ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, it is a very difficult situation for any Leader of an Opposition after an Election to rise to speak on the opening of a debate on the gracious Speech from the Throne. I am quite sure that the hearts of Members of the House opposite are so full of sympathy that, but for their joy on the great majority they have acquired on a narrow margin in the country, nothing would prevent them from coming to help me in my task. But when I look at the 39 facts concerning the newly elected Government which precede this gracious Speech from the Throne, I must say that I feel that, just as they "had it pretty lucky" about the price of imports in the last two years, so they have been fairly fortunate in this matter.

There are one or two things that I should like to say at the outset of my remarks to-day about those matters in the gracious Speech which deal with home affairs—if that would not be to the inconvenience of the House. Then I should like to turn to foreign affairs and Commonwealth matters because I understand that the noble Marquess who speaks for the Foreign Office will be winding up the debate. When I look at the facts of the Election and at the actual representation for Toryism which has been gained from it, I am reminded of the story which was told many, many years ago—I hope your Lordships will forgive me for going into the past, although the Prime Minister seemed to delve well into the past yesterday—of when Thomas Carlyle had as his guest over here Ralph Waldo Emerson. He took him one day to the Gallery of the House of Commons and it is said that after listening for a considerable time to the debate, Thomas Carlyle dug Emerson in the ribs and said to him: "Will ye no believe in the De'il the noo?" When I think of some of the circumstances of the Election—I am not going into all the details—I must say that that is how I think Emerson might feel if he were to come to Parliament to-day.

One thing in regard to home affairs which I think stands out a mile after this last Election is missing from the gracious Speech from the Throne. The Liberal Party might raise it from another angle, but I raise it from my own angle. It is that there ought to have been some reference to electoral reform. When I consider all the activities of the Institute of Directors, when I consider the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent on Election propaganda by industry before the Election, and when I remember that the Conservative Party is the only one of the great Parties in the State which does not publish accounts, then I think there is an urgent need for electoral reform. I just record my view and leave it there.

40 I turn now to the gracious Speech itself, and there are one or two things that I would point out. First there is the first paragraph after the intervening paragraphs with regard to the House of Commons, which says My Ministers will strive to maintain full employment, together with steady prices, a favourable balance of payments and a continuing improvement in the standards of living based on increasing production and a rising rate of investment. I must say that on their past performances the Government will have to work very hard, very urgently, and on a pretty wide basis to carry out the terms of that paragraph. Having regard to their past records in these matters I "ha'e ma doots". The balance of payments has been in jeopardy—as it were, in crisis—three times in the course of the last Parliament. There is a suggestion now that everything in the garden is quite wonderful—a very different situation. One can have hope and confidence, of course, but now and again the voices of those whom we might call financial technicians seem to raise doubts upon that confidence and hope. I look at only one or two sentences of the speech by the chairman of Barclays Bank, reported in last week's Financial Times and made to the Cotton Board at Harrogate. This quotation from his speech is from the Financial Times of October 19: The economic state of the nation is poised rather precariously between inflationary and deflationary forces which have produced an equilibrium, maintained by skilful monetary and fiscal management.…

§ A NOBLE LORD

Hear, hear!

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

I am very glad that the noble Lord cheers that. There is no doubt that, from the angle of the City, has been done pretty successfully. But Mr. Tuke goes on to say: I feel that our present Chancellor, in an otherwise admirable Budget last April, offered considerable hostages to fortune in providing for over £700 million of Government expenditure to be covered by borrowing. He is obviously anxious for people not to be so overfilled with confidence that they may have to be disappointed. We must wait and see how that turns out.

Or, if your Lordships will look to another authority, the leading article in that same paper, the Financial Times, this morning, which is headed "Highly 41 Provisional", you will see what they have to say of the basis upon which estimates are made by the Treasury—civil servants—as to what the balance of payments actually is at a given time. Your Lordships will see there how false hopes may easily be raised in the minds of citizens or investors or even professional dealers upon the Stock Exchange, by figures which are published from time to time and which have afterwards to be drastically revised. I believe, therefore, that we should look at the present position with a great deal of caution. Moreover, considering how our own programme at the Election was attacked by representatives of the Conservative Party on the basis that the country could not afford what we proposed, it has been most interesting to study the operations on the stock markets of this country since October 9. My noble friend Lord Stonham has a Question down for to-morrow I believe, pointing out that on October 9 alone the capital value of stocks rose by £800 million in one day.

Noble Lords who look at the general record of the Stock Exchange indices can easily cast their minds back a matter of eighteen or twenty months to the time when that daily index was about 162, and see that in the last few months, and especially in the last few weeks, it has gone up to a figure without any precedent at all—to something about 295 to 296. Some people may argue one way or the other as to whether that particular state of affairs is likely to lead to deflation or inflation. One can only recall one's own experience. As a member of the Government of 1929–31 I recall the details on finance that one had to observe and study at that time, and my own view of conditions in the City of London to-day is that they are not so far removed from the conditions in Wall Street in 1929. I remember that only a few months before the smash there President Hoover had expressed every confidence that everything was going to be all right. The future looked wonderful and fine; but it was not so. And why?—because it transpired that far too much of the finance of the country had become based upon what we in this country sometimes call the "Never-never". The enormous amount of goods which had been sold in the United States on hire-purchase was one 42 of the main factors of that crisis in 1929 which had such great repercussions upon ourselves in this country.

Her Majesty's Government have made a good deal of play with the improvement in the index of production in the last few months only. The study by the experts of that improvement in production seems to show that a very large part of it is due to the removal of certain restrictions which the Government imposed upon lending, and especially upon hire-purchase. Undoubtedly a great deal of the improvement in employment in the last few months has been due to the very rapid as well as very wide expansion of sales on the hire-purchase system I think it is just as well for us to remember those comparisons between the United States of America and our position at the present time. Whether or not we, as individuals, think that what is going on at the present time is likely to be deflationary or inflationary, I would suggest that the activities of the tycoons on the Stock Exchange to-day indicate a very unhealthy position of Stock Exchange dealing. Perhaps Mr. Tuke had that in mind when speaking those very few and guarded words on October 17 in Harrogate.

I believe, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government have to be exceedingly careful when they deal with these promises which are included in the paragraph which I have mentioned. Certainly during the last seven and a half years, and until a few months ago, there was nothing but a steady decline, to practical stagnation, in what had been formerly the steady expansion of production; and when we consider the effect of the loss during the lifetime of the last Parliament of £328 million over Suez, or the enormous increase in the burden of interest upon the Floating Debt of the Treasury, and also the consequences of the closing down of lending by the Public Works Loan Board in cost to local authorities and ratepayers, then I hold the view that we could easily have arranged our finances quite differently yet still have covered quite easily in this country the programme which we submitted to the nation. But the nation has been deceived upon that matter.

Then let me say, on the next paragraph on the gracious Speech on home affairs, that I am sure that noble Lords in all parts of 43 your Lordships' House will welcome the decision of Her Majesty's Government to appoint a special Cabinet Minister to co-ordinate and promote "development in research and other scientific activity." This is not really a new kind of vocation for a Minister. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when he was Lord President of the Council, had a special charge laid upon him at that time. I believe that, in spite of our political controversies, we shall all wish the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, well in this new venture if it is to be carried on more vigorously than it has been in the past.

I should like to say a word upon the promise of a Bill—we need not say too much, because I gather that we shall have the Bill at a very early stage; possibly it will be in the Printed Paper Office to-night—with regard to the Distribution of Industry Acts amendment. I welcome the fast that a Bill is to be introduced. What I deplore is that while the Government had powers on the Statute Book under two previous Acts of Parliament those powers were not properly used by any means in the difficulty that arose through, apparently, rapidly expanding unemployment in the course of 1958. The steps then taken under the existing powers were both too late and too little.

I have not the date of the letter in my mind, but I would direct the Scottish Peers' attention a letter which I think appeared in a Scottish paper under the signature of Lord Polwarth at the end of June, in which he expressed the view that it would seem that the Secretary of State for Scotland, for example, did not grasp the real principles which were involved in the unemployment problem of underproduction in Scotland. I hope very much that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, who is always welcome here as a speaker, will perhaps come to your Lordships' House at some time and give us his further views upon it. In the meantime, if the Government bring in the kind of Bill that we hope for, and if it is then prosecuted not only to deal with unemployment as it arises but, as I seem to hope from some wording that has been used, to try to anticipate in certain areas what should be done, then we shall be very happy.

On the other hand, I deplore, with my Leader in another place, that there is no 44 mention at all in the gracious Speech from the Throne about the plight of that great basic industry of coal—none at all. I wonder why that is. We know that there has been a change in the office of Minister of Power; but the fact is, so far as I can gather, that although already a number of pits have been closed, we still have over 50 million tons of coal lying in stacks, not sold, and a proposal is now being discussed that over the next few years an additional 200 pits will be closed. I hope that the Conservative ideas upon how to treat redundancy in industry—in industries that sometimes could have been kept alive and economic by Government action—will improve and that some proper provision will be made, both for finding other occupations which are satisfactory to those who are displaced and for providing a proper compensation for those who are unable to proceed to other industry. I think that that is particularly important.

We should also like to know at some time—maybe during the reply to-morrow; I do not think it is fair to expect the noble Earl to reply straight away—what proposals the Government may have in mind for dealing with the shortage of steel, especially the sheet steel of the kind which is so specially necessary in promoting the export programme of the motor industry—a vital part of our export position.

The paragraph dealing with transport is, I think, of great importance. It says a good deal in the paragraph, but we are not greatly impressed by the record of the Government on transport in the last five years. However, I shall say no more about it to-day because we already have down for next Wednesday, as soon as we have ended the debate on the gracious Speech, a Motion dealing with transport, and we can go into that subject in more detail then.

With regard to the working of the Companies Act, which is to come under review, I am always interested to see the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, in his place when we talk about Companies Acts, because he knows probably more about the technical details of the legislation than anyone else. He and I, and Tom Johnston and "Josh" Wedgwood, had a four months' Standing Committee on this particular subject in 1929, and perhaps we all learnt a great deal. But there is 45 one thing I very much hope will happen when we come to discuss the Companies Act, apart from all the things raised during the Election; that is, that with the tendency, and indeed pressure, of Conservatives to try to introduce more of industry's equities and stocks for investment by the working class the Government will so revise the requirements for published balance sheets that an ordinary working man with an ordinary education will be able to understand them and decide for himself whether the business is sound or not, and if he is not quite sure then, then he can ask for professional guidance and assistance. Because of the manner in which company balance sheets are published, with only just a profit and loss account and a balance sheet of assets and liabilities, it is quite impossible for the ordinary man—and I gather you want him to become an investor—to be sure of what he is doing.

I reminded the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, of the previous discussions because he and I argued a great deal about that in 1929. But it could easily be arranged for balance sheets to be at least comparable with those of a great industrial and provident society like the Co-operative Wholesale Society, which give details so that he who runs may read. There is no dubiety about them and they are required by law. They are required by the dictates of the Registrar of Friendly Societies under the Statute which he administers; and that ought to be done in the case of companies. I cannot understand why the Government have left this matter until now.

In 1954 the question of take-over bids and the like was raised in the House of Commons by Mr. Jenkins, and on that occasion the speaker for the Treasury said that it was quite unnecessary thus to interfere with private enterprise. The matter was raised again in the Commons in 1956. Again the Treasury thought there was no reason for any action to be taken. We raised it here in the House of Lords last March. We were given an answer for the Treasury by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. He gave us the same reply—it was really no answer at all. Then as recently as the first week in July a Motion of the nature of a vote of censure was moved in the other place on the same subject; and still the answer by the Treasury, given I think 46 by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, was that there was no need to interfere with that sort of thing at all.

I come back to the Financial Times, because it is a very good paper to consult upon these matters. I am always an interested reader of Harold Wincott. I read with interest this week his rather fantastic Fleet Street fable—some truth, a lot of untruth and a lot of nonsense, but it was very interesting and very amusing reading. I looked at him before, on July 7, on the subject of takeover bids. Listen to this quotation from the Financial Times: … time after time have we argued that the economic justification for a take-over bid lies in the fact that the assets of the company being taken over have not been fully or properly employed; that the management concerned had become sleepy and apathetic. How, then, do we justify as a general proposition the payment of large sums of money as tax-free compensation to those who implicitly have not done a good job, thus quite possibly putting them in a more favourable position than the people who will have to work twice as hard to make good past errors of omission or commission? Once upon a time"— continues Mr. Wincott— we shot people who made mistakes. Now we encourage the others—or do we?—by paying out, say, £50,000 a go when their mistakes have caught up with them. That is a pretty strong comment from the Financial Times.

But, of course, there is not only that particular side of the matter. That could be adjusted in some respects by a simple limitation in the Companies Act, and by adequate taxation of those huge sums as they are paid out: but I hope that when the Government come to revise the Companies Act they will not forget but will be able to take note of what has been happening in recent months. We shall be coming to this matter separately, so I will not go into details to-day. Similarly in regard to agriculture. We shall be putting on the Paper a Motion on that subject soon, and I need not comment on that.

The paragraph with regard to social welfare interests me very much. We shall be dealing in debates, I hope before Christmas, with a number of matters there arising, but to-day I do wish to say this: that in the light of the vaunted prosperity of the country, and of the happenings that I referred to in the investment market in this country, I hope something more definite will be done for 47 the aged people than is spoken of in the gracious Speech. It is true that it is proposed to give them some increase, by adjusting the allowances in the case of those who still go to work—that is to say, that section, that minority, of them who are still able-bodied enough to go out to work. But there is no reason whatsoever, so far as I can see, if the reports of the Government Departments about the prosperity of the country at large are correct, why there should not be an immediate and direct increase—and a substantial increase—in the payment to the old-age pensioners. The paragraph dealing with the needs of youth is another matter to which we shall hope to come back in due course in a Motion before the House. I think the same may also be said of the parts of the gracious Speech which deal with penal reform and other matters.

Now, my Lords, I turn for a few minutes to that part of the gracious Speech with which many Members of the House will be concerned during the remainder of the debate to-day. We welcome very much indeed the statement that the Government will work in the closest collaboration with the Governments of the Commonwealth in all matters which contribute to peace … We welcome very much the reference to the forthcoming creation of Dominion status for the great country of Nigeria. As in the case of Ghana, we are glad to see that the Government have built upon the foundations laid by a Labour Government. It is a good thing when, in a matter of common interest, both Parties in the House, when in office, are largely agreed upon what is required. With regard to the Commonwealth Education Conference promises are made in the gracious Speech of legislation and we must examine that legislation when it comes.

The gracious Speech goes on to refer to the Government's intention to continue to work for the improvement of relations between East and West, and says that the Government will use all their efforts to this end. Of course, for ourselves—and, in spite of the appeal by the Daily Telegraph this morning, I will use the term—we should like to see a Summit Conference as early as possible. We are very sorry that 48 these delays have taken place. It was a pity, perhaps, that the Prime Minister, in the course of the General Election, should have been so confident in his appeal to the country on the matter that there was to be a date fixed in a very few days—and he said that in September. We hope that the visit to this country next year of the President of France and his wife will be a happy one for them and will also contribute to the discussions which are going on in the meantime. I wish all parties concerned in this matter the best possible success that they can gain. For myself, I am sorry that the Government did not, perhaps, respond quite as quickly and as readily as we should have liked to what will become the historic offer by Mr. Khrushchev to discuss total disarmament. However, this has now gone along much more satisfactorily, as there is now agreement—and I am glad to see it—between the United States Government and Mr. Khrushchev as to the procedure which should be followed in that matter, and I hope something really good will come out of it.

"The improvement of conditions of life in the less developed countries of the world," the gracious Speech says, will remain an urgent concern of Her Majesty's Government. I wish we could do rather more than we are doing, if our prosperity is as great as it is claimed to be. I thought that the appeal that I listened to last Saturday night, on United Nations Day, by the Foreign Secretary in regard to the International Refugee Fund was not very reassuring. Perhaps we could have a repetition by the noble Earl who leads the House of what is now the actual contribution that Her Majesty's Government are going to make to that Fund, and also what kind of a response they expect. I understood from the Foreign Secretary's broadcast that up to the present time the national subscription from voluntary contributors is about £300,000. If so, in contrast to what some other countries are doing, that does not seem to be very adequate for the purpose.

In regard to the general aid which is being given under such bodies as the Colombo Conference, S.E.A.T.O., and the like, I hope that, if we are able to do it, opportunity will be taken to do more than we have done so far, for the 49 rehabilitation of the economic and production resources of some of these countries. Obviously a great deal of gratitude exists in the minds of those who have been beneficiaries under the Colombo Plan, and there have been further extensions of some of the decisions by S.E.A.T.O. I hope very much that, in the light of the announcement by the representative of the United States at the G.A.T.T. Conference in Japan the other day, we shall be really on our toes and alert to the situation. It has always been clear to us that the United States of America have been very generous in the past in this matter; but it must be remembered that, although they have a normal balance of payments as between their actual imports and exports, to get to that level they have to exclude all the money they 'have been giving overseas, either for economic help or for help in providing defence for the free world in those regions; and that, if that is to be done in the future, it can be done only if it is translated into orders upon American production. I hope that when they come to deal with this particular paragraph the Government ill keep these matters in mind.

I think that the position of international relations in the world at large presents us with considerable difficulties. The pity is that we have not made all the progress we wanted to towards banning the nuclear weapon. Probably we made a false move when we made such an enormous change in our defensive plans as to place most reliance on what is called "the ultimate deterrent". Since then, of course, we have agreed that tests should be abandoned, and it seems from the latest announcement of the Government that progress has been made in that direction, although I do not suppose that the matter can be said yet to have been actually finalised. But that certainly raises a considerable difficulty for many people. I hope that we may hear from the noble Marquess as to the present situation on this matter, and what progress the Government hope to make in that direction.

In other parts of the world, the events which are building up seem to me to be a deterioration. I hope that noble Lords opposite will not be too offended with me if I say that a good many of the results of the expedition to Suez in 1956 50 are now coming home to roost in the Middle East, where the position is very uncertain. The position in Iraq to-day, I should say, arises almost directly from loss of confidence in Britain after the Suez adventure and the fact that revolutionary components of the Iraqi people took the opportunity to do away with those who maintained a constant friendship with this country. The ultimate results of that in other parts of the Middle East have been far-reaching. I think that to-day Nasser is in a stronger position than he has been at any time. Big mistakes have been made. The United States made a great mistake in not capitalising the building of the Aswan Dam. Instead, Russia is doing it. Instead of having a friendly country and a well-armed member of the Baghdad Pact in Iraq, we have continual upheaval, largely under Communist direction, and the Communists have been able to establish themselves in places like Iraq, as well as in Syria, without even a threat to use arms. Perhaps this situation in the Middle East will look a little clearer when we have learned the results of the coming General Election in Israel and hear a little more about the condition of Colonel Nassim. There seem to be a good many rumours flying about. It is a very uncertain position indeed.

Nor do we find much to hearten us about the situation farther East. It is exceedingly difficult now for anyone who really had at heart the idea of getting the admission of the Communist Chinese Government into the United Nations to pursue that aim. I cannot help feeling in my heart that a good deal of the probing she is now doing in Tibet and within Indian boundaries is one of the methods China intends to continue, because she is not given a proper place in the great assembly of nations. Of course, it is difficult for any Foreign Office who have to deal with such a matter to have to deal with the view of the United States of America, but I hope that to this difficult and dangerous situation some solution may come. I am convinced in my own mind that a nation of her power—a power which drew Mr. Khrushchev to make a special visit to China after his interview with Mr. President Eisenhower—will, in days to come, have a much bigger say in the affairs of the world than any of us imagine at present. 51 She is a very powerful nation indeed. I hope that, whatever we do, we shall do our best to get the Chinese into the right mood for trying to find some way by which they are brought into the councils of the nations of the world as a whole.

The gracious Speech refers to the question of defence. Perhaps I may leave that subject for discussion when we come to the usual submission of the Defence White Paper, but I am bound to say to-day that the hopes are expressed in the gracious Speech that the defence forces will be able to contribute to the maintenance of peace are not quite so fruitful-looking as I think they would have been in, say, 1950, when we had ample conventional forces at our disposal. We cannot view the "ultimate deterrent" as being within this class of defensive, and when we come to examine the White Paper on Defence I think that we shall be able to show that clearly.

With regard to the Commonwealth, I think it is a pity that we should leave the main debate without its being said from the Opposition, although it has been already said elsewhere, that the Comonwealth has been greatly helped by the activities of the Royal Household, from Her Majesty the Queen downwards, in the last year; and I am sure that all members of the Commonwealth appreciate that to the full. Especially noteworthy was Her Majesty's invitation to Dr. Nkrumah, of Ghana, our first great African Dominion, to come to see her in Scotland. I hope that the visit of His Royal Highness Prince Philip will be a great advantage to any negotiations that may be going on at the time. All members of the Royal Family have helped a great deal in this respect, and we are grateful to them.

When we come to look at the colonial aspect of the situation, we are far less happy. In the case of Cyprus, we had hoped that the London Agreement had settled finally any question of violence; but apparently it has not. I was rather grieved to see the lightness with which the Prime Minister dealt with Cyprus during the Election, when he said, in reply to an elector who asked, "Why do they hold Cyprus against us?" 'It was nothing but a row between the Greeks and the Turks, and we settled it. 52 What an amazing picture that is of the Cyprus position! In 1954 the assumed attitude of the Government was that on no account could there be independence. Agitation went on and on; killing started, and it all ended in the London Agreement, after we had the recall of Archbishop Makarios from his exile and a large number of killings on both sides. Then the whole of this dreadful position ends with the statement made by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday, that We welcome the setting up of a republic for Cyprus. To talk about all that as being a quarrel between Greeks and Turks", and to say that "we settled it," is surely a complete travesty of the facts. Nevertheless, we wish the new rulers-to-be of Cyprus the greatest possible success. We hope that the constituents who were leading in the recent troubles will see the benefit of getting a united state in Cyprus. I am certain that if they choose—and it must be an absolutely free choice for them—to remain within the Commonwealth, it will be good for them as well as for us, and I hope that something in that direction can come.

In Africa, the events that are going to take place there will be vital to this Government, to the nation and to the people of the world. We on this side of the House are gravely concerned as to how matters have gone so far in regard to the Central African Federation. We are asked for co-operative effort. The Government will have to go a long way to persuade us what co-operative effort we can make in the light of the existing circumstances—unless they can be changed. However, as we propose to put down an Amendment to the Address on this subject next Tuesday, I do not propose to comment upon it further today, but will reserve that for the moving of that Amendment.

I can say, looking at the gracious Speech as a whole, that there are some parts of it which can be brought to a useful and fruitful end; and, in so far as they have been voted on by the electorate, and they are made fully operative, as promised in the Tory manifesto, I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House will not be inclined to be controversial and will support legislation which is good for the country and for the people. But if the 53 promises are not fulfilled, and if any parts of the legislation appear to be not in the best interests of the country, then you must understand that we shall not be backward in what we have to do.

One thing I would say, in view of the many attacks that have been made on my Party, and also the many suggestions of people outside—journalist, lawyers and all sorts of people, including one or two of our own members—with regard to the future of my Party and what we should do, is that I have very firm views about this. I do not know yet what all the other people's views are, but I know which way we shall go. I have been in my Party for fifty years, and have seen them struggle and struggle; and most of the legislation of a socialist character has had to be wrung out of capitalist employers by the organised labour and trade union Party. There is not going to be any end to that campaign—that is quite certain. You cannot regard the votes of 12¼ million people with Socialist views as being a small matter. The position as between the Parties is so narrow as not to justify a balance of 100 seats in a representative House.

What we do and suffer is in moments, but the cause of right for which we labour never dies. It works in long periods; it can afford many checks, and (I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would agree with this: it is what he said before the Election, when he was talking in Norway) gains by our defeats, and will know how to compensate our extremest sacrifices. In that spirit we are dedicated to pursue the task of the new co-operative commonwealth which will one day emerge in this country for moral organisations.

§ LORD REA

My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords appreciate the particular difficulty of addressing your Lordships' House on this matter of the gracious Speech, because so little notice is given that one has to put in a great deal of study in a very short time; one would rather speak a week later—and no doubt the House would rather hear what one has to say a week later. In making such preparation as I could for my few remarks to-day I find that I have modelled my opening very much on the same lines as the noble Viscount who has just spoken.

At the beginning of a new Parliament a grave responsibility is imposed, not 54 only upon the newly elected Government but also upon those whose duty it is to put the point of view of the electors who have not voted in support of that Government. While this Government are indeed to be congratulated on the remarkable achievement of being returned three times running, with a substantial majority in the elected Chamber, the task of us on this side—whether (the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition will forgive me) of the sunset of Socialism or of the rather delayed sunrise again of democratic radicalism—is rendered a little difficult by the fact that the Conservative Government have attracted only about one-third of the available votes in the country and less than one-half of the votes which were actually recorded. The noble Earl, Lord Winterton, put forward a mathematical formula which perhaps is not totally accurate, though I think it is much more accurate than one he put forward when he pulled me up two or three years ago. When I talked about 100,000 liberal-minded people in this country he rose to his feet to say that there were not 100,000 liberal-minded people in the world. However, he is a figure that we all regard with esteem and admiration, and we can gladly accept his faulty arithmetic, particularly now that he has come out of that difficult oasis in which he was between political paternity in another place and political second childhood here.

I have claimed before now (and admit that it is a claim that has not always gone down well with my colleagues) that in a democratic country the duty of an Opposition is not necessarily to oppose—and that was a theme mentioned by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to assure the noble Earl the Leader of the House that in this part of the House, sitting in opposition to the Government, we consider it—or I consider it—our duty to support the democratically elected Government whenever we can, even though the Election is not carried out in the way in which we should like it to be, and we propose to differ and be difficult only if some real question of principle comes up in which we feel we must take active opposing views.

My first criticism, therefore, of the general theme or the gracious Speech—and I am not going into the particulars 55 of it—as an outline of a programme is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said at the beginning of his speech, that it leaves out entirely any mention of some reform of the electoral system. It seems that the Government (I think the noble Viscount, the Lord Privy Seal, said this not long ago) are content to take what I call the short view: that unfair rules which may be in operation cannot be altered during the game. It seems to me that when the winning side takes that point of view it is not quite fair. We are not now in the middle of the game, and I suggest that in the interests of justice we should look ahead and formulate some sort of electoral system—and I do not necessarily mean proportional representation, about which so many people say in ignorance, "Look at France", when France has nothing to do with any form of proportional representation that we want—which would not necessarily commit this country to the extremes of Conservatism to-day and inevitably to the extremes of Socialism and further nationalisation, to-morrow, particularly as the recent General Election has clearly shown that neither of these choices is generally acceptable to this country as a whole.

I suggest that there is not only the grave responsibility on any Government to ensure that the country is well governed, but the further grave responsibility of looking further ahead than to their own term of office, and to ensure that when they do hand over the reins of government, as all Governments must, the Government which succeeds them shall be truly representative and desired by the people of the country. Otherwise we are bound to have chaos. If the political constitution remains as it is now, and the programmes remain the same, one can fairly say that it is the Conservative Party who are making certain that we shall have more nationalisation fairly soon, in the next few years.

I think that in the general programme set out in the gracious Speech there is, unfortunately, a lack of any great initiative. Most of the points which are made in it come from concessions to measures brought up by noble Lords on my left and their Party, and by the Party to which I belong. They do not strike any very new note, beyond giving in to what 56 has always been wanted by the more Left-Wing Parties—and, indeed, to the young people of this country, who at a much earlier age than any age hitherto are taking over positions of serious responsibility. I believe that every political Party must bear that fact well in mind: that it is the young who are going to count much earlier than they have done hitherto.

The prospects in general to-day for the young are exciting, promising and immense. Therefore I should have thought that a vital and inspiring programme was essential. But here is a programme of rather feeble vitality, of dragging feet, I should say, and a reluctant concession to a minimum of the radical and progressive measures which have largely come from this side of the House. Your Lordships may remember that the mover of the humble Address, in his excellent speech, spoke of the necessity to measure up to the great tasks which should be faced with enthusiasm and enterprise. I cannot help feeling that the Government's programme, as outlined in the gracious Speech, does not measure up in any great degree.

I do not propose, like the noble Viscount, to take the gracious Speech in detail, but there are one or two points upon which I wish to touch: others will be mentioned by the many other noble Lords who are going to speak. In point of place, the matter of France is mentioned early in the Speech—in a very non-committal sentence saying that we shall welcome the President of France and his wife, as indeed we shall. But is there not a great gap in the information which the Government must have about our relationship with our old and great and, I should say, favourite Ally? What are we doing about French affairs? What is our line on their very difficult troubles, their most delicate position and the tremendous problem that they now have in Algeria? It is not unrelated to other problems in the world, and, I suspect, is much more closely related than we should care to think.

The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, pointed out that it is in Central Africa that we are going to face immense troubles of immense difficulty. I think that they will be matched by the great troubles which are to be 57 faced in Algeria, and we should like to hear from the Ministers of the Government as to what France has arranged with America or Russia. What have we arranged with France? Are we going in step with her? When it is a question of the Summit, are we going to take her views well into account? Because the Summit, to be successful, cannot possibly omit France and Germany. The views of others than the biggest Powers must be dealt with. I suggest we look at France, at the moment in the hands of a great Frenchman, whatever we think of his policies (and I shall not comment on those), with patience and give her support and not criticism during the very difficult time she is going through.

I was going to say a few words about the immensely important question of Central Africa, but in view of the fact that noble Lords on my left have put an Amendment down to be dealt with on Tuesday next, I do not propose now to go into that. I support the general line taken by the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition. What is to be the composition of this Advisory Commission? Can we not come to some definite concrete agreement about that? It seems to be obvious that there is a direct clash of opinion between the Government and, presumably, the Federal Government and, presumably, Nyasaland, and certainly Her Majesty's official Opposition and the Liberal Opposition. It seems to be a matter of obstinacy: people are quite unwilling to compromise; and prospects are impaired on all sides. I believe that we must get together and find out exactly what is meant to be done, and must give way, to some extent, to those people whose opinion is not marching in step with our own. What is particularly important, of course, is to know who are to be the African representatives, or if there are to be African representatives. As the noble Viscount has said, it is most important that those in prison, whether properly or improperly, should at least be taken into account when the Commission is considering its decision. Dr. Banda, as we know, is thought of extremely highly in many quarters and not so highly in others. It would seem to me most improper to go forward without at least interviewing Dr. Banda and getting his opinion, and seeing 58 what he, for one, is suggesting as a solution of this very difficult problem.

Another point on which I find there is too little said is the question of a Summit. Indeed, it is hardly mentioned in the gracious Speech. The phrase: My Government will continue to work for the improvement of relations between East and West and will use all their efforts to this end seems to me, with respect, very much a bromide; because if they had not proposed to follow that course of action I do not suppose they would have been returned to power. The Summit is extremely important, and yet not a thing is said about it. We do not even know the views of the Government on the Summit. What are the Government's aims? What leadership are they going to give? Do they consider that a Summit is an end in itself, or is it the beginning of something new? I think most of us would agree with the words of the Prime Minister when he indicated that the Summit was only a start and something which was to lead to something else. It seems to me—I do not know—that it is the bureaucrats and the opposers of it who are behaving in a way as if the Summit were a vital point beyond which war or peace immediately lies. Surely the Summit, as it is intended to be, should be a mutual arrangement. We cannot leave out France or Germany, and we must get together with the other two big countries, particularly now, when the atmosphere is so totally different from what it was only a few years ago.

The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, mentioned China. This is a pet subject of a colleague of mine on these Benches who is not here to-day. But the very fact that China is going to be a tremendous power of the future must, of course, have a psychological effect upon the Soviet Republic. I think it is quite obvious from the attitude which they are now taking that, in a sense, the ice is thawing, things are easier; and we ought to take the opportunity of meeting them in this atmosphere of easier negotiations which have no doubt come about. We have to risk an element of sincerity in the other side, even if we have been disillusioned in the past, because only hope and optimism can see us through this thing. It is a most desperately dangerous period, and though we may be 59 again disillusioned I think we may regard that as a set-back, and not stark tragedy.

There is one subject—a favourite of mine—upon which I should like to touch for a moment, and that is how to explain ourselves to the peoples of the world, who think that we are wicked capitalists who are grasping and trying to get hold of them and all their possessions. How are we to put them right about this? For hundreds of years, of course, the method of putting this right is to over-run these people and subjugate them, and explain to them exactly what we are. However, this is not now possible or desirable. We can no longer stay in the nineteenth century. As has been proved by the great leaders of religion, it is the word which is greater than the sword. I would remind the Government again that we are lagging behind tremendously in the amount which we spend on propaganda—on the B.B.C. Overseas Service, and on the infinite number of ways of getting across to these people in the Middle East and Far East. There are little radios in every village from which they are hearing vilifications of this country. Cannot we consider spending vastly more money on this type of propaganda?

In conclusion, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to remember that, like the Opposition, they have their "lunatic fringe" but should avoid being influenced by it. The wild rebels against all tradition and convention, who used to flock to the Liberal Party and then went further to the Left, are still with us; but they are not representative. Similarly, the wild contemporary inhabitants to-day of the nineteenth century, still, I believe, exist on the fringes of the Tory Party. But I am sure they are not the backbone of that Party, and will not be treated as such. We of all three political Parties have far more in common than the acrimonies of a General Election would suggest. We all want the prosperity not only of this country but of all countries who will co-operate towards peace and progress. That is why I ask the Government today to throw overboard a rather nervous, negative and static programme, and come out with a more radical progressive agenda of real leadership which the people of the country—and especially 60 the young, who are so important and who will so soon be in the saddle—will welcome and support.

§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)

My Lords, as the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, have reminded us, since this House last met in July both the Opposition and the Government have been through one of those ordeals which democracy requires of its servants, namely, a General Election. The politicians and the policies have been paraded before the people in unexampled detail, and the people have given their verdict. The policies and the politicians have been in the last few weeks dissected or, perhaps more accurately, vivisected by the critics who now tell us the right road on which we should proceed with the same confidence as they forecast the wrong result just before the Election. The postmortems are being conducted with enthusiasm. There is one casualty over which I think none of us will shed many tears, and that is the humorous way in which the public combined to kill the Gallup Polls.

If the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, are now complaining about the electoral system and saying that the Government is elected on a minority vote, I cannot complain. They have both been good losers. It is a point to make and it is a consistent point, as made by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and the Liberal Party. But I am bound to say that when the noble Viscount and his friends were returned in 1945 with a majority, I think, of 180 or something like that, on a minority vote, I do not remember their using that argument, so perhaps we might leave it there and call it quits, at any rate for the moment.

My Lords, if the Government Front Bench looks much the same as it did last July, I hope your Lordships will feel that that reflects the decision of the people and their confidence in the Government as a team and as a Government which will continue to show results. If the Opposition Front Bench does not look quite the same, then the noble Viscount may be a little sad; but we on this side at least can view the 61 matter with complacency because what we lose on the roundabouts we gain on the swings—noble Lords will forgive me if the language of the circus came too readily to mind. I am personally sad that I have lost my shadow in the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I have seen, and of course we have all seen, people change Parties before. They usually go via the Cross Benches and Independent, and then on. The noble Lord has gone from right to left against all the natural laws—of the sun, the clock or, if noble Lords prefer it, the port. I have made some inquiries and I would assure the noble Lord of this: that if he finds himself uncomfortable on those Benches he can conic round this way, behind the Woolsack, and he need not in the process become a Bishop.

Whatever the Party mathematicians may compute, and perhaps we are all too pre-occupied with the fate of Parties, at least there is in the result of the General Election something which I believe will give universal satisfaction, and that is the emergence of the British Parliament not only unscathed but with its authority enhanced by reason of the public and sober example of the working of a free democracy which the world has seen in the last few months and weeks. We have shown to the world that in Britain in this essential matter of democracy we can practise what we preach. I am confident, too, that the decisive finding of the electors will enable the Government to speak in the councils of the world with added authority and influence, to speak for the nation, and to speak at a time of decision in international affairs.

Both the noble Viscount and the noble Lord have said in so many words that the gracious Speech does not contain anything very novel or very exciting. But, of course, the General Election found the Government pursuing a policy which had clear objectives: the objective of full employment, expanding production and productivity, and an economy in which the pound sterling should hold its value. In a certain sense the measures in the gracious Speech are a continuation of those policies, policies which I suggest have been proved but which are still capable of improvement. The noble Viscount called attention in particular to the question of employment and our objective of full employment, 62 and of course I agree with him that no one can be complacent who has memories of the 'thirties or has the knowledge that we all have of how vulnerable this island is and how susceptible to world conditions. But I think we are justified in saying that to have achieved an overall average of something like 2 per cent. of unemployed in the last years is an achievement of which the nation may be proud, and this was done, I would remind your Lordships, in the face of a very serious recession in the United States of which we were largely able to weather the consequences. For that achievement everybody in the country can claim some credit.

I think we can take some hope too—and I shall quote a few figures at a later stage in my speech—from the fact that in the last: year and in recent months our prices in world markets have proved to be competitive, which gives us confidence in the future if we manage ourselves well. But there is a problem, and it is a very serious problem, to which my noble friend Lord Aberdare called particular attention in his speech yesterday which we enjoyed so much. There are areas in the country where unemployment persists at a much higher level than the national average, and there are industries in the country, in a difficult position, as the noble Viscount pointed out in the case of coal, where in certain parts of the United Kingdom and in particular in Scotland a large number of coal pits under the plan of the Coal Board are to be closed down. Therefore the Government have felt for a time now that the time is ripe for an amendment of the Distribution of industry Act.

I think we must be clear on this, and we all know it to be true: that no Government, not even a Government of all the Socialist planners rolled into one, could possibly dictate and direct industry into areas where it cannot operate economically; it is not possible and could not be in the national interest. But what we can do and what I hope will be done under this new Bill is by inducement to persuade industry and to attract industry into areas in the United Kingdom where we should like to see it—to induce industries to go by making sites readily available, by building advance factories and by showing them 63 that there is good skilled labour ready in the district. The Bill is ready (the noble Viscount was right); it will be introduced very shortly, and I very much hope that this House will help to make it adequate for its purpose and effective in action, which was the noble Viscount's appeal.

My Lords, if the wealth and stature of Britain are to expand—and the noble Lord, Lord Rea, touched upon this subject and invited me to expand on it a little—then we must equip the young to meet the intellectual and physical and moral challenge of the time. That is why, although it does not go into great detail, the gracious Speech emphasises the need for the nation to apply its mind to increasing scientific research and to organising it in the best way, and the need to bring every feature of technical education within reach of the young people of our country, who are the workers, the engineers, the inventors and the skilled population on whom we shall rely to earn our wealth. The young people must be equipped to equal the "go-getter" in the United States of America, the young Russian with his nearly dedicated approach to science and to engineering and technological matters, or the young Asian who is showing the aptitude both to imitate and to improve the techniques which he learned in earlier days from Europe. So, although it is perhaps concealed in the gracious Speech, I think the noble Lord, Lord Rea, will find that in this field of education the expansion which is contemplated for the universities and the technical colleges is one which will strain our resources, but which nevertheless must be made, because our life and prosperity in the future depends upon equipping our people with the best scientific and technical knowledge.

But education—here the noble Lord is right, and all of us feel this—must look beyond technology, and the education of the young must always be much more than that. Society as a whole has a duty to each new generation. It is useless for us to shut our eyes to the fact that there is a moral problem here to which the nation must pay attention—the weekly crime sheets tell the tale all too clearly, and the nation cannot just look the other way. My noble friend Lord Hastings, in one of the most vivid and 64 telling passages of his remarkable speech to us yesterday, gave us a lead in the process of constructive and imaginative thinking which must be done if we are to find, and if this House is to help to find, the right answer to this problem. Your Lordships will remember that he analysed and gave illustrations of some of the great figures of the past who have helped to build our society. He analysed the values which he thought were at the foundation of the strength of our social order and political stability in this country, and he named them (I am paraphrasing what he said) as the guidance and discipline of the Christian religion, the loyalty which is inspired by family life, and the duty to the community which is learned when a boy or a girl goes to school and begins to mix among his fellows.

I myself do not find it surprising, when in the first half of this century hate and destruction have been let loose, when life has been cheap and personality overlaid, that standards should be cheapened too, and values blurred in the eyes of the young. But if it is true that, at this present time even, values are in ferment, nevertheless it is equally true that there has never been such an opportunity for profit and satisfaction in work, and never such an opportunity for a full and happy life if leisure is well used. The State can never be a universal governess—it must never try to be that; but we must try to find ways and means to give to these young people the opportunity to employ their boundless energies, not on being angry with each other and angry with society, but in service to the nation, which they can find equally exciting and equally adventurous if we enable them to give it.

My Lords, on the home front the gracious Speech presents what I would say is the first instalment of action for the benefit of the whole nation. The Prime Minister used that phrase very soon after the victory in the General Election was announced—that he wished to use the Government's mandate to create one nation. From our side of the House the principle on which we shall work is that of giving equal opportunity—very different, I would remind your Lordships, from uniformity; and by basing our action on a belief from which we on this side of the House have never wavered, that the function of government in Britain 65 is to release the initiative, enterprise and skill of the people. In proportion as we do that, then the wealth and the stature of Britain will grow. I hope, then, that the mandate which we have will enable us to do that, and more.

In some respects, our policy may have fallen short of some of the highest hopes of the electors and of the standards to which they thought we might comply in the General Election—and I do not doubt that this applies to the Opposition. But in the middle of the Election campaign a cutting from a newspaper was brought to my notice which read as follows: Before voting for a candidate, electors should ask him one important question: what is he prepared to do for bee-keeping in this country? So far as I am concerned—and probably this applies to most of your Lordships—I will do everything I can to encourage other people to keep bees.

My Lords, may I turn for a few moments to the tasks which face Parliament overseas, some of which have been touched on by the noble Viscount? He has drawn the attention of the House to the prominent place given to raising the standard of living of the under-developed countries, particularly in the Commonwealth. I should like to assure him that the place given to that in the gracious Speech was no accident, because we believe that it is in the very forefront of those factors which contribute to the peace and stability of the world. That is also why we very much welcome President Eisenhower's speech of a few days ago when he, too, emphasised the need of the free nations to co-operate actively in this field.

I think sometimes that noble Lords opposite are a little apt to minimise what we do. We wish to make our maximum contribution to Commonwealth development, and we can never be satisfied. But the stake which we are investing is substantial and it is rising rapidly. Over the last five years investment in the Commonwealth has averaged something over £200 million a year and last year showed a rapid increase. I know that the Party opposite have always rather favoured setting aside this or that percentage of the national income to be invested in the Commonwealth; but that is a conception which overlooks the fact that to invest at all there must be the necessary domestic 66 savings—that is, the necessary excess of wealth over what we spend at home and the necessary surplus in the balance of payments so that we may transfer the savings across the exchanges.

If I may say so with all humility, that is really the core of the matter, and it is a fact which the noble Viscount will recognise. I do not say it is because there is a Conservative Government in power or because we have won the Election—it was beginning a good deal before that—but the fact is that savings are rising fast, and therefore we are able to invest more overseas.

The noble Viscount painted a rather gloomy picture, because at the beginning of his speech, although he recovered later, he was in a rather gloomy mood, and I would perhaps comfort him by saying that at the moment—and these are the latest figures I have—industrial production is rising very rapidly. In August it was 7 per cent. above that of August, 1958—

§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

Which was the worst year for years.

§ THE EARL OF HOME

My Lords, it may have been the worst year for years, but the noble Viscount has neglected the circumstances in which we managed to maintain our position while a United States recession was going on. Now we are in a position to move ahead and the provisional calculation of the trade surplus this year is that it will be comparable with that of 1958, which was a good year. As I have said, savings are expanding and the reserves continue to rise against the seasonal trend. Now I prefer all that to paper percentages or paper promises—and so did the country. Perhaps the difference between ourselves on this side of the House and the economic philosophy of those opposite is that they provide the paper promises while we provide the hard cash; and that is what the people prefer.

The reference to investment in productive enterprise inevitably raised in our mind (and the noble Viscount has been interested in this for years) the contrast of the waste of millions of pounds blown away in modern armaments. Perhaps "waste" is in a sense a wrong word, because I accept the argument, and I believe he does too (although he 67 thinks that the nuclear side has been over-emphasised), that the possession of the deterrent in the early post-war years probably prevented another world war. Naturally, too, I accept the argument that a balance of strength is essential between the Communists and the free world; otherwise we should be over-run. Nevertheless it is true that this balance could be retained by a phased system of disarmament which would save the nations enormous sums of money that could be applied to relieve want and fear, themselves the breeding grounds of war.

The noble Viscount said that Mr. Khrushchev had made an historic disarmament proposal. We were delighted to see it. But the noble Viscount must not forget that we took the lead in the United Nations two or three years ago in making a very similar proposal which was subscribed to by fifty-seven other nations, and that also the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary, on the day before Mr. Khrushchev spoke, put forward a plan just as comprehensive and probably more practicable. Nevertheless this is a good thing. There is an advance. There are now two disarmament plans which could be studied by the Commission of ten nations, and in some notable respects, as I believe my noble friend will say later this afternoon, it looks as though the Russian plan and the plan of the Foreign Secretary are coming closer together. So that there is progress.

And who would have dreamed last March, when the Prime Minister went to Moscow in an atmosphere of ultimatum, that we should have arrived now at a point where President Khrushchev has been to the United States, is going to France, and is talking with the Western leaders? It is reported from the United Nations to-day that the United States and Russia and other countries have agreed upon a resolution which is going before the Assembly on a method of approach to disarmament; and not only upon that, as it seems from the report, but on some of the real objectives at which we should all wish to aim. The noble Viscount asked me about the Refugee Year. I will give him the figures without comment so that he may consider them. The United Kingdom 68 Government has given a total of £200,000 and the United Kingdom Committee Central Fund now holds £300,000, a total of £500,000.

Finally, if I may take five minutes I should like to say one word on the problems of Africa. In many respects 1960 is going to be a most momentous year. In some ways it is going to give a spectacular justification of what is known as British colonialism, because 30 million Africans in the great country of Nigeria are to emerge into complete independence and the addition of that country to the Commonwealth association will add immeasurably to its spiritual and material resources. With that example of political advance and this point of independence to which we have brought Nigeria, it really is quite impossible to describe British colonialism as something that aims to hold the African down. The noble Viscount called attention to the fact that already Ghana has her independence. Now another great African country is to be added.

Then in the economic field there will be no more spectacular example of co-operation for the welfare of the natives of a Colonial Territory than the opening of the Kariba Dam, which I am happy to say Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother has consented to open in the Spring of next year. That will give immense material benefits to African territories and African populations. I repeat that, in the light of these achievements which are to be seen in 1960, to paint a picture of colonial peoples oppressed by British imperialism is unreal and untrue.

What is true is that we have the most difficult and challenging task of our imperial history ahead of us, because we have to create in an Africa where there are mixed communities of Africans, Europeans and Asians a nonracial or multi-racial society. That must be our sole object, because I would ask noble Lords opposite to believe that it is the sole solution. It is difficult, because we have to build into countries which are still largely primitive the framework of a working democracy. And if we are to build a democracy which means anything, and if we are to fulfil our duty to these people who are still apprentices in the political art, 69 that framework must contain from the start the essentials which will guarantee justice, the rule of the common law and respect for and security of minorities and individuals, whatever their race or creed. It is for that purpose that Parliament must make in Central Africa a contribution—and in this Session of Parliament, too.

To assist us, the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland and the Government of the three countries making up that Federation on the next stage of constitutional advance we are to set up an Advisory Commission and we have been very fortunate to secure Lord Monckton of Brenchley as Chairman. Everybody knows his responsibilities; they are very important in this country and overseas. He has dropped everything because he himself is convinced that this is almost the most important problem of all that we have had to tackle for many, many years, in our Commonwealth relations. There will be other people who will come on to the Commission, and when the names are known it will be shown that they, too, take this view of the immense importance of this problem and of an objective approach to it.

My Lords, I cannot imagine any greater disaster than if one Party in this country attempted to identify itself with one or other racial group in Africa. Therefore I make once more an appeal to your Lordships, and particularly to the Opposition, that we should all try to serve on this Commission, so that we may really do some very constructive thinking and some very constructive work and try to create a common mind on the approaches to the 1960 Review, and so that we may be wise in the action which we take thereafter in Central Africa. I think the country would approve this common approach. It is one in which this House is well fitted to take a lead, and I think the country has come to expect a lead from us and would value it very much.

So, my Lords, both in the domestic field at home and in the field of wider Commonwealth and international affairs, I close with the theme with which I began: that we should try, so far as we can, to create one nation and try to respond to the appeal which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, made to us that on these great matters affecting the 70 nation we should sink our differences as far as possible. Of course, I promise the Opposition that when we come to matters of controversy, as we inevitably shall, they will get as good as they give. But the House has to grapple with issues of great moral content, and we must do so with high purpose and a real degree of unanimity. It is in that spirit that my colleagues and I offer to serve your Lordships in this new Parliament.

§ LORD BEVERIDGE

My Lords, of all the problems that face the people, the Government and the new Parliament of the country to-day, there is one problem more important than all the other problems put together. Since World War II ended with its prentice effort at Hiroshima, the progress of science has brought mankind to the simple choice between enjoying material comforts beyond their wildest earlier dreams and suffering unparalleled, mutual destruction, according to whether mankind decides to abolish war or to continue war as a means of settling differences between nations. Of course, for reasoning men there is no choice between these two things; they can choose only one. For those who are interested, as I am deeply interested, in many other problems there is the comfort that if we could solve this problem every other problem would become far simpler and easier and could be solved without unhappiness and fear of great disturbance.

Naturally, I welcome all the references in the gracious Speech to this subject of relations between nations with a view to avoiding war; and I welcome also all that the noble Earl, Lord Home, said towards the end of his speech upon this matter. I am going to make no excuse for concentrating upon this subject alone in everything that I want to say to-day. I am not going to discuss the relative merits of the contributions made to the possibility of peace by this Government or by the American Government or by the Soviet Government. But, having regard to the doubts that I used to hear continually expressed as to the possible attitude of the Soviet Government, I think it is fair to say that little more than a month ago the whole problem of peace or war in the world was put in a completely new light by the bombshell which Mr. Khrushchev dropped at the United Nations Assembly.

71 I happened at that moment to be in Switzerland, in Berne, at a Congress of the World Parliament Association. Just after that proposal had been made I was asked to say on television what I thought of this proposal. I said that I welcomed it with all my heart and with open arms. I gave my reasons for not doubting its genuineness for a moment. I said that, of course, Mr. Khrushchev's political religion as a Communist and mine as a Democrat were profoundly different, but I thought that there was plenty of room in the world for more than one political religion.

Actually, a fortnight before Mr. Khrushchev had reached and announced this conclusion I had reached exactly the same conclusion in writing a paper for the Congress at Berne. I had written this paper—and, may I say, having regard to one of the things urged by the noble Viscount who spoke for the Labour Party, I had carefully disposed, to my satisfaction, of the idea that any importance at all from the point of view of peace is to be applied to abolishing nuclear war only. The simple answer is that if war breaks out nuclear war will return inevitably, because once you have it it can always return, and all this talk of nuclear disarmament is of no importance; and I am delighted Mr. Khrushchev saw that and used it in what he stated.

I am not going to argue the grounds on which I happened a fortnight before Mr. Khrushchev's bombshell to reach exactly the same conclusion. I will only say that if there is any Member of this House who doubts the validity of his conclusion and mine, although the document in which I set this out has not yet been printed, anyone interested may go into the Library and the Librarian will give him a copy of my document and also of what I said on television about Mr. Khrushchev. But I am not going to waste time to-day in trying to argue that. I made it absolutely plain, and I think it is really plain to anyone who considers the facts, that total disarmament of all nations with a central control sufficient to enforce it must be accepted in principle; and the principle is a beginning only.

What I want to do to-day is to deal with some of the practical problems that will arise in turning this splendid prin 72 ciple into practice. I happened to spend a good many years of my earlier and most active life as a civil servant, and I realised the duty of a good civil servant was to turn the noble aspirations and principles laid down by his Minister into something that could really be put into force and would have the effect which he intended. If we are waiting for a Summit Conference, I think that we in this country cannot do better than consider some of the practical problems that would arise, the principle of total disarmament having been accepted, of enforcing it and making it permanent.

First there comes the practical problem of controls. Mr. Khrushchev has realised the need for controls: but let us consider just how we can make certain that total, permanent disarmament is secured in every corner of the world; in other words, that no preparation for war—above all, for nuclear war—can be made anywhere, whether in Kamschatka, Antarctica or Timbuctoo, without immediate discovery. That, of course, is in one sense a problem of inspection, but I want to urge that it is even more a problem for scientists. The scientists, by their discoveries, have brought this risk of utter destruction upon mankind: it is up to them to make certain that the risk never turns into a reality. The best way of catching a burglar has always been to set another burglar to catch him, and I want our scientists to set out to catch the scientists who are working on the preparation of nuclear war in any other country at any time. In other words, the use of science is vital for the safety and happiness of mankind to-day.

From that point of view I need hardly say how much I personally welcome the action of Her Majesty's Government—I find myself welcoming many actions of this Government, I am glad to say—in appointing a Minister for Science. I welcome the choice of their Minister. I welcome, above all, the Government's right sense of values in putting this Minister in this House for his vital work, rather than in another place. They know the values as between this House and the other place. I believe that the new Minister has, in one sense, a more vital task than any other Minister in the Government, and I believe that he will 73 do it extremely well. That is the first point: that we must use science to defeat science.

The second point I want to make is as to the problem of constituting the World Authority that is to enforce disarmament—that is, to see that justice instead of war settles disputes between nations: how you constitute that World Authority, the various tribunals that are to deal with it, the world police, and all the rest of it. I am going to say very little about that, because that was all dealt with excellently by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, in the debate which we had in this House last July. I do not say that I necessarily accept everything that he put forward, but all the points are raised there, and that can be made an excellent basis for discussion. But I think we should all realise that in discussing exactly how you constitute your World Authority, and what the powers of different peoples should be, there is literally endless scope for talk and for the putting of different points of view; but we must all realise that that talk must ultimately end in agreement and that people must sacrifice their cherished views in order to get agreement.

Thirdly—and this, I think, is in some ways one of the most difficult of all the problems in substituting peace and justice for war between nations in settling disputes—we have to provide for dealing with the problem of the need for change in a world without weapons. I am reminded of the famous remark by Edmund Burke: A State without the means of some change is without the means of its own conservation. That observation applies as fully to the community of nations as to any single nation in relation to its citizens. To-day, all sorts of differences are causing dissatisfaction in international relations—in Europe, Africa, Asia, everywhere. I need do no more than mention Germany, Tibet, Laos, or any other number of problems. A new world order cannot consist simply of eternal preservatior, of the legal status quo. There must be peaceful means of changing, of remedying past mistakes. There must be peaceful means of fitting in new circumstances, because life will go on and the relations of different nations will go on. Indeed, there is the obvious problem of deciding when a group of people have become a 74 nation entitled to independence rather than that they should be regarded as rebels or a colony. That is only one of the many problems that will arise. All these problems of peaceful change would have to be dealt with I am sure, by some kind of equity tribunal rather than by some legal tribunal. In any case, we shall have to provide them, because if we try just to keep the status quo there will be crying injustice and dissatisfaction which will sooner or later bring the whole scheme of a world peace without weapons, a world happy without weapons, to an end.

There is only one other point. I forgot to say that, to me at any rate, although there must be a World Authority to enforce disarmament and provide justice instead of world war as a means of settling things, that World Authority must have its scope carefully limited to that purpose. In other words, each nation should retain the right to govern itself in everything except in arranging to make war against other nations. I believe that that is the principle of limiting the scope, or at any rate the compulsory powers, of a World Authority.

Let me add only one last word. For heaven's sake let us be done for ever with the dreary nonsense that has been talked for generations about sovereignty! To say that a nation is not sovereign and independent if it may not make war on other nations is like saying that a man is not free and independent if he is not allowed to rob and murder other citizens; and the truth is really just the opposite of what these praters about sovereignty say. Abolition for all nations, great and small, of the ability to make war on others is the one thing that would give real independence to most of the nations of the world—meaning by that the small nations. To-day, every small nation holds its independence in peril. Generally it has to rely upon the support of one of the larger nations for its safety, and to get that support it has to behave not as it might like to behave but as the larger nation does, to copy its political system and obey its behests, openly or secretly. It has not freedom. The small nations have not freedom while war is possible. Let us all agree to give up war and to be free and independent together, whether we are small nations or large nations.

§ LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

My Lords, I should like to congratulate Her Majesty's Government upon a workmanlike Queen's Speech. I think that it is at the same time progressive in its outlook, sympathetic in its understanding of people's needs and capable of being carried out in a Session. If I have any criticism of it, it is that there is too much of it rather than too little. I do not subscribe to the view so dear to the hearts of noble Lords opposite—and, I notice with surprise, to the Daily Express—that Parliament should meet as much as possible and pass as many laws as possible. I do not think that that is sensible; nor do I think that it adds to the wealth of the nation.

Referring to the rise in values of securities on the Stock Exchange the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, said that that was the action of tycoons. I do not know what a tycoon is. Maybe the noble Viscount has a different definition to the one I have in my mind. I do not know at what level of wealth one becomes a tycoon, but I should have thought that the demonstration of hope that a Tory Government would be returned on October 7 and the rejoicing that they had been returned on October 9 was the activity of little men—of little men all over the land, who were hopeful before the Election took place, more hopeful on the day of the Election and thoroughly pleased afterwards. I mention this to correct, or counter, the implication made by the noble Viscount; but I mention it also because I think it is the key to the situation we now have to face.

Everything is different after an Election from what it was before—not only personnel, but thinking and planning and the future. Before an Election differences are exaggerated; afterwards, the common sense of the British people always tends to heal them, and I am sure that all of us in Parliament will contribute towards that healing process. Though we may go through the motions from time to time of opening up old scars and hoping that the wounds will fester, nevertheless it will be our duty and, I am sure, our practice, for the next two or three years, until Election time again approaches, to heal the wounds and think about the things that we all have in common.

76 I do not like to pass by the photographing of the moon without reminding the Lord President of the Council, as he was then, now the Lord Privy Seal—I suppose that he is the Minister for the Moon—that I asked him some questions about this subject a few weeks ago. I should be pleased if he would look at them again and, in due course, see whether he cannot give me further facts or, at any rate, a better answer. I am bound to say that I regard the photographing of the moon as a most extraordinary scientific event, a most notable affair, one upon which all those who were concerned with it, whether laymen, scientists or technicians, should be warmly and ungrudgingly congratulated. I also think that it has lessons for ali of us which we must try to learn together, rather than by quarrelling amongst ourselves.

I understand from the noble Viscount that his Party are going to put down an Amendment to the humble Address on Tuesday next about what for the purpose of shortness, I will call British Africa—meaning thereby those parts of Africa still under our protection or under the aegis of the Colonial Office or Commonwealth Relations Office. I wish that I could be here to take part in that debate, but unfortunately I have to fly to Australia for a fortnight, and it is that particular fortnight. Therefore I hope that I may be forgiven if I address myself to this subject to-day, as we were bidden by the Whip, who told us that to-day was the clay for foreign affairs, the Commonwealth and the Colonies.

I have already said that things are different after an Election from what they were before and I think that that is very much to be applied to the continent of Africa. I deplore the fact that some of us, on both sides of the House, and Members of another place at the hustings, exaggerate our views about other people. If we can secure a vote or two by bringing to our aid foreign, colonial and Commonwealth affairs, I am afraid that we do it. It is a bad practice, but it is better than knocking each other over the head with clubs—and that is about the only thing that can be said for it. I discerned in this Election a rather strong tendency on the part of some members who belong to the other side to try to "cash in" on one 77 or two events that took place in Africa recently. I thought that they were presented to the people entirely out of proportion to both British tradition and the activities of Her Majesty's Government during the past eight years. I thought that the splendid results of our colonial policy over a hundred years and more, under all Parties, are there to be praised by all Britishers rather than to be denigrated from time to time when unfortunate events occurred.

I am a Scot and I belong to a family whose members have gone out to the ends of the earth to settle in the waste places, in the uncultivated places, to make them verdant and fruitful. That tradition, followed by people from all parts of these Islands, and the way it has been guided by Colonial Offices under all Governments, is something of which Britain might very well be proud. It is a great page in our history. In British Africa, in the sense in which I use those words—Central Africa, Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Kenya—a hundred years ago there was desert; there were nomadic tribes concerned with killing and stealing each other's cattle, wholly uncivilised, wholly barbarous, wholly irreligious, viewed from Western points of view. If we went there now, we should find those countries settled, materially prosperous, with a high degree of law and order prevailing for most years and for most months of each year, interrupted by occasional revolutions or seditious essays on the part of ignorant people led by their own incipient—emergent, might be the word—demagogues.

Apart from these rare exceptions, you would find a sense of material prosperity and great tranquillity. It is people of our race, people from these Islands to a large extent, who have transformed the desert into smiling lands. We have made these people infinitely richer and happier than they were and made life safer for them. Not only have we made them materially prosperous, but we have brought them a sense of law—at any rate among small numbers of them who begin to apprehend these matters—a sense of justice and spiritual values which they did not know of before. Many of them have become Christianised, in the best sense of that word, and we have even begun to teach them the art of politics, 78 the one for which these Islands are most famous, but which also is perhaps the most difficult of all. Into this emerging great mass of mankind we from Britain can continue to inject guidance of the right sort or guidance of the wrong sort.

Picture, my Lords, some scores of millions of voteless Africans, who are just beginning to apprehend what voting means and that they have some rights—natural rights, perhaps, or rights conceded by the civilised code of life. I am talking of the mass of them and not of the few notable leaders. It does not concern the masses much, because they do not know what a vote is. But it is obvious that they will not be happy for ever if they remain voteless, and the more they learn about voting—and we, through the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office, are teaching them what votes mean, and are beginning to give them advisory committees and elected committees, as in Basutoland—the more they will want votes. They cannot be made happy without votes or kept down except by force, and it is not to be contemplated that that can be the rule for ever. I am distinguishing now in what I say between the kind of police action that is required for local and minor rebellion and the suppression of a mass of people for ever by force. What I refer to is the latter: that you cannot keep dawn millions of people by force for ever. Nor, I am sure, do we want to.

But, equally, let us face another fact—namely, that the Government, the management at administration level, at executive level and in the industrial and commercial field is almost entirely in the hands of Europeans. It may be said that it should have moved more quickly into other hands; and that may be so. But I am asking your Lordships to look at the facts to-day: the fact of the millions of voteless, and the fact that the government and management in almost every field are practically entirely in European hands, with just a few men of other races beginning to learn to be foremen, counsellors, clerks in the Civil Service and to take their places in what might be called the minor executive grades. Those, my Lords, are facts. You cannot make the millions happy while voteless for ever, except by force; nor, on the other hand, can you swamp 79 the classes who govern and manage by giving votes to the millions until they are ready to use them wisely and sensibly.

So there is a dilemma. It is a dilemma which the British, represented by the Colonial Office and its tradition, are particularly adept at handling—possibly more than other people; and I am sure that, as the decades pass, we shall work out some way in which this problem can be solved, with justice to all and in a manner that will satisfy our consciences and be worthy of our tradition. But it cannot be done if peripatetic politicians go to these territories from time to time, especially when Elections are approaching, and mislead people as to their destiny and their future and the speed with which it can be attained. Thank Heaven! that period is over, because the Election is over, and for possibly four or four and a half years we may have peace from that kind of misrepresentation of all the facts. You will never get good will and co-operation of Europeans and non-Europeans by making them jealous, frightened and bitter about each other. You will get it only by the long slow British tradition of careful Colonial Office work.

In the light of this picture which I venture to draw, familiar as it is, I would reinforce the appeal made by my noble friend the Leader of the House that we should on all sides of the House carefully consider what is our attitude towards the Commission under Lord Monckton of Brenchley which is going to these parts to advise us how best we can approach the problems of the next year or two. If we cannot make up our minds what sort of a Commission should go, and if we cannot support the Commission that does go, Britain is going to fail in its duty towards these people and towards the problem. It will be of no avail to say that the Labour Party scored a point or that the Tory Party was "pigheaded": that will not do anyone any good. Even if the Commission in its present form is not precisely and exactly the same Commission that noble Lords opposite would have made, is that really the important point? The important point is that a Commission consisting of worthy and trustworthy men, led by a man of the calibre of Lord Monckton of Brenchley, should go, and 80 that it should have the support of all of us, in both Houses and outside, for its full inquiry, impartial consideration and wise advice.

As a token of the better way of doing these things than that which we witnessed in the Election, I would call your Lordships' attention back to the fact that the very Federation of Rhodesia, as to which Lord Monckton of Brenchley's Commission is to consider the evidence, was first brought to the House of Commons in a notable speech by Mr. Griffiths. I sat in that House and listened to him with eager attention as he unfolded, with great ability and eloquence, with his heart engaged and his head guiding him, the plan for the Federation of Central Africa, and persuaded many of us who were a little reluctant that it was a good thing to do. So, you see, my Lords, this Federation was the invention of Mr. Griffiths in his time and was carried into effect by the subsequent Conservative Government. Let us hope that this tradition of united Party action may follow in this next phase in Central Africa and that we, at any rate, from this country may have a united view about this matter.

I now turn to Lancashire. I went to Lancashire during the Election. I went to many other places, too, but in Lancashire I spoke in four different constituencies. The result of my speaking was that in all four cases the Member got a bigger majority than he had before. I regret to say that three of them were Labour men, but the fourth was a Conservative. We lost seats, or did not win them, in Lancashire when we were doing better elsewhere, and I wonder why. I think it is because the cotton reorganisation scheme came a year too late and the disadvantages and fears it created were evident, whereas its advantages will not be apprehended until next year or the year after. Moreover, cotton a traditional thing in Lancashire, and it bulks more largely in people's minds than in their affairs. I would remind your Lordships that only 11 per cent. of all the persons in Lancashire are actually employed in textiles. But the tradition that cotton is demoted or in a bad way dies hard.

It is a fact, also, that in some parts of Lancashire, and especially in some towns, there was an unemployment figure that 81 was higher than the national average. It was still low by comparison with the bad days of some decades ago, but higher than the national average, and that counted against us. How very quickly the Government have set to work to try and deal with this! They are to publish a Bill to-night called—they have not told us the name, but I suppose it will be the Distribution of Industries (Amendment) Bill, or something of that sort. They are going to pass it as quickly as possible, and all of us will make it as good a Bill as possible. I am not one who believes that you can put industry in places where it ought not to be, or make it economic in places which are uneconomic. Nevertheless, there is some evidence—I witnessed it near my old constituency in North Lancashire in respect of the Cumberland development area; and the Welsh area will tell the same story—that you can, up to a point, make use of the social amenities in towns and dwellings such as drains and roads, in inducing industry to go there when it is needed, instead of letting the place become a wilderness. Therefore, there is a case for Government interference with the economic law in this matter, and I hope that this Bill will be passed as quickly as possible and will do good in those districts which need some help.

I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I devote a few minutes to the situation of the war disabled and pensioners, a subject with which I am familiar. I rejoice that disabled persons have not suffered grievous unemployment in recent years. Indeed, the unemployment among them has been slightly below, relatively and proportionately, the level of unemployment amongst the fit population generally. We must all rejoice to learn that. There are two classes of disabled as they are viewed by the Ministry of Labour. There are those who are fit to go and work in open industry, called the "A" class, and those who are not fit, called the "B" class. The "A" class are helped to get work by an Act of Parliament passed by Mr. Bevin and the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, who was his assistant. It is an excellent Act, which compels every employer to take 3 per cent. of disabled persons into his plant, provided that his plant is not too small. Your Lordships would like to know that that scheme, too, is working well. There is no need to 82 raise the percentage, and perhaps what is needed is that more publicity should be given to it. I hope the Ministers concerned will see to that, because there are many small factories that have come into existence whose owners do not know that they have an obligation. It is a great surprise to them to be told: "Having regard to the number of people working in your factory, you ought to be employing one, two or three disabled men". I do not think that anyone, or at any rate very few, will be shirking their liability or responsibility in this matter.

For the record, may I mention these figures? In 1957 there were 46,000 disabled persons unemployed. In 1958 that figure went up to 60,000. In this year, up to August, it has gone down to 54,000, and there is not in any part of the country excessive unemployment. Nevertheless, your Lordships will agree with me that the unemployment, in so far as it falls on any one of these 50,000 men, is a matter about which we should try to do something. It means so much to them, not only to their income but to their morale, to be employed. I have two suggestions to make. One is that the Government publicise the requirements of the Disabled Persons Act, so that the publicity reaches the small employer. The other is that we direct, with due consideration for all the circumstances, what contracts we can to Remploy who could then find employment for some of the more severely disabled, of whom there are only a very few in the class "B" section.

I welcome the statement in the Conservative Party's Election Manifesto to the effect that it was the intention of the Conservative Government, if elected, to-see that war veterans and retirement pensioners, and other members of the community who need help, would share in the standards of the future and in the good things which should come out of a more prosperous future in Britain. I call attention to this statement because it represents an important change of emphasis, even a new declaration of intention, on the part of a Government.

In the past, including the years when the Socialists were in office after the war, the target and aim was to provide subsistence for the old and pensions for the war-disabled that would match the cost of living. Even that was not attained 83 during those years. Now, we have attained rates that match the cost of living, but we have also gone further: we have pronounced in this Election Manifesto that it is the nation's duty to see that these people share in the rising standards of living. There is a great difference between standards of living and cost of living. So that whatever the obligations of the past, it is now to be the policy to see that those who are in need, and perhaps according to their need, shall enjoy and share in the new standards. That was a fine promise. I am glad to see that it is reiterated in the Queen's Speech itself, which is far more important, because a statement in a manifesto is what it is, but a statement in the Queen's Speech in the first year of a new Parliament is a declaration of Government intention. It will be for the Houses of Parliament to see that it is carried out, though I, for my part, have not the slightest doubt that this Government, following upon their predecessors who did so much in this field, will carry it out.

I am also sure that the British Legion, and other societies who work with them, will from time to time be bringing the needs of their members, and especially their disabled members, to the notice of Her Majesty's Government. I welcome the fact that Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter is still the Minister of that Department, though I am bound to say that if some more senior Department had had the good fortune to have him as its Minister it might have been an advantage to that Department and to my right honourable friend. The loss of the Department within the Cabinet of which he is not the head is at any rate the gain of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, because he is very skilful, very understanding and very wise in carrying through Parliament the changes that have to be made, both in war pensions and in the provisions that must be made for the old. One further small point. It is said that the Government will alter the earnings rule for pensioners. May I ask the Minister of Pensions—whose attention could be called to this matter by the Front Bench—whether he will apply that also to war pensioners? I will not take up the time of the House by explaining 84 what I mean, but Mr. Boyd-Carpenter will understand, and I hope that he will look at it with sympathy.

I have one last thing to say, and I apologise for saying so much. On October 17 the leader of the Agricultural Workers' Union asked for higher wages and shorter hours for farm workers. I represented an agricultural constituency for many years, and I should like to make just two or three observations on this. First of all, I think British farmers and British agricultural workers are greatly to be praised for having raised the standard of production and the volume of work per unit, whether it be the unit of the farm or unit per man, so greatly during recent years. I think that is a splendid effort for which they are all responsible and for which they should be praised. Secondly, I want to declare my sympathy with the farm workers in their request that their whole real wages—and I use those words advisedly—should approach more nearly to some of the high figures earned in industry. I do not think the big gap between the two is good for the countryside or good for British farming. As the mechanisation and the skill of the farmers leads to higher production, and as the nation becomes more accustomed to its long-term policy of supporting agriculture, I think it is in the nation's interests that the men who stay in the countryside and do the work should receive their full share of the reward. I used the words "their full real wages" because I know as well as others that the farm worker does get many advantages which the townsman does not get.

Coming on to the question of hours, I hope that the Agricultural Workers' Union is not going to engage in this not very admirable practice of saying, "We want to work less hours", when that is not really what they want at all. What they want is to work the same hours but to be paid more money for the last two or three. I do not think that is an admirable practice. It must be obvious that the man who works with nature on the farm must conform to the rules laid down by nature. You cannot order cows to produce their milk at a particular time; you cannot alter the sun; you cannot alter the weather. If, therefore, you are to be a farmer or farm 85 worker, you must have a vocation and feeling for your land and beasts: you must work the hours which they demand, or you must go and work in a factory turning a knob. So I advise them most earnestly, as their friend, not to talk about hours of work which must be slightly unreal, and perhaps even slightly misleading, but to talk about equating their rewards to those of the townsman, taking everything into consideration. I wish them luck in this enterprise of theirs.

I think this Parliament, which is a very notable Parliament, in view of the history of change to which we have become accustomed in our British Parliaments, has a great chance of being a distinguished one, and I wish Her Majesty's Ministers the very best possible good luck.

§ LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, I hope the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat will forgive me if I do not follow in the interesting and informative observations which he made to your Lordships, mostly on the subject of home policy matters. There was a point in his speech when I felt rather like tearing up the notes I had made and crossing swords with him, when, with that use of language for which the English are perhaps unfortunately rather famous, in under-statement, he dismissed the tragedy of Hola as an unfortunate incident, and glossed over one of the most disgraceful episodes in the history of this country. In a later part of his speech he referred to the need to obtain the goodwill of the Africans. I can assure him that if he deals in that way with such unfortunate incidents as Hola he will not get much goodwill from the Africans. I hope that he and other noble Lords on that side of the House will not approach this problem in that sort of spirit, which is a most unfortunate one.

In another phrase the noble Lord referred to the emergent demagogues. I always hate to hear that sort of expression, when I recall that Jefferson and Nehru and Nkrumah, and others who became great statesmen of their countries, were despised in the same sort of language by members of the noble Lord's Party at the appropriate time. No doubt Dr. Banda will in due course assume his place as one of the great 86 leaders among those other leaders who have led a country to self-government and be praised in English history books, after being referred to as emergent demagogues.

I also felt rather inclined to follow the noble Lord, Lord Beveridge, because I think his observations are really of the most fundamental character at the present time. I felt that he made a mistake, however, when he said that the best way of catching a burglar was to get another burglar and set him on to him. I think a later part of his speech rather contradicted that: the best way of catching a burglar is to have an efficient police force, as the Lord Chief Justice was reminding the Magistrates' Association the other day. I did not agree with some things he said on that occasion, but I was very much in agreement about that statement. Undoubt