships, a setback. It is a holding operation until such time as we can get on to the wider thing which is in your Lordships' minds and which I, for one, would fully support.
I hope that, in the light of the explanation that I have been able to give of what we have in mind, your Lordships will not in this particular instance feel it necessary to press this Amendment.
5.6 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: I had not intended to say anything on this Amendment, but I am urged to ask the noble Earl what he means by an interim administration. There is nothing in the Bill about an interim administration. This is an administration which is going to be set up to administer the common services until such time as the various territories cam get together and

349
some other alternative form of government can be agreed upon. But that is not a matter of weeks or months—it may be a matter of years.
I am not blaming the Government for the situation, but the first shot at creating a Federation has not been very successful. Is there any reason to think that this Government, or any other Government, can do better within a short time. Therefore, I fail to appreciate the significance of the constant reiteration of the word "interim". In one sense, of course, everything is interim, but it depends what is meant by it. I regard this interim administration as one which may take a very long time. If I am right (and I think I am likely to be more right than the noble Earl, who seems to suggest that it is a matter of a very short time), then the question is: is it appropriate for these Islands to be administered in these very important services by one man appointed by this Government? I could understand it if it were for a very short period; but, as I have said, there is nothing to suggest that it is likely to be a short period.
I should have thought, therefore, that it would be more acceptable to the Islands themselves, and more appropriate to our conception of a democratic administration, that there should be a body of people responsible for the administration of these very large and important services. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, commented on this, and I think he rather took the same view as the Government. I fully appreciate that to-day, of all days, he feels in a triumphant mood, and feels that he is entitled to hold forth as to what should happen in these Islands. But, to me, looking at the thing without practical experience (I must confess that), it seems that, while the noble Earl might be right if this were truly an interim measure, one which might last a relatively short time, if, as appears to be the case, this is something which may administratively be necessary for a number of years, at any rate, then what is set out in the Amendment is the right way to deal with it. It will not be any more expensive to do this in this way than by any other method. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will be prepared to give it rather more favourable consideration than he has done up to now.
LORD DERWENT: Before my noble friend replies, may I say just a few words? I should have thought that an interim period was quite definitely the period between the present political setup and some future political set-up which will be able to run these services. It seems to me that if you establish too firm a board, if I may use a phrase which is not too strong, it may in the long run stop the political set-up that would be able to run these services; because the people on the board would have a vested interest in keeping that board going; whereas, if it is virtually under the control of the Colonial Office, it will be much easier to hand over these services to any new political set-up.
LORD SILKIN: Would that not be the case, however you set up an ad hoc organisation? If you set up a body of representatives of the different islands, who will, after all, be answerable to a certain extent, the vested interest would be in the islands themselves, not in the representatives.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I ask the noble Earl whether he would consider any compromise arrangement? The essential difficulty here seems to be that there is no link at the moment, under the contemplated Constitution, between the authority that will run the common services and which will be responsible to the Secretary of State in Whitehall, and the peoples and Governments of the territories which will benefit from these services. I think the noble Earl's real objection was that an executive body of which the chairman would be appointed by the Colonial Office but the members would be persons representing territories might fail to do its job because the chairman could, of course, be out-voted by the members, and there might be differences of opinion between the elected members and the administration. Could not this difficulty be overcome if there were at any rate an advisory body representing all the territories which would be able to review, consider and advise about the management of the common services? I am not suggesting that this is preferable to the present Amendment, but I am wondering whether the noble Earl would consider this, as he has stated his strong objection to the Amendment which is proposing an executive authority.
LORD OGMORE: Before the noble Earl replies, may I ask him to refresh our memory? Is it not a fact that prior to the formation of the Federation of the West Indies there was a body of this kind? Sir Hubert Rance, I remember, was in control of an organisation of this kind for some years, and surely what we are in fact doing is, as it were, going back to the system which was in operation there before the Federation took place.
5.14 p.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I am afraid I am not going to be able to help the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, whose memory, I am sure, is right on this matter, because I cannot find out in time. But I think I can deal with the various points that have been raised. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, remarked, quite rightly, that this is intended to be short lived, whereas one's experience of these things is that sometimes they are very long lived. I cannot give a guarantee, but various things make it extremely probable that this will be a short-lived affair. To begin with, in the very near future Jamaica is going to be independent, and it may be that Trinidad will follow suit about that time. Unless there has been some agreement with those two territories, whose co-operation would be most important for the maintenance of the common services, the outlook would be very gloomy. So our intention is to have a conference in July on the whole of this question of common services, with the thought that we ought to get this thing settled and new arrangements in being, if possible, before anybody becomes independent. So in that way I hope I have reassured the noble Lord that the probability that this arrangement will carry on for any length of time is unlikely—I almost used the word "impossible"—in view of what is our intention and in light of the fact that two of the main constituents may, in a short time, unless new arrangements are made, be no longer party to it. We should not be able to carry on unless they so wished.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Would the noble Earl make one point clear? He said there will be a conference on common services in July. Are the provisions we are going to put into this Bill
352
therefore only to last until the conference, or until the results of the conference are known?
THE EARL OF PERTH: Certainly. I am not saying for certain that there will be one, but that is our intention at the present time. Certainly the provisions here for the authority would be purely interim. Then, as I said earlier, we should hope, with those who to-day are interested in common services, to set up some new body to run them. But that would come about almost certainly by agreement between, let us say, the United Kingdom and an independent territory, and, therefore, would not be an appropriate subject to come under this Bill, because it would be the equivalent of a treaty between one sovereign Power and another to incorporate an agreement worked out between them. What we are after, and what I have tried to bring out, is that this is essentially in relation to an interim situation; and I have tried to show why we think it is really going to be interim in this case, though I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that these things do not always work out that way.
In regard to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, I can assure him that, in fact, whoever is the authority must necessarily, and will necessarily, consult with the various islands, because one could not do otherwise. If you look at the list of services and those who are interested in them, you will see that it could not be run in any other way. I hope, in the light of what I have said about the purpose—to ensure efficient administration quickly, and to ensure that we can get on with the matter—that it will not be necessary to press the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: What the noble Earl has just told us is certainly completely new to me. I had not grasped at all from the debate we had on Second Reading that the provisions of this Bill were intended to last for only a few months. What he said about the principle of representation on a body like this I must say I found singularly unconvincing. The idea that you could not set up a representative body quickly seemed a very odd one. After all, any club or charity has its governing body set up in a matter of a few days. You

353
can appoint representatives from constituent bodies and they can meet together under the chairmanship of somebody and conduct the business. The business itself, from the list he gave us, is almost a miniature sovereign Government. You have the Supreme Court, an army, and the university, shipping and advisory bodies on agriculture and forestry, medical and postal services, and I do not know what. There must be a fairly strong organisation to conduct these.
Moreover, why should it be necessary to link such a body as we have in mind with the Federation? The East African body was in being and functioning highly successfully for years when there was no other form of association between the East African Colonies. In fact that was the only close association that existed or was thought possible and it was only recently that one of the Colonies, Tanganyika, became independent. That did not alter the essential structure; it altered the name and some of the detail. But we had one independent country and two territories not yet independent, and they appear to be perfectly happily associated for the practical purposes of their common services in this organisation. I have never heard that it is inefficient because it is run by a legislature with a chairman. We all know that things can be more efficient if they are done in a military way by a person in sole charge, in fact a dictator. We all heard that the Italian trains ran to time under Mussolini. But we do not happen to think that that is the way in which the Caribbean, parts of our Commonwealth, ought to be run.
However, what the noble Lord has said about the change of conditions in the immediate future has rather altered the situation and I would not propose to ask my friends to divide on this at present. I think we need some time to think about it, but I must reserve the right to put down something else at the next stage of this Bill. After all, we have not much time; it is going through very quickly. We may feel at a later stage that we must put down something to assert the principle that we believe in. Meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF PERTH: If I may make one comment to the noble Earl which may help him on this, I am glad that
354
the fact that this is interim makes a difference and I would assure him that I did say all of that on the Second Reading debate. I do not want to hash it all over once more, but it is the fact that what we are proposing is something which is interim and not permanent. Quite frankly, I should be afraid of something in this form, or something even like it, for the future for the reason that I think one is then trying to dictate what is going to come out of the conference or consultations one proposes to have. This is my main difficulty. If this were permanent I would accept something like the noble Earl's Amendment as appropriate, but as it is interim I think to try to dictate something to the islands which is their business would be a little awkward.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: Have they not all said they want to continue the common services?
THE EARL OF PERTH: Yes, but how? All that is something they want to discuss together.
LORD SILKIN: I have read the clause again and there is not a word about its being interim. If it were intended it should be a permanent measure of administration you would put it in exactly the same language. If only something could be incorporated to give a clue to the fact that this is merely intended to operate pending the discussions, I myself should be perfectly happy.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3.
Compensation scheme for officers of Federal public service
3.—
(2) An Order in Council under this section may provide for the raising of the moneys necessary to make payments falling to be made under the Order by either or both of the following means, namely,—
(b) the making of contributions by all or any of the governments of the colonies included in the Federation at the passing of this Act.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to add to subsection (2):
"Provided that no such order shall be made until after consultation with the governments concerned."
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is very simple and I hope it will be acceptable to the Government. It is merely to make sure that the Governments of these territories are consulted before any decision is taken to dispose of the funds, either of the Federal Government or of the territorial governments, to pay pensions or compensation to existing officers or retired officers of the Federal Government. This, surely, is based on the simple principle of the right to be consulted before your money is spent. This money will come from the pockets of the West Indian taxpayers, and it seems only right and proper that their Governments should at least be consulted before the money is spent in this way. I am not satisfied with the drafting of the Amendment and I would certainly redraft it before the next stage of the Bill if the Government were able to accept the principle.
The only other thing I should like to do is to ask the noble Earl a question arising out of this clause. Will the compensation paid to officers of the Federal Government after the Federation is dissolved be shared between Her Majesty's Government and the West Indies? That is, of course, what happens in the case of Colonies that become independent, and I am wondering whether that principle will be applied. I beg- to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 31, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD OGMORE: I have no objection at all to the Amendment. In fact, I think it is only right and proper that this Amendment should be accepted. It is obviously a very desirable Amendment. But I must say that I am a little worried about the whole situation here with regard to the overseas pensioners, the Colonial pensioners. Whether or not the Governments of the particular Colonies are consulted, as I think they should be, the fact may remain that the unfortunate pensioners find themselves in the position that so many existing pensioners from other Colonial territories are in. Your Lordships may remember that on February 20 last I moved a Motion in this House calling attention to the very serious plight or
356
these unfortunate people. We received a reply from the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, which was singularly unhelpful, as everyone who took part in the debate felt; it was no fault of his, but the brief put up for him was certainly a most unhelpful one from the point of view of the unfortunate pensioners
The situation is quite clear. It is in fact stated in the Colonial Paper of 1954 called Organisation of the Colonial Service, paragraph 3, which says that the officers are servants of the Crown and the conditions of their employment are embodied in Colonial regulations. Those regulations constitute the Secretary of State as the ultimate authority for appointments, discipline and promotion and general conditions of employment. I should like to know whether even if this clause is amended in the way proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, there is any derogation whatsoever of the Secretary of State's responsibility for the pensions of the officers, because if there is, I should wish to move the deletion of the whole clause. I believe that after people have served the British Crown for many years in these territories it is their right to have their pensions treated in the same way as those of home civil servants are treated. At present that is not done, and people who have served the Crown faithfully over many years in the colonial territories are living in this country in destitution or near-destitution. I feel that this is a matter which the Government might take in hand.
The Government's argument is that these unfortunate people are not their servants. In spite of the clear statement which was made in 1954, the Government say that these unfortunate people are the servants of the territories concerned and tell them: "We are not going to pay you any more. If you can get the extra pension from whichever country you happen to have been serving in at the time of your retirement, you go and get it. It has nothing to do with us." That is a most despicable attitude on the part of the Government. Your Lordships in all parts of the House supported me in that view, and I am perfectly certain that if we had taken it to a Division the Government would have been defeated. But as it was an

357
ordinary Motion to call attention to this subject, I did not take it to a Division.
We are entitled to know, here and now, from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, whether the same trick is going to be played on these unfortunate people as has been played by the Government on the other colonial civil servants. I am worried lest the effect of this Amendment will give the Government a loophole whereby they can say, "Of course we consulted the colonial Government concerned about these pensions, and as we did so that was an admission on everybody's part that these people were the servants of the colonial Government; because if they were our servants there was no need to consult with them." As I see it that is the danger of this Amendment. I hope that my fears are groundless. From a democratic principle I approve the Amendment, but, as I say, I am most suspicious of it from the point of view of the treatment of our old and faithful colonial servants. I hope that this Amendment will not give the Government a loophole to get out of their responsibilities in this respect.
THE EARL OF PERTH: In many ways I wish I could accept this Amendment. I can certainly give noble Lords an assurance that we have every intention of consulting, and will consult, with the Government concerned about the operation of a compensation scheme. Having given that assurance, I hope that the noble Earl will not press me on the Amendment, for several reasons. First, I am advised that, legally, "consultation" is a difficult word, and we want to get on with the schemes for these people. If it is stated in the Bill that there must be consultation, when we work out the various schemes for the officers somebody who is disgruntled might well take action at law, saying that the consultation had not been adequate. I do not know what that means, but it might hold everything up. From the practical angle we are anxious not to have it in the Bill as a statutory obligation. But, as I say, I give an assurance to noble Lords that we will consult with the Governments concerned about the operation of the schemes.
The noble Earl asked me whether Her Majesty's Government are going to play a part. Quite frankly, I do not know the answer to that question. The
358
reason why I do not know the answer is exactly the same as that which I gave in the Second Reading debate—namely, that we just do not know what the circumstances are; whether the assets are going to be more than the liabilities, or whether there will be sufficient assets to pay all contributions to the civil servants. After all, it must be remembered that Her Majesty's Government have already made a large contribution to these assets, so we have already, in a sense, taken a large share in this matter. I also recollect that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said that there are several of these territories which are at present directly or indirectly grant-aided. Perhaps I may leave it at that without giving any firm answer.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I am afraid therefore that I am unable to give him more comfort than is usually given in regard to colonial territories. I hope, however, that in the light of the assurance that I have given the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for answering my question about the clause, which was not altogether relevant to the Amendment, and for replying to my noble friend Lord Ogmore at the same time. I appreciate his argument but I hope that Her Majesty's Government, in assessing the contribution of the West Indies and the United Kingdom, will keep the proportions at 50–50, as has been the case in regard to independent countries, whether it has been paid already to the West Indies or whether it is fresh money that is paid. That is the principle that we work on at the moment. Otherwise, I think that most of us would feel that the West Indies was being given a raw deal as compared with the other parts of the Commonwealth and Africa, which are sometimes better off than the West Indies.
I appreciate the assurance of the noble Earl in regard to this Amendment. This is now a matter of good faith, and naturally I accept the promise of the Government to consult. In view of the noble Earl's promise, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed.
Clause 7:
Supplementary provisions as to Orders in Council
(3) A statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under this Act which adapts or modifies any Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and a statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under this Act which does not adapt or modify any Act shall be laid before Parliament after being made.
5.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved to leave out subsection (3) and to insert instead:
"(3) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament the draft of any Order which it is proposed to recommend Her Majesty to make in Council under any provision of this Act and no further proceedings shall be taken in relation thereto except in pursuance of an address presented to Her Majesty by both Houses of Parliament praying that the Order may be made either in the form of the draft or with such amendments as may have been agreed to by resolution of both Houses."
The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to give Parliament more control of Orders that will be made under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. This particular provision goes rather further than the normal procedure of Parliamentary approval of Orders that are made under Acts of Parliament. It is taken out of the India Act, 1935, which, as your Lordships will remember, is a massive Statute of over 300 sections and forms the basis of the present Indian Constitution. If Orders made under that immensely elaborate Statute were subject to this procedure, it would seem not unreasonable to suppose that Orders made under this Bill could be subject to the same procedure. It is a procedure for enabling Parliament to approve the draft Orders, and indeed, to amend draft Orders before they are approved. That, of course, is in conflict with normal practice, because normal practice is that an Order has to be rejected or accepted, and cannot be amended. It seems to me that, in the case of Orders made under certain clauses of the Bill, that would be of such importance, from the paint of view of policy, that Parliament should have this further measure of control. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 26, leave out subsection (3) and insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
THE EARL OF PERTH: Here again, I am not able to accept the Amendment as it is drafted, although in one important respect I hope to be able to give comfort to the noble Earl who has moved it. My reasons are these. If you look at this proposed Amendment, you will see that we are being asked to agree that all Orders in Council under this Bill shall be subject to this procedure of being laid before Parliament, debated and the rest of it. Our first objective, as I said earlier on, is that we must move quickly.
The second problem is the fact that, in any event, we are going to have a great deal of West Indies legislation in the coming months, and, quite frankly, I do not believe there is the possibility of finding Parliamentary time for it. If it was of sufficient importance, Parliamentary time would, of course, have to be found, but I hope that I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that in all cases, save one, there is really no need for anxiety about what we are going to do under this Bill.
I think the way that I can best show this is by looking at each of the clauses, to see what we are going to be empowered to do. Under Clause 1 we are given power to have an Order in Council to provide for secession or dissolution. We all accept—I do not say we like it—that that is a necessary thing to do. Then Clause 2 gives us powers to have an authority to ensure the care and co-ordination of the common services. I think there is no argument about that. Then under Clause 3 the purpose of any Order in Council will be to provide compensation. We have discussed that, and there is no new issue of policy involved. Clause 4 is not something that is controversial, nor I think would Parliament wish to be concerned with it.
There is one very important point on Clause 5, and I recall having given an assurance—which I should like to repeat—in regard to it: namely, that it would not be the intention of Her Majesty's Government to use any of the powers under this clause to derogate in any way from the constitutional status of those territories already enjoying full internal self-government. That I hope will remove

361
any anxieties any one may have in relation to that clause. Then we come to Clause 6: Power of Her Majesty's Government to establish new forms of government in place of the West Indies. This I recognise as something of general concern. If we are going to set up a new Federation of the eight, or possibly in association with the Virgin Islands, this would be of general Parliamentary interest. For that particular purpose I would myself be very ready to introduce at the next stage an Amendment which would ensure what the noble Lords wished when they moved this Amendment—namely, that there is an opportunity for Parliament to debate the matter before the Order in Council is made. I recognise that this is something of general concern and interest. So, in the light of what I have said about the first part of my undertaking in regard to Clause 6—which is the key thing—I hope your Lordships will be satisfied on your Amendment.
LORD SILKIN: In view of what the noble Earl has just said, I think my noble friend will probably feel disposed to accept that assurance, but, in carrying out this assurance, would the noble Earl also consider putting forward something which would cover the point we made on Clause 2? I accept that it is the intention of the Government that the arrangements which they contemplate should be provisional and temporary, but I should like to have something in the Bill which would provide for the contingency of no agreement being arrived at, which may involve a different form of administration from the one the noble Earl has described as an interim one. If he could consider that as well, I think it would be acceptable to all of us.
LORD OGMORE: When the Labour Government was in office this sort of problem came up, and the Conservative Party who were then in Opposition used to say, "Put it in the Bill". I have heard that on many occasions. When we used to tell them, "We will give you this assurance", or "We intend to do this", they always said that to us. We are quite happy to accept the assurance of the noble Earl, but man is mortal—as are Administrations. Therefore, put it in the Bill. I am sure the noble Earl will have regard to that salutary advice.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I think there is some slight misunderstanding. I will put in the Bill an Amendment which will ensure that in so far as Clause 6 is concerned the matter is subject to debate. On Clause 2 I cannot at this moment give any promise. I will certainly think about it. But as regards Clause 6 I will put it in the Bill at the next stage.
LORD SILKIN: If the noble Lord finds that he himself is not prepared to do something, could he let us know in good time in order to enable us to put something down?
THE EARL OF PERTH: I will certainly do all I can in that respect.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Again, I must express my gratitude to the noble Earl for going such a long way to meet the purpose of my Amendment. I agree with him that Clause 6 is the clause which raises the most important new issue of policy. The clause might easily provide—we hope it will—the opportunity for a regrouping of West Indian territories in a new Federation. We have all heard that certain of the territories are already discussing the possibility of regrouping on these lines. This is, of course, a matter of the utmost importance, which might give rise to a new and independent country in the Commonwealth, and should be subject to the approval of Parliament, as well as subject to the consent of the territories concerned in the West Indies. I am most grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will include a proviso which will make sure that this matter is brought before Parliament and made subject to its approval before any legislative action is taken by the Government.
The only question I would ask the noble Earl is this. It would appear from what he has said that the compensation schemes are not agreed or definite at the present time. Parliament has expressed a great deal of anxiety about the fair and equitable treatment of Colonial Service officers, and it would at least be desirable if any Orders that are made regarding compensation payments should be subject to the positive procedure of approval by Parliament. I am not sure whether the Bill covers this at the moment. I should like to know whether he could make sure that Orders under this Clause 3 are made subject to the positive procedure.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I do not believe I shall be able to help the noble Earl on his last point. I do not think it has ever happened before. The compensation agreements, which are extremely technical and complicated, are worked out between the Colonial Office and the territory which is about to become independent. I do not think these agreements have ever been the subject of Parliamentary approval. They are, I think, administrative acts between those two bodies. Of course, it is always open to Parliament at some time to question them, because they are generally made public in one way or another. Therefore I do not believe I could help in that respect. However, on the one point which does seem to me to be important, I will see that something is put in the Bill to give effect to the need for consultation with Parliament.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am quite satisfied with what the noble Earl has said just now about some form of public statement, whether in Parliament or by the publication of a White Paper, when the general system of compensation has been agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the West Indian territories. I am sure we should like to know more about it before the thing is actually done. But I am quite agreeable to that way of dealing with the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I am not undertaking that there will be a White Paper on compensation. What I said was that these questions of compensation are essentially matters between the Governments concerned, and that that has always been the practice. So far as I know, it has never been the practice that these things are submitted to Parliament. I can think of great complication and delay ensuing, which no one wants to incur in cases like this, where our great anxiety is to have people compensated quickly and happily.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I quite agree with the noble Earl, and I apologise. I am wrong in suggesting this procedure: it would be out of line with what is usually done. Nevertheless, I think we ought to have information, and
364
I hope the noble Earl will make it possible for us to have information about any compensation scheme which is agreed.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I will see what I can do in that respect.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed:
Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it would perhaps be convenient that the House do now adjourn until the Royal Commission at six o'clock.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
6.0 p.m.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Army Reserve,
Largs Burgh Order Confirmation.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ALLEGED ATROCITIES BY U.N. TROOPS IN KATANGA
6.13 p.m.
LORD COLYTON LORD COLYTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to investigate the allegations of atrocities committed by United Nations troops in Katanga, having regard in particular to the alleged killing, wounding or maltreatment of British subjects and the looting of property, and to punish those responsible. The noble Lord said: My Lords, a month ago I paid a visit to Katanga. It was a tragic and harrowing experience. I should like to make

365
two things clear from the outset. First, I have absolutely no interest in Katanga, and I do not own a single copper share. Secondly, I did not go to Elisabethville to collect horror stories; I went there to inform myself on the political and military situation in Katanga, and I hope to be able to make use of this material in our forthcoming Foreign Affairs debate. It was only when I and my wife, who accompanied me, met a number of people in Elisabethville and elsewhere, including clergymen, missionaries, Red Cross workers, and others, who gave us first-hand information of United Nations atrocities, and who begged us to get them investigated, that I decided to report the facts to your Lordships and to urge Her Majesty's Government to press for a formal investigation. I would add that our informants included Americans, British, Belgians and Katangese.
I do not propose to go into details of the events of last September. Many incidents occurred then of violations of the rules of war of the Geneva Convention, some of which were reported in the British Press. None of these so far as I am aware, has been investigated. Although deliberate shooting of civilians certainly occurred the incidents mainly related to the killing of prisoners of war, or attacks on Red Cross ambulances. I propose to devote my time this evening to actual cases of individual or mass atrocities committed by the United Nations forces in the December fighting. Under this heading I include not merely murder, but rape, assault, and looting of property. In a number of them British subjects were involved.
After the December fighting, and up to January 31, the Medical Officer of the Legal Department of the Katanga Government had examined 79 bodies, of which 27 were those of Europeans, including four women. Of these 27 Europeans, not one was a so-called mercenary. Of the 52 Africans, 23 were civilians, including six Northern Rhodesians, who had long been resident in Katanga. In a debate on the Adjournment in another place on March 7, considerable time was devoted to the case of Mrs. Van Damme, a British subject 72 years old, who was beaten up and had her house looted on December 18 by a party of Ethiopian soldiers of the United Nations. She escaped only in
366
her bare feet, and has lost most of her possessions. Her Majesty's Consul, Mr. Dunnett, to whom I should like to pay the highest tribute for his conduct of affairs throughout this series of crises in Katanga, has been looking after her and supplying her essential needs. I visited her house and can corroborate the statements of the condition in which it was left.
I should perhaps mention next the case of Mrs. Dyer, an elderly lady, a British subject, and the wife of the representative in Elisabethville of Messrs. Cooper Brothers, the London chartered accountants. She was killed by mortar fire while in bed at night in a residential area. I also visited her house and saw the destruction caused.
Then there is the case of Mr. James Biddulph, a British subject, and at the time the Federal Broadcasting Corporation's representative in Elisabethville. Mr. Biddulph is now employed by the African News, and I spoke with him in Salisbury. He and an American colleague were in the hotel at Elisabethville on December 18, and when the fighting appeared to be dying down decided to leave by car for Northern Rhodesia. They took with them M. Favre, a Swiss accountant. Mr. Biddulph was driving a civilian car with Northern Rhodesian markings. At 10 a.m. they approached an apparently unmanned road block at the level crossing near Camp Massart, on the Munama road. They slowed down to remove one of the empty tar barrels which constituted the road block, and were immediately fired upon by Swedish troops concealed off the road with a 15 millimetre cannon. M. Favre was killed, both journalists were wounded, and I understand that two Africans on bicycles were killed also. I asked Mr. Biddulph whether this could have been a mistake, and he assured me that this was impossible as three other civilian cars coming along the road later while he was waiting for transport to hospital were similarly attacked.
Then there was the case of Mr. de Deken, married to an English lady, who left the house of his cousin, Mr. Smith-Sheridan, during a lull in the fighting, taking some personal belongings with him. Eye-witnesses told us that they saw him shot in the back and killed by an Ethiopian soldier. Again, there was

367
the case of two Katanga African policemen, who had United Nations passes to enable them to remove their families from the battle area. A clergyman and a missionary saw them fired upon in their car by troops using a United Nations bazooka and killed with their wives and seven children.
Then there is the case of Mr. Derriks, a civilian engineer 60 years old, who with his mother, aged 87, and his African cook were machine-gunned in their house by Ethiopian troops as they were having coffee after lunch on December 16. These people, my Lords, could hardly be described as mercenaries. The kitchen boy, who hid under a table lived to tell the tale. I visited the house myself which was exactly as it was two months earlier when they died—sacked from top to bottom, every door and window broken, and the floor still covered with blood. Like many other houses I saw in Elisabethville, all sacked and pillaged, it was worse than anything I saw during the Italian campaign.
A number of cases of rape have been reported, including one of a middle-aged Frenchwoman by Ethiopian troops and one of a Belgian lady by an Indian officer with pistol in hand. My informant, a clergyman, saw that unfortunate lady immediately after the incident in a state of hysteria. Just a few days before our arrival in Elisabethville, the bodies of two young European building contractors, missing since December, were found in a shallow grave in the garden of their house in the United Nations Area by Swedish police dogs and Red Cross investigators. They had been shot and mutilated, presumably by Ethiopians.
In addition to reckless and wholesale machine-gunning of civilians in the streets, mortar attacks were carried out on the African hospital, on the Church and Mission of Saint Jean and the Leopold Stadium. It is really impossible to understand, for example, how 22 mortar bombs could be lobbed into an enormous hospital covered with Red Crosses without the United Nations authorities knowing what they were doing. Indeed, one Red Cross worker told us that he had personally reported the attack to the United Nations Headquarters, but with no effect. In addi-
368
tion, there was the attack by Swedish jet fighters, using cannon, on the Hospital of Shinkolobwe near Jadotville. This again was marked with a large Red Cross.
Then there were 14 cases of pillage of properties of British subjects, though not in all cases necessarily by United Nations troops. I understand that these, together with other cases of looting and occupation by the United Nations Forces without payment of rent or compensation, are being investigated by a claims commission. In all these events, the only contingent of United Nations troops in Elisabethville to emerge with clean hands are the Malayans, to whom tribute was paid by all whom we met.
The only case of murder which is actually being investigated is that of M. Olivet, the Swiss head of the International Red Cross in the Congo, his lady assistant and his Dutch driver. M. Olivet was in an ambulance and, with his companions was kidnapped by Ethiopian troops. The ambulance was later shot up; M. Olivet, the lady and the driver were murdered and, I understand, were buried in a ditch. This case is being investigated because the International Red Cross insisted that this should be done. But no formal inquiry is being held into any one of the cases of murder and assault to which I have referred, or many others, involving Italians, French, Greeks, as well as Belgian and Katangese civilians.
In replying to an Adjournment debate on March 2 in another place, the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs explained that the difficulty about such an inquiry was that the Commander of the United Nations Forces has military power but no power of court-martial, and consequently any question of discipline is a matter for inquiry by the senior officer of a particular contingent. On the other hand, Mr. Undén, the Swedish Foreign Minister, in an interview with the Stockholm representative of the paper, Le Soir, in February, said that accusations of attacks on civilians should be addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations. What, then, is the real position? Or has it never been determined?
Another reason given by the Under-Secretary of State was that there was no use in holding such an inquiry without

369
investigating similar allegations on the other side. I quite agree. But I should have thought that there was every advantage in holding an inquiry into these and all other allegations of atrocities by an impartial judicial Commission, provided that it is under a judge of the International Court at The Hague, with two or four assessors. Such a commission would have to be absolutely nonpolitical, and personally I should hope that it might be actually selected by the International Court.
It may be argued that there is no advantage in raking over the ashes of the past, but although the situation is now easier, and there is, I believe, a real hope of a successful meeting to-day between President Tshombe and Mr. Adoula, I am convinced, from the condition which I saw myself in Elisabethville, that a further set of such incidents could occur at any time. The town itself is virtually an occupied city. When driving or walking about, you are constantly faced with United Nations road blocks, with a tommy-gun pointed at your stomach. If you do not have a pass, I may say, you are told, pretty roughly, to "Move on" or "Clear off".
So long as United Nations troops are occupying Elisabethville, an incident could occur any time, whether deliberately provoked or otherwise. I have no doubt that, having regard to the lack of discipline of some United Nations troops and the mentality of the United Nations commanders, a series of further atrocities and acts of pillage would then follow. I will give an example. When I was in Elisabethville, President Tshombe (who, incidentally, is one of the most outstanding African leaders I have ever met) received a demand for the despatch of United Nations Forces to the mining towns of Jadotville and Kolwezi, ostensibly to apprehend a few dozen mercenaries remaining in those districts. And this, in spite of the fact that President Tshombe had already agreed to set up mixed Commissions of United Nations and Katanga officers and officials for the same purpose, which had already begun their work. These demands were later withdrawn but, having regard to the mood of the United Nations authorities in Elisabethville, such a situation could occur again.
The only real solution, I am convinced, is to withdraw the United Nations troops,
370
first from Elisabethville and secondly from the whole of Katanga, when I believe complete peace and quiet could be soon restored. But unless there is any likelihood of this arising in the near future, I would most strongly urge Her Majesty's Government to press the United Nations authorities in New York to set up a judicial commission of inquiry, such as I have described.
In conclusion, my Lords, I would only add this. In July last year, a great and successful international fair was held in Elisabethville to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the city. A large sign on the central building proclaimed the slogan of the fair—"Towards a Better World". To-day that sign is riddled with United Nations bullets. This is indeed a sad commentary on the activities of the United Nations in Katanga.
6.29 p.m.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I am sure that all of us deplore that any civilians, British and other nationals, should have become victims of a situation such as that which existed in the Congo, particularly in Katanga, during the last months of last year. We all deplore the loss of life; we deplore the atrocities; we deplore the damage to property. But the noble Lord's Question is limited to allegations against the United Nations forces. I think the noble Lord might have received much more sympathy if he had asked for an investigation into all alleged atrocities—
LORD COLYTON: I did.
LORD HENDERSON: Not in the Question—in Katanga, instead of singling out United Nations forces as alleged culprits. Throughout the Katanga affair there has been an unrestrained campaign of hostile or tendentious propaganda against the United Nations, its representatives and its forces. Rumours have been given wide currency, but official denials have been largely ignored. Now we have the noble Lord's Question which calls for investigation into allegations of atrocities by United Nations forces, with not a word about allegations of atrocities by any other element in the recent Katanga troubles.
For myself, I should welcome the fullest inquiry into all allegations of atrocities by both sides, and I think it

371
is unfortunate that the noble Lord did not in his Question suggest such an inquiry. I would remind the noble Lord that in the Foreign Affairs debate on December 18 last he said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 236 (No. 23), col. 565]:
"… we know so little and have so little accurate information, about what has been going on over these past four months that we ought to press strongly for an impartial judicial inquiry into the events of September 13, the intervening period and the current events."
I myself had earlier also made a suggestion that the United Nations should conduct an inquiry into all these allegations. But to-day, as I say, the noble Lord's Question is directed to the United Nations forces. His original wording, as we all know, was couched in far more specific terms. It referred to "atrocities and killing", not to "the allegations of atrocities" and "allegations of killing"; and it was only after my noble Leader had raised the matter that the noble Lord amended the Question to include the word "allegations".
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he has read the report of Mr. George Ivan Smith, who was serving as Commander of the United Nations civilian operations in Katanga which was issued by the United Nations on January 25 last. The report indicates the confused conditions which existed in Elisabethville during the period of operations, in which, contrary to all rules, civilians entered into the fighting. I think that most noble Lords will agree that the result was bound to be misunderstanding, error, rumours and propaganda.
The noble Lord referred Ito attacks on the Red Cross vehicles, murder, rape, assault and damage to property. If I may, I will read just two paragraphs from this report. It says:
"Soldiers were trained to expect that military operations could involve them only against military personnel in uniform; therefore firing by mercenaries and some non-Congolese residents in civilian dress and the use of houses and Red Cross vehicles for offensive attacks created deep and dangerous uncertainty. New command arrangements were made to brief and control all troops in these unusual conditions. Joint patrols consisting of military personnel of all nationalities involved were sent out. Within four days the situation was brought under effective control. However, at that time some thousands of Africans, because of tribal warfare, had been driven from their communes by Katangese gendarmes."
372
They were in the camp just outside Elisabethville—
"They filtered into town and along the fringes. Concurrently, many European families, on account of disturbed conditions, had evacuated their homes. Many of the Africans began to enter empty homes and to loot them. Incorrectly, and often for deliberate propaganda reasons, such looting was charged to ONUC forces.
"Orders to ONUC troops are clear. If found guilty of entering houses without reason or looting or apprehending civilians unjustifiably, they are to be punished accordingly. Two cases of rape involving United Nations personnel appear to have been substantiated. One or two isolated cases of looting by United Nations personnel also were confirmed by investigations instituted by the commanders on the spot. Those found guilty of these violations of the strict orders of the United Nations Command either already have been punished or will be after due process."
The noble Lord cited individual cases in support of his Question to Her Majesty's Government. I have no information about them. I do not know what is the authority for his statement that United Nations troops were responsible.
LORD COLYTON: May I interrupt? I thought I made it quite clear that in all these cases it was on the evidence of eye witnesses.
LORD HENDERSON: I do not know whether either the United Nations or Her Majesty's Government are in possession of the information on which the noble Lord's assertions are made. But the allegations are serious ones, and they are made with the prestige of the noble Lord, who is a former Minister. In that sense, although he is quoting the stories of eye witnesses, the repetition of the charges now gives them the weight and authority of the noble Lord. I think it only right that the House should be told the sources of his information. As the noble Lord has now said, they are not official sources; they are private person sources. I think that it is clear from Mr. Ivan Smith's report, to which I have referred, that cases which come before the notice of the United Nations are being investigated, and that, where charges are proved, the guilty parties are being punished.
I do not know whether we are to draw the conclusion from the noble Lord's Question, and also from his speech, that most of the atrocities and other misdeeds of which British nationals were the

373
victims were the responsibility of United Nations forces and could not conceivably have been perpetrated from any other quarter. That, on the face of it, given the circumstances that existed at the time, would seem to me to be beyond credibility. The noble Lord did qualify his statement by saying that he did not charge all these crimes against the United Nations forces.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, those were the cases of looting to which I was referring in that connection, not the murders.
LORD HENDERSON: I accept that. But whether it is looting or murder, I think it is difficult to lay it down that these must have been the responsibility of United Nations forces. I feel that the repeated assertion of these charges justifies the view which we have taken, that there should be a United Nations inquiry into the charges against bath sides in order to try to prove what is actually the truth.
I would repeat what I have said on an earlier occasion: that one of the most regrettable features of the Congo affair has been the hostile attacks upon the United Nations and its operations. We have expressed our resentment against these attacks, the exaggerated reports and unfounded rumours. I will only add that I regret very much the terms of the noble Lord's Question, which seems to me both one-sided and tendentious. I hope that, if there is to be an investigation of any sort, it will be an investigation into all allegations, and that it will be conducted under the auspices of the United Nations.
Having said that, I hope that the discussions now proceeding between Mr. Tshombe and the Central Government Prime Minister will prove successful and will lead speedily to the restoration of peaceful conditions in Katanga. That, to me, is the urgent matter of the moment. I do not subscribe to the noble Lord's suggestion that the United Nations' forces should be withdrawn. I think they should be withdrawn after peaceful conditions have been restored. When that happens, I think we may have a chance of getting the Congo on to the basis on which it should have been from the very beginning.
6.42 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not want this evening to go into the wider issues of the Congo situation; no doubt an opportunity for that will occur when we have a debate on Foreign Affairs, which I believe is coming at the end of the month. But, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has said, I should like to appeal most earnestly to Her Majesty's Government to consider seriously the desirability of pressing for the independent inquiry for which the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has asked. After all, he told a very dreadful tale, and, what is more, it was no mere hearsay story picked up thousands of miles away from the place where the crimes were committed. The noble Lord has been there himself; he was in Elisabethville within the last few weeks. Can we ignore entirely the well-founded information which he has given us? And axe our consciences so blunted that we should wish to ignore it? Indeed, I would say this to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson: is it in the interests of the United Nations themselves that we should do so? The noble Lord, greatly to my surprise, rather tended throughout his speech to play down these things. At least that is the impression he made on me.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, I hope I can correct that impression, because I opened my speech by saying that we all deplored these things, and I think we can agree that, where responsibility can be placed, there should be punishment.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: But the noble Lord did not give any real impression of being deeply shocked by the authenticated stories which have been told. He did not seem to me to think that they mattered very much.
LORD HENDERSON: No.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That was the impression the noble Lord made upon me. But if these stories are baseless and exaggerated, have not the United Nations more to gain than anybody else from having an inquiry? Their good name would be cleared. If any of us were the United Nations and had nothing to hide, I think we should be the first to welcome a proposal of this

375
kind, especially if it was conducted by a completely independent body. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, seemed to think that it ought to be conducted entirely by the United Nations themselves. I do not agree at all, and I do not think the United Nations ought to agree. The report would be all the more impressive in clearing its name if it were conducted by an impartial body.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Marquess? If the United Nations do not appoint the Committee, or the Committee is not appointed under the auspices of the United Nations, who would appoint it?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not averse to the United Nations being concerned in the appointment of the Committee, but it should be a completely impartial Committee, whatever the investigation is to be. If, on the contrary, unhappily the stories turned out to be true, how much less invidious for the United Nations that some outside body should have to say so. I do not think it is suggested by anybody—I am sure it is not by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton—that these things could possibly have been countenanced by the United Nations' authorities in New York. Nobody would believe such an extraordinary thing as that. But there are some troops—and we all know it—who are at present being employed by the United Nations in Katanga and who are pretty tough customers. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, would not disagree with that. If they have done these dreadful things, it is far better that the world should know it, for that would be the best safeguard for the future. And, at any rate, Her Majesty's Government certainly should not give the impression that they condone these things.
The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, said—and I thought quite rightly—that if there is going to be inquiry, why not have an inquiry into atrocities by both sides? My answer to that—and, I am sure, the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton in fact he said it in his speech—is, by all means let us have the inquiry into atrocities by both sides. But do not let us, for heaven's sake!, give an impres-
376
sion on any side that we want to hush these things up. That would be an absolutely disastrous thing. Therefore I would suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, and to the Government, with great respect, that in the interests of the good name of the United Nations itself, and for every other reason, they should consider most urgently the proposal which the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has made. I believe that if this inquiry were made by an impartial body—the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, suggested one such body—it would be to the interest of the world in general that these growing stories should be checked up on and, if they are true, that the United Nations in New York should he given an opportunity of seeing that these things do not occur again.
6.48 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I want to say only one or two words. First of all, I think the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has placed the House in some difficulty in putting this Question on the Order Paper—not that he should not have done so but it is a contentious matter and it appeared only on Tuesday and it is now Thursday. We have had a busy week, and many of us who are interested will have had great difficulty in finding out things from one side or the other. The Question the noble Lord has put down, even in its amended terms, could be construed in some quarters as an attack upon the honour of the United Nations. War at any time is a dirty game, and when there are attacks upon civilians of a type which the noble Lord has described to us this afternoon the attack upon the honour of any organisation is very great.
In the course of the noble Lord's statement this afternoon I thought he was even more specific. In fact, he has made some grave charges against the honour, not only of the United Nations, but of certain countries. This is something about which we must always be careful. If you accused this country's soldiers of having committed atrocities as described by the noble Lord, if British soldiers had been accused of an atrocity, that would have been regarded by every soldier or officer in your Lordships' House as an attack upon the honour of the British Army.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think every noble Lord and officer in this House would want the thing cleared up by an impartial inquiry.
LORD SHEPHERD: I say that the noble Lord in his statement this evening has made specific charges against Swedish soldiers, Ethiopian soldiers and an Indian soldier. I do not in any way say that these things did not happen. If they happened they are terrible and wicked. But the question I would ask the noble Lord is this. The atrocities happened last December. Was this information placed before the commanders of the units or, shall we say, the countries concerned? Were means made to convey this information to the Governments of the countries concerned? My Lords, I would be one of the first to resist any outside allegation against the honour of a British soldier if it had not been in the first instance made to the Government concerned, the Government of my country.
The noble Lord has come here and has made these specific allegations. I must ask him two questions. Now that he has got this information himself, has he placed it before the countries concerned, perhaps through their Embassies? Because the noble Lord in his Question before the House is talking of a broad allegation. He has given specific cases and quoted names of the forces concerned. When he made that statement had he informed the Government of the cases he was proposing to raise in order that we might have a reply from the Government fully cognisant of the serious allegations that the noble Lord has made? I do not in any way wish to underrate the seriousness of the charges. If these things have happened—and I personally think there have been certain cases—as I say, war is a dirty game when tempers are up, and many nasty things happen on both sides. First of all. I should like to know whether this information has been made available to Her Majesty's Government. Have the specific allegations against the national forces been passed to the Governments of the countries concerned?
If there is to be an inquiry—and, I would agree, I should rather like an impartial inquiry—it cannot be an inquiry concerning specifically the United Nations forces, because you would immediately say that it is only the United
378
Nations forces who are on trial. It has to be a full inquiry. I personally should prefer a full inquiry regarding the forces of both sides. I should like to have a full report on what has happened on both sides; the political negotiations and political manœuvres that have led up to the military action of both sides. I do not think you can just take the military action away from political action. I should welcome it, and I am sure that most noble Lords would, because I should like the name of the United Nations cleared of these terrible charges against its honour.
6.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say just a word or two? I am very glad that the little debate on this Unstarred Question has taken a wider view than was likely to have arisen from the original wording of the Question. I welcome very much the end of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, in which he begged the Government to press for an inquiry which would cover both sides of the question. On the other hand, I want to be fair to the Government. Some people say I am never fair to the Government. Nevertheless, with these matters of fact, and with an inquiry, it is essential to see what has been said. So I have been looking up the consideration which has been given by the Government and the Answers made to three specific Questions which were put to the Government in another place on January 29.
I felt that Mr. Godber, the Minister of State, who answered the Questions, found himself in particular difficulty because of the varying information which came in involving both sides. That I think was what was especially in the mind of my noble friend Lord Henderson, when he drew attention to the fact that the original Question was directed only to the reiteration of the charges which the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, as an eye witness, had obtained against United Nations troops. As a matter of fact, on January 29, Mr. Godber said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 652 (No. 43), col. 694]:
"As regards requests for an independent inquiry into these events. I am not convinced that a general inquiry would be useful".
That was at that stage.

379
"At the request of the International Red Cross the United Nations have already agreed to conduct an inquiry into the deaths of M. Olivet and his two fellow international Red Cross workers."
If we look over to the next part of that particular discussion we find, at the top of column 695, that Mr. Godber said:
"I have no confirmation of the case of the colonel to which my honourable friend has referred."
He is a person who would come within these charges. Then Mr. Wilson, having asked for and stated that we should welcome the fullest possible inquiry into all these allegations of atrocities by both sides, by the mercenaries as well as by the United Nations, asked whether, in order to get this matter in balance with his honourable friends, the Minister would make available information which he understood was in the possession of the Foreign Office, about the extent to which mercenaries were using hospitals for firing on United Nations troops; about the extent to which military vehicles were being painted with the Red Cross, and about the extraordinary fact that the number of ambulances said to have been damaged by United Nations forces far exceeded the number of ambulances known to be in the Congo. Mr. Godber said:
"It is these counter conflicting claims which make the whole thing so difficult to see. There are certainly allegations on both sides. This is not a one-sided matter. These are matters for the United Nations rather than Her Majesty's Government at the present time."
I could quote more answers from the Government to the two Questions on that particular day, but I do not wish to detain your Lordships. However, I hope those who have not read the Report will read it through.
But consider: here we are, well on in March, dealing to-night with the evidence of an eye-witness who has listened to the people's case of one side—and no doubt he has satisfied himself that they are all true. We have no opportunity of seeing, say, the legal report upon their evidence, though no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, has satisfied himself on these particular points. On the other hand, so far as I can see, Her Majesty's Government, waiting for the report on the inquiry set up at the instance of the International Red Cross Society, do not seem prepared to have the general inquiry.
380
If the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, wants to put pressure upon Her Majesty's Government to ask the United Nations to have a general inquiry into both sides of the question—or, rather, into the general question, if I may put it that way, of atrocities committed—and find out, if possible, the guilty persons, then I think we in this House are all prepared to support that. It is reasonable. But I do not think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, in his general attitude to what my noble friend Lord Henderson has said has been quite fair; although I do not think he intended to be unfair to the general balance and well-meaning case that my noble friend put to your Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if I misrepresented the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, I am the first to apologise, but I would say to the noble Viscount, with regard to the things he said in the latter part of his remarks that I was not quite clear whether he was in favour of a United Nations inquiry into atrocities on both sides or an entirely impartial inquiry. I would put this to him: supposing it was an inquiry into atrocities committed by Katangans, would he agree to an inquiry by the Katangan Government? I feel sure he would feel some difficulty about that; and in the same way, if there is to be an inquiry into atrocities by United Nations troops I think some of us would feel the United Nations were not the right people to conduct that inquiry. If it is a question of a general inquiry into atrocities by the troops or supporters of both sides in Katanga, and that it shall be carried out in an impartial manner by an independent body, I think we are probably all in agreement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I think we have to remember, first of all, the obviously considered reply of the Minister of State in another place, that at the stage when he was speaking this was a matter for the United Nations—that is, with regard to what should be the procedure of the Government's representatives at the United Nations Organisation in presenting the case on the matter. As my noble friend points out, a matter concerning the United Nations must be raised there first, in order that some procedure may be followed in the particular instance. I

381
take it that there is no reason why the Government should not be asked to instruct their representatives to present the case to the United Nations, for them to set up, in whatever Committee should deal with it, an unbiased, impartial inquiry. I think it would be quite a reasonable request that it should be referred to a court set up under the auspices of a body like the International Court of Justice, or whatever similar organisation might be found to be acceptable among the nations who usually deal with these matters under their procedure. But I do not want it to go forth to the world that this country of ours has some special "down" on the United Nations and the forces they employ without having a proper inquiry all round.
7.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, I have listened with very great sympathy to all of your Lordships who have spoken about this question of atrocities in Katanga. In replying, I think I should try very quickly to recapitulate the setting in which Her Majesty's Government are able to act in matters of this kind. Then I will try to tell your Lordships the substance of all we know about atrocities in general, and finally I will try to mention more particularly the case of British subjects, who are specifically mentioned in my noble friend's Question and who are, of course, the only people towards whom the Government have any direct responsibility.
As your Lordships know, we have always supported the United Nations' operation in the Congo. We believe it was the right thing to do in order to prevent a kind of Spanish Civil War situation, in which large numbers of Communist weapons and personnel would be sent there for the purpose of making trouble; and we think the United Nations' entry there has had the effect of stopping that. Naturally, we are all anxious that the United Nations should accomplish its task and be able to withdraw from this expensive operation as soon as may be possible. We have given our support in that. At the same time, we have made no secret of the fact that we did not agree in certain respects with the judgment of those who
382
were responsible for the conduct of the United Nations' operation in what was done in the Katanga. We have said that openly, not only in Parliament but in New York to the Secretary-General.
We have frankly given our advice. We have been worried about the effectiveness of the chain of command. It seemed to us that very often the people on the spot had quite a different notion of what they were supposed to do from the people in New York. We also felt that the United Nations had made a mistake in appreciation of the situation in Katanga: that they had taken military action which ought not to have been taken. We are very glad that, partly owing to our efforts, a cease fire has come about. As we told your Lordships, we thought some of the people they removed were not mercenaries at all, but civilian advisers who ought not to have been removed and whose removal has been a great disadvantage to the general situation.
This has naturally opened the Government to attack from two angles at the same time. When we say we support the operation, we are criticised for any mistakes which may be made in Katanga. On the other hand, when we state frankly our criticisms as a member of the United Nations, as we are entitled to do, about the errors which we think have been made, we are criticised from the other angle and told that we ought not to give support to the United Nations in this selective way, and that we ought to have vetoed the Katanga operation and withdrawn our financial support if we did not approve of it. The Government, as your Lordships know, do not accept these criticisms. We could have done what our French friends have done: turned our backs on the whole show and paid nothing. In my view, that is a mistaken attitude, and of course it would mean that we could not do anything to moderate and guide, as well as we can, events in Katanga, nor have any status at all in dealing with the question of atrocities.
We are not a member of the United Nations Advisory Committee on Katanga; that consists of the countries who have sent troops there. It does not include any of the great Powers. We have only a very indirect status in this matter, but naturally it has given

383
us concern, as it ought to give everybody concern. We are paying our share of this United Nations' operation, and although we have no control over the matter except ordinary diplomatic duties towards British subjects, we naturally feel that we may have some indirect responsibility, as a member of the United Nations, for anything that is done wrong.
I was very interested to hear Lord Colyton's personal account of his visit to Elisabethville, and I have no doubt that what my noble friend said was on good authority, as he represented it to be. I myself gave your Lordships a number of cases, when we were discussing this matter before Christmas, on which we had, I believe, good and authentic information. But my noble friend who has been there will, of course, agree that there is a vastly greater number of allegations about atrocities, some without any foundation at all, which are widely circulated in Elisabethville and Leopoldville, and perhaps an equally great number of stories with some foundation which are due not to United Nations' troops but people like Baluba tribesmen who have got out of the concentration camp, many of whom have perpetrated a great many criminal actions in and around Elisabethville. Of course, the United Nations are very often blamed unjustly for that.
It is sometimes, as I think my noble friend appreciated and I am sure our Consul there would have told him, quite impossible ever to be sure what has been the true cause of whatever damage it is you may be considering. There have been some cases in which we have practically no moral doubt, a few of which were mentioned by my noble friend. Some of those actions which have perhaps had the most unfortunate effects are not always actions which are militarily unjustifiable. For instance, one I mentioned to your Lordships before Christmas was the action of the United Nations in occupying and temporarily putting out of work the electric engine which operated the water supply to the African quarter of Elisabethville. That might not have been against the Geneva Convention or anything of that kind when we were conducting a military action, but it had the effect of creating deep resentment and hatred against the United Nations among all the native
384
Katangan population which had no water for a long time.
Then there are incidents like the bombing of hospitals, which I also mentioned. To be fair, we must recognise that there was a good deal of sniping from certain houses, although I do not know that there was any from the hospital. Of course, anybody who knows anything about the sad facts of military fighting is aware that sometimes a civilian edifice (it may be a hospital or a monastery) may be destroyed in the genuine belief that it is being used by the enemy, although the information on which this action is taken may afterwards be found to have been mistaken. I think we have from our Consul fairly good and accurate information, as much as ever could be obtained on everything of that kind which has taken place.
With regard to individual misbehaviour, breaches of the Geneva Convention, there have been many about which Her Majesty's Government have expressed their disquiet to the United Nations. The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has mentioned one or two cases of rape, loot and murder which appear to have been substantiated. My noble friend Lord Colyton told us something about the procedure for dealing with allegations of that kind. Let me just repeat it, for the sake of the Record. When reports of misconduct by United Nations troops are received, what happens is that the local commander promptly institutes an investigation. He then submits a report, with recommendations, to United Nations Headquarters, on the basis of which a decision is made by United Nations Headquarters as to whether a court of inquiry should be undertaken.
As my noble friend rightly said, there is no authority for court-martial by the United Nations Command as a whole. What they do is to set up a court of inquiry, and if it establishes misconduct they then refer the matter back to the officers of the contingent concerned, with a request for disciplinary action according to the military rules of the country to which this battalion, or whatever it may be, belongs. That is what is done; and in such cases, in addition to whatever the military punishment may be, I understand that the offenders are always repatriated—sent home. They may be

385
replaced by others, but they are not allowed to remain in Elisabethville. I have not got the names of any offenders who have been convicted or punished, but I understand that a considerable number have been disciplined and sent home, including some of the Ethiopian personnel to whom my noble friend referred.
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? Is that not standard procedure: that disciplinary action must be taken by the commander of any national force? If you have a number of national forces together and anything goes wrong, it is the commander of any individual national force who is responsible for disciplinary action.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Exactly. I just wanted to make it clear, in order to avoid any confusion between the United Nations Command, which holds an inquiry but has no power to inflict punishment, and the powers of the commander of the national contingent who takes the necessary disciplinary action.
Several of your Lordships have thought it a good plan that there should be not only these individual military inquiries, followed by the necessary action, but also a general judicial inquiry into the question of atrocities on both sides. I cannot see any positive objection to that course. If such an inquiry were to be held, obviously it could not be held unless the United Nations appointed the people to hold it. On the other hand, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury said, no doubt it would be better if the people who held the inquiry at the request of the United Nations were people in a judicial position.
As I say, I see no positive objection to that. I would say only two things about it now. One is that I think it is most unlikely that the United Nations would agree to it. I think that either the Security Council or the Assembly would say "No; we already have our machinery for dealing with breaches of the Geneva Convention. We do not want to have a general roving inquiry."
Moreover, I am inclined to agree with the noble Viscount opposite that, if they were to agree, it probably would do not much good. Imagine a judicial inquiry going out there. Imagine the vast
386
number of unsubstantiated cases which would be brought to their attention. Think of the kind of evidence which, in most cases, is all they would have before them in conditions which prevail in the Congo at the present time. Then there is the vast amount of work they would have to do in considering the thousands of rumours and misconceived allegations. I rather doubt whether they would manage to prove more than those cases which have already been established and in regard to which we are already all agreed—some of which I have myself mentioned to your Lordships in this House.
I must, however, particularly say something about British subjects, in regard to whom we really have no status, except as a general member of the United Nations who has paid her subscription. We are not a member of the Katanga Advisory Committee; our status is no greater than that of anybody else in this matter. But with regard to our own subjects, I think that my noble friend already had the figures. Of the 62 British subjects of European origin living in Elisabethville on December 1, one, Mrs. Dyer, was, as my noble friend told us, killed by mortar fire during the fighting while living in a civilian quarter of the town. Thirty-two had left by mid-January; 3 had expressed an intention of leaving; 16 possessed exit permits but did not want to leave unless the situation got worse; 4 did not wish to leave immediately and 7 had not made their intentions known.
I think that, of those who suffered loss, perhaps the most pitiful case is that which my noble friend mentioned, of Mrs. van Damme, whose house was much damaged. She is now being looked after by the Consul. As my noble friend said, the case was dealt with at great length and in great detail by my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary in another place last Wednesday, and I do not expect your Lordships would want me to go over it again.
I am glad that my noble friend paid the tribute he did to our Consul, Mr. Dunnett, who I think has done the most extraordinarily good work there and who keeps us very well-informed on all other matters. He has reported that fourteen British subjects have had their properties pillaged, although, as the

387
noble Lord, Lord Henderson, pointed out, it is not clear by whom, whether by roving criminals—of whom there are a very large number loose in Elisabethville—or by Balubas, or, in some cases, as in the case of Mrs. van Damme, undoubtedly by Ethiopian troops. But in most cases it is not clear. Mr. Dunnett reports that the houses occupied by United Nations troops are not in a good state, but it is not clear whether this is due to fighting or to their occupation by the United Nations. There are six British properties which are occupied by United Nations troops.
As has been mentioned already, three Northern Rhodesians were killed when they came into the line of fire between United Nations and Katangan forces. I have already mentioned Mrs. Dyer, who was killed by a mortar bomb which is alleged to have been fired by United Nations troops. Individual cases involving British subjects who have suffered losses have been taken up with the United Nations authorities on the spot at Leopoldville—which I think is the best way Ito do it—and the question of responsibility is under consideration. Details of claims for damage by British subjects are now in process of being collected for record purposes, both by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Leopoldville and by our Consul in Elisabethville.
388
Any further action will be decided in the light of the information thus obtained.
My Lords, may I just conclude by adding my hopes to those of Lord Henderson that the meeting to-day between Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Adoula in Elisabethville may lead to some agreement which will in due course make it possible for the United Nations to withdraw their troops from Elisabethville and bring this operation to an end.

ASSAY OFFICES BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

UNIVERSITY OF KEELE BILL [H.L.]
Presented on Wednesday, 14th March (pursuant to leave given that day), and read 1a.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.