I beg to move,

I should like to make it clear that my object in choosing this Motion is to enable hon. Members on both sides to express their views on a subject which I believe to be of general interest and of considerable importance. If it may be that the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs intends to intervene at a later stage and give the views of the Government on the subject, I am quite certain that all sides will welcome that fact. I hope that in doing so, although, as the "Manchester Guardian" said today, he may be bland, he may not be quite as unsympathetic as that newspaper forecasts.

It is a full generation since the last occasion on which the machinery by which we conduct the affairs of the British Commonwealth and Empire was altered to meet the new conditions which Had then arisen. On 11th June, 1925, the Prime Minister, the late Earl Baldwin, announced the intention of the Government to separate the Dominions Department of the Colonial Office from that Department of State and to set up a separate Ministry under a separate Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs. In making the announcement he said:

The new set-up of the Dominions Office and the Colonial Office represented a change of political status within the Commonwealth. It was not intended, as far as I understand, to recognise new functions within the Departments of State. Twenty-nine years have passed since that reorganisation took place. I submit that during that time which divides us from 1925 just as great and important and far-reaching changes have taken place in the relationship between the United Kingdom and the various members, realms and territories overseas as took place after the First World War and that it is high time that, as this Motion asks, we should examine the machinery of State which exists in this country and see whether it conforms to the needs of the Commonwealth as it exists today.

The changes that have taken place can be summarised under three heads. In the first place, we have the arrival in our community of nations of a republic, the Republic of India. Secondly, we have the introduction of what we might call from a political point of view a new tier of States by the creation of the Central African Federation. Thirdly, the greatest change of all has been the fact that the emphasis has shifted from the political aspect of our relations with territories overseas to the economic aspects of the problems of those territories. It is of greater importance today, perhaps, to find solutions to the economic problems than to the political problems which, although by no means cut and dried, are on an established basis and do not look like having to change in principle within the foreseeable future.

It has been argued that, as a result of these changes, there are arguments in favour of amalgamating the Commonwealth Relations Office with the Foreign Office. As I understand, the main function of the Commonwealth Relations Office today is to act as a liaison in relation to the external affairs departments of Commonwealth countries and the Government of the United Kingdom and to carry out a number of diplomatic functions. There might appear to be arguments for the business of maintaining our relations with the external affairs Ministries of Commonwealth countries to be carried out direct by the Foreign Office, but I say straight away that I think that view is greatly mistaken.

It is important, and will continue to be important, that there should be some special machinery which provides private methods of communication between the United Kingdom and the other members of the Commonwealth, and the Commonwealth Relations Office is at present a symbol of the special relationships which exist in these matters between us and the other countries of the Commonwealth. Therefore, I submit that the proposal that the Commonwealth Relations Office should transfer its functions to the Foreign Office is not one which should commend itself to the House.

A second argument advanced is that it is time, owing to the changing status of many of the non-self-governing territories, which are moving gradually—indeed with increasing speed, in some cases—towards self-governing status, to amalgamate the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. I should be strongly opposed to that proposal. The reasons are as follows. In the first place, I do not think the idea would commend itself to great Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia, or South Africa, and, in the second place, I think it would mean the concentration on the shoulders of the holder of the office of Colonial Secretary of increasing responsibilities at a time when the burdens he already has to bear are, in my view, almost too great for any single Minister to carry.

Therefore, I should have thought that, so far from trying to increase, or tending to increase, his responsibilities, there would be strong arguments for trying to reduce them. The history of the last two years has shown that the Colonial Secretary of the present day is, and is likely to be in the future, more and more occupied with supervising and assisting the political developments within non-self-governing territories, with ensuring that, during the period of transition taking place in respect of them, the evolution of new methods of administration and the maintenance of law and order and the gradual evolution of new forms of government and constitutional status should take place in an orderly and progressive fashion.

The present Colonial Secretary, during the last two years, has had to spend a great proportion of his time in dealing, in the first place, with the problems of Malaya, secondly, with the complicated problems that were embraced by the project for the creation of a Central African Federation, with the problem of maintaining law and order in Kenya and with the constitutional changes involved in the projects for federation in the West Indies, and constitutional changes in Nigeria and the Gold Coast. Those are all very complicated. They need the time and energy of a Minister of State of the very highest calibre.

The problem is that, while the Secretary of State has necessarily been closely involved in the political side of the development of the dependent non-self-governing territories of the Commonwealth, perhaps he has not been able to give full attention to their economic development. It is to that aspect that I think we should first apply our attention. I believe that many of the political problems, particularly of the dependent territories, will not be solved unless at the same time we can make progress in the solution of the economic problems. The two, clearly, must go hand in hand.

Therefore, I should have thought there was a strong argument for increasing the resources available to Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom from an administrative point of view, from the point of view of machinery of government, in order to enable us to pay greater attention to the co-ordination and the pushing ahead of economic development in so far as lies in our power. I do not suppose for one moment that it is merely a question of producing new machinery of government here. Quite obviously the resources, both technical and financial, are essential if we are to make progress in that direction. At the same time, surely, the history of the Colombo Plan has some lessons for us in this country. What has happened, as far as I understand it, is that the real contribution which we have been able to make to the Colombo Plan has been rather in the provision of technical advice and technicians who are urgently required and in some respects more difficult to obtain than the financial resources which are necessary.

I therefore suggest that a project which the House might consider is that of transferring to the Commonwealth Relations Office responsibility for what I would call the major economic planning of Commonwealth development. One of the arguments in favour of this is the fact that major planning, if it is to be successful, must cover more than one Colony; it must be carried out on a regional basis. As the Colombo Plan has shown, it will cover not only non-self-governing territories, but will require the assistance of the great self-governing members of the Commonwealth. It may also embrace territories which are not members of the Commonwealth. I should have thought there was a strong argument for having a Department of State in this country particularly and specially equipped and carrying special responsibility for planning and initiative in the development of schemes similar to the Colombo Plan, schemes which, for instance, might embrace parts of Africa where that sort of assistance is needed.

Surely the technical department, equipped with technical officers and administration, to which the hon. Member refers, is the Colonial Office. Therefore, if the Colonial Office were attached to the Dominions Office, we would have what the hon. Member suggests.

The hon. Member may develop that argument, but I have tried to show that I think there are definite objections to it. On the other hand, if the hon. Member means that the economic department of the Colonial Office, or a large portion of it, would be transferred to assist the Commonwealth Relations Office in this new aspect of its work, I think there would be arguments in favour of that.

What we really require is not merely a Commonwealth Relations Office that is largely a liaison office and tends to be a post office in diplomatic communications between ourselves and the Commonwealth countries, but a Ministry of Commonwealth Relations and Resources, which would provide and direct our effort and contribution to the economic development and progress of the Commonwealth as a whole. As I see it, it would have responsibility for the important research projects that are needed—geological research, research into, not social problems, but various aspects of economic development. Therefore, it would be logical and proper that that Ministry should be responsible for a technical service which would not form part of the existing Colonial Service.

I think it is shown to be of the greatest importance that we should be able to provide resources of technical advice for the furtherance of this form of economic development. An overseas technical advisory service is urgently required at present. I do not suggest that initially that advisory service would be a very large organisation. I think it would gradually increase as the need for the type of advice which it would be able to provide increases in various parts of the Commonwealth.

I suggest that initially it would be formed of those technicians associated with the Colombo Plan. It would include a number of those who at present are serving in territories which are moving rapidly towards self-government, such as the Gold Coast. There would be strong arguments for including in it those British officers, technical or administrative, who may remain to assist during the process of transition to independence in the Sudan. It would include research workers available to man the research projects.

It might also include a number of legal experts who would be available to man the superior courts, for example, in Eastern Africa, where it is difficult at present to obtain the calibre of legal experience and the independence of executive control which is essential if those courts are to maintain the confidence of colonial peoples generally. I do not wish to go into that subject further. I know that if my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) were to catch your eye later, Mr. Speaker, he would wish to make some suggestions on that point.

I would say that a Ministry of Commonwealth Relations and Resources, being responsible for a highly qualified technical overseas advisory service, would provide a new centre which would enable this country to make its proper contribution to the development of standards of living, and most particularly to the solution of some of the economic problems, which are so vital and so difficult, which face us in all parts of the less developed territories of the Commonwealth.

It would not be a centrally controlled Commonwealth service. I do not think that a Commonwealth service of that sort would appeal to the Commonwealth countries. They would, through their own external relations Departments, perhaps be able to organise their own contribution to an advisory service of that sort. We know that, for example, a great Commonwealth country like Canada has resources of technical skill of great merit and importance. They would, therefore, be able, on their own account, as the independent countries which they are, to make their contributions separately from the United Kingdom. As I see it, a British overseas technical advisory service would really represent our contribution to assist overseas countries with technical advice in the projects on which they may be engaged.

It is clear that if this alteration in the responsibilities of the Colonial and Commonwealth Relations Offices were to take place, it would affect fairly closely the status and composition of the existing Colonial Civil Service. We have had many statements made that the Colonial Service is finding it difficult to recruit sufficient people for administrative work, and is finding it difficult to keep up the high standard of entry. On a recent visit to East Africa, however, I was extremely impressed, as I am sure were all my colleagues, at the very high standard of the administrative officers available in the Colony of Kenya. What was of great interest to me was that many of those holding the most responsible positions were locally recruited men who had had—literally—a lifetime's experience of East Africa. They had not come in as many oases as I had expected by way of recruitment from the United Kingdom.

One of the main criticisms of the present system was that if these individuals, who were, so to speak, citizens of Kenya—the same would apply to other Colonies in a lesser or greater degree—wished to get promotion, or even if they do not desire promotion but have it forced upon them, they might be transferred to a very different part of the world where all their experience and local knowledge would be wasted. There is a Colonial Secretary in one of the West Indian islands who is an expert Kikuyu speaker, and whose whole previous experience has been in East Africa. I understand that he is extremely anxious to assist in the solution of the difficulties that face Kenya. It seems to me illogical that a man of that experience and knowledge should be employed in a part of the Colonial Empire where his experience is of relatively little value to the territory where he is serving.

I should have thought that the first principle for the reorganisation of the Colonial Service would be that it should be placed on a regional basis, that normally its members would not move from the region in which they were originally enlisted. For example, the Far East, East Africa, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, West Africa and the West Indies form fairly composite and fairly easily defined regions of service. In that way we should ensure far greater continuity of service within the Colonial Service.

I was interested in a criticism which was advanced by a distinguished Belgian administrator recently, in which he said that one of the weaknesses in our present structure of colonial administration was the fact that administrators, and governors in particular, spent too short a time in any particular Colony or any particular post. Anyone who has had experience overseas would agree that it is the case that there is a constant change, a flux, so that when a man has got to know his job and becomes known to the people for whose administration he is responsible he is apt to be moved too soon to quite a different part of the world.

One of the results of this change, in my view, would be increased local recruitment for the Colonial Service; and. secondly, a longer period of tenure of the offices to which people in the Service are appointed. I go further and say that I believe that we shall have to consider changing the basis by which the Civil Service personnel for the Colonial Office in the United Kingdom are selected from the home Civil Service, and in too few cases are recruited from those who have had direct administrative experience of conditions overseas.

It is probable, and in my view inevitable, that as time goes on, and as political conditions in the Colonial Territories change, it will be more and more necessary to have as governors men who have had political experience in the United Kingdom.

Their job will be to act as political advisees and much less as direct administrators of the Colonial Territories. That will mean that one stage in their advancement—in many cases the climax of a Colonial Civil Service career—will be denied them. Therefore, if we are to encourage the best type of man to continue in the Colonial Civil Service, it is most important that we should be able to provide alternative means of his achieving the climax of a distinguished career.

I see no reason whatever why someone who has served for some years in West Africa or East Africa, or wherever it may be, should not then be qualified to come home and take up the post of Permanent Under-Secretary in the Colonial Office. We have sent out civil servants from the Colonial Office as governors; surely the principle should work the other way round.

I do not think that we are right in this country—at least not in this House—in being diffident in discussing the machinery of relationships between ourselves and the various parts of the British Commonwealth. There is a grave danger that we may, on occasion, be so frightened of making changes in the machinery of the conduct of our affairs here—because it may cause hurt to the sensibilities of fellow nations within the Commonwealth—that gradually we shall find that the interest, the dynamic, which lies within our Commonwealth experiment starts to run down.

If we are to claim, as we so often do, that we have achieved the great political experiment which the Commonwealth represents in a fit of absence of mind, it would be sad were we, in the same absence of mind, to allow that experiment to fail. Very great changes have taken place in the whole structure and design of the British Commonwealth. We must ensure that, whatever may be the views which are held overseas, our machinery for dealing with those problems and relationships is up to date and in keeping with the spirit of the times.

There are very strong arguments, I feel, for the point contained in this Motion—the carrying out of an urgent examination to see whether or not the existing machinery is adequate. There is today a danger that, by too great a diffidence in attacking these problems, too great a fear of applying our minds and thoughts to solving them, too great a fear of the reactions of opinion in Commonwealth Territories—and indeed in Colonial Territories as well—that we may let the whole impetus run down. Were that to happen it would be a very sad thing, not only for this country but for those other countries which have become accustomed to look, and do still look, to this country not for domination but for guidance, for the initiative in the progress of consultation, and the strengthening of the very great and important relationship which exists between us and them.

Therefore, I hope that the House will regard this subject which I have ventured to initiate as an opportunity for discussion, for constructive ideas, and for experiment. Unless we are prepared continually to experiment, to think about and apply our minds in this field it may, in the end, mean that a great achievement, not only for the people of this country but for all those races who are partners with us today in the Commonwealth may be lost, to the lasting harm of the interests of peace and progress of the world.

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask whether, in view of what he has said about the great interest of the realms and territories overseas in his Motion, I can take it he agrees with the Amendment I have put down?

I noticed the hon. and learned Member's Amendment. I should have thought it self-evident that, in making any changes of this sort, we would naturally wish to consult other members of the Commonwealth before any final decisions were made.

11.35 a.m.

I beg to second the Motion.

I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) need have felt the least diffident about his repeated good fortune in the Ballot, because he has opened this debate with a thought-provoking speech of considerable interest. In using his opportunity to draw attention to the need to examine and adjust our Commonwealth relations, he has performed a very great service indeed—although, in the course of the debate some of us on both sides may dissent from some of his views and proposals.

We all accept that great changes are sweeping across the Commonwealth. It is quite extraordinary to reflect that four out of five human beings now living within the Commonwealth system already live in sovereign, independent lands. Even where dependent peoples have not yet achieved self-government, their feet are set upon that road. For some it may be a long and arduous journey, but for others it will be short and swift.

My hon. Friend and I believe that, in this time of transition, it is not sufficient to give encouragement to the idea of self-government in the Colonies, nor just to recognise the inevitability of change. Ours should not be a passive rôle. We should be thinking out in advance what this process of change will mean in terms of our relationship with new self-governing States, what fresh demands that new relationship will make on us in the United Kingdom, and what action we ought to take now to ensure that those demands will be met.

One thing is clear to all of us who care about the Commonwealth. Increasingly in the future we in the United Kingdom will have to pay more and more regard to the susceptibilities of the other Commonwealth countries. We will have to see problems from their point of view as well as from our own. We must understand too that the concept of partnership does not admit of there being first- and second-class members of the Commonwealth.

In the past there was never any real difficulty about that, because between ourselves and the older Dominions there were common ties of blood and sentiment. I remember being thrilled hearing Mr. Menzies addressing a large meeting in London some years ago, and saying, "You and we are one people." That, of course, is very true. With Australians and New Zealanders it has never been necessary to embody our agreements in formal terms. We speak the same language, think in much the same way, and in times of trial and difficulty instinctively draw together.

But now if the Commonwealth is to mean to new member States what it has meant to the old we have to build a new tradition of mutual trust and co-operation with non-European people, a task which will demand not only the right machinery but leadership and imagination of rare quality. That India and Pakistan elected of their own free will to stay within the Commonwealth is a fact of first-class historical importance, but the process is continuing. As my hon. Friend mentioned, Colonial Dependencies are moving at a varied pace and with varying success away from dependence upon the Mother country towards partnership with her in the Commonwealth.

I suppose we could qualify that by saying that self-government does not mean the right of the majority to trample over the minority. It does not mean the reckless abandonment of strategic points of vantage vital to the security of the rest of the free world. We can go on and assert that self-government which is not based upon adequate social organisation and reasonable standards of living is a mockery and a delusion.

But having said all that, it is quite clear that some territories will qualify for self-government and full sovereign status very soon. It does not follow that the pattern of events will develop smoothly and without difficulty and trouble here and there. As recent happenings in the Gold Coast and British Guiana illustrate, so much depends on the quality of local leadership. Where there is good sense and moderation, then confidence is inspired, investment is encouraged, economic change is speeded and advance is rapid. If those requisites do not exist, there are setbacks and no great thing can be accomplished.

Nevertheless, in all cases the goal is clear. There is not much use in us addressing ourselves to the subject of what kind of machinery we shall have unless we have quite clearly in our minds what the goal is and what purpose the machinery serves. I should imagine that I shall carry every hon. Member with me when I say that I see the Commonwealth as a family of sovereign nations, the circle of which is gradually widening as the more advanced dependent peoples take charge of their own destinies. I see it as a partnership of many races bridging the gulf between East and West, between the white and the coloured races, between Christian and non-Christian. I see it as the symbol of the brotherhood of man and the best hope of the world.

Is that idealistic? I well remember many years ago reading, "The ideal that we seek is never here but over there. It is not an inn at which we can put up, but a journey that we must undertake." If I have described the journey correctly, it is really astonishing that so little thought has been given up to now to the route that we should take and the means that we should employ.

Take this question of the machinery for conducting our relations with the constituent parts of the Commonwealth. In theory, the Colonial Office is responsible for the good government of the Dependencies, whilst the Commonwealth Relations Office is responsible for our relations with the full sovereign members of the Commonwealth. In practice, the role of the Colonial Office is fast changing from that of a stern, just parent to that of a kindly uncle. Its functions are changing from the supervisory to the advisory.

What will happen when a Colony now nearing self-government achieves sovereign status and still requires some degree of outside help? It will continue to use expatriate officers. It will continue to draw upon financial aid. But there will be difficulty about status. Once self-government has been achieved in the Gold Coast, if, for instance, Dr. Nkrumah wants to consult the Canadian Government about the extension of the Volta project, he will not communicate through some post-office in London. He will communicate direct with the Canadian Government. Why should there not be the same sort of functional approach in his relations with the United Kingdom? If one were a West African, one might take the view that to go through the Colonial Office channel would be to admit a subordinate status.

Here, it might be objected, is precisely where the Commonwealth Relations Office as it is at the moment comes in. But it does not. It has no direct administrative link with the Dominion Governments. There is the highly efficient and necessary High Commissioner Service, and the collection and dissemination of information. These services are of very great importance and must continue, but it would be wrong to suggest that the Commonwealth Relations Office is the only, or even the best, link between ourselves and other member States. The only direct administrative responsibility of the Commonwealth Relations Office is for the three High Commission Territories in South Africa, which are the three most backward Dependencies in the whole system. Even here financial and technical aid comes through the Colonial Office.

I have followed the hon. Gentleman's argument and I applaud it, but would he go a little further? He is suggesting some Commonwealth Relations Department within the Commonwealth as such. I hope we shall not have first- and second-class members. I hope we shall have reciprocal arrangements within this new Commonwealth which he envisages.

If the hon. Member will allow me to develop my argument, I shall leave him in no doubt as to what I mean, and perhaps he will be happier as a result.

The point is that the relationship between ourselves and the self-governing territories is taking on a functional character. In matters of great importance Prime Minister talks to Prime Minister. The Chancellor of the Exchequer talks to Ministers of Finance and the Foreign Secretary talks to Ministers of External Affairs. That is a form of consultation which, I should have thought, has very great merit because it has the advantage of informal contact without detracting in any way from sovereign status. In the long run, it is the kind of relationship which should not only grow but should be encouraged to grow. Effective Commonwealth co-operation requires not only that Ministers themselves should be in close touch with their opposite numbers in other Commonwealth countries but that there should be a continuous exchange of ideas and, I would suggest, of personnel at official levels.

In matters of great importance the final decisions are taken by the Ministers, but the facts upon which a policy is based are collected and arranged by the officials. I should have thought that if the officials—in the Board of Trade and the Treasury, for example—are Commonwealth minded, then great good will flow. But if they are not Commonwealth minded, even though we might have the most elaborate Commonwealth Relations Office in London, irreparable harm might be done.

In my view, the time is ripe for some tangible recognition by us in the United Kingdom that we are ready to adjust ourselves to the requirements of this fast-changing Commonwealth scene. I would not suggest abolishing the Commonwealth Relations Office. It has a valuable role to perform, especially in the collection of information and the staffing and running of the High Commissioner Service. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) in saying that it would be a disaster if the C.R.O. were to be amalgamated with the Foreign Office, and our Commonwealth Diplomatic Service were merged with that of the Foreign Service.

I think, however, that there is a strong case for abolishing the Colonial Office and erecting in its place a new Ministry of Commonwealth Affairs, responsible on the one hand for our relations with the Dependencies and, on the other hand, for providing administrative and technical services, not only for the Dependencies, but for former Dependencies which have achieved self-government but still require outside assistance. In my view, such changes would do nothing to impair the present happy relationship that exists between ourselves and the self-governing Dominions. In that respect, they would merely confirm the existing procedure. But they would have a profound psychological effect upon our relations with the Colonial Territories. The word "Colony" would disappear. I have always thought that it was a misnomer. Emphasis would be given to the concept of partnership.

One important difference, which was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, might be that the new Ministry should be staffed not by the home Civil Service, but by men with practical experience of administration in the Dependencies. I stress that because Commonwealth relations, in the last analysis, are human relations. The success of the exciting adventure in which we are engaged in the Colonial Territories—the task of helping 70 million human beings, for the most part poor and ill equipped, to catch up with the rest of the world—depends entirely upon the administrative and specialist skill of the colonial servant in the field.

It should be a matter of the gravest concern to this House that uncertainty and doubt exist in the minds of Colonial Service officers overseas. That such doubts do exist is not surprising. In the last decade, the incomparable Indian Civil Service has come to an end; we now see the Sudan Civil Service crumbling before our eyes, and in the Gold Coast a decision has been made to recruit no more administrative officers from this country. The fear of redundancy cannot fail to affect morale and, in turn, recruitment.

That would be a tragedy, for two reasons. First, almost everywhere in the Colonial Territories political advance is outstripping administrative capacity. It is one thing to engage in the stimulating and exciting game of politics, but it is another to administer a province or a department without fear or favour. Yet the fact is that the success of the constitutional experiment in the Colonies is entirely dependent upon proper administration.

The wiser colonial leaders recognise this fact. Dr. Nkrumah, in July last year, said that he recognised how necessary it was for the Gold Coast to go on enjoying the services of expatriate officers after independence had been achieved. He said:

The second reason why the running down of the Colonial Service would be a tragedy is the effect it would have on the Service itself. In the Colonial Empire, as a whole, the demand for the services both of administrative and specialist officers is far greater than it was before the war. In the last eight years we have recruited three times as many forestry and legal officers; four times as many medical, administrative and agricultural officers; seven times as many veterinary officers; 12 times as many surveyors and geologists, and 26 times as many educational officers as we did in the eight years before the war.

These figures tell the story of colonial development since the war. But what is the more striking and alarming is the fact that demand has outrun supply. In 1951, the Secretary of State made 1,396 appointments, but at the end of the year he had 988 vacancies unfilled. In 1952 the story was much the same. He made 1,378 appointments, but at the end of the year there were 1,055 vacancies. Last year, having appointed 1,227 officers, he still could not find the personnel for another 1,048 vacancies.

Administrative officers?

No; both administrative and specialist officers. Since the procedure is for Public Service Commissions in the Colonies to explore local resources first and to see if vacancies can be filled from them, and since a vacancy is reported to the Colonial Secretary only when no local candidate can be found, it would be a most serious matter if we were unable to find the right men in the right numbers.

It should not be forgotten that we are also being called upon to supply administrative and technical officers for certain countries outside the Commonwealth. If, in the next few years, we are to furnish skilled and experienced administrators and specialists, as I feel we must, we shall have to do so in three different fields. First, they will be needed in the Dependencies which are not likely to achieve self-government quickly, if ever. Secondly, they will be required for those countries which are nearing self-government and will require their services after that status is reached, and, thirdly, they will be needed in undeveloped foreign countries.

If these demands are to be met we shall have to solve two inter-related problems; first, the fear of redundancy and its effect on the morale in the Service and, secondly, the need to attract recruits in the right numbers. It is not widely understood outside the House that the Colonial Service is not a single service but a whole series of services. Some territories pay an exclusive salary, others a basic salary plus expatriation pay. Some give free medical attention, some do not; some give free quarters, some charge a rent. Pension conditions are not uniform and living costs vary from territory to territory. It is almost impossible to achieve any kind of uniformity.

The great question is how we can guarantee security and reasonable prospects for the men in the Service, attract men of the right kind to enter it, and ensure that all territories get the men they require. I have come to the conclusion that the present set-up is quite inadequate, and that we need a new and unified service. It is no use offering a man the opportunity to enter the Colonial Service unless he can be offered a career for life, and it is no use offering him a career for life in this field unless he understands that he is entering a corps d'élite which is dedicated to the service of the Commonwealth peoples.

I believe that such a service should be open to all Her Majesty's subjects—whatever their creed, race or colour—who possess the right qualifications, but pay, continuity of employment and pensions rights should be underwritten by the United Kingdom Government. It is absolutely imperative that an officer should understand from the outset that if he is made redundant, through no fault of his own—possibly through the very administrative and political changes which he has helped to accelerate—he will not be thrown upon the scrap heap half way through his career.

It may be objected that the cost, to this country, of such a scheme would be formidable, but I do not think that follows. I envisage a scheme under which United Kingdom would make a contribution to the cost of the service, the balance being provided by the employing Governments in proportion to their financial resources and not to the number of expatriate officers they employ. There would be a threefold advantage in this system. First, no Government acquiring the service of an expatriate officer would feel that they were undertaking a commitment which would block the way to advancement for their own men. Secondly, no officer need fear that if he took on such an appointment he would incur the risk of his career being terminated prematurely, through no fault of his own. Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all from the point of view of the Colonial Empire, the poorer territories which in present circumstances cannot afford to pay high salaries would no longer be debarred from getting the best men.

I do not think we should argue against a new Commonwealth Service on grounds of expense. We are moving into a new, delicate and difficult phase in Commonwealth relations, and we cannot afford not to have the best men training the colonial cadres. The colonial servant is far more than an envoy for this country. His job is to forge the links of mutual trust and understanding that alone can ensure that the Commonwealth holds together. It is the quality of the colonial servant's work, the confidence he inspires, the example he sets, that will determine whether some of the new States will decide to stay within the family circle or not.

I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the need to inquire into the machinery for Commonwealth relations, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate that, whatever the Government may do about that aspect of the matter, it is imperative that something be done now about the Colonial Service before it is too late. If our Imperial system has survived in this present and terrifying century, while others more brittle have cracked and fallen asunder, it is because we have been able to adjust ourselves to changing circumstances. These changing circumstances arise not so much from a challenge to our rule from dependent peoples but are the natural consequences of that rule. We should not fear change. I beg my right hon. Friend when he replies to give us some hope that the question of the men who shape Commonwealth relations will receive the Government's earliest attention.

12.2 p.m.

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) have initiated this debate. In the past, I can say from experience, this country was very backward in making arrangements well in advance of impending changes in the Colonies. This country should have set up long ago a specialised committee to deal with the constitutional problems of the Colonies before those constitutional problems hit us in the face. I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen opposite for having raised this matter today, because there is a revolution taking place in all the dependent territories, and not only the Colonies, and it is necessary that Parliament and the Government here should take steps in advance to prepare for these revolutionary changes.

The present Colonial Secretary has been exceptionally fortunate, or unfortunate, in having an extraordinary number of problems thrust upon him of the greatest difficulty. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of them. I suggest that they constitute a passing phase. I hope that the trouble in Kenya and in British Guiana and other countries, like Malaya, where trouble is pending now, will be settled. When they are settled, the task of the Colonial Secretary will be greatly eased. We must remember that Colonial Secretaries always have had considerable troublesome problems. For years most of the time of the Colonial Secretary was taken up with the struggle in Palestine, an extremely difficult question.

I would stress that the Colonies are gradually passing out of the care of the Colonial Secretary to the care of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and we should bear that in mind when considering what staff is needed at the Colonial Office and at the Commonwealth Relations Office. There is, I think, a proposal on the Notice Paper that the Colonial Office should have another Minister of State. I would strongly oppose that. The creation of additional staff is not a solution of problems as a rule. The golden rule in administration is to keep down correspondence and to keep down the staff, and a proposal to add a political personage to the Colonial Office at a time when that Office is losing many of the territories for which it has been responsible does not commend itself to me.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester said that the work of the Colonial Office was changing. It is. He said it was becoming largely economic. I am afraid I do not agree with him in that. In the old days that I knew the Colonial Office interfered with every blessed little thing in the Colonies—not as much as the French central authority did in its territories, I admit, but, nevertheless, it interfered in very trifling matters. It sent out first-class men and then put a sort of guard over them.

Let me give an instance. I was in charge of a province, and I discovered that there were a lot of arrears in irrigation fines. They were trifling, and had been neglected for years, and so they had mounted up to a considerable sum of rupees. It was about 15,000 rupees, or £1,000. I came to the conclusion, and so did my assistants, that the thing had gone so far that the fines should not be recovered. We had to write home to the Colonial Office to get permission to strike off those fines. It was simply ridiculous. That is a ridiculous way to conduct administration. That is only a sample of the sort of thing that went on, and I mention it to reveal to the House the way in which the Colonial Office interfered in the most trifling details of administration in those days.

That has all changed. The Colonial Office is not now doing economic work. It has become a purely political office. The Colonial Secretary has to deal with troublesome political and racial problems In Kenya, for instance, and indeed everywhere, and he has ceased to interfere with the petty details of administration in the Colonies, which are in the hands of people who have forgotten more about local administration in the Colonies than a Secretary of State at this end can ever know. They are thoroughly responsible, capable people. The Colonial Office is becoming wholly political and is doing in the colonial sphere what the Commonwealth Relations Office is doing in the free countries of the Commonwealth.

The trend is for the work of the Colonial Office to pass to the Commonwealth Relations Office, and nothing can stop that trend. I, personally, am in favour of it. There are enormous risks involved in it, and only Heaven knows how it will turn out, but to resist it is quite impossible, and whether it concerns the Gold Coast or Nigeria or any other country we only can hope for the best results.

Years ago I came to the conclusion that the proper solution was to amalgamate the Colonial Office and the old Dominions Office, now the Commonwealth Relations Office. We should thus effect considerable savings in staff and achieve the object which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Colchester is aiming at. He wants to have a Department that has technical services, experience of administration, and so on. I entirely agree. The Colonial Office has those services and that experience. Any hon. Member who runs his eyes over the Colonial Office Estimates, which run to nearly £40 million now annually for grants from this country, will see a string of technical departments for veterinary services, forestry, and everything else.

There are big, organised departments in the Colonial Office. Why lose them? Even since the war they have learned an enormous lot and have expanded enormously. They have first-class staff. The Colonial Office has roped in experts from this country and overseas. Why banish them and set up something else? Surely the thing to do is to move them into the Commonwealth Relations Office, amalgamate the two Offices, and thus make savings.

It has been stated that the Dominions—presumably the white Dominions-would object. Years ago they might have objected, because the union of the Dominions with the mother country was a union of white countries, but since then India and Ceylon have been admitted and the older Dominions have not had the slightest objection. Things have changed completely. I do not think the white Dominions would have the slightest objection to the Colonies coming under the umbrella of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

The hon. Member for Colchester suggested that the economic development of the Colonies depends on the skill of the civil servants. I cannot agree. In my opinion, the economic future of the Colonies depends on the people in the Colonies, and we make a frightful mistake if we deprive them of the responsibility for shaping their own destiny. Everyone knows, for instance, that the basic economic problem of the Colonies is that of population. The civil servants cannot solve that. It must be solved by the people themselves. They are moving to their destruction by epidemics and starvation unless they can solve it, because in the world there are about 1,500 million people living in abject poverty, some in our territories, some in the French territories and some not under the dominion of any white Power. These people must practise some form of birth control, otherwise they are on the high road to destruction. This is not a problem which civil servants can solve. The people themselves must solve it.

I do not mind talking freely, for if my words go overseas I hope they may do some good. The movement in the Colonies is towards self-government. They realise that a man cannot carry out irrigation or survey if he has never seen a theodolite and knows nothing of scientific work, but what is not obvious to them—although it is equally true—is that a man cannot administer a province or a country without a training in administration. They say, "We will have the doctors, the technical officers, the engineers and the surveyors, but we will keep complete control in our own hands and the white administrative civil servants must leave." Such a policy takes them on the high road to destruction.

What is needed more than ever is the trained administrative officer. I do not care what colour he is, but he must be trained. When I was overseas, in the East, the general view was that it took about 10 years before a picked man, from our universities and moving from one department to another in very important and responsible posts, made a good administrator, even if he had ability. That is true. It is pitiful to see some of the administrators who have been appointed in some countries. I will not mention names. These administrators do not even know where to begin.

In my opinion, in future the staff of all these Colonies is certain to be native. There are two reasons for that. The first is that the natives naturally want power and posts for themselves. As they become educated and academically qualified for these posts, such as engineering posts, they will ask for them and will get them, because no Government in those territories can refuse the posts to natives who are academically qualified.

The second reason is that we shall not get people to go out there from this country. There is no confidence in many of the Governments, nor will there be in the future. I can prove that by the example of India. I have known several cases where men who passed the Indian Civil Service examination while we still ruled India have refused to take up jobs there and have gone to Africa instead, where the pay and the work was inferior. They took that decision because they had no confidence in the proposed Indian Government. Those are facts, and we must face them. In my opinion, we shall not get people from this country to take these jobs in the Colonies.

Of course, we can get third-class people, but they are just a nuisance. Every man who goes out should be a first-class man. In my opinion, first-class men will not go. The policy which we are pursuing is therefore the right policy—that of training natives for all sorts of posts and of taking the risks involved in handing the administration of these territories over to native officials.

One comment I cannot overlook: it was suggested that in future the governorships in these Colonies should be given to United Kingdom politicians who have been trained in this House. When that view reaches the Colonies the exodus of white officers from the Colonies will begin. Years ago I knew exactly how the white officers felt about this matter. They said, "We have passed the Civil Service examination. We came out here and we have borne the heat and burden of the day. We know more about these territories than anyone at home can ever learn. Yet, when appointments are made to the top posts, we are pushed aside and politicians from the United Kingdom come out." That is their attitude. I am not saying whether it is right or wrong.

I ask the right hon and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), who is below the Gangway, whether he will agree with me when I say that it is possible to learn a great deal about politics in India or Ceylon, where the difficulties of the politicians are far greater than they are here. From day to day they have to deal with the racial question, which makes everything far more difficult than the situation here. I would ask any hon. Member whether he thinks that a public servant who was a member of the Assembly, and had a portfolio in the Indian Government before he left, had much to learn about politics from anyone in this House.

The same is true of Ceylon. I entirely disagree with the proposals that in future governorships should be given to United Kingdom politicians. Where they have gone out to the Colonies, these politicians have not generally been a success. The right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South knows something about the history of India and some of the politician governors who went there. He may not agree with me when I say that the civil servant governors, both in India and Ceylon, were far superior to the United Kingdom politicians.

We must bear in mind that the United Kingdom politician goes out with English ideas of politics, which generally do not fit in the countries overseas. Furthermore, there is the racial question about which he knows very little. He must also know something of the mentality of the people. All these things are known to the administrators on the spot, who have been there for years. They are quite competent to govern. As the staff in future will be practically entirely native, the problem will then be whether people should be sent from the United Kingdom as governors or whether the natives themselves should be governors.

I do not want to enter into a discussion about the staff in the future. In my opinion, future staffs will be almost entirely native. I therefore do not agree with the suggestion that a staff should be built up by the British Government. The suggestion was probably made bearing in mind the position of the present staff, a large number of whom are British. In the future we must think of the situation where nearly all will not be British. That is the problem.

My remarks were entirely impromptu, but I am grateful to the hon. Members who raised this question, for we cannot discuss it too much in seeking to arrive at the right conclusion in an extremely difficult problem.

12.19 p.m.

I am sure we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) for his sincere and highly-experienced contribution to our debate. I disagree with him on many points, but at any rate he has placed his views squarely before the House. We are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) and my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) for bringing these matters before the House. This Motion asks for an examination of these problems, and I am sure that examination both in the House and outside is one of the most growing needs at the present time.

I do not think that all the views of the hon. Member for Swindon would bear the weight of examination. He said, for instance, that there were few examples of political figures from here who had made a success of colonial governorship. I can think of one man myself—Lord Soulbury—whom no one could say made any sort of failure of his tenancy of office in Ceylon and in his important work for the administration there.

The hon. Member spoke of the fact that we shall have local native-born civil services and native-born governments taking the responsibility. It is not always the case that they will find a former member of their Colonial Civil Service most congenial to them in their new task. I consider rather that very frequently someone here with experience of United Kingdom politics may be more suitable for co-operation in the new emerging Governments than someone trained in a totally different school.

The hon. Member for Swindon said that administration is a trade which has to be learned. How right he is. But politics is also a trade and has to be learned.

I said that one can learn politics in India and other places just as well as here.

I do not agree at all. I will give an example which will come home to the mind of everyone in this House. Sir James Grigg held a very responsible position, the financial portfolio, in the Indian administration, and I do not think that anyone in this House would say of him, after he became Secretary of State for War to the Government here and came into contact with United Kingdom politics, that he—and I think that he would have been the first to agree—had not a great deal to learn about political affairs in the United Kingdom. I think that is a striking example of the fact that one cannot simply learn about the conduct of politics by holding a portfolio in quite different circumstances in an overseas administration as one can do here.

May that be because United Kingdom politicians are more savage than the Indian politicians?

I cannot agree with that. I have often discussed that point with Sir James Grigg. In savagery and subtlety of mind there is no superior to the Indian politician. When countries are emerging people trained in co-operation and relationship between the Minister and the Civil Service and the Minister with the Assembly may well be necessary, and the new relationships are just as necessary as any of the problems which they know about by experience in that country.

The danger, of course, in all colonial administration is the danger of the files. They are dominated by the files. That is not a new phenomenon. You, Mr. Speaker, will no doubt remember the case enshrined in the Old Testament of the rebuilding of Jerusalem. It might have been extracted from any Colonial Office file of today: how an attempt was made to rebuild Jerusalem and the inhabitants of the land drew up a petition against this. It is documented in the pages of the Old Testament how they appealed. Of all the things in the world, they put a finger on the most tender spot—that the revenue would suffer if this was allowed to go on—Treasury interests were being endangered. The Jews also responded according to the best canons of today. They also appealed to the files, "Let search be made" they said. After a comparatively short time, as administrations go—in five or seven years the relevant entry was found. Permission for rebuilding was granted accordingly—with the characteristic note "Let it be done with speed."

The danger is that the colonial administration should freeze up in that way. For that reason, I think that the danger is much more likely to be a delay from a gradual accumulation of small details than any attempt at sabotage.

I think that the recommendation made by the hon. Member for Swindon that the Colonial Office and the Department of Commonwealth Relations should be amalgamated is a mistake. It was refuted out of his own mouth, almost literally, because he continually referred to the Dominion Office. It is not the Dominion Office any longer. The very name of "Dominion" is disappearing. These are the Realms. They are independent. I do not think that we should find any sympathy in Canada, Australia or New Zealand if they found that the machinery by which we work and contact with the Governments of those countries had been amalgamated again into a Colonial Office. I do not agree that the Colonial Office has loss its sphere of usefulness. I think that the Department of Commonwealth Relations is diminishing in importance and tending to wither away.

If we can find a functional relationship whereby the finance officers speak to finance officers, political officers speak to political officers and great industrial undertakings speak directly to each other, that is all to the good.

The hon. Member for Colchester did not tell us that the Colonial Office had now passed entirely into the economic sphere. He said specifically that its political importance was very great indeed. I am sure that is true. I do not think that we should carry out that amalgamation. It may be that examination would not show that, but that is my opinion. If I happened to control any large sum of money, I would use it for the endowment of a chair of Comparative Imperialism at one of the great universities. We have still a great deal to learn.

This is not the first Empire, nor will it be the last. We are moving in new fields, and we have a great deal to learn from the experiments and failures of previous Administrations. I am sure that by the comparative method we can do a great deal to short circuit some of the difficulties which we are having just now. All these come under the sphere of the Colonial Office. I do not think that we can build anything by comparing the problems of the emerged States with some of the problems of the States that are emerging.

The great nations which the Commonwealth contains are Realms. They are independent countries in every sense of the word, save they choose voluntarily to be associated with the great world organisations and intimately associated with us. The problems of the emerging States are quite different. The Gold Coast requires political and economic co-operation with the other countries of the world. They say so. They are sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Charles Clarke, and they say, "You are here to teach us and we are here to learn." And they are anxious for it.

In the same way there are the experiments now being initiated: the Volta River Dam, the great aluminium project and the building of the port at Terna, which is in active progress. Some of my colleagues with me on the delegation coming home that way saw the beginning of the port, far bigger than Takoradi, where there is only a sandspit and a reef at present. All these things are quite different from the undertakings of the Aluminum Company in Canada, or the development of the harbour at Vancouver or the St. Lawrence waterway, for which the Canadians do not require any advice from this country. In fact, they would be the first to resent it if we offered it to them.

The really interesting thing about the modern development of the Colonial Empire is the willingness of developing territories to use the resources which are available to them in this country, and in none more than the Gold Coast, where great uneasiness was felt and expressed by many people when our departure was entered upon. I notice that there was discussion about it in another place only yesterday. The "Daily Telegraph," which adopted a fairly critical attitude towards Gold Coast development some years ago, published an article only a day or two ago which reported a much more favourable view being taken of that experiment than had previously been its opinion.

We have, however, a very great difficulty in developing economic as well as political equality. The Americans are finding this most startlingly in the case of Puerto Rico. They have brought Puerto Rico into the Union, and suddenly a flood of Puerto Ricans has poured into the United States, producing there an entirely new problem. I do not think it will be possible to have an economic homogeneity over this enormous section of the world. It will not be possible for the United Kingdom and the areas for which it is immediately responsible to have economic equality nearly as quickly as it will be possible to produce political equality. The study of the economic problems concerned in the great difference of level of the standard of living in two great areas of the world, one of which is directly responsible for the governing of the other, is a problem that we have not fully examined; it will require a great deal of further consideration.

Then there are the social services, the pension system and the higher opportunity for wages and employment in this country. There are pitiful complaints from Jamaicans and West Indians who have come here and who expect immediately to find themselves in the full enjoyment of all the standards of living and the social services which have been worked out over a long period of years by this country.

Even the huge United States, with its enormous wealth, is finding a problem in the relative trickle from Puerto Rico. A much greater problem would arise if anything like a large-scale immigration from the dependent territories was to take place into this country; they must realise that, and I am sure they will. But all these things require very careful study. The call for examination is one which we certainly must welcome.

The study of the problem must be much more continuous—in a way, academic—than could be done by the really political examination in this House or even by the departmental administration in the Department. It is a thing to which our great universities should turn their attention. There is necessity for a continuing regard for these things and for continuing attention being given to them over a period of far more years than we can secure continuity for, either in the political development of this country or even in departmental development.

The development of the dependent territories of this country is primarily the responsibility of us in this House. While I am all in favour of the Colombo Plan, let us yet remember that these are areas for which we here are immediately and directly responsible. We have the responsibility for government of these countries. Great things have been done in the 19th Century. Sometimes we are inclined to under-estimate and denigrate that period and to write down the enormous flood of capital which poured from many countries, and from this country in particular, into the development of the under-developed countries of the world.

The whole of North and South America, a great portion of India and a great portion of the rest of the world were developed by this country in the 19th Century. It was estimated that we invested about £4,000 million, of which about £2,000 million was almost entirely lost. At present-day figures, at a multiple of four or five, that would mean tens of thousands of millions of pounds. We have no reason to hang our heads or look abashed before even the United States, with its enormous programme of Marshall Aid.

We in this country poured out our capital and reduced the standard of living of the people of our own country. Had these enormous sums remained at home, the slums of Glasgow would not have existed. In many cases, we developed the rest of the world by deliberately withdrawing opportunities for improvement from the people of this country. What we are faced with in the 20th Century is doing what we did without conscious volition in the 19th Century. It will be a much more difficult task, but still it has to be done.

We can point to great industries which have been developed only recently. I get angry sometimes when I see that various commissions of the United Nations have denigrated the work of this country in the facilities which are being made avail- able for the development of under-developed territories. Only since the beginning of this century, far more than £600 million has been spent on the development of, for example, only four industries. Two of them, some may say, are of advantage to the people of this country, but two of them are certainly local and of great advantage to the people of the countries in which they were instituted.

The whole of the great tin and copper industries were developed, and the cocoa industry and the whole of the great rubber industries were developed—two great mining industries and two great agricultural industries, of which one at least—cocoa—although a smaller industry, is of the greatest advantage to the peoples of the country in which it was instituted. That was done very largely under conditions and under stimuli which came from Great Britain and under conditions of law and order which were created by the colonial services and the people whom we sent out.

There is, however, a case for an African Department. There is there an empire comparable to the empire of India. The danger of withdrawing skilled administrators from Africa and moving them across to Oceania or the Falkland Islands is a danger of wasting the knowledge and skill of people which otherwise would be of the greatest advantage to the territories in which they had lived and which they understood.

One of the greatest barriers in the case of Africa is in its bewildering multiplicity of languages. It is very difficult, even in East Africa, at present to get anyone who can speak Kikuyu, the tongue of the tribe with which we are having the greatest difficulty. When a man who has knowledge of these things is moved to some far and away remote part of the world, we move a skilled man in possession of equipment which is irreplaceable. It is as bad as moving a man with a high-powered motor car to some small coral island, where all he could do was to drive round several times every morning.

My hon. Friends who have raised this topic have done a great service to the House. The further examination for which they ask is very necessary and we should be grateful for the opportunity here this morning. But this must be, so to speak, only the trigger of a much wider and more continuous examination which, both in and out of Parliament, both in administrative and academic circles, should be pressed with the utmost vigour if we are to solve these great problems.

12.40 p.m.

I emphatically agree with the last sentence or two of the speech of the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot). I also welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) in drawing our attention to this subject and the need for considering carefully now whether the machinery which we have of consultation within the Commonwealth is effective. I also agree with the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove that we should beware, in any such discussion, of using words which have become out of date. He referred particularly to the word "Dominion" and reminded us that the Secretary of State who deals with the sovereign Members of the Commonwealth is the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

Indeed, the only quarrel I have with the Motion before us is the reference to "Offices." Constitutionally speaking, I think it is incorrect to suggest that this work is entrusted to offices. Democratic Parliaments in this country entrust work to Ministers, and it is very important to remember, in our contacts with Colonies and members of the Commonwealth—the Dominions—that they do not like to think of themselves as being governed, or of their affairs being in any way regulated, by bureaucrats. They like to think they have direct access to Her Majesty's Ministers.

On this side of the House we have often criticised the present Colonial Secretary, but we do recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to perform his duties according to his lights, and we welcome the extent to which he has personally visited the territory for which he is responsible. He has gone out and has given the people there the feeling that through him they are in direct contact with the people and Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The great virtue of the Commonwealth as it stands today, what makes it admirable and enlists our enthusiasm and affection for it, is that it is a free association of peoples, that it was possible for Burma, for example, which formed a part of the Indian Empire, to leave the Commonwealth when it felt inclined, although we regretted it, of course; and that it is possible today for India to be associated with the Commonwealth, although she is a republic.

I do not wish to attempt today to survey the whole field. I wish to be brief. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who has held the high office of Colonial Secretary, will speak from the abundance of his great knowledge about the wider aspects of this question. I wish to say something about the necessity of maintaining information and understanding between the members of the British Commonwealth. By that I mean something much more than diplomacy, than the responsibilities performed by the officials of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the various capitals of the Commonwealth and in the various important towns of the Commonwealth, like Calcutta or Madras, where there are Deputy High Commissioners.

These are very important functions indeed, and they have to be discharged, and we have to consider whether any change in the method of their discharge should be made. I do not wish to talk about that, however, neither do I wish to speak about the dissemination of news and information through contacts with the newspapers, through the production and distribution of films—in short, the work of the information officers, although, again, that may well need some examination.

I wish to speak for a few minutes about the methods which we use to make our sister members of the Commonwealth aware of our culture and our way of life and, reciprocally, whether we should have any methods of making ourselves aware of their cultures and of their way of life. For the purpose to which I am referring we have created a special instrument, the British Council. It may be imperfect, but it is the instrument that we have established. Whereas High Commissioners and Deputy High Commissioners are responsible for contacts between Governments of the Commonwealth, and whereas the information officers are responsible for contacts between the Press, films and other organs of information, the British Council has been made responsible for contact between the peoples of the Commonwealth.

For its work in foreign countries the British Council receives a grant from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In Colonies, and in what I have called the sovereign nations of the Commonwealth, it acts as the direct agent of the Secretary of State concerned. I wish to ask whether that is necessarily the right way in which to distribute that particular responsibility. Ought it not to be changed?

I must confess that I am not at all certain whether, in regard to Colonial Territories, any change should be made, but I wish to suggest that we consider, in that wider examination which the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove suggested may go on after this debate, whether it might not now be more appropriate to allow the British Council, in the sovereign nations of the Commonwealth, to have the same freedom, the same relations with the Secretary of State, that it has in the case of foreign countries.

I am inclined to think it should, and to wonder whether, in doing that, we might not at the same time devise some means of associating the other sovereign Members of the Commonwealth with that Council so that there can be some reciprocal traffic, so that they can be associated in some degree with responsibility for the British Council, which might be renamed the Commonwealth Council if that was the wish. In that way, their ideas and attitudes to life, their cultures, could also be part of the responsibility of the new Council to convey in foreign nations and the Colonies, so that we might get to know and understand one another better.

At present it would seem that Her Majesty's Government have a different conception from mine, at all events, about that relationship. They have recently decided to close down altogether in New Zealand and Ceylon the offices of the British Council. I wish to ask this morning why that has been done, what considerations of high policy, if any, have justified that action? If the Government of New Zealand have asked for it, perhaps we cannot complain so far as New Zealand is concerned. New Zealand often looks more British than we are, and I know that she thoroughly understands our way of life and practises a way of life almost identical with our own.

Whatever may be the case in regard to New Zealand, however, surely such action cannot be wise in Asia. An hon. Member opposite has already referred today to the fact that the association of the Asian members of the Commonwealth is certainly not so close, so tight and so strongly felt by every person in their population as it is in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I read in the "Observer" last Sunday an article by Mr. William Clark, who has been attending the conference which has been sitting in Lahore during recent weeks. One of his conclusions is:

If we are to undertake a fuller, more vigorous effort to hold this Commonwealth together, and particularly to persuade our Asian friends of the value of that free Commonwealth association, it is inevitable that we must use as a medium our own language, the English tongue. We put that forward not because we are ourselves native speakers of English, but because facts are facts and it is the only language we have in common, with the additional advantage that we have it more or less in common with the United States of America as well.

Just consider how immensely more difficult that problem is becoming because of the establishment of Sovereign independence in India, Pakistan and Ceylon. In India there are at least 15 main languages, each of them spoken by millions of people. At the same time, the Indian Republic has definitely decided to make Hindi the national language of the whole country. So it means that every child going to school in India now and in the future will have to learn, as it will learn at home, its own local native language, whatever it may be—Tamil, or Marathi, Gujarati or any one of these 15 languages and, when it gets to school and is instructed in a language, it will have to learn Hindi in addition, which for most of them will be quite different from their own language. The English language will thus be an also-ran.

The English language must in future be taught in India as a foreign language. So, too, in Pakistan Urdu is now the official language and Bengali is likely, as we can see from recent events, to be the second official language. So there will probably be two official languages in Pakistan, as there are in Ceylon—Singalese and Tamil. Children living in Pakistan will have to learn Urdu and Bengali and they will have their own local language of the Punjab or some other Province if they do not live in Bengal. They may have as many as three languages to acquire before they can pay attention to English.

I think everyone will see the point that the teaching of English becomes extremely important, and this, I think, is one of the main functions of the British Council at the present time. The responsibility rests upon us of maintaining that knowledge of English because, if it does not continue, it may lead to the disintegration of the Commonwealth altogether because of failure to understand, and to communicate with one another in the only common medium we possess.

The British Council is undertaking to the best of its ability, which is limited by lack of funds, the job of teaching English. I have seen in India and in Pakistan specialists in the art of teaching English as a foreign language. Those hon. Members who may never have tried to teach in any institution may not realise how difficult and how specialised this has to be. The British Council has picked out, trained and encouraged these specialists to teach the teachers of India, Pakistan and Ceylon how to teach English as a foreign language to children who already have the heavy task of learning two or three other languages before they can begin to tackle English. That is one of the main jobs which the British Council has to do. I cannot see who else is to do it.

That work of the British Council has been built up upon the good will now existing between us and the sovereign Dominions. It is essential to maintain it if the Commonwealth is to survive. Therefore, because I regard as essential this work of the British Council in explaining our own way of life and culture, but above all in this specialist job of maintaining the one tenuous link upon which all else depends, our ability to speak the same tongue and understand one another, I feel that the work of the British Council needs to be sustained and expanded, especially in these sovereign Dominions.

Recent events have shown that Parliament ought to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a possible error of policy that seems to have been made here.

If what I have said is true, why have Her Majesty's Government decided to close down the British Council office in Ceylon? It seems to me to be a retrograde step when that is the only agency which can undertake this work with good will, without being suspected of being the direct agent of the British Government which may be seeking to perpetuate some sort of British control or influence in that sovereign country. The new nations are very jealous of their sovereignties. Perhaps they are unduly tender and suspicious, but we cannot blame them. The British Council to them has been a welcome institution coming to explain the way of life of a friendly sister nation. Therefore, I think it is a mistake to have done what has been done.

I want to know specifically whether the Ceylon Government were consulted, whether they concurred in that decision and, if not, whether they have since made representations to Her Majesty's Government and whether those are being seriously considered. I want to know why a differentiation has been made between India and Pakistan on the one hand, and Ceylon on the other, in this connection.

I had it in mind to quote a letter which I have received specifically drawing my attention to this matter. I do not want to occupy the time of the House for long and so I shall not read it. It was from Mr. A. B. Pereira of Colombo, a distinguished lawyer and advocate in the City of Colombo, who is extremely well known out there. Drawing my attention to this, he expressed deep regret at the decision. Similarly regret has been expressed in certain organs of the Press in Ceylon, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations knows very well.

This work of the British Council is especially valuable in the university, and I would have thought that what is needed at present in Ceylon is an expansion, not a restriction of it. I would have thought that it would have been wise to establish a new office of the British Council in Peradeniya at the centre of the new growing university of which the Ceylonese people are so proud. In that university there are many young students who are naturally attracted by the Communist way of life as it has been explained to them in propaganda, from China in particular.

All the more important, therefore, that they should have the opportunity of getting to know about the Commonwealth way of life, not only of the United Kingdom, but of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Why, then, has this decision been taken? If this work is to be transferred—I hope it is not—to the information officer of the High Commissioner in Ceylon, is the specialist work of teaching English to be continued under his department? Administratively it makes nonsense but, nevertheless, it would be better than nothing.

I hope I have not taken up too much time. I have not attempted to make any attack upon the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations who has taken this decision. I hope that, by pleading in this House, the unfortunate decision will be reconsidered, or that we can be informed this morning that the noble Lord is in touch with the Ceylon Government, is listening to their representations, and will consider with them what is the best way to deal with the matter. I do not want to make any attack on the way in which the decision was made and conveyed. I want rather to plead that the British Council should be recognised and, if possible, should be turned into a Commonwealth Council and should be fostered and encouraged as the great agency of mutual under- standing not merely between the Governments of the Commonwealth but between the peoples themselves.

1.1 p.m.

I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) if I do not follow him on the subject of the British Council, though I support everything that he said on that subject, particularly in relation to the office in Ceylon. If continuity is essential in our debates in this House, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that there will be some continuity in that his commendation of the British Council will be no more unpopular with the Press of my fellow countryman, Lord Beaverbrook, than the speech that I am about to make.

I would not pretend to have anything like the knowledge of the Colonies that my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite who have preceded me in this debater possess, but the House may acknowledge that I have some understanding of the Dominions, or at least of one. The various possibilities of a rearrangement of duties between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office have been discussed in this debate and almost every possible combination has been put before the House.

Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), I would not agree with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) that there would be any wisdom in abolishing either of those Ministries. If one tried to do that, the administrative task placed upon any one Minister would become so overwhelming that he could not possibly give either of these jobs the immense concentration of interest and the attention that it required. Therefore, I do not see either Ministry withering away in any foreseeable future for which we can legislate.

I feel, however, that probably some recasting and re-arrangement of the duties of the Colonial Office is essential. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) raised the question of its name. Probably it would be wise to look at that question, because the word "colonial" implies something which the people to whom it applies do not like.

We must face that fact. I agree that it has a great and proud history, but nevertheless we have to change our nomenclature with the changes in world outlook. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove mentioned the possibility of an African Department, and indeed we had an Indian and Burma Department until the war. I am sure that that is the way in which development could take place whilst still keeping the two Ministries and the two Ministers, because that is essential.

Even so, we should consider interchangeability of staffs. I see nothing wrong in the possibility of senior people in the West Indies, for instance, having experience at some stage of their careers in Canada or in the African Colonies. I would see nothing wrong, indeed it would be an advantage, if people in New Guinea or Fiji were allowed to do a tour in the offices of the High Commissioners of this country in Canberra or in New Zealand. That kind of interchangeability of staffs would be a good thing, and certainly there should be some re-arrangement of function of the Ministries and also consideration of altering the name and the status of the Colonial Secretary.

I should like to look a little behind the very important administrative details which up to now we have been largely discussing in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay used a very simple but most striking phrase when he said, "Commonwealth relations are simply human relations." Human relations, by and large, are not economic relations. They are political relations. I should not like anybody to think that I do not fully understand the vast importance of economic developments and of the projects which we have been discussing, or the need for our aiding them in every way but, behind all that, the way one treats people and one's attitude towards them is even more important. Our American friends are finding that that is true in Asia in an extraordinary way. Unhappily it is not enough to be generous.

That is a wonderful thing and vitally necessary, but it does not do the job in itself. The important thing is the political concept, the way we approach people and particularly those who, because of past history may have a chip on their shoulder, or, to put it frankly, an inferiority complex. They are instinctively suspicious, and the way we approach them is even more important than what we do for them economically.

I should like to devote a little time to studying the political principles by which our Commonwealth has evolved. A favourite question of mine is, "Who killed the British Empire?" Incidentally, I have been very much struck recently by the fact that the word "Empire" is coming back into popular use. It was bandied about yesterday on both sides of the House at a far greater rate than it has been used for many years. The Empire of Queen Victoria is as dead as Queen Victoria and for the same reason. I am intensely proud of the Empire of Queen Victoria. I believe that the fashion which was so popular in the 1920s and 1930s of going about decrying the achievements of our ancestors did an immense amount of harm not only to this country but to the native peoples of Asia and Africa. I do not believe that anybody killed the British Empire, as some people do. All that happened was that the British Empire grew up. Colonial peoples—and we in Canada were Colonial people at one time—grew up. That was inevitable because of the basis upon which the British Empire was established.

Fundamentally, the problems which Colonial Secretaries have had to face since the war are based on that simple fact. There have been occasions when all of us, on both sides of the House, have been guilty of making a certain amount of party capital out of the difficulties of the Colonial Secretary on either side. Almost always that has been unfair because all that is happening is that those who sit at the desk of the Colonial Secretary today are having to honour blank and undated cheques which our ancestors have been issuing for 150 years. Over that period it has been the proud boast of our colonial policy that our aim was to raise our colonial peoples to the status of self-government and now those people are coming along and saying, "Thank you. Pay up." It is no good our saying that they are not ready, because it is not a question of what we think but what they think. That is why the Empire of Queen Victoria—and everyone knows what I mean by that phrase—was bound to die.

But that Empire gave birth to something which, if we have enough imagination and courage to grasp its significance, is as grand as that Empire, and even greater. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay said that up to now the going had been always easy because in Australia and New Zealand, for instance, we were all dealing like with like. That hurt my Canadian susceptibilities just a little, because I think that the success of the great Canadian experiment was based purely on the fact that we were not all alike. The success of that experiment some 50 or 60 years ago proved the principle on which the Commonwealth has worked and the only principle on which it can continue to work.

The principle was what, for want of a better phrase, I would call an association of States rather than a centralised Imperial family. The ideas of such men as Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and, in contemporary times, Mr. Leo Amery—who gave such distinguished service for many years in this House—of a centralised Imperial unit were, in my view, never practicable. It is no good blaming any Administration, or any person, in this House that at any time they did not come off.

In Canada we faced the problem, not now, but 100 years ago, that very nearly half the total population were not British. They were French, and if we had tried to build the country and establish the principle of a centralised association with the mother country, which is very attractive to all of us of British ancestry, we would, willy-nilly, have relegated all French Canadians to second-class citizenship and Canada could never have achieved nationhood.

The whole fact of Canadian nationhood was based entirely on the principle of equality of those of non-British race. That principle was established, and it was the only principle on which Canada could come to nationhood. That was the principle, as I see it, on which the Asiatic Dominions have been able to stay in the Commonwealth. We have established national and racial equality within the Commonwealth. These nations have risen and grown, and it is only on the positive principle of establishing complete racial equality and national equality of free sovereign States that the Commonwealth today makes any sense or can live and grow. As one who is of British ancestry, and very proud of it, and as one who has always believed that what my ancestors did was a great and grand thing, I recognise that fact.

The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker), who was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the last Government, and who, unfortunately, is not present today, in a recent article summed this up in a way with which I entirely agree. He said:

If I might give one further reason, which I think is often overlooked in this country, it is my experience that if you send a lot of British people overseas, 15,000 miles away, or whatever it may be, and leave them there for 25 years or so, you must not be surprised if they insist on running their own affairs. It would be most unlike people of British ancestry if they did not do so. That was the negative reason that brought about the present state of affairs, but the positive reason and the great lesson to be learned from history, the establishment of complete racial and national equality, is the important one.

I will close with one of my favourite quotations, which sums up the situation, I think, very aptly. It is a quotation from one of the greatest Canadians, Vincent Massey, who is well known and respected in this House. Referring to Commonwealth affairs, he said:

1.15 p.m.

The presence in the House today of the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), who has made such an excellent and illuminating speech, is an unspoken comment on the continuity of the invisible bonds which tie members of the Commonwealth together.

My contribution to the debate will be a somewhat narrow one. I should like to join in the very interesting discussion of the basic principles of the Commonwealth as a whole, but, coming back as I did recently from Nigeria and the Gold Coast, I should like to raise one or two points which struck me there very much and which I think are relevant to today's debate.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), in proposing his Motion, made two major points. He suggested that in a community of nations whose institutions were constantly developing and growing and where economic planning was becoming an increasingly important factor, the Commonwealth Relations office should take over responsibility for long-range planning within the Commonwealth and equip itself with a specialised technical service to that end. The second point was that, in view of this proposed alteration and shift of functions, the present Colonial Service should be remoulded and, possibly, re-formed. That point was developed to rather a greater extent by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) who seconded the Motion. It is to that second point that I wish to draw the attention of the House.

Before doing so, I should like to support what the proposer said when he pointed out the need for proper economic planning. The main plea for that has been made in the Fifth Report of the Select Committee on Estimates, 1947–48, prepared under the chairmanship of Lord Glyn of Farnborough, whose absence from this Chamber many of us regret. With the assistance of his colleagues, the noble Lord studied the actual expenditure of colonial welfare and development funds and, in the course of that study, visited Nigeria to see how the funds were actually expended. He came to the conclusion that long-range economic planning under the Commonwealth Development and Welfare Acts was not taking place. All that was happening was that various Colonies produced a plan, which was not a plan but a list of projects and bits and pieces, which were added together and that that became the 10-year plan for Commonwealth development. I do not think that is what we need.

I am one who believes strongly that it is the duty of this country to assist the under-developed nations, but we cannot assist them if we simply expend money higgledy-piggledy. Any help to the under-developed nations must be of such a nature that the economy, not only of the under-developed nations, but of this country is strengthened thereby. That, of course, can only be done by economic planning of a correct nature, not by an addition sum, however important that may be, as has been the case under the present series of development plans for the Colonies.

I wish to turn to the question of a Commonwealth service. I think I can speak for my colleague who accompanied me to West Africa when I say that what struck us particularly in Nigeria was a considerable feeling of uncertainty about the future because of the welcomed progress towards independence in that Colony. The servants of these Colonies have a right to feel that the ground under their feet is not shaking. It is clear that the most intelligent of the leaders of these new nations realise this feeling, and they are doing whatever is in their power to provide assurances. I think it was Mr. Nkrumah who made a statement on this subject in July of last year. It was signed by the leaders of all the political parties in Nigeria after the Lagos Conference, and was statesmanlike. Quite frankly, I think more is needed not only from the point of view of these men serving the Colonies at the moment, but those who come forward to serve the Colonies.

Mr. Nkrumah said that one of the great paradoxes of independence is that the expatriate does not become less necessary but more necessary. One of the things to be noticed in Nigeria is that the expatriate population has risen from 7,500 in 1945 to 15,000 today. If we are to have a growing organism, the movement of the population of skilled individuals throughout the Commonwealth will grow.

That is where we must come to the point of reconsidering our concept of the Colonial Service. The hard fact is, as the hon. Member for Billericay said, we are not at the moment able to fill all the places in the Colonial Civil Service. The demand for men is greater than the supply, and in my opinion it is improbable that we shall be able to supply them unless for the individual who enters the Colonial Service, we provide security of tenure and also unless we tap the resources of the Commonwealth as a whole to find those men.

Therefore, I would urge the Secretary of State to consider the possibility of creating a new service which, for want of a better name, I would call Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, which would recruit the men necessary for the work not only in the Colonies but also in the Dominions, and also for service with the United Nations in organisations such as F.A.O. and others, and in organisations like the Colonial Development Organisation.

If we take the case of an agronomist, he could serve with the C.C.D., the Colonial Service or under the Colombo Plan. There are a wide range of jobs of the same nature under different authorities which he could do. If there were an overseas civil service—I will not say which Secretary of State should be responsible for it, but one of the great Secretaries of State should be—we should be able to provide continuity of service whether or not a particular Colony in which an individual was employed decided to dispense with his services, or whether the individual felt that the conditions of service were such that he could not continue to accept them, in which case he could apply for posting to some other organisation but still remain within the Overseas Civil Service.

There is a case for such an organisation, and I feel it should be considered. I should like to make one point in relation to that. The argument against such a service has always been financial, in the sense that security is being given to these men by offers made by the Nigerian, Gold Coast and other governments under which they can contract out of their service on receipt of a lump sum, or their pensions are guaranteed and so on. I do not think the type of man who enters the Colonial Service is very much in- terested in financial security but in the sense that his career is secure. Having set his hand to a particular plough, he feels he has not got to take it off at the age of 35 when things go wrong, but wants to continue in his chosen profession elsewhere in the world. That is a view which is widening.

I want to make a second point which relates to this, but it is even narrower. It is the question of expatriation payments. As the House knows, in certain Colonies the individual officer is paid at a basic rate, and over and above that he receives an increment for his overseas service. As an expatriate his cost of living is presumed to be higher and his tastes different to those of the indigenous officer, so the difference is made up by an expatriation allowance from the Colonial Government. The Harragin Commission suggested it, and certain Colonies accepted it, though some rejected it.

I found during my visit to West Africa that this allowance is causing resentment. It is being used by certain individuals as an argument against expatriate officers, and I feel that consideration should be given to the removal of this expatriated element in the Civil Service from the Colonial Vote to one of the types of monetary assistance given to the Colonies themselves. That argument has already been put forward by the Estimates Committee which went out to Nigeria in 1948, and, in fact, their proposals had been reviewed and refused already by the Colonial Office.

Nevertheless I feel that the argument that prompted Lord Glyn and his colleagues to propose that the expatriation allowance should be borne on the United Kingdom budget is still valid. The main argument put forward by the Colonial Office to refute this proposal is that the indigenous civil servant who argues that an expatriate civil servant receives an unfair benefit through his expatriation allowance, is simply wanting the other man's job. I think the hard fact is that that may be the real reason, but, in fact, it is not the reason anyone can give when one is arguing the case, and for that reason, if the expatriation allowance ceases to be a charge on the Colonial Vote and were transferred over here, then that course of argument would disappear and the cause of irritation would be removed.

In fact, the policy of the removal of the expatriation allowance would assist the concept that I have put forward of an overseas Civil Service in which the individual was freely transferable from one Colony to another, or from one service to another. That argument is accepted by the Colonial Office in its reply to Estimates Committee. They said:

My contribution has been narrow, but I hope it will receive the Secretary of State's consideration. I should like to finish by saying that it is essential that in an advancing society development should not be hindered by the rigidity of institutions. That has happened in the past. We should adopt and be prepared to adopt our institutions to the changes that we are seeking to achieve.

1.29 p.m.

I should first like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) for moving this Motion. I am sure that the time has come in the history of our Colonies when a complete overhaul of the system should be undertaken—and carried on, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) suggested, long after we have ceased talking in this House.

I heartily support the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Ian Winterbottom) and others that we ought now to consider the institution of an overseas colonial service. There is not the least doubt that the same trouble as started in India is now beginning in a great number of the Colonies. The hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid)—whom I do not see in his place—was quite right when he said that during those last years when India's independence was getting near there were a number of refusals by first-class men in this country to go into the Indian Civil Service. That did not last long enough to make the Indian Civil Service less good than it was reputed to be, but it was the first sign of what would have happened had independence not been given to India as soon as it was.

Those signs are beginning to appear in various Colonies. There is no doubt that men whose services are required in various parts of our colonial possessions are not at present taking the posts because they are definitely afraid of their future. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) make it quite clear that we must do something to recruit the best people for our Colonial Service.

I know perhaps more of our Colonial Service in the Far East than in any other part. I do not know to what extent we try to get entrants from Australia or New Zealand—there are some entrants, I know—but we should make every possible effort to make our Colonial Service a Commonwealth Service. Particularly, we should get such entrants into areas in which their own nations have more control than have other members of the Commonwealth.

That refers, of course, to the senior administrators. I now want to turn to the junior local administrators. I have not said this publicly before, but in my view far and away the greatest trouble that occurred in India and Pakistan was due to our not having adequately trained local people to become administrators after those countries gained independence. The senior Indian and Pakistani members who took over were at least as good as anyone we had had in India from this country or anywhere else. The junior administrative members were completely unqualified, and almost completely untrained. One of the greatest jobs both those countries have done has been to establish a system of training junior administrators.

I am ignorant as to how far that has been done inside our colonial possessions, but I am certain that, wherever countries are getting near to independence, it is our duty to make certain that we are training the people to take over when we leave. It is true that local universities are doing a great deal. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), who spoke of the British Council, I merely say that, in those parts that I know, the work of the universities, not only in teaching English but in training people, is becoming very important and should be thoroughly encouraged. It is most essential that we should now be establishing, in a great number of our Colonies, special courses for training administrators. The hon. Member for Swindon rightly said that it takes years to train an administrator. Very special efforts should be made towards that end.

I wish to refer to the interesting question whether or not for a governorship or other senior post—even I am afraid, that of Chief Justice—it is desirable that politicians should be sent from this country. I may be prejudiced but I must say that I think it desirable on occasions. For instance, when there is difficulty in obtaining a local person who is free from strong prejudice from certain sections, it is desirable to get someone who is completely independent from as far away as possible.

I think that it does the countries good. When I was a judge in India, I of course, took no part whatever in politics, but sometimes I had the feeling that had there been a British-trained political leader in the last Assembly in Delhi things might not have been banged through with an official majority. There might have been a little more tact and persuasion in getting the Opposition to agree with what the Government proposed to do. I think that there are advantages occasionally in politicians coming from overseas.

As I am, I believe, the only lawyer who has so far had the opportunity to speak, I want to talk about the legal side of colonial administration. It is very natural that the attention of Members of this House, and indeed of people outside it, should be focused upon the political and economic sides of colonial development. I and those who know the Colonies intimately realise that the legal side is just as important. The more Colonies there are getting near to their independence and freedom the more important it is for us to see that the legal service is as good as we can possibly make it.

All over what I call, for convenience, the Colonial Empire, our Colonial legal service has done extremely fine work. Individuals have tackled difficulties unknown in this country and have received very little credit for the way in which they have handled them. None the less, we are faced with the fact that in the junior ranks it is inevitable that their duties should be partly administrative and partly executive. As they rise in the service—as with judges in India who came from the Indian Civil Service—they are liable to be associated with the executive power. They are looked upon as nominees of the executive power with, possibly, a tendency to take the view of the executive as against that of the subject on the other side.

Perhaps rightly, freedom is given to the Colonies nowadays nearly always by means of some form of federation. As in India, that inevitably involves the establishment of a supreme or federal court. Perhaps the House will forgive me if I now speak from my own personal experience. Those judges have to deal with innumerable cases concerning the subject against the executive, cases between units of the federation, and cases between units of the federation and the central government. It is essential that those judges should be put in the most completely independent position possible. Otherwise, if they have to decide in favour of the central government or a state government against the subject, then either the subject or his friends inevitably will say, "Of course, they have to because they are themselves part of the executive."

In those circumstances, I think it is absolutely essential that the senior judges in these Colonies that are nearing their freedom should be given the same complete statutory independence as judges in this country have. There should be no possibility whatever of anybody saying that the judges are in any way under the thumb of the executive. It is not possible completely to free judges from that suspicion, because somebody has got to appoint them. Somebody, like the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), has got to make a recommendation from time to time.

Inevitably the original appointment must come from the executive, or the executive must be concerned in it to some extent. On the other hand, once they have been appointed, there is no reason whatever why the senior judges should not be put into an absolutely independent position just as judges in this country are. That, I think, is a reform that is very much required and ought to be hastened in view of the formation of these new federal courts which are springing up everywhere.

My next point relates to the staffing of the courts. It has been the custom—and I hope it will long continue—that, in addition to the judges taken from the colonial administrative service—and may I say that some of them are absolutely first-class lawyers in every way?—judges are taken from the local bar in the various Colonies. It is highly desirable that that practice should continue. I would go even further. I think it is also highly desirable that judges should be taken not only from the local bar but, if necessary, from the bar here at home, in Australia and so forth, so that we get tribunals which, on the face of them, will inspire everybody with their complete independence and freedom from any possibility that they are creatures in any shape or form of the executive.

There is a good deal to be said for getting in these courts judges with a fairly long experience of the areas in which they have to operate. It is perfectly true that, generally speaking, wherever they sit they are administering the same sort of law, but there are local languages, customs and habits and it is, therefore, essential that a substantial number of those on the bench should know those customs and habits intimately. In India members of the I.C.S. sat on the benches of the various Provinces, even though the other judges may have come from elsewhere. The same thing can be done in the Colonies.

In addition to complete independence, it is essential that in the courts there should be a certain number of judges who would inspire confidence among the people that their customs and languages are known to them so that complete and violent mistakes are thereby avoided on matters which are of great concern to the local inhabitants. If all the services should be investigated and overhauled, as this Motion requests, I make my plea that the legal service throughout the Colonies should also be considered and, if necessary, improved.

1.45 p.m.

I hope that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) will allow me to say that his speech was characterised by wisdom, learning and wide experience—experience drawn not only from his distinguished practice at the bar in this country but also from his work as Chief Justice in India. I am sure the House will feel that the contribution he has made was of great value. Indeed, each previous speaker has approached this many-sided Motion by a different path, adorned in each case by flowers of experience from his adventures in other lands.

It is true that the Motion is wide. There is much to be said for the Motion, especially if the words of my Amendment, which I regret to say was not called, are considered in relation to it. I am not going to address the House upon the Amendment as an Amendment, but I think it right to draw the attention of the House to the fact that my Amendment provides for consultation and agreement before this great change is made between the Governments of the realms and territories overseas which would be affected by the change.

I want to make two points which are closely related to each other. One is a point that has not yet been mentioned in this debate. A change such as that which is sought here would affect this country and our Commonwealth and Empire, not only in peace but in war. Therefore, it is essential that there should be close consultation between all the territories and realms affected.

The proposal involves problems which are not only important but dangerous and difficult. They cannot easily and readily be solved without consultation with our brethren in the Commonwealth and Colonies. Consultation is essential because it should be remembered that these problems result from the diverse histories of the territories involved, from the development of the eight independent nations which now form the Commonwealth, from the growth of each Colony in its own individual way, from the international character of the relations between them all, from world trends today and even from foreign policy.

The hon. Gentleman who moved the Motion very properly said that he was not in favour of the merging of Commonwealth relations and colonial relations in the Foreign Office. With that I cordially agree. It is true, of course, that the problems touch Britain's foreign relations not only with fellow members of the Commonwealth but also with such external bodies as N.A.T.O., E.D.C. and other organisations built up for the defence of democracy. But this would not justify putting either Commonwealth relations or the Colonies under the Foreign Office. It is obvious that this proposal contains great possibilities for good or evil. It is like a political hydrogen bomb, far-reaching in effect and incalculable in its possibilities, which may be used either for war or for peaceful, civilian purposes.

A burden rests upon the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) to prove that the change advocated by his Motion is desirable. Three things are clear. We should not make a change for its own sake, or without clear proof that it is necessary, or without agreement and consultation with our brothers and sisters in the planetary Commonwealth brotherhood. Certain questions remain to be answered. First, what is the framework from which the Motion seeks to depart? Secondly, what is the present division of responsibilities between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office? Thirdly, how did this division occur? Fourthly, is it justified? Fifthly, should it be continued? Sixthly, should it be changed?

The ever-growing changes in that framework were aptly expressed by that distinguished scholar, Professor Duncan Hall, who is now historical adviser to the British Embassy in Washington. With great prescience, as far back as 1923, in one of his distinguished books, he said:

The framework it is proposed to change is the growth of many years. Its ancestor was the Colonial Office, alone, founded in the mid-19th century, whose main responsibility was, naturally, the Colonies, ever-evolving in constitutional status. In 1919, the Dominions became original members of the League of Nations. In 1925 the Secretary of State for the Colonies was also appointed Secretary of State for the Dominions. In 1926 the Dominions Office was established, and in 1930 two separate Ministers were appointed—a Colonial Minister and a Dominions Minister—with common offices. In 1947 this change was made more effective by the separation of the accommodation.

Now this further change is suggested. Is it justified? The respective functions of the two Offices differ. The Colonial Office deals only with the Colonies, and the Commonwealth Relations Office is, as has been authoritatively and truly said:

We have had actual and potential changes in the status of some of them. Today these changes continue. The Gold Coast, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, British Guiana, British Honduras, Northern and Southern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have changed in status, and there are potential changes in Malta, Cyprus, the West Indies, Malaya, and other important places. These have altered the actual and potential spheres of responsibility of the Colonial Office, the Commonwealth Relations Office and, perhaps, even the Home Office, under which Malta seeks to come.

All this places upon the hon. Member for Colchester a great burden of proof. He has sought to discharge it. Has he succeeded? Has he persuaded the House that it is necessary or even desirable, in the words of the Motion:

This would necessitate conversations, or even a conference. Such a conference should have plenary powers to take evidence and make recommendations, but no power to make any change without the authority of the respective Parliaments whose territories are concerned. Such a conference would and should be authoritative, representative of the Commonwealth and Colonies, and presided over by a chairman of its own choice. Such a conference would and should have the explicit good will of the Commonwealth and the Colonies.

It seems likely that such a conference would realise that the Commonwealth is a constitutional phenomenon, unique in world history, still evolving and requiring the changes which are proposed today. It is true that no previous age or country has produced a constitutional development comparable to it. The Empires of the past, from Babylon, Rome and Greece, up to the present time, have nothing like it, nor today have the United States of America, with its 48 States, or the Soviet Union, with its diverse Socialist Republics.

This Commonwealth stimulates liberties and unities which are very precious today, and which should not be imperilled by any change such as that which is advocated in the Motion without due and full inquiry. It seems to me that the time is ripe for such a change, but the change should not be made until all our brothers and sisters in the nations of the Commonwealth and Colonial Empire are taken into our confidence and have a full opportunity of discussing the matter and expressing their agreement with it.

2.0 p.m.

I want to concentrate attention on what I consider to be the most important of the several fields of Imperial affairs we are examining. I want to leave on one side, because I think they are fundamentally adequate as regards both organisation and policy, the Commonwealth Relations Office and, in certain respects, the Colonial Office. I am sure that my leaving the former aside will be a matter of great relief to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State, although he is not in his place at the moment, although I do not think he is one of the Ministers whose abolition has been proposed today. I do not propose to recommend that he should be abolished.

I want to leave on one side the Colonial Office in so far as certain territories for which it has responsibility are concerned. I refer to the smaller territories that have no reasonable chance in the foreseeable future of attaining full sovereign status, although I would say in passing in regard to some of those territories that I am not at all sure that there should not be a far more rapid and fundamental change than is envisaged by the Motion. I am not at all sure that some small territories in the Pacific, of which I have experience, should not be taken from the administration of this country altogether and put in the care of the Pacific Dominions. There is grave objection to this because of the Treaty rights the people of Fiji have, but I do not propose to dwell on that question now.

I want to concentrate attention on those territories that are about to attain, or may reasonably soon be expected to attain, independent sovereign status. I think that it is with them that we are concerned today.

In British Guinea it has already been done.

I am not sure that I understand the hon. Gentleman. I was not aware that we had extended so far as to include Guinea in our Empire. Does the hon. Gentleman refer to British Guiana?

No, Guinea—the Northern Territory.

Oh, yes. I now understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I think it most helpful. Australian New Guinea, which is administered under mandate by Australia, previously an enemy-administered territory, is a case in point, as is Samoa, in the Pacific sphere. Considering the negotiations between Australia, New Zealand and the United States about defence, it would seem that Great Britain is being gradually edged out of the Pacific. I am not at all sure that administratively we should not walk out, but I do not propose to dwell on that point because I want to concentrate on the territories which are shortly to be Commonwealth Relations Office territories but which are at the moment Colonial Office territories.

I propose to concentrate on the psychological problems that arise. Put in homely terms, I think the Colonial Office has the mentality—and it is right that it should have—of the nursery. The Commonwealth Relations Office has the mentality of the club. In neither of those two Offices is there a place psychologically for the territories that have reached the awkward age, that have come out of the nursery and yet would not be either at home or usefully catered for in the club. It is from that point of view that I think we ought to consider the Motion.

I should like to examine first the dilemma of the Colonial Office itself, and second the much more acute and dangerous dilemma of the individual colonial servant in the field. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) that it is fundamentally unsatisfactory to continue to recruit members of the Colonial Office staff exclusively from the home Civil Service. I do not think seconding to the Colonial Office of officers in the field has gone nearly far enough, and I am not sure, in any case, that that is the final answer. The Colonial Office must now face the change from primarily administrative functions to functions which will be primarily political and diplomatic. As it is at present constituted, and for so long as it continues to bear, as it must bear, responsibility for territories which will be an administrative problem in the foreseeable future, it cannot deal with these political and diplomatic functions.

Hon. Members who have suggested that the Colonial Office should have a change of name in so far as it is responsible for emergent territories are absolutely right, because there is a great deal in a name, and a rose does not smell nearly as sweet if we call it a dogwort—or people do not think it smells as sweet. Leaders of territories which are reaching higher status now than they have had in the past will not have the same confidence in their relationship with the mother country if they are regarded as the responsibility of a Secretary of State for the Colonies, so I think that the Colonial Office should be divided so that the Prime Ministers of those territories should be able to feel that they are dealing with a person or body of a status comparable to their own status in the comity of nations.

As regards the Colonial Service, we ought, I feel, to look at it first, last and all the time from the point of view of the individual officer in the Service, because it is on the quality and calibre of the Service that the whole future of this experiment—which has now reached such a critical stage—will depend. If one tries to put oneself in the position of a Colonial Service officer in the field one must imagine asking oneself, "What am I trying to do in this country with which very soon my own country will be severing its close connection?" One must answer that one is trying to do very much what the parent tries to do for the child. Great Britain is in fact trying to do for those countries what the parent does for the child.

The Colonial Service officer is in a peculiarly difficult relationship with the peoples of the country he is serving. He is at once their ruler and their servant. It reminds me of the peculiar relationship, the problems of which are most happily solved, in the Royal Navy, that arises when there is a midshipman in charge of a pinnace in which there is also a senior petty officer who knows far more about the job than the midshipman, who is an officer and superior in rank to him. It is a difficult, delicate business, the Colonial administrator has to do. He must advise firmly and yet take orders, as in Nigeria, where the head of a department is subordinate to a political chief who has, and knows he has, infinitely less experience than his Civil Service officer.

The civil servant, then, is trying, as he must if he regards his profession as a vocation, as he should, first of all to impart to the people for whom he is responsible some of the principles of government that he has inherited from his forefathers in this country.

Incidentally, I think it is not sufficiently recognised that the European Convention on Human Rights, of which this country is a signatory, and which is now written into the Constitution of this country—a curious but undoubtedly acceptable fact—is now in the process of being written into the constitutions of all the Colonial Territories for which we are responsible. Therefore, we are solving one of the problems we have not properly faced in the past, namely, how we are to hand on a definite code or dogma to the countries that leave our suzerainty. We are putting on paper, as we have done in the European Convention on Human Rights, something which amounts to no more than the principles of British common law.

Secondly, the Colonial servant is trying to pass on something in which this country is happily very rich—the standards of public service of our civil servants. This can be done only by example. Precept goes only a very short way. Thirdly, he is trying to impart to the territories which he seeks to help something of the economic and technical help which they require.

In that connection, I suggest that there is much help to be obtained from the empirical and experimental work which is being done by the Commission for Technical Co-operation in Africa South of the Sahara, in which countries outside, even, the sphere of the United Nations are co-operating in an empirical and humble way at the administrative and official level in pooling knowledge so that certain standards are accepted in such fields as labour, housing, control of disease, agriculture and so on. These standards are accepted by the Commission and endorsed by the parent Governments and then set up as standards which no one is compelled to adopt but which are a criticism of those who do not live up to them.

I think the level of technical and economic achievement of the backward territories would be raised much more by activities of this kind than by novel, and I feel rather vague and unsatisfactory, aspirations on the part of the United Nations and its specialised agencies. I do not criticise those agencies, and I know they are close to the hearts of many hon. Members opposite, but I see much greater hope for the future of Africa, at any rate, in the activities of C.C.T.A. than in the activities of any of the specialised agencies.

Fourthly, the British officer is trying to give to the nations which he is serving something which, like the elephant, is very easy to recognise but extremely difficult to describe. Perhaps I may describe it in these terms: it was Disraeli, I think, who said that the fundamental object of statesmanship was to make people love their institutions. There is a profound political and moral truth in those words. One of the things which strikes one as a very new Member of the House—as I am—is the great respect in which the House is held in the country. No doubt other hon. Members have had the same experience. Before I came here I respected the House and was very proud of it, as an Englishman, but I had no idea, until I came here, how profound is the love and respect which this House inspires among members of the general public. We see it because we have grown accustomed to being treated with the contempt which for our sole selves we deserve; but when we become Members of the House, the way in which people treat us shows how highly they regard the House of which we are Members.

It is no use giving institutions to people and merely saying, "They are good." It is necessary to instil into those people a love of their own institutions and a wish to see their own institutions develop in the way we think is right. We cannot give democracy to these people like a shot of penicillin, with the words, "This is good for you and will cure all your ills." Of course, it will not cure them. Even if we give them a House of Commons, they will not love it in the way our people love the House of Commons.

The function of the administrator is essentially the function, not of the mechanic, but of the gardener. He has to nurture the healthy growth in the garden which he is tending, and it is a very slow, difficult and delicate process. It calls for qualities of imagination, of knowledge and of patience which cannot be obtained from somebody who is recruited by a notice in "The Times" and who thinks, "This ought to be a fairly good appointment for a few years."

I am trying to show what I believe to be the contribution which this country still has to make, and will have to make for some time, to countries which we all hope will in due course have no more connection with this country than that of friendship and loyalty. The British servant in overseas territories has much to do for the country which he serves, but finally he must realise that he must efface himself and retire without hope of thanks, because this is a thankless although an infinitely rewarding task. I feel that it is a great ideal and that anybody who puts his hand to that plough as his life's work is taking on a very great and worthy task. One can only say of those who devote themselves to that way of life—what men! Perhaps this country's chief glory is that it has produced such men. The two great sister nations of the Commonwealth, India and Pakistan, have good reason to recognise the truth of what I am saying. To the men of the I.C.S. they owe their nationhood and their conception of justice and of public administration.

But I am not at all sure that the Colonial Office as at present constituted, or the colonial services in the territories to which I refer, are the right or the best-conceived instruments for achieving a flow of men of that calibre. In fact, I am extremely unhappy about it, and I have been unhappy about it for a long time. Fellow officers of mine in the Colonial Service have had a similar feeling.

The hon. Member who raised this question in the House has done a great service. It will be recognised by our countrymen overseas who have no representation in the House and, who, rightly. are always extremely averse to making any political representations to their countrymen in the House. These countrymen of ours have put their hands to a plough which will be an instrument in producing a great harvest.

However, I am afraid that they are being run by an office and organised in a series of services which are illogical and chaotic and which are rapidly becoming demoralised. I most earnestly ask the Minister of State to give this question the most searching thought and to ask himself whether his office, as at present constituted, and the services for which it is ultimately responsible, can bring about that flow of human material which is our greatest contribution to this great effort—I think the greatest effort any country has ever made—towards the advancement of the human race to harmony and fulfilment.

2.19 p.m.

There are many things in the very thoughtful speech of the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) which I should like to take up, but time forbids. One point I must mention, however. He spoke of technical co-operation south of the Sahara. That is confined to public servants—colonial servants—and I wish the Minister of State would think about extending that sort of co-operation to Members of this House so that, in addition to the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, we could also have a Council of Africa, with Belgian and Portuguese and French deputies, perhaps meeting in London or perhaps in Paris. There is much need for co-operation on that line among politicians like ourselves, together with our opposite numbers in Paris, Lisbon and Brussels.

I may be mistaken, but I have the impression that the hon. Member thought this Commission was confined to the British territories in Africa. Although it is confined to the official level, it covers other territories in Africa, including the Portuguese and French.

I want to go beyond that and extend it to the end, as it were.

I think we are all indebted to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) for opening this debate today. I spent an absorbing and happy month with him in East Africa a short while ago, and I know how deep and thoughtful his interest is in these matters. We are in his debt; and not only hon. Members in this House but many of his old friends in East Africa and other places overseas will welcome the debate in this House today because they are thinking on these lines in the Colonies and overseas territories.

"Overseas territories" is a term which I should like to substitute for Empire. I should like to delete the term "Empire"; I do not say "liquidate" in the context in which the late Sir Stafford Cripps talked about it 20 years ago. I should like to see the Colonial Office named the "Office for Overseas Territories." We have heard a lot about the human approach to people overseas and particularly coloured people, and I offer that suggestion for what it is worth.

The word "Empire" in the past has always meant something that was bound to the centre. As the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) said, this is not, as in the Australian sense, an overseas Empire of Britishers. This is a collection of equals and separates, as in the Canadian sense of the Commonwealth.

I want to emphasise that I speak of the overseas territories in this connection. I should like to take up what the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) said and which I challenged at the time. Although he promised to develop what he said, he did not do so. He spoke of what I think he termed a second-class policy in the Commonwealth. I should hate to see, as some have suggested, either an amalgamation of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office, and equally I should hate to see a sort of "between office" between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office.

I made it clear that there could not be any first or second-class members of the Commonwealth. I envisaged a situation in which a functional relationship would exist between full sovereign member countries, and I hoped that in the course of time new dominions would join in and develop in that particular way. I did not envisage everything being dealt with under the same roof—quite the contrary.

At this stage when the Empire or overseas territories stand for a policy of richer life for all the people overseas, the job is to know how to hold and keep these people together in this organic, evolving, ever-developing Commonwealth and Empire.

There are only two factors, as I see it. First, there is the hereditary Kingship or, at the moment, Queenship. We need not say much here about the wonderful work which is being done in that connection by the tour of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh overseas. This has been a wonderful cement in binding together all those overseas territories.

The other factor is consultations with Dominion and Colonial statesmen. This consultation is improving. We have had the economic conferences at Sydney and elsewhere, and also the consultations at the Coronation. The more consultation there is, the better. I would therefore advocate to the Minister of State what Mr. Creech Jones did some years ago, that, in the same way as we have just had at Lahore a Commonwealth get-together, we should have a colonial overseas territory get-together. We should call together these colonial statesmen so that they can discuss with the Colonial Office terms and conditions of colonial service and important things of that kind besides political matters. We have had some excellent conferences—the Nigerian conference, the West Indian conference and the like. I should like the statesmen of all the overseas territories to come here, as they did during the Coronation, to discuss these knotty and difficult questions which we are attempting in our own way to hammer out today in the short time at our disposal.

There is no need to combine the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. The C.R.O. might change its initials to P.R.O., because it is a kind of public relations officer. There is really very little in this House that the Commonwealth Relations Office does do. We see the state of affairs at Question time on Thursdays. If we have High Commission Territories, I feel that they should deal with the Colonial Office, and if we could have Questions about them to the Colonial Office on Wednesdays, there would be very little to talk about with the C.R.O. on Thursdays.

Reverting to the question of colonial statesmen, I should also like to see more personal consultation with the colonial statesmen here in London through the Houses of Parliament. I was wondering whether we could not have statesmen like Lord Sinha and Lord Bruce coming to the House of Lords as in pre-war days. If they were to take part in the debates in another place, I think that we might be nearer to each other in those human contacts and sympathies which are so vital for holding and developing even further this wonderful Commonwealth of Nations.

May I say a word about the position, touched upon by the hon. Member for Ilford, North of those Colonial Territories which have young, ambitious and obviously proud statesmen who are now coming up to the second tier, as it were, and want to get up into the higher and more dignified parts of the family of the Commonwealth?

The Gold Coast, as well as Nigeria, the West Indies and Southern Rhodesia will have their external affairs, defence, and even finance with some, looked after by the mother country. In that sense we are sponsors. The hon. Member for Billericay talked about a sovereign status for these new, emerging quasi-Dominions like the Gold Coast and Southern Rhodesia. In that context, I think that we ought to be honest with ourselves when we talk about giving the Gold Coast colonial status. Mr. Nkrumah as Prime Minister and his people behind him wish to have full Dominion status. If we give Dominion status, what of the Barbados—will not Grantley Adams—their Prime Minister also desires this? In fact, they are self-governing and actually their Governor has no reserved powers, unlike Sir Charles Arden Clarke at Accra. What about Jamaica, with Bustamente? We have got to be careful how fast we go or in what manner we go in this matter of Dominions or quasi-Dominions, as the Gold Coast soon will be.

Looking back, I think we made a mistake over Southern Rhodesia. The damage was done 30 years ago, when we admitted Southern Rhodesia into the Commonwealth Relations Office. We lost then the chance of asking Questions in the House as the guardian of our coloured wards south of the Zambesi, in Southern Rhodesia. It is important that as the Metropolitan Power we should jealously guard our task of looking after these weaker, backward coloured peoples. We made that mistake with Southern Rhodesia, and we should be quite sure before we, so to speak, admit others to the club or lift them up to the higher and more dignified parts of the family.

In another of his points, the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot) anticipated me. I am one of those who feels that we should look upon Africa as we looked upon India with the India Office. We need another Minister of State in what, I hope, will be the future Overseas Territories Office, and he should be a Minister for African Affairs. It is scandalous that Scotland should have double the Ministers that the whole of the colonial overseas territories and Empire have.

Why should England not give up a few of her Ministers?

I was thinking more in the context of work to be done and not in terms of status of particular parts of the Commonwealth. With all the work that is to be done, we need an addition at the Colonial Office. If this were done, the Secretary of State would not be quite as overwhelmed as he has been. Look at the work that has been done—Central African Federation, Kenya, Guiana, Honduras, Nigeria and the Gold Coast. It is now a terrific Department, and there is need to man it with at least one other Minister to cope with the work.

The new Minister should travel in Africa and keep in touch with the peoples overseas. He should go also to the United Nations at New York, and should put and defend the case for this country over our Trusteeship territories. An impression is getting about in Africa and in our overseas territories—others will bear this out—that at Lake Success the United Kingdom is shielding the Union of South Africa in the matter of Southwest Africa, for example. We do not want to lose the faith of the peoples of Africa. This is a job for the new Minister of State as a special plenipotentiary, not merely going about Africa, but going also to the United Nations to put our case clearly and plainly.

Looking at the Commonwealth concept as a whole, I notice what might be a dangerous division between the older Commonwealth, spoken about by the hon. Member for Somerset, North—the old, English-speaking parts, if I may say so, without disrespect to the French-speaking section of the hon. Member's own country—and the newer, younger, coloured, peoples, for example, the Pakistanis, the Indians and the Singhalese, in looking at the matter of N.A.T.O. and global and United Nations matters. We must all hang together in the Commonwealth and be thinking more together in Parliamentary democratic forms of discussion. These things which we term together as democratic equality are the most important things which can hold us with the coloured peoples, such as the Singhalese and others.

People in Kenya or Nigeria are at the moment content in most instances to accept the leadership of white people and Europeans, for they feel that we are still superior in many walks of life, both political and economic. But from my journeys I gained also the impression that they will not tolerate an indefinite period of white supremacy. If there is indefinite supremacy, it is a negation of what we Anglo-Saxons have taught them in the past, and what we are telling these peoples in the present. It is vital to strengthen and cement that unity of white and coloured.

I invite my colleagues to read what Bishop Becher said yesterday in London about the future of Kenya, if we do not make our way quickly towards democratic equality within the next few years. If we do not pursue these paths of democratic equality, there will be no need then to talk about the demarcation of divisions between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. We have got to hold these peoples with us, and only then in the future can we still talk in terms of Dominions, Colonies, overseas territories and the like.

2.36 p.m.

In an earlier part of his speech, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) mentioned that the House as a whole and he in particular were largely unaware of what the Commonwealth Relations Office did. That is a general complaint. The trouble is that it is too little known.

The Commonwealth Relations Office seems to take pleasure in self-effacing itself. It is difficult to see what function the Office performs beyond that of a plinth to support the statuesque figure of the Secretary of State. It is unlikely even in the House that everyone will be aware of the identity of the Secretary of State of the day from among the half-dozen eminent men who might fill his job.

It has been suggested by those who put forward the Motion, and particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport), that the Commonwealth Relations Office should in some way be strengthened and given more power and responsibility. I question this view, because it seems to me that there is strength in the very indefiniteness of the functions performed by that office.

If we were to grant particular responsibilities, how would they be exercised? Clearly, they would only be used through the Foreign Office, the Treasury and a few other Departments. The Commonwealth Relations Office could not be made in any way an executive office. It already has certain responsibilities. It has the responsibility, for example, for co-ordinating migration policies, and the result is that there is no Commonwealth migration policy. I am not criticising the Government on this score. I am simply indicating how the very nebulousness of the Commonwealth Relations Office leads to a certain concentration upon tact and a disregard of initiative. I sometimes feel that above the desk of every officer in the Commonwealth Relations Office there must be a notice saying, "Tact, not initiative." The trouble is that tact can so often be mistaken for indifference, and the lack of any guidance upon such a subject as migration might be misinterpreted in the member States of the Commonwealth as being indifference of or even negligence by this country.

What we are concerned with is whether we can strengthen the Commonwealth Relations Office in such a way as to make the interchange of views between the different member nations of the Commonwealth more effective. I do not think we can. The unit of discussion has become the conference. There have been the conferences between Prime Ministers, between Foreign Secretaries, and between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Finance Ministers of the different member nations, to which are brought the decisions and opinions arrived at in separate and independent Parliaments. We cannot, surely, set up any more permanent body than these periodic conferences to go into these big issues.

After all, there are not such a number of issues which are common to the Commonwealth as a whole. Great issues of state are decided by discussion in the various Parliaments of the Commonwealth upon facts which are clearly known. We have only to remember the entry into the last two wars of the different member nations to see that these decisions can be arrived at with practically no preliminary discussion at all between the member nations. I cannot see myself that any advantage would be gained in the amalgamation of the Commonwealth Relations Office or in the setting up of another organisation parallel to the United Nations Organisation in which there would be constant discussion of Commonwealth affairs.

If there is an amalgamation of the two present offices the difficulty would arise that the head of that office would, by necessity, be the representative of the older Dominions in our Commonwealth and not the Colonial Secretary. It is the Colonial Secretary in these affairs, however, who has the biggest powers and the greatest responsibility, so that the titular head man will have less power and less responsibility. The staff coordinating the office will be very largely drawn from one single element in it, the Colonial Office.

I would point to this further difficulty. If the two are amalgamated the old Dominions are thereby involved in Colonial responsibilities. The very fact that there was a united office would mean that by implication the Dominions would be made responsible for decisions usually taken in this House by our Government for the non-governing Colonies. That would only lead to friction or delay or both. One can easily imagine the circumstances that would have arisen over British Guiana if it had been necessary to secure prior approval for the action which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State took from each one of the Dominions. We clearly would have lost that element of quickness, sudden decision and even surprise which had the effect in British Guiana which we all desired.

I come finally to the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine) about a Commonwealth civil service. It was his original idea, his brain child if I may so describe it, which he put forward some time ago. It was intended that there should be a civil service drawn from all parts of the Commonwealth, both from the Dominions and from the non-governing communities, and the members of this new service should go out to every part of the Commonwealth in the capacity of administrators and technical experts. The idea was soon shot down, because it was clearly impossible to send, for example, to British Guiana a man who had spent his whole life in India and was, in fact, an Indian. He would not be accepted. We can imagine all sorts of variations in which there would be constant friction between those officers whom the Minister might wish to send to a special Colony, and the Colony itself for refusing to accept them on racial or political grounds.

His main point so far as I understood it was that we should create a service in which the pay, conditions of service and pension rights were equally borne by the different Colonies, and in which the men who entered this service would have some sort of guarantee that they would serve out their full career in it with certain security for themselves and their family.

My hon. Friend expressed the fear that there was at this moment an actual shortage of officers entering the present service, but there may be a surplus shortly largely owing to the fact that the men in the present service, by their energy and goodwill, are working themselves out of a job by bringing nearer the day when the Colonies will be able to govern themselves.

I think there is a slight inconsistency in my hon. Friend's argument. He is saying at one moment that there are not sufficient men—in his speech this afternoon he gave us examples of that—and at the next moment he is saying that this service is totally insecure. I find it difficult to reconcile these two arguments. On the contrary, I should imagine that the services of these men will be in great demand and that a full, unbroken career is open to them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) amplified this idea by suggesting the creation in some way of a pool of technical and administrative experts who would be available under the aegis of this new Commonwealth Office to go out to all parts of the Commonwealth and even to some of the under-developed territories which are not in the Commonwealth at all. He suggested that we should draw members for this new body from all parts of the Commonwealth, and that equally all parts would be able to draw from it for experts for the problems with which they were faced. He felt, I think, that not only the Colonies but the Dominions would welcome a chance of having experts from such a source.

I should have made it clear, and I endeavoured to make it clear, that I did not think that a great country like Canada would wish to get technical assistance from a pool of this sort, but, indeed, through its own external relations, might even contribute to assist other countries not so well equipped which might require that form of assistance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay says they are actually doing it, and I was going on to say that I cannot see that his suggestion or the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester represent very revolutionary changes. Different parts of the Commonwealth at the moment are receiving technical experts through the operation of the United Nations technical aid organisations, and his scheme would be a tiny variation upon what is already happening and working very well. I cannot see any advantage in the scheme that he has brought forward.

The same thing applies to the arguments about the conditions of service advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. It is possible that all that could be done within the existing Colonial Service to improve conditions, pay and pensions. I do not see the necessity to draft any vast number of people from outside the States within the Commonwealth in order to make this possible. To sum up, although I fully appreciate their intentions, I cannot see that the methods advocated by my hon. Friends would lead to the results which we all want.

2.49 p.m.

I join with Members from both sides of the House in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) for using his extraordinary luck—he has been successful twice in successive ballots—to initiate the very interesting discussion which we have had today. I think it right that I should call it a discussion and not a debate, for we have ranged widely over a large number of very important subjects. I do not propose in the time that is available to cover them all, but I should like to refer to some of them.

I should begin by emphasising that in recent years, and particularly since the end of the Second World War, there have been enormous changes in the Commonwealth and its relationship to us in the United Kingdom. This is a changing Commonwealth. We have been transforming it continuously from an Empire into a Commonwealth. It is because we have had the wisdom to make that change that the Commonwealth has survived and will endure, and, as we go on making that change as circumstances demand, the Commonwealth will endure.

Since the end of the Second World War, however, a momentous change has taken place, indeed more momentous than any change in the long history of the British Empire and Commonwealth. That is the granting of freedom to India and Pakistan and Ceylon and they themselves volunteering to stay within this Commonwealth as independent members and sovereign States. As one writer has put it, whatever this Commonwealth may become, it has now ceased to be an extension of the British race overseas and has become the greatest multi-racial community in the world. That is something to be proud of, but, whilst expressing our pride, it is a challenge to us.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) referred to the fact that recently, under the auspices of Chatham House, there has been a conference in Lahore to discuss the relationship of the Asian countries to the Commonwealth in the new setting that has emerged since 1945. We get far too few opportunities of discussing these problems in the House of Commons and we are grateful for this one. I hope there will be the opportunity for us to hear, within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, those of our colleagues who have been able to attend the Lahore Conference. So far, all that we have had is the article by Mr. William Clark who attended it. I shall cite one paragraph from his article last Sunday because it raises the question of the future of the Commonwealth in the new context which has emerged since 1945—

I want to deal with one or two specific questions—first, that of the relation of the Ministers of the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office. It is important for us to realise, when we discuss, as we are discussing, whether any changes are now required in the responsibilities of these two Offices, or in their relationship, by transferring from one to another or by amalgamation, that these two Offices have their own particular significance outside this country. Therefore, when we deal with this problem, we are not dealing merely with the problem of the structure and machinery of Government within the United Kingdom and within our own governmental machine, but with two Offices that have their own special significance in the development of our policy, particularly in the Colonies.

For the Commonwealth Relations Office has now become the symbol, which has been expressed in custom and in prac- tice, that when Colonies reach a certain stage in their advance towards self-government, responsibility is transferred from the Colonial Office to the Commonwealth Relations Office. So, in considering any change, we should realise how important it is not to suggest that any change is intended to prevent in the future the newly-emerging States also having responsibilities transferred for the same reason.

The Commonwealth Relations Office is responsible not only for the sovereign nations of the Commonwealth but also for others that have not attained this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) called it a mistake—whether it was or not, the decision was made—that in the 1920s, when Southern Rhodesia attained the status which we described as that of a self-governing Colony, responsibility for it was taken out of the hands of the Colonial Department and transferred to the Dominions Department and now to the Commonwealth Relations Office. It is still not a Dominion, it is still a self-governing Colony. It has reached what I would describe as a penultimate stage and, having done that, it has been transferred to the Commonwealth Relations Office.

Last year, in a Bill which was before this House and about which there was much controversy and debate but which has now become an Act of Parliament, the question arose as to which of these Departments should be responsible for the new Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. In the course of the discussions, I said that I thought it should be under the Colonial Office or, at any rate, that there should be joint responsibility, as there could have been. Her Majesty's Government, however, decided that the responsibility for the new Federation should be vested in the Commonwealth Relations Office and in the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. Yet the new Federation is not a Dominion, it is not a sovereign State—it has reached a certain stage on the road towards that—but we have transferred it.

Therefore, it is important to realise that at a given stage we have established by precedent that the responsibility for Colonies which reach a certain stage in their advance towards self-government, the penultimate stage, is transferred to the Commonwealth Relations Office. No impression, even unwittingly, should go out from this House that we are now considering a change because new States are emerging which are laying claim to advances in their constitutional status, and such as will in a sense put them on a par with Southern Rhodesia and with the new Federation, and therefore, in their view, call for transference to the Commonwealth Relations Office.

Indeed, at this moment the Secretary of State for the Colonies and Her Majesty's Government have before them proposals from the Gold Coast Government, and, I gather from the Press, the consideration of them has now reached the stage where we can expect in the not-too-distant future a pronouncement; indeed, following that pronouncement, that there will be elections in the Gold Coast and that the new Constitution will come into operation. We shall have to wait until the Secretary of State makes his announcement in due course to find out whether he accepts all or, if not all, which of these proposals he accepts and which, in their turn, the Gold Coast accept.

I should like to quote two of the constitutional proposals which were put forward in July last by the Gold Coast Government with the unanimous approval of their Legislative Council and which are now before the Secretary of State for his consideration. Item 6 of these proposals reads:

Item 7 of the proposals reads:

I sometimes wonder whether we are doing the wise thing in allowing this matter to rest there until specific cases arise, because all the time there is the danger that in one specific case there might be a disagreement which might have a profound effect throughout the Commonwealth. I sometimes wonder whether we, as a Commonwealth, should not face this problem and agree that when these nations in Africa and elsewhere attain full Dominion status, we as a Commonwealth should welcome them as equal partners in the Commonwealth. If that were agreed, it would have a profound effect on every Colony in the world. I hope, therefore, that that consideration will not be turned down out of hand, but will be studied.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) said that the conference had become the medium of communication and consultation in the Commonwealth. We have had conferences of Prime Ministers, Finance Ministers and Defence Ministers, and I wonder whether there is not a case for a Commonwealth conference to consider our relations with one another and our relations with the emerging territories that some day will attain Dominion status. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) had an Amendment on the Order Paper to insert in the Motion which we are now discussing the words:

I was very interested in the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Colchester that some efforts should be made in some way to reduce the burden on the Colonial Secretary and the Colonial Office. The burden is really becoming almost intolerable, and particularly intolerable in the era of small majorities in this House. The journeys which I made to the Colonies had to be determined by the number of three-line Whips.

No Colonial Secretary can do his job without having the fullest opportunity of visiting and keeping contact all the time with the peoples of the Colonial Territories. His, therefore, is a very big burden.

Various suggestions have been made and the gist of this Motion is to ask that all these things should be examined. I hope that that will be accepted, for all these things are worthy of examination and we do not want to tie ourselves to a decision this afternoon.

The suggestion has been made in many quarters on various occasions that one way of reducing the burden on the Colonial Office would be to have a separate office for Africa and a separate Secretary of State. That is worth considering, but if we are to have two Ministers, one for the Colonies in Africa and one for the Colonies elsewhere, it is of the utmost importance that both should have equal status. It is essential that both should be members of the Cabinet for, if one is a member of the Cabinet and the other is not, that would have a significance which would be very damaging. I doubt whether it is possible; I am not quite sure whether it is wise to make that division.

I think there is a stronger case for another Minister. Consideration should be given to that. There is no reason at all why we should not have another Minister. The leader of our party created the office of Minister of State, first in the Foreign Office and, after that, in the Colonial Office. It is a comparatively recent development and a kind of middle position between that of Minister and Parliamentary Secretary. There is no reason why there should not be more than one Minister. That suggestion ought to be considered, because something must be done about the burden.

The hon. Member suggested that the burden might be relieved by transferring to the Commonwealth Relations Office the economic responsibility carried by the Colonial Office, and that suggestion merits examination. My first inclination this afternoon was to think that there are very great difficulties in dissociating or spreading the responsibility for economic development in the Colonies from the other responsibilities, but I hope this matter will be considered.

I hope that one of these days we shall give consideration to the future of the methods we have adopted in the last 10 or 20 years of aiding economic and social development in the Colonies. Under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, we spend £140 million. Who can measure the gains? Who can go to any Colony without seeing the marks everywhere of the tremendous work that has been done by the use of comparatively small sums voted in this country for development of all kinds? The Colonial Development and Welfare Funds were first fixed in this House by someone of whom we all think with affection, the late Mr. Oliver Stanley. I added £20 million to the original £120 million, and that is committed up to 1956. Indeed, I think we now have some I.O.Us. I think that the Secretary of State recently spoke of sums of money voted in anticipation. There is also the Colonial Development Corporation, and I should like us to have a debate on the future relationship between the two. I have my own ideas, which I will not develop now, about their future.

Another matter, raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine), was that the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund and the Colonial Development and Welfare Corporation are limited in their activities to territories which are Colonies as defined in the Acts. The result is that Southern Rhodesia does not come within either of them and, presumably, the Federation will not do so if the same interpretation is given to the term "Colony" as under those Acts. I should like us to consider that and to bear in mind that if we make provision for another 10 years, from 1956 to 1966, a number of Colonial Territories will have marched on to another status. Are we to say to them, when they have reached that status, that there is no provision by which we can promote their economic development? I should like to see linked with the suggestion for economic responsibility consideration of the development of these two great schemes. I hope that that consideration is not in its final stage, but that the Minister will consider long-term legislation for the future of Commonwealth Development and Welfare.

Finally, I come to the problem of the future of the Colonial Service, which I, as Colonial Secretary, had to deal with, which the present Colonial Secretary has to deal with and which his successors will have to deal with. It is an important problem. In a way, I understand the feeling of the men concerned. It is the sort of feeling I had about a machine when I was a miner, the fear that if I accepted the machine, destroyed existing customs and did what I often urged from the other side of the House, removed all restrictions, etc., I should work myself out of a job. The same sort of fear is in the minds of the men whom I am now discussing.

I think I speak for us all when I say that there are two important considerations in this matter. The first is that we owe a debt of obligation to the members of the Colonial Service which we must adequately discharge, and indeed generously; that when they have reached the stage in their work where they have trained others to take over their jobs and they themselves are faced with redundancy this country must behave generously towards them.

The second consideration is that I hope that, in speaking about this problem, we shall not have the impression that these territories will necessarily seek to dispense with the services of these officers. I think that there are welcome signs to the contrary. I would refer to the annexe to the Nigerian Conference Report, and to the Gold Coast itself. There and elsewhere, when territories have reached the stage—if that stage has been reached in a good mood, if it is reach in partnership and agreement and not as a result of conflict—when they are anxious to Africanise the service, they realise at the same time how important it is to have first-class administration and how such administration is not possible unless they have the continued help of these first-class administrators.

I believe that they will be very anxious for those administrators to continue. I hope that the Minister will continue the discussions—I do not call them negotiations—and understandings that have been developed by which many of those officers will stay to help those territories when they cease to be Colonies, because the help of those officers will still be required.

I turn to another aspect. We are thinking in the main of the administrative officer. We must realise that as the Colonies change and advance towards self-government the character of the Service required also changes. While I have profound admiration and respect for the old-time—if I may use that phrase—administrative officer, I have great doubts whether that is the type of officer that the Colonies will need in the future. That is an aspect which merits consideration. The tradition of the Service, a very fine one, has been very largely based upon the functions of the Colonial Office and the colonial officers in the field in the days of the Lugard tradition of indirect rule.

The position is changing now. We are committed to the policy of guiding the peoples in the Colonies towards responsible self-government, which means that we must build institutions. That side of the work has been growing enormously. To take trade unions as an example, there has been a remarkable development from about 10, 20 years or more ago, to more than 1,000. Then there is the Co-operative movement. It is of enormous importance that the Co-operative movements and societies should develop responsibly and should be successful in the Colonies. Here we have in our own country the accumulated experience of our trade union and Co-operative movements. I hope that we shall recruit from those sources to bring their experience to bear on those movements in the Colonies.

Industrial relations are becoming important. Labour departments have to be created. Here we have the experience of the Ministry of Labour and of industrial relationships in every aspect of that very wide field, which we must draw upon.

Local government is of immense importance. One of the most successful training schemes which the Colonial Office has, or ever has had, is that by which those engaged in local government in the Colonies come to this country to be trained. By whom are they trained? By our borough councils and our urban and rural councils. They are taught the administration. When we consider the future of the Colonial Service, I think it is important that we draw more and more from this field of experience.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is here. When I was Secretary of State for the Colonies he was Home Secretary, and in his presence I will mention only one thing. We had reached a stage in Malaya when it was impossible to get people to volunteer for the police. The only way to overcome that was, through my right hon. Friend's agency, to make an arrangement with the Metropolitan Police to invite the standing and watch committees all over the country to seek police officers from their own services to go to Malaya, on the understanding that their jobs would be open to them when they returned.

It must be remembered that when, without security, someone leaves this country for a Colony or elsewhere, he sacrifices a lot. We have built here the Welfare State. When we ask a man to go abroad, there is not only the spirit of adventure to be considered but such things as his family, family allowances, National Health Insurance, superannuation and all that sort of thing. I therefore think that in some fields of the Colonial Service there is a case for examining a possible association with the Civil Service at home—both national and local.

I have taken more than my time, but I have enjoyed doing what I have heard other hon. Members doing—thinking aloud about these problems. I hope that all these problems will be examined. I close with these remarks in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). Certain aspects of Commonwealth policy should be discussed at a Commonwealth conference. I should like it to be a conference between the Secretary of State and members of his Department and representatives from the Colonies. I should like to see it widened into a conference in which all of us on both sides of the House and the representatives from the Colonies could take an interest.

We have everything to gain by discussing together all these problems in an atmosphere free from crisis. It is to the degree and extent to which, between us. we can work out common policies, that the success of the objective on which we have set our eyes—the building of a great Commonwealth of equal partners—will probably depend.

3.18 p.m.

I feel sure that all Members in the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) for putting down this Motion today. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has said, it has been a most valuable discussion. In listening to the speeches, I believe that we have been doing what the right hon. Gentleman said was being done at Lahore, which was to make our multiracial Commonwealth work.

I think that our pleasure in this debate, and the gratitude which we owe to my hon. Friend, will be shared by many others in other parts of the Commonwealth. It will be shared with gratitude and pleasure especially by the officers of the Colonial Service throughout the world. Against the background of the vast changes which have been referred to today, they have naturally been filled with misgivings and anxiety both in regard to their own future and to that of the Colonial Service.

The problem as it is set out in the Motion is divided into two parts, which I think we ought to consider separately. The first is a proposal for a redefinition of the spheres of responsibility of the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office. Although this is primarily a matter of domestic concern to Her Majesty's Government, it is true that any change would inevitably react on the independent Commonwealth countries and on the Colonial Territories. The right hon. Member for Llanelly has just referred to the significance which the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office have overseas.

Secondly, we have had suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester and a number of other hon. Members for a reorganisation of the Colonial Service or for the creation of a Commonwealth Service, into which might be merged the present Colonial Service and, I suppose, the Commonwealth Relations Service, with its High Commissioners and staffs, and other services which may be set up, as well as individual technical officers working under the Colombo Plan and so on.

As to the second point, a number of hon. Members have proposed that the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office should be merged into one Department. That view was not taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, but it was taken up by a number of other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Braine).

My right hon. Friend will forgive me, but he could not have been listening to what I said. I emphasised the fact that it was not possible to merge the two Departments. What I thought was likely to happen was that the Commonwealth relations would assume more and more a functional character. There was no suggestion that the two offices should be amalgamated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester made a slightly different suggestion, which was that the economic functions of the Colonial Office should be transferred to the Commonwealth Relations Office, and that they should be operated on a regional basis. It is an interesting suggestion, and the right hon. Member for Llanelly said that it ought to be considered. But I must confess that, at first sight, it seems to me that it would be impossible to draw a rigid line between the functions of the Colonial Secretary in the political field and in the economic field. I do not see how the two can be divorced.

On the other hand, in the future, when a new Act dealing with the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund has to be passed, no doubt we shall have the opportunity of considering the matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and this would embrace some of the failings of the present system as seen by my hon. Friend.

There have been suggestions for a Minister for Africa. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that that is not possible. I do not see how we could establish a Secretary of State for Africa. After all, what is Africa? Should we include the Condominion of the Sudan? Should we try to bring in the Union of South Africa? What about the Seychelles? Should we bring in Zanzibar and Mauritius? Where should it end?

There have been suggestions for the appointment of another Minister of State. I am not going to comment on what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day, except to say that I have been present at the Fourth Committee of the United Nations for the past two years, and I would also mention that it moved from Lake Success to New York three years ago.

There have been many hon. Members who have urged a merger between the two Departments. I think that the suggestion has been that such a merger would in some way mitigate the sense of inferiority in certain Colonial Territories or, at any rate, in those which have moved furthest along the road to what we used to call Dominion status. I refer, for instance, to their dislike of the feeling that their affairs are being handled by the Colonial Office. I am aware of the objections. I have experienced it myself in New York at the United Nations.

I appreciate the effect simply of the name "Colonial Office" and "Colonialism." I would not go so far as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), who said that in the present situation the Colonial Office is illogical, chaotic and utterly demoralised—which is a little hard—but I realise the difficulties which are involved in the name. While it may be that what might be called the transition stage could be made easier, and the edges blurred, if the two Departments were put, so to speak, under one hat, I do not believe that it would have more than temporary results. On the other hand, it would give rise to a great many difficulties.

The separation of the Dominions Office from the Colonial Office, in 1925, took place as a result of the emergence of certain territories into full sovereignty. It was anomalous that they should be associated with a Minister who was still primarily responsible for administering Colonial Territories. A special Department was set up, and other Commonwealth territories have been added to its responsibilities as they have attained full independence.

In 1925 there was a clear distinction between territories which were clearly independent and sovereign and those which were not, and that is precisely the position today. Some of the territories with which we have been dealing may have advanced a long way along the road to self-government, and may even be almost ripe for full self-government, but so long as Her Majesty's Government have the final responsibility there must be a Minister who is a member of the Cabinet whose sole concern is the welfare and advancement of the Colonial Territories.

It is not only that the Colonial Office has become a large organisation which, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly has said, absorbs the full time, or more than the full time, of the Secretary of State. There are also other factors to be considered. We must remember that the interests of the Colonial Territories for which the Secretary of State is responsible do not always coincide with those of the independent members of the Commonwealth. There may be political and economic matters on which the interests of a Colonial Territory directly conflict with those of an independent member. I cannot believe that either the Colonial Territories or the sovereign members of the Commonwealth would be satisfied if their interests were represented in the Cabinet by a single Secretary of State.

The rôle of the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is entirely different from that of the Colonial Secretary. The Secretary of State and his officials abroad deal with matters concerning sovereign States. It is his duty, through constant consultation, to secure the greatest possible measure of coordination between the independent members of the Commonwealth. He must see that they are kept properly informed of British policy in international affairs and of developments in our Colonial Territories. It is by no means a question of being merely a post office. I am certain that the Commonwealth countries would be very unlikely to relish the idea of surrendering the right to deal with one Department which represents them alone, in favour of dealing with a Department which is also responsible for colonial affairs.

There have been suggestions that the Commonwealth Relations Office might be merged with the Foreign Office. The arguments against that are overwhelming. It is essential that there should be a special department with which Commonwealth members can deal. Our relations with each other are quite different from our relations with foreign countries, even those with whom we are most closely associated. Our relations are much more informal. It is a family affair.

I submit that the case for a merger rests on one thing only, and that is the satisfaction that the more rapidly developing Colonial Territories would gain from transfer to a single Ministry from which the stigma of colonialism had disappeared. I believe that that is very largely illusory. I doubt whether in practice it would satisfy even those territories that have asked for transfer to the Commonwealth Relations Office.

It may be that one day, when many more of our territories, whether a West Indian Federation, a new self-governing Malaya, Gold Coast or Nigeria, have passed on to full self-governing status, perhaps some redistribution of duties between the Colonial Office and the Commonwealth Relations Office will be called for. It may be that smaller States could never become fully independent—although, perhaps, self-governing—for economic or financial reasons, or on account of their size, and there may be a case then for examining the question of a change of duties or redistribution of duties. But in our view that moment has not yet come.

I would emphasise that there is certainly no undue rigidity in the minds of those of us who are dealing with these matters. We are proceeding by the empirical method rather than by trying to work out cut and dried schemes, and I think that that, perhaps, is the answer to the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman made of holding a Commonwealth conference to deal with the specific case of the admission of those developing territories into the Commonwealth itself. I doubt whether it would be desirable to hold a special conference for this purpose. It seems to me a matter which will come up for discussion at conferences of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in the regular course of events.

Is there not a case for a periodic conference? We are not discussing an ad hoc conference such as may be held to consider an event that suddenly blows up inside the family of the Commonwealth. Is there not, however, a case for a periodic conference, a quinquennial or biennial conference, for instance, to discuss problems that are common to all of us?

I would point out that representatives from the Colonies were present at the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' Conference. They were accompanied by Ministers from the Colonial Office. The Secretary of State was with them in London, and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State in Sydney. Colonial Territories were invited to send representatives to the Sydney Conference.

Our feeling is that if there is a meeting for a specific purpose minds tend to be concentrated on that limited purpose, and what we want is an opportunity, as my right hon. Friend put it, to think aloud.

I think that this debate alone will give people a chance to learn what is felt in the House, and it will lead to a great deal of discussion of these matters overseas, in all the Commonwealth countries, including he Colonies themselves.

I think it is the desire of all of us that all the suggestions made on both sides of the House during this debate should be considered, and I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to turn down the suggestion of a conference to discuss these wider problems. It is certainly worth considering. I am sure it will be considered. It is the desire of all of us in the House that it should be.

I have not turned it down. I was commenting on it. As in the case of numerous other suggestions made this afternoon, it will be given careful thought by the Government.

I think I should comment on the suggestion that the Colonial Office in London and the Colonial Service might be integrated, with a complete interchange of personnel. That was done in the case of the Foreign Office and the Diplomatic Service after the 1914 war. But that was quite a different proposition. There were only 150 in each of those two Services, whereas there are many thousands in the Colonial Service, including technical officers and administrative officers. I believe that the vast disproportion of size between the Colonial Office and the Colonial Service would make it impossible to carry out such a form of integration.

Of course, there is already a great degree of integration and interchange of personnel both ways. Over one-third of the Governors and High Commissioners in office have at one time been temporary or permanent members of the Colonial Office. The traffic works both ways and is being encouraged at a rather lower level nowadays than used to be the case, for we are bringing in able men from the Colonial Service and making them heads of Departments in the Colonial Office and are sending out from the Colonial Office officials to serve overseas in similar appointments.

The fact that in our view the time has not yet come for any major definition of spheres of responsibility between the Commonwealth Relations Office and the Colonial Office does not remove the desirability of examining the relationship between the respective services and the need for a re-organisation of the Colonial Service as a whole. This matter has provoked great interest in the Press and in public discussion in the past 12 months, and there is also interest in it and anxiety about it among members of the Colonial Service. That is particularly the case in the West African territories and South-East Asia, where Colonies are nearing full self-government. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend has been much pre-occupied with the matter for a long time and has had many discussions upon it.

Members of the Colonial Service art asking, as they are entitled to ask, what will be their position if, as a result of constitutional changes, the United Kingdom is no longer able to exercise effective control over their future or to protect their conditions of service. Although it has been represented that as a result of this uncertainty there has been a decline in recruitment, both in numbers and in quality, we have very little evidence of this fact. It is true, as my right hon. Friend said, that there were a thousand vacancies at the end of last year, but there were a thousand vacancies at the end of the previous year and there is always a time-lag while people are answering advertisements and making up their minds.

That is not to say that we have all the recruits, technical and otherwise, that we need. Of the 1,000 vacancies, only 101 were in the administrative services. All the others were technical vacancies, for doctors, educationists, irrigation engineers, police, agriculturists and so on. We need almost as many of them as we can get in the Colonial Service. But the number of vacancies is due in the main to the expansion which has taken place in the Colonial Service since the war, rather than to the uncertainty about the future, although that must play a part in the minds of people who are considering the Colonial Service as a career for themselves or their sons.

It is only natural, with the rapid advance towards self-government in these territories, that people should be asking themselves whether it is a Service which offers possibilities of a life-long career as it did before. My own belief is, looking at the Service as a whole, that they need have no anxiety on this score. Even the Gold Coast, as Dr. Nkrumah has publicly asserted, will require officers from the United Kingdom for a long time to come, and similar statements have been made recently by political leaders in Nigeria. There are, of course, other places in the Colonial Empire where this question does not arise at all at the present time, and is not likely to for some time to come.

It is very natural that this feeling should exist, and in the view of Her Majesty's Government a re-examination of the conditions of service of members of the Colonial Service is called for, and called for urgently. In our view, it is of the greatest importance that colonial officials should be assured that their problems and anxieties are understood and are being taken seriously.

In order to consider this matter, which I should like to do for a few minutes longer, we must look at the stages through which the Colonial Service has passed and where it is going. It is only since 1930 that even a technically unified Service has existed, and even now, although colonial officials are under the general direction of the Colonial Secretary and have been regarded as belonging to a general Service of the Crown, they are, in fact, employed and paid by the local Governments. That is not always realised. Although they are servants of the Crown and subject to colonial regulations, with the Colonial Secretary as the ultimate authority, they are also the servants of the Colonial Territories from whose funds they receive their pay and pensions. Although they are not a closed corporation like the Foreign Service, they are in fact a body of officers who have looked towards the Colonial Office in the past as their headquarters.

Today that position is out of date. It no longer exists in that form. In some territories the management of internal affairs has already passed to local Ministers, but even before that stage, the control of legislative councils by unofficial majorities meant that the Secretary of State had not had the same opportunities of intervening effectively on behalf of the civil servants as he had before. British officials overseas, although they are co-operating loyally with the local governments in these developments, are bound to view with concern the possible diminution of their prospects of promotion or even of employment.

It is only fair to say that up to now the Colonial Governments have not behaved irresponsibly or unfairly towards their British civil servants. The civil servants themselves, of course, are sometimes bound to feel that they are only accepted on sufferance. They are bound to have fears, and not merely financial fears. These men had decided to make the Colonial Service a lifetime career. The best of them want to continue in it in a useful and reasonably well-paid capacity. All that they want in the long-run is a fair deal for so long as they remain in the Service, with a guarantee of the payment of proper compensation and pension benefits which were promised to them and, of course, to their dependants in the case of their death.

There is a real problem here—of British officials, on the one hand, who, seeing the weakening control of power from the Colonial Office and concerned about their future, are anxious to secure assurances from Her Majesty's Government, whether in the form of guarantees of future employment or of security of their pensions; while the Colonial Governments, especially those developing towards full self-government, are increasingly anxious to ensure that officials whom they wish to retain should owe their principal allegiance and loyalty to them. It is a problem in which the exercise of the highest principles of partnership between Her Majesty's Government and our officials and the Colonial Governments is called for.

We recognise that we have a special responsibility towards officers of the Colonial Service who have been appointed to their present posts by the Secretary of State. They feel that as long as they remain, they should be assured of certain basic conditions of service. Those conditions include such matters as the maintenance of their present terms of service, pensions and other benefits, retention of their status as members of Her Majesty's Colonial Service, with possibilities of transfer, promotion, and so on. At the same time, they must be permitted to retire from the service of the Government by which they are employed when it attains independence, with due and proper notice and adequate compensation for the loss of their careers.

Will the review include the question of funding of pensions? Can my right hon. Friend say where the fund will be?

I cannot go into details today, although I have more to say. However, I shall make a note of my hon. Friend's question.

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a point of great importance, in that when a certain stage is reached the new governments will want to feel that the civil servants have responsibilities to them. I take it for granted that if the stage is reached in these examinations of the future of the Colonial Service which makes it advantageous and desirable, there will be consultation with the emerging governments.

That can certainly be said in case of any particular territory in which that stage is reached. It has been done already in case of the Gold Coast and other territories.

The attainment of what I described as the basic conditions entails obligations on the part of the Colonial Governments concerned. We have also to find a way under which Her Majesty's Government can play such part as they properly can in the matter. It is something which we are at present examining urgently. It is a most complicated problem, and I do not know that we even yet understand its full scope. The House can rest assured, however, that it is a matter which we are going into and on which we are fully determined to secure a just and workable solution.

How does this all affect the proposal put forward by some of my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite for a general Commonwealth service? My own belief is that the proposals for a general Commonwealth service would not greatly help in the particular problem to which I have referred. In one sense, of course, we already have a Commonwealth service. We have quite a large number of representatives of the Commonwealth countries serving in various capacities in our Colonial Territories. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessors have appointed no fewer than 324 since 1945, and a large number of others have been recruited by local Colonial Governments. I welcome this influx, and we want to see more of it. But I do not think that is precisely what my hon. Friends had in mind when making their proposals. What they proposed was a unified Commonwealth service which would cover the requirements of the whole Commonwealth.

Quite frankly, I do not think the need exists to any great extent in the older Commonwealth countries. There are occasional posts for which technicians from the United Kingdom are required, and generally they are recruited direct by the Agent-General or whoever represents the particular Commonwealth, or on some occasions they are seconded from the Colonial Service. In the three new Commonwealth countries, as is well known, a certain number of United Kingdom officials has been retained, and there is still a need for British technicians under the Colombo Plan. Even so, the numbers involved are going to be fairly small.

On the other hand, I certainly would not rule out schemes under which numbers of colonial servants, perhaps as part of some new overseas service, should be made available when they are required by the independent Commonwealth countries or indeed by foreign countries, because, after all, we must not forget there are many underdeveloped countries in the Middle East which are going to get assistance from the United Kingdom.

I had intended to touch upon the position of the High Commissioners in the Commonwealth territories. I think it will be understood by the House that they would not readily fit into a unified Commonwealth service, or, indeed, into an overseas service such as has been described. They are in a different category and would not readily be absorbed.

During this debate we have covered a great deal of ground. There have been a large number of suggestions from all parts of the House, and they will be of the greatest assistance to Ministers and to officials both of the Colonial Office and of the Commonwealth Relations Office in dealing with these difficult matters. I also hope that the frank examination which we have made today of the anxieties which exist in the Colonial Service, and the assurances that I have given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, will help in studying this great problem and will do something to give encouragement to members of the Colonial Service here and overseas.

We cannot overestimate the debt which this country and the Colonial Territories owe to the devoted and efficient work of the men and women who are serving in the Colonies. We believe there is still a great work for them to do. We want them to know that this House and Government are aware of their needs, and we are determined to give them every practical assistance for carrying on their great task.

Is the right hon. Gentleman going to reply to the five specific questions about Ceylon about which I gave him notice?

The main point was about winding up the operations of the British Council in Ceylon. The decision was taken by the Secretary of State when he got back to this country recently from examining the position on the spot. The right hon. Gentleman inquired whether the functions previously carried on by the Council would be transferred to the Information Office. That is not the case. There is to be a new United Kingdom education officer appointed from this country who will take over those functions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Ceylon Government have been consulted and whether they have since made representations?

No, Sir. No official representations have been made. There was a private letter to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations from the Prime Minister.

3.55 p.m.

I am sure the House will be delighted to have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Colonies say that there is to be a review of the terms of service of the district officers, of the A.D.Os. and of the residents of the Colonial Civil Service, because they are doing a magnificent job of work. A few weeks ago, when I was in the eastern region of Nigeria, a large crowd gathered and, when the district officer arrived one of the crowd, in making an impromptu speech, referred to him as a real black man. The district officers are doing a splendid job of work. They have no Member of Parliament to represent them. Their financial difficulties are considerable, especially in regard to the education of their children, and they have not the amenities which the average person in commerce has in countries such as West Africa.

If a middle piece officer is married with a young family, who is to blame him for looking over his shoulder and wondering whether he ought not to get out of the Civil Service now while the going is good in the home country, where there is full employment, and where he can probably get a job which will last him until he is 65 and which is pensionable? In this decade pensions have taken the place of what capital was a few decades ago, and to get into a job which not only lasts until a man is 65, but in respect of which he is pensionable afterwards, is one of the most important things at which a man can aim.

Admittedly the Colonial Civil Service is a vocation. Men are dedicated to a great idea, and we hope that the development of a multi-racial community to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) referred, will be part of the Atlantic community, although not a purely white Atlantic community, and that it will be adequate in the years to come. I do not believe it will be adequate if the middle piece officer leaves his job now because he is not sure that either the integrity of the future administration in regions such as West Africa or his pension rights are assured.

I have many friendships both in Nigeria and in the Gold Coast. I have renewed them recently, and I know that among the district officers there is a feeling that, despite the splendid result of the Lagos Conference, there is the danger that too many middle tier officers will go, and if they do, then the administration in five or 10 years' time might break down. May I say here that no one deserves more credit than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what was achieved at that conference?

I know that the leaders of all political parties in Nigeria have signed an important document, which is Annex 5 of the White Paper, expressing the hope and expectation that these district officers of the Colonial Civil Service will remain to help and guide them. The C.P.P. in the Gold Coast was unknown to the leading senior officials five years ago, so who is to say who will be in power in that region in 10 years' time? Although the present leaders are men of high repute, with whom we hope to enter into partnership in the years to come, there is the danger that we cannot be certain that other people will not take their places. That is why I hope that, when this review takes place, Her Majesty's Government will consider helping the Colonial Civil Service to be sure of anyhow a portion of their pensions and pay.

I should like to see the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund, or part of it, used for the expatriate portion of their pay. Although the Select Committee which met in 1948 and 1949 turned down that proposition, surely—

It being Four o'Clock the Debate stood adjourned.

I should like to say at the start that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence has been very good in having talks with me on a matter which is extremely difficult having regard to the arrangements which I find already exist to deal with grants, bounties and so on at the end of service periods. In seeking to improve the terminal grants of ex-Service men, I do so because I consider the existing arrangements to be parsimonious and that they should be reviewed so that we can establish something on a sound footing for these men.

In a recent submission to the House, I asked that after two years' service Service men should be granted £100 and a further £50 for every year of service thereafter. It is in the light of that suggestion that I wish to make my comments today. At this stage I think that I should give the several considerations which have been at the back of my mind in dealing with this matter.

There are five primary considerations—firstly, the present value of money; secondly, the value of the service to the State which men in the Forces give; thirdly, the risks which Service men take on behalf of the community; fourthly, the social and moral obligations of society and Parliament; and fifthly, the provision of adequate compensation for the disturbance caused to the lives of young men. I use the word "disturbance" because only last year we continued compulsory service for a further five years, exacting two years from all young men of the age of 18. That does undoubtedly cause great disturbance in their lives, and afterwards they have to be rehabilitated and get back into civilian life after being away for two years, or more. For some people, that is not an easy matter.

Another reason I am asking for full consideration is that I do not think we should expect national security to be won at the expense and inconvenience of young men serving in Her Majesty's Forces. The future of any society is dependent upon the treatment meted out to those engaged in the most risky and dangerous tasks and, if we are unequal to this exercise, the future will be dim. Much as I loathe war, as I think most people do, and whilst admitting my desire for a reduction in compulsory service, I realise that we cannot do without security forces. I must not embark on this theme. however, because this matter can be settled only on the international level.

The present provision for Service men, in my opinion, is a public scandal. Apart from recent alterations made by the Defence White Paper, most people are disregarded for a terminal grant unless they have performed 22 or 24 years' service. Then a private receives the princely sum of £100 for 22 years' service. The present position is a scandal and should receive the treatment by Parliament which it deserves. I want to make quite clear that many people are thinking seriously about this matter. I have had newspaper cuttings and a large number of letters from young people and their parents sent to me. The time has come when we should not expect to have service in the Army, Navy and Air Force on the cheap, which is the position at present.

Recent investigations I have made, and to which I shall refer later, prove that when a man is approaching the end of his service his mind is preoccupied with what is to happen to him when he returns to civilian life, how much money he will pick up—perhaps, how much money he thinks he ought to pick up—and the kind of job he will get. After all, the man who has been in the Forces for a number of years might think that he would like to emigrate to the Colonies, start in some business or, in some way arising out of his experiences, his mind may have been running along different channels and he may not wish to go back to the berth he left on going into the Forces. There should be some adequate provision to give these men a start when they have rendered what I consider to be incomparable service to the State.

I sometimes wonder what we mean by patriotism. Only a few days ago—I do not wish to stray from the subject—we gave judges a £60 a week increase. That is a considerable sum, and it seems to me a great pity if we cannot give something to those people who have been in the Forces, regulating the behaviour of people elsewhere, while the judges, who have been regulating the behaviour of people in this country, have been doing so well—receiving not £60 per week but a £60 per week increase on top of a big salary. Therefore, I refuse to believe that we cannot do something better for the men from whom we have extracted important and often risky service.

I hope that the Minister in his reply will give some indication other than that of "No, Sir," which he has given on several occasions. I do not want Ministers on the Front Bench to copy the man from the East, Mr. Molotov. We are always told that he says "No, Sir." Yet every time I come forward with what I consider to be a useful proposal, I find that the Minister always says "No, Sir." I believe that if he shuffled the alphabet pack, he could make "Yes" come out for a change.

I hope he will try out that exercise, because the present position is manifestly unfair to these men—and of course there are women, too—who render this service to the State. I feel that they should be treated in a manner quite different from the way in which they have been treated up to now. I do not regard the 850,000 people in the Forces as merely people to be played about with and pushed all over the place, and that important questions which affect their lives should be disregarded. In the question of payments, I consider they have been disregarded. I do not wish in the short time at my disposal to say anything about the figure of the weekly payment to people in the Forces.

I am supporting this afternoon the idea of giving these people a satisfactory terminal grant which will help them to rehabilitate themselves when they return to civilian life. The Minister, who has been quite helpful in his suggestions, said that it was perhaps not within my knowledge that certain sums were already granted to people by way of terminal grants. As I said a few moments ago, a private, after 22 years of reckonable service, gets £100; a corporal, after 22 years of reckonable service, gets £150; a sergeant, £200, and a staff sergeant, £250. What I cannot understand is that those men who give less than 22 years' service receive very little consideration at all.

I hope the Minister will be good enough to tell me what exactly is meant by "reckonable service." Does it mean that, through misdemeanour or perhaps for a variety of reasons, a man may have to perform 24 or 25 years' service before he has 22 years of reckonable service? I want, if possible, to try to establish that this afternoon.

I know that the Minister wants an opportunity to reply to me, and I want him to go into this matter. I am positive that in future the way in which we shall secure an adequate number of recruits to the Forces will be by offering them satisfactory conditions, particularly when they are breaking from their service with the Forces and are re-entering civil employment. I feel that the time when something should be done to give these people a reasonable start is when they have finished their service. I am appealing to the Minister this afternoon to give at least an indication that this question is under review, and that a satisfactory result is expected from the study of the subject which is now being made.

4.18 p.m.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. George Craddock) complained that I always give him the answer, "No, Sir." I assure him that if he would put down a question susceptible to an affirmative answer I should be very happy to give it. I would even be prepared to assist him in framing such a question.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this interesting subject and for consulting me about it. I should also like to thank him for the very generous words he used about the men in the Armed Forces—what they do for us, the benefits which we derive from their work, and the dangers which they undergo. Although he was talking about terminal grants, I think that when he speaks of getting men "on the cheap" he should remember that the White Paper on Pay issued only a few weeks ago brought in some very considerable increases in pay in the Forces.

Terminal grants were introduced by the late Government as from 1st September, 1950. They were introduced with our very cordial support. The object of the terminal grants was twofold. The first object was to encourage long service, and the second was to enable men who had done long service to resettle more easily than they would have been able to do if they had not had any grants at all. In sum, the object was to make the Service a better long-term career, and it was for that reason that in the terminal grants and pensions an element for rank was introduced in order to encourage men to join for long service, to work hard and to get their promotion.

The hon. Gentleman made considerable play with the fact that a private, after 22 years' service, gets a terminal grant of only £100. That is certainly true, but I should like to make two points about that. First, a private with 22 years' service is rather a rare bird. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that after 22 years' service, most men can expect to rise rather above that rank. Secondly—a point which the hon. Gentleman omitted—such a man also gets a small pension. He gets £1 6s. 4d. a week.

Of course, there is the other extreme—the pension which a man gets if he has done really well. A warrant officer Glass I with 37 years' service gets a weekly pension of £5 18s. 5d. and a terminal grant of £600 which, I think the hon. Gentleman will admit, is quite a considerable sum. As the hon. Gentleman is aware from the White Paper, a review of these terminal grants is taking place. The White Paper also says that the object of this review, if anything is done as a result of it, will be to place greater emphasis on rewards for long service rather than to reward a man after a period of short service.

I would point out that these basic rates of terminal grant and of pension apply after 22 years' reckonable service. If a man joins at 18, as he normally does nowadays, he is only 40 years of age when he gets this terminal grant and the pension. He is therefore of an age to start a new career with every prospect of success. The hon. Gentleman asked what was the meaning of "reckonable service." Reckonable service is full-time service after the age of 18, less any periods of absence without leave. I think that is clear to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman did not make his proposal very clear. I do not think he actually mentioned any amount to which he would like to raise the terminal gratuities. Nor did he mention any dates from which he would like them to operate. Therefore, I can give no estimate of the actual cost.

I think that at the beginning I explained that my remarks related to the answer which he gave to a Question I put down not long ago, when I asked for £100 after two years' service and £50 for every year of service thereafter. I understand, however, that it would be a little difficult to make this operate over the first two years. Therefore, I may have to concede that point, but I do think that people who go into the Forces for more than two years have still got to be rehabilitated, perhaps as much as people who do 10 or 15 or 20 years' service. Therefore, I want—

The hon. Member must remember that the Minister has very little time to reply.

If I am to assume that the hon. Member is excluding National Service men from his request for terminal grants, and wants all Regulars to get £50 for every year of service, his proposal would cost about £25 million a year. That can only be a rough guess, because there are many imponderables.

A man on a three-year engagement who comes out of the Services at the age of 21 cannot really be said to have made a career in any calling. Such a man should have no difficulty in being able to resettle in civilian life. We have an obligation to the long-service Regular, which we attempt to carry out by means of pensions and grants, but we also have obligations to all ex-Regulars, of whatever length of service, to assist them in resettlement when they leave the Services, and that is what we try to do.

I am told that one must never criticise a civil servant, but it is legitimate to praise him, and I should like to say that the work which has been done by Sir Godfrey Ince, the Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, in the resettlement of Regular Service men, has been of most outstanding merit and importance. The scheme is working very successfully. Every calling and business has been approached—the Civil Service, local government service, banks, insurance companies, nationalised industries, private industries and, last but by no means least, the trade unions.

Many industries have arranged special terms for late entry in order to help ex-Regulars; many have allowed a quota for them, and the trade unions, with great generosity, have recognised many Service trades as being equivalent to civilian trades, thereby greatly assisting the resettlement of men. As a result of these measures I can say that the resettlement of Regular other ranks is making encouraging progress. There is very little unemployment, and the men are getting decent jobs—some of them very good jobs indeed—and settling down very well.

The main difficulty arises with the older officers. A major with over 22 years' service gets a terminal grant of £1,000, and he is in a much more difficult position than are other ranks. But the system is working well, and endless trouble has been taken ever since the war to improve our service to these men in every way. To settle these men in proper and decent civil employment is by far the best thing we can do for them. I thank the hon. Member for raising this point, and I will convey his remarks to my noble Friend, but I cannot possibly give the rare answer which he so much desires—the answer "Yes."

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Nine Minutes past Four o'clock.