(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour if he has any further statement to make about the situation on the railways?

Yes, Sir. I understand that the meeting at which officials of the National Union of Railwaymen and the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen are meeting delegates of the men concerned in the Sunday stoppages is now taking place in York. I am pleased to confirm that the union executives are taking all steps to get their recommendations accepted.

I think that the House will welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Can he meanwhile tell us anything about the go-slow movement and what is happening in that respect; and whether it is affecting, as I am told it is, the despatch of luggage to holiday makers?

Yes, Sir. This is causing some public inconvenience. Meetings are being held. I understand, at the depots this morning in order to convince these men that they are not helping the negotiations by the action in which they are indulging. I am sure that if they do not accept the advice of their leaders, they will earn public condemnation and the censure of their fellow trade unionists.

I want to raise the question of Seychelles. It is not often that the affairs of this small island come before this House, but I would remind Members that we here are responsible for what is happening in the Seychelles, and that a state of affairs exists there which, I think, should be brought before the House. By a somewhat curious coincidence, it was on the last day of the Summer Session last year that I also referred to affairs in the Seychelles, and I am sorry to say that since that time, far from getting any better, conditions have got considerably worse.

I would say without any exaggeration that in my experience of the Colonial Empire I cannot recall a more shocking case of political jobbery and maladministration, which is a disgrace to the Colonial system. In fact, it is a sort of mixture of "Alice in Wonderland." "Treasure Island" and the history of Tammany Hall politics in the Bowery district of New York. I am sorry that I have to mention the name of an official, but there is no other way round it, and in view of what has been said about this particular official by the Chief Justice of the island, I think that the House will agree that what I have to say is excusable.

The story starts in 1947 when Dr. Selwyn-Clarke was appointed as Governor. Dr. Selwyn-Clarke is a man of very considerable medical reputation and a man who earned for himself the highest possible praise for valour and devotion to duty while he was a prisoner of war in Hong Kong. When I was in Hong Kong a few months ago, people there were talking about what a wonderful job of work he did at the risk of his own life, so I have nothing to say against him on that score. He is one of the few medical officers, if not the only one, ever appointed as governor of a colony, and whatever his medical qualifications and record, I think that we shall find that he unfortunately lacks those qualities of fair-mindedness and compromise which the governor of a colony requires. I would like to quote a short extract from this month's "Crown Colonist," which expresses what I am trying to say. The article says:

"Executive action in the Seychelles during the last two years has on occasion been beyond general comprehension. The present Governor is high-minded and obviously well-intentioned but is sadly out of touch with the people."

One of the first things which Dr. Selwyn-Clarke did was to appoint as acting Attorney-General a Mr. Collet. Mr. Collet was only called to the Bar in 1943 and before that time was the Secretary of the League of Coloured People in London. He has never disguised his anti-white prejudices. His wife is also a barrister, and, as the House will see later on, she too comes into this extraordinary picture.

The first thing Mr. Collet seems to have done was either to appoint himself or get himself appointed as collector of income tax. I admit that income tax has been collected in the Seychelles in a somewhat haphazard manner, but that is the fault of the Government—I only wish that income tax was collected in an equally haphazard way in this country. Mr. Collet proceeded to send out accounts for income tax going back as far as 1927. In other words, people were called upon to pay 20 years' back income tax. When this matter was raised last year, I mentioned the case of a planter who received an arbitrary assessment from Mr. Collet to 98,000 rupees and who, before he could either pay or lodge a complaint, had his property attached and was finally arrested in the street and searched. He was then told that unless he paid within eight days he would be made bankrupt.

The second case is that of Mr. Loizeau who was prosecuted in the same way by Mr. Collet. When he asked whether he could get a lawyer from Mauritius to defend him, Mr. Collet told him there were perfectly good lawyers in the Seychelles and that no lawyer from Mauritius was necessary. It is perfectly true that there were two other lawyers in the islands besides Mr. Collet, but one happened to be Mrs. Collet and the wretched man had a certain amount of diffidence about employing the wife of the man who was prosecuting him.

Can the hon. Member mention to which particular island he is referring?

If the hon. Member had been here at the start of the Debate he would know that I am talking about the Seychelles.

But the Seychelles comprise a group of over 100 islands.

The one I am talking about is the main island, where the capital is situated, Mahé.

To return to Mrs. Collet. The man objected to employing Mrs. Collet, whereupon there was a certain amount of misunderstanding and Mr. Collet appears to have threatened to bash him on the face for insulting his wife. The case came before the Supreme Court, and the acting Chief Justice of the time declared that Mr. Collet's action was ultra vires. He finished by saying that it represented "topsyturvyism in excelsis."

We now come to an even worse case, that of Mr. Lemarchand. He was called upon to pay 6,000 odd rupees by Mr. Collet and asked there and then to sign a cheque for this amount under duress. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which found that the cheque had been signed under duress, and the Chief Justice proceeded to make the following remarks about the attorney-general:

"This man is revealed in his true colours—spiteful, malicious, vindictive to anyone who opposes his will, full of venom and so unscrupulous that he is clearly the kind of person who without compunction would resort to blackmail."

He added:

"Mr. Collet has brought disgrace on our profession."

Later he said:

"No doubt, the fullest inquiry will be made in England as to how it came about that this man was appointed even temporarily to a responsible post in British territory in the Colonial Legal Service."

The Chief Justice finished by saying:

"O.G.P.U. methods are not yet recognised in any British colony. The methods adopted to extort money from the Plaintiff are absolutely appalling … British administration of a colony overseas has been brought into grave disrepute."

I hope Members will agree, in view of that statement, that I am justified in bringing this case before the House.

Last year, the Under-Secretary of State rather chided me because I referred to Mr. Collet as a "pocket Hitler," but since then the Chief Justice, as I have shown, has referred to "his O.G.P.U. methods"; and if it does anything to salve the right hon. Gentleman's conscience I will speak of Gestapo methods. To add to this unbelievably sordid case, there is evidence that one of the chief witnesses, Mr. Jenkins, the chief revenue officer, was allowed to go on leave or, as he claimed, was sent on leave before this appeal came off. The result was that the Chief Justice said there must be an inquiry into why Mr. Jenkins left the jurisdiction of the court. I suggest to the House that never before in the history of the British Colonies has there been a more scathing indictment of a law officer of the Crown by a Chief Justice.

There is one other case to which I want to refer. It is a case of one of the other local lawyers named Loizeau. He was called upon to pay 100,000 rupees in Income Tax going as far back as 1927. Mr. Loizeau protested, quite naturally, and was apparently in tears, whereupon Mr. Collet knocked the amount down from 100,000 rupees to 20,000. I do not know whether this is something we could try out here with the Inland Revenue officials. For my part, I would be prepared to burst into tears at any time if I could get four-fifths of my Income Tax knocked off. However, Mr. Collet knocked the amount down, provided the man signed a declaration saying that he had fraudulently evaded taxation. The predecessor of the Chief Justice I have just referred to, said this about the matter:

"I am unable to make head or tail of the haphazard manner in which serious charges are brought up, resurrected and buried at the sole discretion of the Attorney-General."

As to the confession, the acting Chief Justice found that it was a document

"which to say the least had not been made voluntarily."

As a result of the case of Mr. Lemarchand and the other cases, the Government has had to refund all the Income Tax collected by Mr. Collet in this illegal manner. But the most amazing part of this fantastic story is to follow. In September last a new chief justice was appointed to fill the acting post held by the second man to whom I have referred and as a result Mr. Collet became redundant, which was, I think, a very nice way of saying he had been got rid of. The right hon. Gentleman wrote to me on 22nd September and said:

"It is not my intention to offer Mr. Collet any official post in the administration of the Seychelles."

At the same time I had a very nice letter from Mr. Collet, in which he gave me some reason to doubt his complete sanity. He asked me to look at this case with what he called "my valid eye." I do not know what that is meant to be, but he then went on to offer to pay half of my passage out to the Seychelles and said he would put up a bed for me and lend me his car with a chauffeur. The letter and the offer were rather spoilt by his calling me an "undeflatable gas bag."

But what happened next? In spite of what the right hon. Gentleman told me, that he was never to be re-employed, we hear that the Governor proposed to take Mr. Collet on at £3,300 a year to revise the laws of the Colony; that is after the right hon. Gentleman made that statement, after we had heard the story in this House last year of Mr. Collet's goings on, and after the chief justice had called him, among other things, "spiteful, malicious and blackmailing." However, the right hon. Gentleman appears to have plucked up courage and refused to sanction this appointment, and Mr. Collet did not, as far as I can gather, actually start to draw his £3,300 a year.

What the Governor did do, however, was to appoint him as a nominated unofficial member of the Legislative Council, a post which, so far as I know, he still holds. I suggest that this is a flagrant disregard by the Governor of the assurance given by the right hon. Gentleman to this House, that this man would never again be employed. When I raised it with the right hon. Gentleman he suggested that appointment as a member of the Legislative Council was not an appointment such as that about which he had given me a guarantee. Whatever may be the letter of it, I am sure that every reasonable-minded person would agree that the Governor was acting contrary to the spirit of the right hon. Gentleman's assurances, and certainly contrary to what should happen with a man with this record.

I received two telegrams a few days ago which, I think the right hon. Gentleman, has had. One is from the elected members of the Seychelles Elected Council. Dated 10th May, it says:

"The Governor has announced that he is to leave the island. We earnestly trust that he will not return, and refer to our telegram of 30th April In order to make a fresh start, and obliterate the hatred of the administration which has been aroused, we recommend the immediate secondment of an East African officer for the Governorship, as recommended by Financial Commissioner Reid 16 years ago and insisted upon by us with Mr. Eastwood."

Mr. Eastwood was the Colonial Office official whom the right hon. Gentleman sent out to the Seychelles a few weeks ago. The telegram goes on:

"The exclusively official and nominated, character of the Executive Council has contributed to the Government's failure. We claim that there should be at least two unofficial members, and that all unofficial members should be chosen by the elected members of the Legislative Council. This would be enthusiastically welcomed as a first step towards the participation by the people in their own Government."

The day before there was another telegram, from the Taxpayers and Producers' Association, from which I will read a brief extract:

"In view of the condemnation of Mr. Collet's action by successive Seychelles judges, and now by the Appeal Court of Mauritius in the Gresle case, the Governor's appointing him to the Council and continuing him thereon seems intentionally provocative to the community."

I should say that that was a masterly understatement.

That is the story. I cannot recall ever having heard such a fantastic tale about a part of the administration for which the right hon. Gentleman must accept a large share of the responsibility. I want to ask the Under-Secretary, frankly, three questions: First, when the Governor goes on leave, as I believe he is about to do, is he going back to the Colony? Second, is Mr. Collet who, I believe, is now in England, to continue to be a member of the Legislative Council, in face of the shocking indictment of the Chief Justice against him—an indictment not only of his capabilities, and certainly not of his politics, but of his personal character? Is Mr. East-wood's report on the Seychelles to be published or, better still, would not the Minister agree that things have reached such a state that a committee of inquiry ought to be sent to the island composed, possibly, of Members of this House and people outside this House, not only to deal with constitutional matters but also with the economic situation, which is bad, and to which I have not had time to refer today?

Third, what progress has been made with the linking up of the administration of this small island with, say, East Africa? A small island of this sort, with only 35,000 people in it—about half the size of an average electorate in this country—should not have a top heavy administration. Any man who goes into the Seychelles service has very little hope of promotion. These recommendations were made 16 years ago by the Financial Commissioner, who is now the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid). What he suggested then is equally applicable today.

I hope the Under-Secretary will reply to these specific points. I have not brought forward one piece of what I might call "tittle tattle". Many worse things than I have mentioned today have been said in private correspondence to Members of the House, but I have not mentioned one of them. I have based my charge of maladministration merely on what has been said by the Chief Justice of the Colony, and the promise given to me by the right hon. Gentleman about the re-employment of this man. I say that that promise has been broken in the spirit if not in the letter by the Governor, and I hope the Under-Secretary will give some explanation of what has happened and an assurance that things will be improved at once.

I believe that I am the only Member of the House who has been to and worked in the Seychelles, where I was sent as Financial Commissioner. The Seychelles is an archipelago and a garden of Eden to look at, but I can assure the House that, politically and in some other respects, it is nothing like a garden of Eden. I do not propose to go over the ground covered by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), but I am aware of all the facts he has put forward and, subject to what the Colonial Secretary may say, I am of the opinion that recent proceedings in the Seychelles have been entirely disreputable.

With regard to the suggestion to link up the Seychelles with the adjoining territory of Kenya, I went into that when I was Commissioner to the Seychelles and recommended that it should not be carried out. Kenya is a thousand miles away and so is Mauritius. I could not see, then, what would be gained by attaching this unfortunate little Colony to either of those two adjoining Colonies. The Government of the day accepted my proposals, and decided upon separate administration for the Seychelles. I did, however, make one recommendation, which was not accepted. It struck me that on this island, with its small population and small administration, the Governor had to be more or less in charge of everything. Such a Governor, I thought must be, first of all, a trained administrator. I thought it was no use sending out to the Seychelles a Governor who was not a trained administrator who, in my view, is as much an expert as a trained bacteriologist. In the Seychelles a Governor has to do things of which a Governor in a bigger colony would have no knowledge.

In addition to being small, the Seychelles is about as difficult a colony, politically, as any in the world. There is a virulent public opinion, and there are all sorts of intrigues going on in the various groups and races. There could not be a better testing place for any man to be tried out as a future governor of a colony. The salary, I think I am right in saying, of the Governor was equivalent to that paid to a second-class civil servant in Ceylon or Malaya and it was obvious to me that it would be almost impossible to get any man who had real ability and prospects to go to such a place for such a salary. It was difficult to get people to take up the governorship of this Colony.

It struck me as being common sense that there should be sent to the colony not a man who, according to Civil Service jargon, should be given something at the end of his days, not a mediocre man, but one of the best Colonial civil servants, young, able and ambitious, who would be willing to go there even at some financial sacrifice, in the hope of obtaining promotion to a better post. What was required was an even better man than would be required in a bigger colony, where a governor's deficiencies can be made up to some extent by the efficiency of some of his subordinates. That suggestion was not adopted, as I was informed in a letter at the time. I did not reply, because I felt that I had done my part and the decision rested with the Colonial Office.

I renew this proposal today. It has been done in other Colonies. They get men for Borneo from the Malayan Civil Service, youngish men. They are tried out. Some of these men have made good afterwards and have reached the highest positions in the Colonial Empire. I would ask my right hon. Friend why this suggestion was not adopted, and why it cannot be adopted today, and whether it is proposed to go on with the present system of appointing men about to retire to take up these posts in the Seychelles? A governor in a small Colony can make or mar the administration. If he is not first-class, he can paralyse the whole administration. We talk glibly in this country about sending only the best to the Colonies, but it is no use sending our best into the civil or the technical services unless the best is at the top. Otherwise the man at the top can destroy the efforts of all the best people below him. I suggest that it is our duty to send to the Colonies as governors only men of proved and tested ability.

In this connection I would point out that we cannot test for their capacities future governors even by sending them to huge Colonies where there are no political difficulties. Ceylon has now passed into the status of a Dominion. It has been an excellent testing ground for the whole Colonial Empire for future governors. There was there an intense political atmosphere, where men could be tried and tested and a high almost Western, standard of administration. The Seychelles is a very small Colony. There is not a first-class standard of administration there but a first-class standard of political instability. My suggestion of 16 years ago should be adopted now. The present juncture should be used for sending to this Colony as Commissioner a first-class man, a junior member of one of the Colonial Civil Services so that he can redeem the appalling position into which this Colony has fallen at the present time.

I agree that, on the case made by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), the House would naturally feel some disquiet on this matter. I shall, however, be able to show that he has very much over-emphasised some of the bad features but has not made any statement of the many difficulties that naturally arise in a series of islands of this character. Perhaps I might paint the picture as it should be painted, not only in the dark places, but in some of the light places as well. I think the House will see that we are in a great difficulty with this type of Colony and that we have been trying to tackle it in the way that it should be tackled.

First of all, the article from which the hon. Gentleman quoted in the "Crown Colonist", by Mr. Harry Wald who is described as a business man with varied interests in the City and elsewhere, is a damning indictment of pre-war Governments because it reveals a state of affairs which has been created not in the last few years but is the result of many years of neglect. It shows that this Colony, like so many others, was put by pre-war Governments on a care-and-maintenance basis—not much care and very little maintenance—and that no development was done unless private enterprise came in and helped the Government out. There was very little planning from here. The caretakers were such as we would not wish to employ in any position of trust.

That is the situation with which my right hon. Friend was faced when he took office. He had to consider this little group of islands forming the Crown Colony of the Seychelles in which the social educational and health services were almost non-existent, where there was a very small population of grands blancs, as they are called, who were descended from the old French plantation and slave-owners. They amount in all to about 3 per cent. The other 97 per cent. are mainly derived from slaves, who had a very slight, if any, effect upon the machinery of government. They had no representation and their needs and interests were very little regarded.

I can give examples of the social conditions. About one-third of the children born in the islands are illegitimate. That is not as bad as some other Crown Colonies, where two-thirds are illegitimate, but it gives an indication of the social problem that my right hon. Friend had to face. He was also up against the economic factors that arise in nearly all these small islands, where there is increasing over-crowding because the population is constantly increasing, while the resources do not increase in proportion. The resources are continually, I regret to say, becoming less and less apparent, the land is becoming less and less fertile, very often owing to bad methods of farming, and, if there are any minerals, they are becoming worked out. That was the situation which confronted my right hon. Friend.

In the circumstances he took a decision which I think the House would approve. He said: "We must have a man as Governor who has a social conscience. We must have a man who will realise how essential it is that the health and education of the people should be looked after." It has long been a complaint of many of the senior officers in the technical services of the Colonial Empire—I am sure that the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) will substantiate this statement—that they never get a chance to go up to the higher ranks and positions. However famous a man may be as a doctor, a veterinary officer or an agricultural officer, he can never become a governor, because governorships and chief secretaryships, the plums of the Service, are always concentrated in the hands of the administrative grades.

My right hon. Friend thought that he could do two appropriate things at the same time by making possibly the most distinguished medical officer in the Colonial Empire into a Governor. He chose Dr. Selwyn-Clarke, who had an unrivalled reputation as medical officer of health in Hong Kong. He appointed him as Governor of the Seychelles to inaugurate the new system. As the hon. Member for Hornsey has quite rightly said, Dr. Selwyn-Clarke had a magnificent record when the Japanese were in occupation of Hong Kong. He was one of the people whom they never managed to break down. They browbeat him and tortured him mentally and physically but they never got Dr. Selwyn-Clarke to agree to do what they wanted. He stuck out for what he wanted, and for what he thought right for the Chinese and British people, who were in their clutches. This House and country owes a great debt of gratitude to Dr. Selwyn-Clarke for taking that attitude and maintaining in difficult circumstances the British character and the British tradition of service.

This is the man whom my right hon. Friend appointed to this backward colony of the Seychelles and who can blame my right hon. Friend for doing so? As a matter of fact, an enormous amount has been done by Dr. Selwyn-Clarke for the economy of the Islands as well as for hospitals and in other directions. He concentrated largely on preventive rather than curative methods, and in doing so he has aroused the ire of the grands blancs, the wealthy people, because they were rather more interested in hospital services for themselves than preventive services for the people as a whole. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornsey this morning was speaking only for three per cent. of the people. Dr. Selwyn-Clarke has been trying to speak for 100 per cent.

First of all, the hon. Gentleman said that Dr. Selwyn-Clarke was appointed because he had a social conscience. Does he imply that no other Governor had a social conscience, and would he, sooner or later, come to what is my charge, and that is, the remarks made by the Chief Justice about Mr. Collet?

Yes, I will, but the hon. Gentleman himself realises that at the beginning of his speech he attacked the Governor, and my right hon. Friend for appointing the Governor.

No.

That is as I understood him.

I will not let that pass. I have made no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's appointment of Dr. Selwyn-Clarke. I have paid the highest tribute to his character. All I am suggesting is that as a result of his having been Governor for two years he has now shown himself to be lacking in certain qualities which the governorship of these islands demands.

We shall see in HANSARD. The impression made on my mind was that the hon. Member was attacking, first of all, my right hon. Friend for appointing the Governor; secondly, he was attacking the Governor; and thirdly, there was Mr. Collet. It is rather odd that if the hon. Member for Hornsey is not attacking the Governor and my right hon. Friend, that his first question should be whether the Governor is going back. If the Governor is perfectly good, and if the hon. Gentleman is not attacking him and my right hon. Friend, what does it matter to the hon. Member for Hornsey if he is going back.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wilfully distort what I said. I have made no criticism whatever of the right hon. Gentleman's appointment of Dr. Selwyn-Clarke, and I have made no criticism of Dr. Selwyn-Clarke, his medical record or his character. What I am suggesting is that as a result of his being Governor, he has shown himself lacking in certain qualities which a Governor needs, and I am justified, in view of the fiasco of his having apparently refused to accept the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman gave me, in asking whether he is to remain Governor.

Now we have got it clear. We know what are the views of the hon. Gentleman, and what he desires to know, which we did not know before.

Some of us did.

Sonic of us may not be as good at telepathy as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and we on this side of the House prefer to listen to what an hon. Member is saying and try to draw conclusions from that.

The hon. Member for Hornsey has asked me a series of questions arising out of the employment of Mr. Collet. Mr. Collet was never, in fact, appointed as collector of income tax in the Seychelles. He was legal adviser to the chief officer of what here we would call the Inland Revenue Department. It was in his advisory capacity that he came into this picture at all. The Governor was in a difficult position. The Attorney-General had been temporarily promoted to take the place of the Chief Justice, and it was necessary to get a barrister temporarily to take the place of the Attorney-General. Barristers in a place like the Seychelles, with a population of 35,000, most of whom are illiterate, are not easy to find. Therefore, as Mr. Collet was to hand and was a very distinguished man, who had studied in Paris and in London and was a member of the English Bar, the Governor decided to appoint him temporarily to fill the post of Attorney-General.

From this, most of the events which have been described certainly took place. But some of them did not. For instance, Mr. Jenkins was never sent on leave to get out of being called as a witness. Mr. Jenkins asked to go on leave three months before the case referred to by the hon. Member for Hornsey came on. There are one or two discrepancies like that, but in the main the facts he has given are true. The difficulty in a place like the Seychelles when one undertakes these reforms, is that one is bound to arouse a good deal of ire, and if people, who for many years have not paid income tax or have paid very little, are asked to pay more, they object. I am not going to justify some of the actions of Mr. Collet, because we think Mr. Collet, as a public officer, went too far. We would not deny that for one moment, but I would say that it was excessive zeal.

It is essential in a place like the Seychelles to remember that everyone is living in everyone else's pocket even more than is the case here at home. There is one point which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornsey brought out very clearly, and that is that there has been no breakdown in justice in the Seychelles. In fact, British justice is exemplified by this case, because the speeches from which the hon. Gentleman quoted are not speeches of critics of the Government or of newspapers; they are speeches in court. They are judgments of the two Chief Justices, and, therefore, it shows quite clearly that in the Seychelles, as here, the Executive is always subject to the survey, as it were, and to the criticism of the Bench. That is a point which comes out very clearly from the hon. Gentleman's speech, although he himself did not realise it. He talked about a breakdown of justice and of administration, but this case shows that British justice is still a strong force in the Seychelles.

I have not said that there was a breakdown in justice, but merely that there was a breakdown in administration. I am quoting the Chief Justice; he said that. I did not say it.

We know perfectly well that there is no breakdown of justice in the Seychelles. If that is so, and if we agree that the Governor is an estimable man, who has rendered great service, if we agree that my right hon. Friend was perfectly correct in appointing him, and if we agree that there has been no breakdown of justice what does this case come to? It comes to this—it is over one Government officer, over-zealous in the performance of his duty, that my right hon. Friend has been brought here. I do not grumble at that at all. It is quite right that these matters should cone up, and this is the place where they should be brought up and answered. This case turns on the personal idiosyncrasies of one man, who is a Government servant appointed on a temporary basis.

I do not propose to chase after the various cases to which the hon. Gentleman referred, because in every case they have been the subject of proceedings in court and judgment has been made upon them. Further, in most cases action has been taken. The appeal which was at one time being made to the Court of Appeal in Mauritius from a decision of the High Court in the Seychelles has now been discontinued, and those people who were said to have overpaid Income Tax as a result of the original assessment by the Inland Revenue Department have had those excess payments repaid to them. I may say that there was a good deal of legal doubt as to whether Mr. Collet was or was not correct in assessing as far back as 25 years, and it took this case to clear up the point. What happened was that he levied the assessment under the civil procedure as a civil debt, and under that, it appeared at one time as if he was quite justified in doing so. That was the basis of the case brought to the High Court in the Seychelles. The Government have now accepted the decision of the Chief Justice in the Seychelles and are not proceeding with the appeal. As I have said, those people who have paid arrears as a result of the original assessment over a period of 25 years, have had their money refunded.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornsey asked me some questions. He asked me whether the Governor is going back? To that I would say, "Yes." So far as I am aware, the whole matter of the administration of the Seychelles will be discussed between the Governor and my right hon. Friend, and, so far as we know now, he will be returning. The hon. Gentleman asked me whether Mr. Collet is to remain a member of the Legislative Council. This is an appointment by the Governor. It is not an official appointment at all. Mr. Collet is sitting as an unofficial nominated member, and one surely must not lose the services of a person like Mr. Collet in an unofficial capacity. After all, the unofficial members to some extent are the Opposition in these places. One must not forget that. If everybody who was to become a Member of Parliament had to go through all the tests which the hon. Gentleman suggested, we might find that some very colourful figures would not get back to this House.

Is the hon. Gentleman really taking a stand on the proposition that a man who has been called by the Chief Justice a blackmailer, an extortioner, vindictive, malicious and spiteful, and whose papers he recommends should be sent to the Bar Council, is a fit person to sit on any legislative body—Parliament, committee, or anything else—in the British Empire?

I do not agree that that language was justified. I think it was extreme and flamboyant language for a judge to use, particularly as no personal matter was involved. The man did not get anything at all out of it. In fact he had a big practice at the Bar and he was very much worse off financially as Attorney-General.

Will my hon. Friend tell us what this gentleman said about the Chief Justice?

That is another story and I would not like to go into that. It is not relevant now, and everybody has apologised to everybody else.

Did the Chief Justice apologise?

No.

Then why say that they all apologised? Is the hon. Gentleman trying to mislead the House? He knows perfectly well that the Chief Justice who made these remarks about Collet was Chief Justice Lyon. Has he apologised to Collet or anybody else?

I did not say that the Chief Justice had.

The hon. Gentleman said "everybody has apologised to everybody else."

There were two Chief Justices and two judgments. In the first case an allegation was made by the Chief Justice against Mr. Collet and Mr. Collet made a criticism of the Chief Justice. Everyone apologised to everybody else——

That is not this one.

All right. I am going to clear this up. So far as I know, the present Chief Justice has not apologised for these words. I think that the language he used was extreme in view of the fact that there was no personal benefit to Mr. Collet. Therefore to talk about a man as a blackmailer and the like when he is rather over-zealous as a public servant is not language which one would expect to be used.

Having regard to those facts there is no reason why my right hon. Friend should say to the Governor that this man must not be interested in and must not take part in public life in any capacity, even if it is at his own expense, and even as what is in effect an Opposition. That is going too far. That is hounding Mr. Collet out of all public life in the Seychelles, which I would assure the House would have a very bad effect, because Mr. Collet has a great deal of support, as I shall show, among the under-privileged, the 97 per cent. Recently there was a local government election in Praslin Island where there is adult suffrage with a simple literacy test, and all the six seats were captured by Mr. Collet's party, which broadly supports the Governor's policy, the Progressive policy. Is my right hon. Friend to say that a man whose party in his first election captures all the seats is not to be allowed to sit on the Legislative Council? Really, I have never heard such undemocratic nonsense in my life. It would be quite fantastic.

The Opposition think democracy is funny.

I want to say in conclusion a few words about the revenue and so on of this Colony because we have heard nothing about that. It has been stigmatised as a "sink of iniquity" and so on, but we have heard nothing about the very great improvements which have been made during the Governor's term of office and during the period of the present Administration. In 1939 the trade figures were imports £86,265, and exports £96,309, a favourable balance of £10,044. On 1st January this year the Colony's surplus was £250,000. Last year the Colony had a trade balance with exports at £388,000 and imports at £359,000. That is a vast increase over the pre-war figures.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Governor has power to influence the world price of copra?

I am just showing that the Government politically, economically, and socially has been doing a great deal of work to benefit the island, and so far from it being a disgrace to British administration economically and in other ways, there has been an immense improvement upon prewar days. We have set aside a sum of £250,000 under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act to deal with various schemes for improvement, but here as elsewhere it is a matter of great difficulty, as the House knows only too well, to learn exactly how to develop these territories where we have this ever-increasing population. That is what we are up against the whole time. However, so far as it can be done, with the limitations imposed upon us by finance, disease and other things, the Governor has done great work, and he has done work which is highly appreciated by the 97 per cent. of the population of the Seychelles. Up to now the 97 per cent. have had no voice in this House and it is only now that they are being heard, just as the voice of the 3 per cent. has so often been represented by the hon. Member for Hornsey.

Is the hon. Gentleman then attacking my bona fides in bringing forward this matter? Would he not agree that when I have sent him a judgment of a Judge of the Supreme Court in those words, I am entitled to bring it up? Why should he turn round and say that I am only talking about the affairs of 3 per cent. of the population? Cannot he keep class hatred out of any speech he makes?

I told the House at the beginning that I thought the hon. Gentleman was justified in bringing up this case and that, as he put it, it was a case which we had to answer. I am answering it, and I say that in the main the contentions which he has been putting before the House are the contentions of the 3 per cent. and not the contentions of the 97 per cent. who are fairly solidly behind the Government.

Would the hon. Gentleman make some comment on the remark made by the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) which I thought was helpful?

Yes, we are considering all these matters. I could not say anything today which would commit my right hon. Friend, but my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon may rest assured that we are taking into account what he said and, of course, we have read his Report carefully.

I do not propose to detain the House long this morning as I want to make only a few general remarks on some aspects of the administration of Malaya. It is a country which we all realise in this House is of extreme importance and significance to us, not only because it earns so many dollars, but also because we are under an obligation to bring it to a state where it will be ready to govern itself and take its part, we hope, in the British Commonwealth of Nations.

The first question on which I would like some information from the Under-Secretary of State is how the general battle against the Communist bandits is going today, and whether my hon. Friend is yet in a position to give to the House any forecast of the length of time he feels it will take to eliminate this threat to communications and to the life and well being of Malaya. In other words, when will the Communist menace be reduced to perhaps the occasional shooting incident instead of the great scale on which it is at present?

Going on from there, I should like to know what security steps it is proposed to take in Malaya for the future. Assuming that the internal Communist menace is dealt with fairly soon, what steps are to be taken to guard Malaya against infiltration from outside, which may easily come from China under certain circumstances? It is widely believed in Malaya that a much larger police force will be required to guard against this infiltration than the country has supported before, and the cost of such a force may well be beyond the means of Malaya. If that is the case, what proposals have His Majesty's Government to make to assist in the payment for that police force?

Those are questions dealing with the problem of Communism on the negative side. This morning I want to deal particularly with tackling Communism on the positive side; in other words, making such progress in social reforms and in the promotion of the welfare of the people, and in giving them their full part in the life and control of their own country, that the attraction of Communism will thereby be greatly diminished. It seems to me that once the Communists cease lighting in the jungles, they will come right into civilian life again and will seek once more to take part in the movement to capture the trade unions and to carry out other forms of political activity and sabotage against governmental authority. Of course, one can always shoot Communists if one can get the arms and the men into the right places at the right time, but one cannot shoot Communism. One can only deal with that by putting in its place some form of machinery which is a sufficient answer to it.

The trade union movement is the major key to providing a bulwark against Communism in Malaya, and it is of vital importance that, when the Communists give up the shooting war, they should find that the trade union movement is strong and democratic and sufficiently well able to look after itself not to be captured so easily by them as it was before the outbreak of violence. Those who have read the report made by one hon. Member of this House, and by Mr. Dailey, on the trade union movement in Malaya, will realise that previously the Communists established control over the trade union movement by means of terror. It is important that they should not be allowed to do so again. So it is important that we should have in being a strong, sound, sober, democratic trade union movement, which is recognised and respected by all concerned, employers and Government, when the Communists give up the shooting war in Malaya.

I feel that this need is not sufficiently well realised by the Government officials in that country. To many of them, trade unionism is an unfamiliar concept. They have been long out of England and they are not familiar with how trade unions work and what their requirements are, and they do not pay sufficient attention to the problem. Intellectually they understand that trade unions are an important part of the democratic life of a country, but they do not understand that emotionally. All the time I was in Malaya, I was receiving complaints from trade union leaders and officials to the effect that their work in building up their trade unions was being frustrated. For instance, the Teachers' Union—not a union of red Communists but of sober, middle-class people—was refused registration for nearly two years because it did not meet in some minor respect the regulations—regulations which could have been waived. It was not until slightly unorthodox action in high quarters was taken that this union was registered. To delay the registration of a trade union for two years is to frustrate the hopes and aspirations of the people trying to build it up, and that should not be tolerated.

Again, the Telephone Operators' Union has been trying to make demands for increased wages for over a year. Maybe those demands are not justified, but at least the union is entitled to have an answer, which it has not had. If a Government Department deals with trade unions in such a summary way, how can they expect employers to take trade unions seriously? Again, the Army Civil Service Union has had 24 demands outstanding for two years. Many of them, I have no doubt, are quite unreasonable hut, nevertheless, they have never had the matter cleared up; the only thing they have secured by long struggle over the past year is a recognition of their trade union.

One could go on for a long time on that matter, and I want to hear from the Under-Secretary what he is doing to impress upon the officials in Malaya the vital importance of encouraging, emotionally as well as intellectually, the growth of an active and democratic trade union movement in Malaya. I hope also that my hon. Friend will impress upon the officials that there are two ways of interpreting regulations: one is to interpret them favourably to the cause in hand, the other is to interpret them unfavourably; and there has been far too much unfavourable interpretation of the regulations up to now.

It is also of great importance that we should show the people in Malaya that we have on hand considerable projects of social reform and betterment for the people. There have been few, if any, of these since the end of the war. For instance, there is a great need to grow more food there. Rice is now seven times the price it was before the war, and the rice ration is about half of what was eaten before the war. So it is important that substantial schemes should be put in hand, and shown to be put in hand, for growing more food internally.

Again, the people of Malaya feel rather bitterly that their economic life is controlled from London to a large extent. The markets of the two main commodities, rubber and tin, are controlled primarily in London. If either of these commodities goes wrong in the world market—and they can do so easily, for rubber is always in a perilous position with synthetic rubber being developed to the extent it is in America—they feel that they will be at the mercy of world conditions to which they cannot stand up for a moment. Very little effort has been made in Malaya to try to grow alternative crops on the rubber plantations. I think that an experiment is now on foot to grow cocoa; that is a good idea, but it needs to be pressed forward very much harder. I believe that there are, in addition, a number of other things which could be grown on rubber plantations, but so far very much greater progress in this direction has been made in Indonesia than in Malaya.

The people of Malaya are entitled to know that this is the sort of activity that we intend to develop. Even at the risk of some initial loss of efficiency, we should try to promote secondary industries in Malaya so that its people do not feel they are altogether a one- or two-commodity country but have other things besides. I am well aware that markets for, say, the assembly of motor cars in Singapore are not very large, but in the long run it is desirable psychologically and politically to develop such projects rather than to ignore them completely and have to deal with subsequent bitterness.

I pass now to a completely different subject. There is a tremendous demand in all sections of the community to learn and to study English. English is not only the language spoken in this country but it is rapidly becoming the main language of the world; and there is a very natural and understandable wish on the part of Malays and Chinese, who wish to learn about the new technical advance, and so forth of the West, to learn English. There is not a single training college for teachers in English in the whole of Malaya, yet plenty of people are willing and anxious to take on the job and very many more are anxious to be taught the English language. I feel that something might have been done in this way in the four years since the end of the war. I hope to hear from the Colonial Secretary that something is being done and that greater educational facilities in Malaya are being provided.

Is the hon. Member suggesting training colleges solely for turning out teachers of English? That is contrary to all the laws of educational practice. Training colleges should train teachers not only to teach in English but in all other educational subjects as well.

I am not anxious to restrict the existing practice; but there is not, in fact, any possibility whatever of getting instruction in teaching English, so I am told, in Malaya. This is a matter I should like to see looked at. I was somewhat disturbed when recently I asked a Question of the Colonial Office:

"in what ways educational facilities in Malaya and Singapore have been increased since the end of the war."

I got this answer:

"I am collecting this information and will write to my hon. Friend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1949; Vol. 465, c. 156.]

Surely, if the Colonial Office had been taking an active interest in this matter and really had been seeing that educational facilities were being improved, they would not need to write to Malaya to find out what was being done; instead, they could have assured me that a tremendous amount had already been done and that further details would be forthcoming later. But all I got was the blank cold answer that the information was being collected and, apparently, was not available in the Colonial Office. I consider that such a state of affairs is somewhat alarming.

Another matter—of more considerable psychological importance, perhaps, than anything else—is the whole question of non-Europeans in the administrative services of Malaya and Singapore. In May, 1946—three years ago—the Colonial Office issued a White Paper (Cmd. 197) in which they said:

"If progressive advancement along the road to self-government within the framework of the British Commonwealth of Nations is to be a reality, the public services of the Colonies must to the greatest possible extent he staffed by local people."

That is an admirable and proper sentiment, and was welcomed throughout the whole of the Colonial Empire; it certainly was welcomed in Malaya. But when I was there they said to me, "This statement was made three years ago but what has happened since? Absolutely nothing." There may have been, at the most, one or two promotions of non-Europeans; there have been extremely few, if any, direct entrants into the Civil Service from local inhabitants. All we can assume is that this statement from the Colonial Office was in the nature of eyewash, for nothing whatever appears to have been done to implement it. If that state of affairs continues there is bound to be increasing dissatisfaction among the Chinese and Malays, who are well able to do these jobs but are prevented from doing them.

To illustrate the sort of thing that happens, let me quote the case of a Chinese girl in Radio Malaya. Her superior recommended her for promotion to a higher grade, a grade not normally occupied by non-Europeans. After a long time there came the answer that she could not be promoted because she had a degree in only one subject. That reason was nothing but farcical, for the man who had recommended her for promotion also had a degree in only one subject, as is a very common occurrence. To bar a person in the Civil Service for that reason is too ludicrous for words.

Let me give another illustration. For some time the Malayan and Chinese doctors have been waging a war to get themselves treated on the same footing as Europeans. After a very long time the Colonial Office has at last made proposals for a unified Colonial medical service in the Straits; to set up only one service, so that both Europeans and non-Europeans will have the same status and be judged differently only according to their different qualities and capabilities. This is a most welcome advance, but it is to take effect only for new entrants. The old order, apparently, is to be maintained to a large extent for existing members, and there is to be a most peculiar system of parallel seniority lists running in hospitals, so that non-Europeans will be in one list and the Europeans in another. I should not mind guessing which lot achieve more rapid promotion than the other, and this is exactly the feeling of the non-European doctors. If these services are to be unified, it should be done completely and made to apply to people already serving.

Many people in Malaya rightly believe that local inhabitants are not as competent or efficient as Europeans for jobs in the Civil Service; I accept that completely. But if we are really sincere—and we are sincere—in maintaining that Malaya shall be self-governing, we must accept the proposition that when it becomes self-governing, the administration will for a time be less efficient than when it was ruled absolutely by the British; that is bound to be so. One must accept the principle that the greater the control by local inhabitants in some of these places, the more will efficiency suffer at the outset. We must gear ourselves down deliberately to that point. It is no good for the highly efficient and competent British officials to say "We really cannot promote so and so, even though they are Malays or Chinese, because the efficiency of the Department will suffer." We must accept the proposition that for a time the efficiency of the Department may suffer. The principle is much more important than the immediate efficiency of that Department and that is that wherever possible, the country should be governed and administered by its own inhabitants and not by us.

To show how litttle has been done in this respect, or to try to find out how much has been done, I asked a series of Questions of the Colonial Office not very long ago to find out how many Malays and Chinese held higher administrative posts in Singapore and Malaya. Of course, no Chinese can be in the Malayan Civil Service; that is because the consent of the Sultans has not yet been obtained to their admission into the Service. This is a very complicated subject with which I shall not attempt to deal now because of the shortness of time. Yet it is quite possible for the Chinese to be in the Colonial administrative service in Singapore, and quite a few of them are. But when I asked how many of them were in grades equivalent to 1B and 1A in the Malayan Civil Service and in staff appointments or were staff officers, the answer was "None." Those four grades are the top grades. There are quite a number of people in them, but none of them are non-Europeans. It is all very well for people to make charming statements in Command Papers saying that we must get the public services of the Colonies staffed to the greatest possible extent by local inhabitants, but when we look at the important posts we find that not a single one is so staffed, three years after that statement was made. The same applies to the question of higher grades in Malaya.

There is considerable local feeling on the point. The Under-Secretary was quite wrong when he assured me that there was no considerable feeling in Singapore. He must have read the Report of the Select Committee recently issued in Singapore, a copy of which has been sent to his office. The local inhabitants who sat on the Committee explained their resentment and irritation at the fact that they have very little control or say in the staffing of these local posts. The main point in the Report, which I hope the Colonial Office will do their best to implement, is that a Public Service Commission should be set up to supervise the filling of all the posts in the Colonies to ensure that regard is paid to local feeling in this respect. I fear that unless we have very much more vigorous action to promote non-Europeans in the Civil Service in Malaya and to encourage their direct entry into the Civil Service, we shall create a great deal of unnecessary frustration among these people who are willing and anxious to be our friends.

Another matter springs from the same tree. It is the general approach to political matters by the administrative service in Malaya. New constitutions are operating in Malaya and Singapore. Both are quite good on paper, but it is the way in which they are actually operated which really counts. Unfortunately, it so happens that all the people in charge are officials, and officials are not politically-minded people. They do not recognise a political situation when they see one.

There was an incident last November when the officials rather brusquely turned down a demand by non-official trade union members for a committee to examine the possibilities of social security. The officials were quite right in saying that there was no money, but they should not have turned down the possibility of a committee of all concerned who could consider the pros and cons. This was brusquely turned down, but that would not have been done by politicians. It would not have been done by the more enlightened hon. Members opposite, if they were in control. The proposal was a spontaneous attempt to learn more about the welfare and government of the country. These high officials ought to be ex-trade unionists or ex-businessmen with a wider experience of life than the normal officials have, or, alternatively, there must be appointed to each governor a political adviser who would be able to point out the political implications of administrative action in time, before frustration was created. I hope we shall hear something from the Colonial Secretary on that point.

In Malaya we have a great opportunity to build up trust, confidence and friendship and to keep the country in the Commonwealth, if only we act now and show that we are determined to see that they get control of their own country rapidly and that we are prepared to put quite a lot of effort into promoting schemes of social betterment for them.

I must apologise to the hon. Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) for not being here in time to hear all his speech, but I was unable to overcome the traffic block outside. I think I have been able to catch his theme song fairly well from the latter part of his speech.

I do not think there will be very much difference between us on matters of principle, but the difference is entirely on matters of degree. He made rather an astonishing statement—I hope I am not misrepresenting him—when he said that the principle is more important than the actual efficiency for some time to come. If one takes Malaya as it is today, that was an astonishing statement to make. If we stick so keenly to principle and the immediate application of principle after it has been passed by this House and have not sufficient regard to the local situation, we may frustrate exactly the end we are trying to attain.

There is not the slightest doubt that in Malaya at the moment the greatest possible difficulties prevail. Apart from the question of the bandits, which I think is gradually being got in hand, an economic blizzard is blowing over Malaya which makes the situation very difficult. I think the hon. Member will be able to find more ex-businessmen than he thinks, because a great many people will be put out of business fairly soon by local conditions. To have no regard to that and to the budgetary and monetary situation of Malaya, and to look on the present as being exactly the moment at which we should, by a process of duplication, or even triplication, enormously increase the services to be provided, is to show a total disregard of the realities of the situation. Not only is the disastrous fall in the price of rubber, largely due to the increased impact of new and very much better synthetic rubber, having a great effect there, so that production costs are about the same as the selling price and sometimes very much higher, but the situation in regard to tin, the other great mainstay, is not too good.

Anyone who looks at the budgets of Singapore and of the Federation will see that there is very little in the pool. This is a moment to have some regard to these facts and not to have an enormous expansionist policy. No one knows better than the hon. Member and myself the need for all the services there, but no one knows better than he—although he did not say so in his speech—that the possibility of what can be done is very much less than we would like. He said there was a great deal of local feeling about higher official posts. That may be so, but what of the local feeling there is likely to be, when the true effect of the economic situation begins to make itself felt?

I would issue a note of warning and point out the enormous strain, in a country which is far from being quiet and settled yet, which the hon. Member would impose on the existing Civil Service. Not only have they to carry on a very difficult and intricate administration, which is daily becoming more difficult, but at the same time they have to undertake a considerable degree of education of the new people coming in. If we look into the Federation and see the set-up, we find that many of the officials go to the man who is ostensibly in control, the officer who does three times as much work as before, and he has to carry the added burden. I am not complaining of that; it is very healthy and natural; but we should make it clear that the Civil Service in Malaya is under very great strain and it may be very unwise to add very greatly to it.

I do not believe there is any real difference in what we all want to do, but it is a question of not spoiling things by trying to run before we can walk. The situation is very much the same in the Dutch East Indies where there are many Malays who are very much akin to these Malays, and when the situation alters in Malaya, they will begin to cast their eyes on Malaya to see what is happening in that country. At such a moment there should be a steady consolidation and a very gradual handing over of the mechanics of self-government from those who have carried the responsibility so well and brilliantly and with great devotion, before we start importing into that area an enormous flood of people who, on the hon. Member's own showing, need a very great deal of education.

As to the question which the hon. Member raised about political advisers for the Government, I would refer to the two Governors and the Special Commissioner. The Special Commissioner has probably had politically as much education as the right hon. Gentleman and myself, he having been a Member of this House longer than either of us.

Of course the Commissioner-General, for whom I have the highest regard and admiration, has had a great deal of political experience. What I was talking about were day-to-day routine matters which have political implications, and which the Commissioner-General cannot possibly supervise, as they affect local questions. My view is that there should be the possibility of advice being available from a political adviser to point out in time, to the Governor concerned the political implications.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for his intervention; he has now provided me with something on which I can differ from him fundamentally. It is totally wrong to think that the routine work that goes on in the Governor's office or in similar offices has to be considered from the point of view of its political implications. The more politics are kept out the better. The importation of a political angle is only required on a very few occasions. If there are to be political advisers whose job is to advise and who want to advise that "the political implications of this have to be thought out," administration will be slowed down. Administration must be separated from politics as far as possible. There are already sufficient politicians in Malaya. I do not think it wise to try to judge matters of routine administration from the point of view of their political implications except in a very small number of questions, and when that consideration is required there already exists in the wisdom of Governors, the Special Commissioner and high officials, quite a sufficient fund of political knowledge and wisdom to deal with such questions without any more appointments of special political advisers being required.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish deliberately to misunderstand me, but we are certainly at cross purposes. I was talking about political situations in their wider aspects. I am not suggesting the importing of a political angle but the pointing out of the political consequences of an action which might not otherwise be noticed by the Governor.

I must differ from the hon. Member in putting forward my view, which is that Governors, their high officials and advisers, colonial secretaries and economic advisers, never lose sight of possible political implications and that the higher ranks and their advisers are at present very well equipped without importing any special new appointments of the kind to which the hon. Member has referred.

Let us be careful at this juncture, when troubles in the Far East are flowing West from China and elsewhere, when the Indonesian and the Burmese situation has not yet settled down. Let us proceed step by step, agreeing in principle, but realising that exactly the opposite of what the hon. Member said is true—that there are a great many occasions when efficiency is more important than principle and when a steady control by experienced men will often keep in hand a situation which would easily get out of hand if less experienced men, however well meaning they might be, were put in charge.

I, too, wish to apologise for not having been able to be here when my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) began his speech. Since so much of the time allotted for this Debate has already been occupied, I shall speak for only a few minutes. I listened, as we all do, with great interest to the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) because we know of his vast experience of these problems. There will not be on this occasion much fundamental disagreement on my side. I would point out what I believe to be an important factor. Before an administrative system can be made to work smoothly in the situation which at present exists in South East Asia, I, like the hon. Member for Bury, believe that we must take into account the volcanic situation which now exists in the whole of South East Asia. Much can be done from Whitehall. I deprecate the 16 months' delay that took place after negotiations originated in Malaya before the 100 million dollar loan was really considered. I believe that that delay caused much complaint in Malaya and in a way contributed to the setting back of some of our administrative advance.

In the time at my disposal I have not the opportunity to deal with some of the social problems, but I believe that one of the fundamental problems which needs to be faced in Malaya is housing and slum clearance. Some of this loan should be allocated to dealing with that problem as soon as possible. I would refer to one other economic point upon which the hon. Member for Bury lightly touched—the tin problem. He knows as well as I do that Mr. E. M. F. Ferguson pointed out, in his address to the shareholders, that so far as the tin smelting industry in Malaya was concerned, there were forces at work outside the control of this House, and that there was a danger, due to subsidised American ore being taken to Texas, that the entire 60 years' tin industry in Malaya might be undermined.

I believe that the situation in Malaya has reached a point at which it is already possible for the Government to look towards some kind of amnesty and some kind of negotiations in Malaya to bring the present situation to an end. If we do not do so, it is ridiculous to talk of smooth administrative control or of building up the economy of Malaya. I beg the Secretary of State to use all his good offices at once to look into this Malayan situation so that we can gradually approach the day when an amnesty can be granted or negotiations can take place. If that is done, we shall have peace; if we do not do that, we shall run the risk, as has already been pointed out, looking at what is taking place in Viet Nam and Indonesia, of reaching a situation which will destroy the entire set-up of Malaya as we understand it.

To whom is this amnesty to apply?

I raised this question in the House many months ago. The Government know as well as I do the people who can be approached. May I qualify my statement a little and say that I believe it would be possible to put out feelers for negotiations at the present moment, and that that should be done rather than that we should have the continued destruction of our wealth and an appeal to this House for another £5 million loan to meet the cost of the Imperial Forces in Malaya in 1948–49?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) for raising this problem of Malayan administration. I would point out, however, that we hope to publish, in the space of a week or so, a review of the administrative problems of Malaya and a record of the work done over the last three or four years in order that the House may be in the possession of the fullest knowledge of the problems of the country and the background against which administration has to work, and be more conscious of the difficulty of solving the problems which have now to be solved.

Colonial Ministers are often put in a difficulty when they have to carry responsibility for the details of administration and the actual application of policy to the House of Commons itself. We have been endeavouring for the past few years to devolve more and more responsibility in administration and financial control upon the colonial territories themselves, and to increase a sense of responsibility in the Legislative Councils and the Executive Advisory Councils to the Governments so that the degree of responsibility enjoyed may be real. Therefore, while the Colonial Minister is obliged to give an account of administration and the detailed application of policy in respect of the territories, he cannot be expected—nor should the House expect it of him when, to a great extent, apart from the broad lines of policy, the responsibility has been devolved upon the territory—to be able to justify and account for every detail of the machinery of government in the territories concerned.

Here I wish to pay a very warm tribute to the administration, both in Malaya and Singapore, for the quality of the work done under the greatest difficulties during the past two or three years. When one remembers the difficulties with which they were faced when the Japanese armies withdrew, when administration had to be restored, orderly government secured, police forces created, the reign of law established in the territory, and all the services reconstructed, then one can appreciate how tremendous was the task they had to tackle. When one looks at the territory today, one sees how well the work was done. Not only had they to restore something like orderly government in the country, but, at the same time, they had to reconstruct the whole constitutional life of the territory, create new political institutions, and try to bring together the various races which go to make up those territories into co-operation and goodwill in the working of the machinery of government. I suggest that all those facts, coupled with the tremendous economic recovery in the territory, justify my paying the highest possible tribute to those administrators and technical officers, and to the people of Malaya, for the work which has been so splendidly done.

I would further remind the House that during almost half of the period with which the administration has been occupied with this great work, there has been a revolt, a great degree of violence, and a Communist effort to overthrow the authority of Government, to create conditions of uncertainty and to break down the economic life of the territory.

It is against that background, I think, that one must judge the work which has been going on in Malaya for the last three or four years. When administrators and others are faced with difficulties of internal security, when there is an armed revolt, and when the security of the whole economic life of the country is endangered, then, obviously, Government becomes preoccupied with what are the basic problems of government—the maintenance of law and order in the territory. In such circumstances, it cannot be expected that they can give that detailed examination and attention to the important social and economic needs of the territory. Nevertheless, as I want to show, although the administration has been faced with these very grave problems, due to Communist violence, there is also a fine record of work in the social and economic field as well.

While joining with the right hon. Gentleman in his praise of the administration, there is just one point—of some importance I think—which I would like to put to him. Should lie not also bring out the point that the fact that the territory was allowed to get into this state was, to some extent, due to a failure in the higher levels of local administration which should not be glossed over?

I am not prepared to admit that view. I do not want to argue it now, but I think that the administration in Malaya has been severely attacked, and that there is not too much justification for the view which the lion. Member has just expressed.

What I really want to emphasise is the fact that because there was a great deal of disorder and so much terrorism and widespread violence in the territory, it did obviously divert the administration from a great deal of the positive, constructive work which would normally have been done, and has hampered the development of political machinery, has created new difficulties as between one race and another, has intensified racial feeling, and has also diverted the flow of money which might have been available for reconstruction purposes, into the work of internal security and defence against the Communist threat. I accept to the full the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston that it is no good trying to meet a Communist revolt in terms of negative action. It is not desirable that a policy of mere suppression should be pursued. Obviously, if there is the ground in which Communist doctrine can flourish, then something must be done on the constructive and positive side of government in order that the ground shall become more fertile for good work and good social growth.

In passing, therefore, perhaps I ought to say that we cannot state at this moment how long the bandits will carry on their terrorist acts. Extraordinary progress has been made in the past few months in dealing with these disturbances and uncertainties. I think it can be said that the progress is good, that the security authorities have the situation well in hand, and that we can look forward to the complete elimination of this trouble over a period which I hope will not be too protracted. In connection with this, a question was also raised about the maintenance of the police forces when the present trouble is over. Undoubtedly, the Malayan administration will have to maintain for quite a long time a force larger than that which was there when the disturbances began. During the disturbances, the existing forces have been completely reorganised, and I think that the internal security requirements will make it necessary for those forces to be larger than they were in 1946.

Could my right hon. Friend say who is going to pay for the increase in these forces, because I understand that Malaya cannot afford to do so?

The problem of internal security and the financing of the necessary measures is fundamentally a matter for the Colonial Government themselves. That is a principle which has always been accepted as fundamental to the development of political freedom and to the development of the political life of the territory. If the tremendous financial demands are outside the capacity of the local Government, then, obviously, His Majesty's Government will look at any representations made to them with a view to discovering whether assistance is desirable, or can actually be given. On this point let me say that already His Majesty's Government have tried to meet some of the local needs during the past two or three years.

Under the Colonial Development and Welfare allocation, at least £5 million is made available for social and economic development. There will be another grant of £1,300,000 from the central fund under the 1945 Act. As the House has been informed, £20 million has been made available for war damage compensation and £5 million already contributed towards internal security. There have been other financial contributions of a substantial character. We have been mindful of the very difficult financial position into which local governments have been placed and we are trying to make it possible for their normal work to continue while they are coping with the grave uncertainties due to the violence of the bandits. It is no good any Government merely repressing rebellious action. One must build up a spirit of good will and co-operation among the public.

That brings me to certain of the points raised about education, the medical services and so on. First, I should like the House to recognise that the administrations have themselves been working on programmes of social and economic development on a 10-year basis. Many of the schemes which have been worked out have already started and in some cases substantial financial support has been forthcoming under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. I assure the House that in education there has been a remarkable recovery over the past few years. In 1948 the enrolment in all schools in the Federation was 512,000. That figure should be compared with the figure before the war, which was only 263,000. The number of schoolchildren enrolled is now double what it was before the war. The technical college enrolment has risen from 141,000 to 215,000. In Government and aided English schools the enrolment has risen from 32,000 to 81,000, and there is a wide network of teacher-training colleges which are now producing trained teachers. In September, 104 students passed the final and third year examination. We hope to have more teachers available in order to meet the demand in the schools.

I was surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Aston said that there were no facilities for the learning of English. As I have already pointed out, the enrolment in the Government and aided English schools has risen to 81,253.

I did not say that. I said there were no facilities for learning to teach in English.

There are teacher-training colleges. It surprises me to be told that in those training colleges English is not one of the subjects which has been taken, but that is a point about which I will make further inquiries. There is also a considerable amount of community work in the rural areas for betterment. The subjects include the growing of crops and instruction on the best methods. That work is expanding rapidly.

There is one point about all these schemes. Is the right hon. Gentleman concentrating on spreading every form of education and social betterment, particularly in the country, because the defect so far has been the unbalance between rural and urban areas?

That is why I said that a great deal of rural development is in mind. We recognise the vital importance of keeping a balance as between urban and rural areas. In order that people for the professions and higher technical services should be made available for the country, we have been most anxious to get the foundations laid for a university college. Not only has Raffles College in Singapore started its work, but also the plans are now fairly well advanced for the establishment of a university.

I refer now to medical progress. Over the years we have been trying not only to restore some of the excellent health services which existed before the Japanese occupation, but to expand them in various ways. In 1947, which is the last year for which figures are available, 2,851,000 patients were treated by the travelling dispensaries which move about the countryside. A large number of the children in the rural and urban areas attend the child welfare clinics. Of the 480,000 school-children no fewer than 237,000 receive milk in the schools every day, and that is supplemented by cod liver oil, palm oil, and other foods. It is also significant to see the considerable drop in the death rate which was recorded at 16.8 per thousand in the first half of 1948. I believe that is the lowest ever recorded in Malaya. There are also new campaigns against malaria, and other steps are being taken to improve the health services.

I should like to meet the point raised by the hon. Member for Aston about the inadequacy of the information supplied to him in reply to a Question which he put to me last Wednesday. He asked for certain information about education, and, unfortunately in my anxiety that he should have the most up-to-date information in the fullest possible way, I thought it desirable not to give him out-of-date figures but to get fresh and vital information from the Governor. I have yet to learn that that course deserves the censure of my hon. Friend.

I apologise.

My hon. Friend also raised the question whether something more should not be done in respect of new industries. I will not go into the details of the efforts now being made to expand the production of food, the experimental work being carried on and new methods which are being tried. But I should like him to know that a number of new factories and industries are taking root in the territory as a result of the encouragement given that the economy should be much more diversified. I am told that there is a new cement plant, a glass manufacturing plant, a factory to produce dry batteries, a plant for the manufacture of plastics, and a pottery factory.

All these are new enterprises which have recently been started or are under consideration. Moreover, the Colonial Development Corporation have set up a subsidiary Corporation. It has its headquarters at Singapore, and they are considering at the moment some considerable projects in respect of fishery development, textile manufacture and housing development. I would make the point that we are conscious that this territory ought not to be exclusively dependent on rubber and tin. Not only ought we to encourage small production as well as large production with regard to the major projects, but we ought to introduce, so far as we can, smaller industries, and every encouragement is being given to that end by the local government.

This question has also been raised of the structure of the administration itself. I would like to commend the wise words which the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) said on this matter. I feel that his remarks are very relevant indeed to the problems which we have been considering this morning. What are the facts? It is quite true that the principle laid down three years ago is one which we wish to see applied in the services in Malaya. There is, of course—and everyone I think appreciates it—a very real difficulty because of the special position which has hitherto been taken in regard to the Malays and the anxiety of the Chinese also to play a more effective part, not only in the machinery of government but in the staffing of the technical and other services. That principle can only be applied with very great care. I think that things would have gone further if the preoccupation with the existing problems of violence and terrorism had not been there. It is not my purpose, because I have not the time, to describe the structure of government, and I would only say that I am in the completest sympathy with the objective which my hon. Friend has in mind. I think, as the hon. Member for Bury said, there is no difference in principle between us. It is a question of time and the using of wise discretion as to when certain of these things can be done.

May I add one word in regard to the administration itself. It is quite true that many of the persons engaged in the administration are tried servants of the pre-occupation period and undoubtedly many of them went through the most trying and terrifying experiences during that period. It may be that in some cases we cannot get quite that high quality of service which we would desire, but I think that on the whole we can congratulate ourselves that these men since they have resumed their duties have played a great part in getting the country back to something like normal conditions and in restoring the services on which the vital civil life depends.

I hoped that I should have had time to say a word about trade unionism. I will only add that we are determined to do everything in our power to encourage a healthy trade union movement. We have demonstrated that desire by the whole series of steps which we have taken: by trying to get a Ministry of Labour official to occupy the important position of labour commissioner, by trying to get a registrar with an office staff of Asians, and by trying to get on the staff of the trade union adviser himself a group of experienced trade unionists who can help in the encouragement of a healthy movement. There have been a large number of other steps taken, and I feel that we are doing all that is humanly possible to get a virile, well-organised trade union movement which can protect and promote the interests of the people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and I hope the House as a result of the report to be submitted to them in the course of a few weeks, will gain much greater knowledge with regard to these problems.

The question of farm workers' rations has been raised in this House on many occasions during the last two months at Question Time. I make no apology for raising it again, except to say that I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food should be obliged to come to the House to answer for his Department in the luncheon hour, although I am quite certain that his Department have packed up a sandwich lunch for him nicely wrapped in cellophane paper, which will probably be a good deal more palatable than some of the sandwich lunches which the farm labourer is taking into the fields.

The Government, quite rightly, are continually exhorting the agricultural community to produce more food. Their exhortations have received the support of hon. Members on all sides of the House. We all recognise that agriculture is the greatest dollar-saving industry that we possess. But I think that those who are engaged in the vital task of food production are at least entitled to a fair share of the food that is available, and in this respect the position of the farm worker is far from satisfactory. There are a number of specific complaints to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman.

In the first place, one of the principal causes of complaint is that those agricultural workers whether British or foreign, who are accommodated in hostels, receive a meat ration of 2s. 6d., whereas agricultural workers who live in their own homes receive a meat ration of 1s. 1d. The meat ration for the latter of 1s. 1d. applies to those for whom no canteen facilities are available. What is quite clear, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is that by the very nature of the work, only in a small proportion of cases can canteen facilities be available for them on the farm. This differentiation between 2s. 6d. and 1s. 1d. is very naturally and, in my view, quite rightly causing considerable dissatisfaction. I understand that the argument is that the farm worker who lives in his own home has points which he can spend. I would point out that there is singularly little meat available on points, and that what is available is very highly pointed. I would also add that I am one of those who believe that the farm worker needs fresh meat in order to give him the required stamina. I am not in the least convinced by all the scientific arguments of the food experts about the high calorific value, of all sorts of substitutes for fresh meat.

The second point to which I wish to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman is that those who are accommodated in hostels, if I understand the position correctly, get their 2s. 6d. meat ration, whether or not they are fully employed all the week. Although I do not in any way wish to pass any general criticism on the European Volunteer Workers, many of whom served us well in the war, and many of whom are unable or unwilling for reasons which we all understand to go back to their homes in the countries from which they came the fact remains that, at any rate, a proportion of the E.V.W's. are not very satisfactory.

There is also this point, that those who are accommodated in hostels do not, by and large, work as long hours as the ordinary agricultural workers who live in their homes, for the simple reason that the former are taken out every day in agricultural committee vehicles, dropped at the various farms in the countryside where they work and picked up later at specific times, which means that the gang on farm A may be picked up half-an-hour before the gang on farm B. This is the cause of complaint and irritation to the ordinary agricultural worker who does an honest day's work every day of the week.

The third point is our old friend the Food Seasonal Allowance Order. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we prayed against this order last year. The real trouble is that it is no more practical in 1949 than it was in 1948. There are far too many anomalies. For instance, seasonal allowances are granted for lambing, but not for muck spreading; for haymaking but not for hedging and ditching. Perhaps the supreme example of the anomalies that can arise concerns hoeing root crops. Two men can be working in the same field, the one hoeing and singling mangolds for which he receives a seasonal allowance and the other, hoeing kale, for which no extra rations are allowed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could explain how he arrives at this incredible decision. The fact is that all farm operations demand physical energy. It would be infinitely preferable for all farm workers to receive the extra rations for the whole year instead of extra rations being given only for those engaged on specific operations for part of the year.

The fourth point, about the seasonal rations is that whereas the miner's wife can draw her husband's rations direct from her grocer, the farm worker's wife for some curious reason is not considered competent to do so. They must be drawn in bulk by the employer, which causes a great deal of inconvenience and waste of time. I noted that in a written answer to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Norfolk (Brigadier Medlicott) the Minister said:

"I have now arranged that applications shall in future be accepted not only from an employer but from his nominee, from a representative of the workers or from any other responsible person, such as a union official acting on their behalf."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 56.]

I do not know what that means. It still does not get us out of the difficulty. A farmer can appoint his nominee, or a man who belongs to the Farmworkers' Union delegated to draw the rations, but the rations still have to be drawn in bulk and split up. It is no easy job to split up the rations when they have been drawn in bulk for the different number of men working on different days and in different categories. It wastes a great deal of time and causes a great deal of resentment between those who are entitled to extra rations and those who are not.

Another difficulty is that this system aggravates the difficulties of the uneven distribution of points goods in the countryside. The employer goes with 300 or 400 points to the grocer with whom he is registered. In many cases the grocer is unable to honour the points because his allocation of points goods depends upon the number of registered customers on his books. Some of the farmer's employees may not be registered with that grocer, which means, quite naturally, that the grocer can only honour the points at the expense of his registered customers. In many cases the points goods which are available are quite unsuited for making up sandwiches.

We have had the argument before, and I can only repeat it again, that the provision in the order which lays down that the employer must apply 24 hours before the commencement of each seasonal operation in respect of each individual he employs just does not make sense. Can the Minister explain how this works out, for instance, during the fruit-picking season when the farmer employs women from the village? Quite a number of women are willing to pick fruit, but the farmer does not know whether they will be available on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Fridays, or on other days of the week. It means that if a woman turns up unexpectedly on a Monday the farmer has to say, "I did not know you were going to turn up today. I have not applied for your rations, as I have to do, 24 hours ahead; I cannot therefore employ you till tomorrow." That seems to me to be the logical conclusion of this order. It means that the order is completely impracticable. I understand that the N.F.U. were not consulted about Form S.A.4 (A.G.) which was brought out last year.

As there are other Members who wish to speak in this short Debate, I will conclude by saying that I hope before the season gets much older the right hon. Gentleman and his officials will address themselves to these problems very carefully; that they will do their utmost to see there is a fairer distribution of points goods in the rural areas; that suitable points goods are available for making sandwiches; that the inequalities of the meat ration are ironed out as between those who live in hostels and those who do not, and that the agricultural labourer's wife shall be entitled, in the same way as the miner's wife, to go to her own grocer to draw the extra rations to which her husband is entitled. The agricultural labourer is a valuable member of the community. Indeed he is a great deal more valuable than many other members of the community. If he is to be convinced that the Government think well of him. then what is required from the right hon. Gentleman's Department are deeds and not words.

It is perhaps a curious coincidence that following the speech of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), in whose division Windsor Castle is situated, I, in whose division Sandringham is situated, should also take part in this Debate. I know that the hon. Member opposite is aware of the difficulties with which we are faced in the northern part of Norfolk, and I must tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I wish to support to the full the arguments which have been put forward on this subject. There is very great dissatisfaction among agricultural workers in my part of the country about the question of meat allocation to European Volunteer Workers. At a meeting of agricultural workers only a few days ago I was detailed, if I may use that word, to put a Question to the Minister about the value of the meat ration which is being given to European Volunteer Workers in a certain hostel, and to ask why agricultural workers in that district could not be treated in the same way.

In view of the serious trouble we had in the countryside last year about this question of rations I ask the Minister to reconsider the whole position. I think he might reasonably bring one or two Members on this side of the House, who have had experience of this rationing system, into consultation, because I can assure him that this is a sore point with agricultural workers. Personally, as a farmer, I have never had any trouble but only last night, on my way to attend a special meeting in my constituency, I was approached by a worker who told me of the trouble he was having in his village because a farmer was not procuring the rations to which his men were entitled. There are good and bad farmers in every respect but, nevertheless, I believe the present system is capable of improvement.

I confirmed by telephone the amounts of the special rations given to agricultural workers, and I think it would be of interest to give them to the House. There is a weekly ration of 1½ oz. of tea, 4½ oz. of margarine, 5 oz. of sugar, 2½ oz. of cheese and three points. It is very difficult to measure these quantities, and although it may be said that rations can be procured monthly, which will make it easier for the proper quantities to be weighed and allotted, all this causes great difficulties in village shops. As the hon. Member for Windsor said, two men might be hoeing in a field, one with his special rations and the other without; two men might be sowing in a field, one getting his special rations and the other not. There is also the case of the farm worker who is doing a routine job such as stock-feeding, which is not classed as a special job and who does not, therefore, get a special ration allowance. Some of us on this side of the House who are in constant touch with agricultural workers believe the time has come for the Minister to revise the present system, so that we can keep our agricultural workers in the countryside. They are entitled to better treatment than they have had in the past. They are looking forward to considerably increased production from the land, especially home meat supplies, and it is discouraging when they have to exist on cheese and such like food.

During the last harvest I was not far away from the Division represented by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), where I saw some men under a rick having their lunch. They were drinking water and eating food which was quite insufficient to enable them to do their work properly. I am hoping that the Minister will be able to increase the meat ration later in the year. I am certain that there will be increased production of home meat supplies. It is a heartening sight, as one travels by rail, to see cattle out in the fields. In all seriousness, I say to the Government that they must look more kindly on the plea of agricultural workers for better food.

The Minister of Food has a most unfortunate office. Fifty million people think of him three times a day and possibly with less goodwill than he is entitled to. Yet as long as he and the Government stand for a system of rationing and distribution, he must, of course, be a target for criticism. I understand that the aim of his Department is fair shares for all, and from what we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), and what has been said before in the House and elsewhere, it appears that that very desirable aim has not been achieved.

I speak of the European voluntary workers in the district in Scotland with which I am familiar, They receive a meat ration to the value of 2s. 6d., while the agricultural worker living on a farm has a meat ration of 1s. 1d. I have seen something of the meat ration which the European voluntary worker gets, and it is in bulk. It is cooked in bulk in the hostel and distributed round a communal table. To that extent it would seem to me to go very much further. The meat ration which the agricultural worker gets in his own home cannot be bulked, unless he is one of a large family, and often the village is at the end of the butcher's journey, so that the farm worker gets a very meagre and not very attractive piece of meat.

Applying the Minister's principle of fair shares for all which I think he honestly attempts to apply, is he satisfied that 2s. 6d. worth of meat for the hostel worker, who can have his food bulked as in a canteen, is really the equivalent of 1s. 1d. worth which the individual worker gets in his cottage or farm? I suggest that here is something which might very well be looked at again. If there is to be a disparity, that disparity should be more or less in favour of the family rather than of the person who has the facilities for bulk cooking and distribution.

The second thing which occurs to me and which might be relevant in this matter is the real hardship of people who are engaged in the food production business, in that they are not allowed to participate in the fruits of the labour of their hands. The hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise) would not quote Scripture, but I am sure he would agree with me that the Scriptures do contain the phrase, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." It seems to me to be extremely hard that people who produce beef, mutton and the other necessities of life should not at least be allowed to have a little more than their neighbours. It is not unfairly or unnaturally conceded that the coal miner shall be entitled to some of the work of his hands in concession coal. The same principle is conceded in other directions. Those who are in the hotel and catering business—I have some small experience myself—are entitled to participate in what has been provided for others. It is very natural that the coal miner should want some of his coal, and that others engaged in handling food should want to have a special claim on the food which they have been handling.

The agricultural worker has the very same idea. Should he not, then, have some concession above the ordinary urban population because he is engaged in this particular activity? I know there are devices which many farmers have been driven to adopt. The accidental death of an animal is not recorded, but I imagine that it happens with greater frequency under these circumstances. There is no record in the Ministry's files of these accidental deaths, but the Minister's policy rather tends in an immoral world, as he is only too well aware, to encourage these irregularities, and I should find it difficult to blame anyone in that connection, for I recognise that the thing is not unnatural.

Then there is the question of rations for special workers. That creates a very great problem, and I feel that my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is quite right when he advocates that it should be reconsidered. The thing in itself is extremely clumsy. The farm with which I am connected is some 15 miles away from a shop. Roads are bad and transport is difficult. Some person, generally the farmer's wife, has got to be relieved from other duties for the better part of a forenoon to collect the points goods at the shop. In the shop they are limited and have been hoarded with great care. When they are bought they are necessarily limited in character, and there is the greatest dissatisfaction among the farmer's family and workers. What really happens is that the farmer's wife or daughter is made the agent for the Government in this matter, and suffers the odium for bad distribution for which she is not to blame. That is no new thing. Those of us who are operating P.A.Y.E. for the Government act, as we know, for the tax collector and receive the odium which is his, without getting any of his emoluments.

The farmer's wife goes into the grocer's shop to spend her points. He has a limited supply of points goods. On the hillside of Peeblesshire the redistribution of these carefully husbanded tins and boxes creates dissatisfaction. I think the Minister will see that it is very farcical, and brings human life almost to a de-grading level. I suggest, if possible, we should give a blank cheque to each of these workers to draw their accumulated points goods at their own will. The present system is a nuisance to the farmer, and if in some way he could be relieved of it, he would be very glad.

The truth is that this will continue as long as the Ministry of Food continues, and as long as there are officials in the Ministry who are given what to them must be the fascinating task of solving these problems. I can imagine a very fascinating range of problems in the Ministry from bulk buying to the distribution of tinned foods and fish pastes. It must be immensely fascinating, and we have built up in this country groups of people who are metaphysically inclined to the development of this problem to their hearts' delight. I think the time has come when we must take a chance in this matter and say to the Ministry of Food, "We require neither you nor your problems any longer." We should let these things solve themselves, as they did when independent traders traded freely throughout the world, and when independent buyers and consumers dealt with the grocer and dealt with him very firmly, taking no cheek from him. I should like to see those days return, but as long as we have these puzzle pictures, we shall be faced again and again with such discussions as this. I say, let us take the risk of laissez faire and abolish regulations and restraint. I do not think that many of us would be any worse off than we are.

I will not bother to follow the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) in the last part of his speech as to the metaphysical divisions of Peeblesshire, but I was interested in the universal remedy which he put before us. It is quite true that it would be possible to remove all these controls and solve the problem by letting the price mechanism do its work again. It is very interesting to find that that is what he advocates, and I hope he will continue to advocate it publicly all over the country and that his hon. and right hon. Friends will join him in so doing.

The right hon. Gentleman has shown us the way by removing many of these controls.

Where we find that demand and supply will balance at the current prices, we will remove controls at once; we are anxious to do that. A recent example of de-control where we experimented in a non-essential food, was when controls were removed from sweets. So far the results are not altogether reassuring, and I would not like to do that with the staple foods of this country, as apparently the hon. Gentleman would like. We are very willing to refer this decision to the electors and let them decide whether they want us to go on with our system of control, which gives fair shares with all the problems that it does raise, or whether they prefer the system advocated by the hon. Gentleman, about which he has made an important declaration today, and allow price mechanism to have a free play on the market and do the distribution for us, which it would do, but at the cost of a 50 or 100 per cent. increase in food prices. The country will have to decide which system it prefers. However, I will not follow the hon. Gentleman further in that.

We now have the problem, as the hon. Gentleman said, of trying to maintain fair shares for different sections of the population. The case of the agricultural worker for a bigger share has been very well put. What is our problem there? Undoubtedly the agricultural worker does not receive one advantage which the urban population as a whole receives, and another advantage which one section of the workers receive. He does not have free access to canteens and other catering facilities such as the urban workers and miners get, nor does he get the miners' special meat ration.

Or shopping facilities.

Yes, that is so, but I should not have thought there was very much in that point. Those are on the debit side of the account. What do we do to balance them? The agricultural worker receives a special cheese ration which amounts to six times the normal amount of cheese. The miner receives only about double the existing meat ration, and cheese is countable as meat. The agricultural worker and the rural worker in general receive six times the normal cheese ration. In addition, the agricultural worker receives a seasonal allowance in the shape of the harvest rations which have been mentioned in this short Debate. There are difficulties, and I do not believe that they are fully solvable, in the distribution of those rations.

The seasonal allowances are not really rations at all. They are a catering allowance. They were put in by predecessors of mine to enable the farmer to continue the traditional system of helping his workers in the harvest periods during their particularly heavy spells of work. Whatever we do and whatever regulations we made there would be anomalies in that distribution. Those seasonal allowances amount to an ounce and a half of tea, five ounces of sugar, 4½ ounces of margarine, 2½ ounces of cheese and three extra points. On the average, taking the amount of food that we distribute in that way, it means that all the agricultural workers of the country draw those extras for just about half the year, or 25 weeks out of the 52. If we put it to all the other workers in the country, they would probably think it was very desirable to draw even those modest quantities of food, appreciable quantities, during half the year, in addition to their ordinary rations. Whatever difficulties arise in the method of distribution, we ought not to write off those seasonal allowances as inconsiderable in the volume of food they give to the agricultural worker and their contribution by making up to him for the advantages he does not fully share with the urban worker.

In addition to that advantage, there is a minor one, in the rural pies and rural meat schemes. That scheme is becoming quite appreciable; there are 1,750,000 pies served each week in the rural areas now, and the scheme is quite a perceptible thing. Then there is the point which was made by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. I should have thought it would be far from true to say that the agricultural worker, farmer, and food producer generally did not get a special share of the food which he produces. After all, there is nothing illegal whatever in his engaging in the various self-supplier schemes. He does so, to a very great extent. He can raise two pigs a year for himself and family. That is an enormous contribution to his supply of pig meat. He can keep hens on a very comprehensive scale and make an acceptable and appreciable contribution to his diet, which the urban worker has far less opportunity of doing. He has perfectly legal ways by which a man on the land can get an additional share, and it is perfectly right that he should, of the food supply of the country, on the principle of not muzzling the ox that treadeth out the corn. I should have thought that we had gone quite a long way in that direction.

That is all I wish to say in general but I would like to say a word in regard to the so-called E.V.Ws., or European workers. I would repeat to hon. Members that we ought not to look at this matter in terms of nationality. It really is not the case that there is any differentiation whatever according to nationality. If the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe), or anyone else who has spoken, feels that workers, whatever their nationality, in hostels are getting too much, then it is open to them to make representations that the meat in the hostels is too large in relation to the rations of the rest of the country.

There was no suggestion of differentiation between E.V.Ws. and British workers in the camps, but surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the vast number of people in agricultural hostels are E.V.Ws.?

Probably there the majority are E.V.Ws. But taking all workers in camps and hostels, they are almost exactly half and half British and foreign. We make no differentiation whether the worker in a hostel goes out to work in a field or a factory.

The point about the differentiation is that the E.V.W. gets 2s. 6d. worth of meat per week if he lives in a hostel, whether he is working for a full day or a half day, or not at all.

That might be a case for reducing the rations in all hostels. They might be reduced from the heavy industry scale on which they are today, to the light industry scale, although there is a good deal to be said against it.

Would my right hon. Friend say that the Women's Land Army in their hostels, and in all hostels get the same ration?

Yes. There is no discrimination according to nationality. We should make it clear in the countryside that there will never be discrimination according to the nationality of the worker. If we replanned the agricultural camps and hostels and said that they ought not to receive the heavy industrial allowance, it would bring their meat and other allowances much nearer to the domestic level, but I should think that agricultural Members would protest against it and I should have thought it would be wrong. For this purpose, agriculture ought to count as a heavy industry. That is why these camps receive the heavy industry allowance, which is quite generous. I am willing to receive representations about the proper level of rations in hostels but we must get them from the people who live in the hostels.

I have said a word about seasonal allowances. The only thing I want to say, in conclusion, on that is that we have now helped in the way in which they are drawn by making it possible for them to be drawn not only by the farmer but by any appropriate person nominated by the group of workers concerned.

What is the objection to the farm workers themselves drawing these rations?

These are not differential rations; they are a catering allowance provided to enable the farmer to carry on the traditional custom of helping his workers in the field in the harvest season. That is why they are drawn in bulk and distributed from that bulk. If we simply gave them to the individual farm worker, they would become a differential ration, and there are very great objections to extending the differential rations. We can adjust them from time to time as anomalies are brought up, but we must find some means of distributing basically on the principle we have today.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer which he has just given to the question about the drawing of rations, does nothing to allay the very real suspicion in the minds of a great many people that he agrees with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury that housewives as a whole cannot be trusted to buy all the right things, so far as food is concerned?

I cannot see the connection there. I have given the reason why the rations are drawn in bulk and it has nothing to do with that. They are drawn in bulk because they are not rations but a catering allowance to enable the farmer to continue his traditional and excellent practice of providing food at busy times on behalf of his workers.

The subject to which I wish to call attention is not one of distributing that which is already available but is linked with increasing the production of food in this country, so that greater amounts may become available for rations. A large number of agriculturists in the Eastern counties have been dismayed at the recent announcement of the price of beet pulp. As a farmer, I am naturally directly interested. I grow sugar beet and I also endeavour, I hope successfully, to fatten cattle. However, I am certainly not raising the matter in my own interest but in the interests of the agricultural community, particularly of the Eastern counties.

The growing of sugar beet, the fattening of cattle and the production of milk by feeding, amongst other foods, beet pulp to the cows plays a very big part in our agricultural economy in the Eastern counties. Not only are the farmers as such interested in this problem but so also are the workers, because the introduction of sugar beet growing in the Eastern counties has increased the amount of time in the year in which the workers are engaged on piece-work rather than on day-work rates. In hoeing and lifting sugar beet the workers are engaged several months of the year mostly at piece-work rates, and that brings them in a good deal more than the minimum wage. The workers must therefore be interested in the amount of income which the farmers draw from their sugar beet crop.

The point I wish to make is that in spite of the increased contract price of sugar beet which the farmers will receive in 1949, their actual income from the crop will be very much less than in 1948. That is a very important statement to make, and it is true. If that can be established, the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture jointly should be willing to reconsider the situation. I agree that it arises out of the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture in this House on 24th January when he indicated that the price of feedingstuffs would be raised. If there had been a proportionate increase over all our feedingstuffs, there would have been no outcry against it in Norfolk and the other Eastern counties, but a disproportionate increase has fallen on the price of beet pulp charged to the growers and it appears to them that they are bearing an undue weight of the increased cost of feedingstuffs.

From an agricultural point of view, England is divided into two. On the Eastern side we are the tillers of the soil, the arable farmers, and that is our greatest asset. Since we have been growing sugar beet to the present extent, it has been a very important part of our crop rotation and of the income which the farmers receive. On the Western side of the country the principal crop is grass. The more it rains, the more grass they get, provided that they manage their pastures right. Therefore, the cost of feeding their animals has not gone up to anything like the extent of the cost of feeding cattle on crops which require increased labour and where the prices of the other feedingstuffs required have also been raised.

I want to ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider in a friendly sort of way if he can, with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, the question of the price which the grower will be charged for his beet pulp during the current year. It is very unfortunate that the actual price which he will be charged was not announced at the time he entered into his contract for growing sugar beet. The price announced by the British Sugar Corporation was £5 3s. 4d. a ton for clean beet of a 15½ per cent. sugar content delivered to the factory. So far so good—that is an increase of 1s. 9d. a ton to the grower—but the grower has always had the option of purchasing back a quantity of beet pulp. Last year the price at which he could purchase back his beet pulp was £6 12s. 6d. a ton, and that would be the price he had in mind when signing his contract for growing sugar beet in the current year. However, having signed his contract and agreed to an acreage, he suddenly gets the announcement that he will be charged £14 a ton for beet pulp. That is more than double the previous price. He is therefore in the difficulty that he does not get a cheque for the beet which he delivers to the factory because the cost of pulp supplied to him is deducted. The grower is, therefore, concerned with the actual amount which he receives.

Perhaps I may go into the figures a little more closely. There may be something wrong with my arithmetic which I do not guarantee to be perfect but, as I have said, the contract price for sugar beet shows an increase of 1s. 9d. a ton. Last year most of our farmers produced 10 tons of sugar beet to the acre, so assuming that the crop is about the same in 1949, the increase per acre for his crop will be 17s. 6d. to meet the increased costs of production. For each ton of beet delivered the grower has the option to purchase back from the British Sugar Corporation 1½ cwts. of dried pulp, which is equal to 15 cwts. of pulp to the acre if the crop produces 10 tons to the acre.

If the pulp is charged to the grower at £14 a ton, that will mean the equivalent of £5 8s. 0d. an acre, so that if one deducts the increase which he will receive for his sugar beet, 17s. 6d. per acre, it will be found that the farmer will receive £4 10s. 6d. less for every acre of sugar beet that he grows this year as compared with last year, assuming that he exercises his option of purchasing the same amount of pulp as he was able to get last year. For instance, if one takes the county of Norfolk—where the Minister of Agriculture has indicated that contracts have been signed for roughly 95,000 acres this year—assuming that the farmers of that county exercise their option of buying back pulp, they will receive £429,875 less for their crop this year than in 1948. No doubt the answer from the Ministry will be, "But if the farmer takes pulp back and feeds it to his cattle, he will get an increased price for those cattle." So far so good, if the increase in the price of fat cattle is big enough to cover the increased price of the pulp, but is it?

From my experience, I find that I can fatten one bullock for every acre of sugar beet that I grow by the bullock consuming the tops and the pulp and other foods in addition. The average increase in the price of fat cattle is 4s. 6d. per live cwt. Therefore, a 12 cwt. bullock will bring in £2 14s. more in 1949 than in 1948. If, therefore, the farmer feeds his pulp to fatten cattle at the rate of one bullock per acre, he receives in the price for his sugar beet and the price for his fattened bullock, on an average still £1 16s. 6d. less for every acre of sugar beet that he grows. In growing sugar beet he has other increased costs, including wages, so that if we are to combine the increased production of fat cattle in the Eastern counties with maintaining the acreage of sugar beet, as we want to do, the farmers will be that much worse off as a result of the recent review of feedingstuffs.

It will not be as profitable this year as it was last year, and I do not think there have been many complaints that in recent years the work of growing sugar beet and fattening cattle has been over profitable. Certainly I remember the time when we grew sugar beet at 35s. a ton delivered to the factory. That was something akin to slavery. I also remember the time when we sold our cattle for very low prices indeed, when a good fat bullock would produce little more than £20, whereas now a similar bullock will bring in £80. I am not wanting to go back to anything like that, and I am not wanting to upset the system of reviewing agricultural prices and giving a guarantee. My point is that in the review that has taken place, because of the alterations in prices, those who are farming in the Eastern Counties are called upon to bear a disproportionate share of the increased cost of feedingstuffs.

One of the things we want to safeguard is the fertility of our soil. Therefore, it is important that as much as possible of the crop we grow should be fed to animals on the farms so that it goes back on to the land in the form of manure and thus maintains the fertility. If, however, we charge the grower a higher price for his pulp, he will be discouraged from having more stock on his farm and there will be a smaller production of meat. That is an important aspect of the problem, namely, that the farmers of the Eastern counties will not be able to maintain the same stock as in previous years and, although we want a better balance between stock and crops, they will be encouraged to grow sugar beet and barley and other crops and sell them instead of grazing cattle or sheep on their farms.

That is not all. The average increase in the price of fat cattle may be 4s. 6d. but the review indicates that the larger fat cattle will carry a much reduced price in future. There is to be a reduction of 5s. per live cwt. on those over 13¾ cwt. up to 15¾ cwt. and then a reduction of 10s. a cwt. A farmer in Norfolk during this past month sent 10 fat bullocks to the market which averaged a ton apiece, that is, 10 tons of live beef. If he does the same thing about the same time next year, he will get £100 less for his animals. We have not solved the meat problem in this country. Our rations are at their lowest. Therefore, this is not the time to discourage farmers from producing as much as they can and encouraging the slaughtering of the animals at too young an age and at too small a weight. Those two things combined, therefore, will discourage and make more difficult the production of meat in the Eastern counties.

I ask that the Ministers of Food and Agriculture should get together to see whether they can either alter the price of beet pulp to the growers, or make a revision of the prices of fat cattle delivered to markets during the months of March, April and May. These are the cattle which have been fed upon the pulp or other crops which the farmers have grown and which cost more to produce than bullocks which are fed from the springtime onwards. This is an important matter for the farmers of the Eastern counties and I ask, in a friendly way, that the Ministers concerned should look at it again with a view to solving the problem I have outlined.

I had hoped to join in the earlier Debate but unfortunately I was unavoidably detained elsewhere. I am particularly glad, therefore, of the opportunity of supporting the argument of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Mr. Dye) on the question of sugar beet pulp and fat cattle. So far as fat cattle are concerned, I agree wholeheartedly that the sooner we can get back to being allowed economically to produce cattle of one-ton weight the better. I understand that the real objection to our doing so at present is not an agricultural or an economic one, but is the objection of the butcher that he cannot cut the present rations out of a one-ton animal. It follows, therefore, that if we were allowed to produce economically a one-ton animal the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food would be giving us bigger meat rations all round. On the desirability of that object hon. Members on all sides will agree.

I should like to refer to one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk. We can go a little further than he did in his objection to the date at which the announcement of the price of sugar beet pulp was made. I have little doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will reply to this argument by saying that it was perfectly fair to all farmers, because they were given the opportunity of withdrawing their contracts which they had already entered into but that none of the farmers did withdraw and, consequently, they were quite prepared to accept the increased price for sugar beet pulp which they had to buy back again.

The answer to that is that it is well known in farming that farming is a planning job. Farmers plan their farms well ahead; they plan the operations which they are to carry out during the course of the year. If, having planted his farm in order to produce, say, 10 acres of sugar beet, the farmer is suddenly confronted with this increase in price for sugar beet pulp and is given the opportunity of withdrawing from his contract for the production of the beet, it is almost inevitable that he would say, "I must accept the increased price for sugar beet pulp because at this late stage of operations I cannot economically re-organise the whole of my planning for the farm. Even if I did so I could not produce an alternative source of feedingstuffs for my animals during the coming autumn and winter to replace the sugar beet tops and pulp. "It does not follow, therefore, that because farmers did not withdraw their contracts for the production of sugar beet they are not being hit very heavily indeed by the increase in sugar beet pulp prices.

I agree also with the hon. Gentleman's arguments about the profitability of the production side of sugar beet. As he pointed out, the increase in the contract price is insignificant, and works out at about 17s. 6d. per acre. The increase in the cost of production is due not only to the big increase in wages, which alone is vastly more than the increase in the contract price of sugar beet, but particularly to the increase in cost of machinery, replacements and overheads.

In the assessment of those figures at the annual price reviews, insufficient con sideration is given to that aspect. The farmer is perpetually and continually struggling to build up his working capital on the farm. As soon as he thinks he has a sufficient profit from one thing or another to enable him to set aside a sum for improving his working machinery and so on, which will enable him to increase the efficiency and economy of his work, it is straight away taken from him either by taxation or by a reduction in price, or in some other direction. He never gets into the position of being able to catch up with himself financially and economically. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear all this in mind.

I believe that the reason for the increase in price of sugar beet pulp is because sugar beet factories are unable to run economically and have said to the Government, "You must either increase our subsidy or enable us to make more money." The way in which they make more money is by the sale of their sugar beet pulp. As I understand the situation, the Government are not prepared to increase the subsidy to the factories. What it amounts to, therefore, without going into technicalities or economics, is that the farmer is being asked to subsidise the production of sugar for the benefit of the consumer. The right hon. Gentleman may smile, but if he pauses to reflect he will find that that is basically true. I agree with the figures which the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk has produced. But the farmer does not get back the whole of the increase in price. He may recover about 50 per cent. of it, but beyond that figure the increased price is an indirect subsidy by him to the consumer.

If the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had accepted the advice we have given them for years past, and if they had responded to our call to increase the number of beet sugar factories, they would have done a very great deal, both economically and productively, for the sugar industry and for the farmer. I do not believe that the Ministry of Food appreciate the value of sugar beet to the farmer. It is true that on the basis of the previous figures, many farmers were prepared to grow sugar beet purely for the benefit of farming, irrespective of the value of the sugar to the factory. If farmers were prepared to do that, it stands to reason that a substantial amount of increased production is available for the benefit of the industry.

I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman considers the economics of this matter he will appreciate the need for improved transport facilities and for shortening the haul of beet in order to reduce transport costs and congestion. I hope that he will consider sympathetically the plea regarding the price of pulp, for this is a matter which hits the farmer very hard. He has no alternative source of feedingstuffs to which he can turn. He is being encouraged to grow the maximum amount of food for animal consumption so that he can increase the production of meat, but at the same time he is faced with the immediate problem that the price to him of one of his staple commodities is increased by over 100 per cent.

I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) in the case he has made. We in Norfolk are extremely perturbed about this matter. A moment ago I was pleading for the farm workers and now I wish to plead for Norfolk farmers. We produce an enormous quantity of sugar beet and it seems extraordinary that we who are engaged in farming should be asked to pay twice as much for our home products as we paid last year. The price of pulp has increased by more than 100 per cent. When I used to grow sugar beet in the Midlands, it was always recognised that pulp was a by-product and that it came back to us at very low prices. Now circumstances have altered, and I want to deal with the question in relation to beef production.

I know hundreds of thousands of acres in Norfolk where there are no head of livestock on the farms and it is certain that, with the increase in the price of feedingstuffs, the production of beef in Norfolk will fall. The loss to the farmer of beef cattle by the increase in the cost of feedingstuffs is between £6 and £7 a head. In a market that I know, last year about 3,500 head of stock came through to the Ministry of Food at weights up to 16 cwt. and more. The loss to the farmers on those cattle will be no less than £21,000 this year. In an area such as this £21,000 is a big sum and it will be lost locally, either in the shops or among wage-earners in the district. I think the Minister should consider revising the prices for this product. It is essential that we should produce these animals in Norfolk and that we should have the manure they provide. If we are handicapped by the prices we have to pay for the residue of our product, I am certain that beef production in Norfolk will tend to lessen even to a larger extent than in the last three years.

An interesting and highly technical point has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye). There is a series of interlocking issues following on the recent price review agreed to, according to calculations of the Ministry of Agriculture, the National Farmers' Union and independent experts, whereby the prices paid to farmers for livestock products were raised a little more than enough to compensate them for the increase in prices of feeding-stuffs, whereas on the other hand the price paid for milk was raised a little less than the increase in feedingstuffs. There was a perceptible but not a precipitate switch away from that towards these livestock products. That calculation, which of course is not mine, but was the agreed calculation upon which the price review was undertaken and to which the National Farmers' Union subscribed, included the increase in the price of all feedingstuffs, of which sugar beet pulp is one.

I did not quite follow the calculation of my hon. Friend. I can see that the farmer loses on his sugar beet if we regard him merely as a sugar-beet producer, but the price was made intentionally and I should have thought the National Farmers' Union could have been trusted not to subscribe to the proposition unless it were true that he would be a little more compensated by the increase he was given, not as a producer of sugar beet, but as a producer of the livestock product to which it went. That was the intention. It is open to my hon. Friend or to anyone to say that while that proposition might be true in regard to all these things, the price of sugar beet pulp has been raised disproportionately to the price of other products.

This is a most technical matter and I am advised that the ratio of price increases of the various feedingstuffs was calculated on what is called starch equivalent. It is a difficult thing to compare because we not only have to consider the calorie value but the protein value as well. The experts claim that they get somewhere near to it by taking the starch equivalent and they maintain that they did not penalise sugar beet but only increased the price in fair ratio compared with the prices of other feedingstuffs.

indicated dissent.

That is their view.

They came unstuck.

That is their stoutly maintained view. The farmer cannot have it both ways and have the price of his end product, his livestock, substantially and appreciably increased without also having to pay more for his feedingstuffs. My hon. Friend argues that this particular feedingstuff was hard hit as compared with other feedingstuffs, but that is stoutly disputed by the experts, and we are bound to accept their advice that the sugar beet feedingstuff has not been put out of line with the other feedingstuffs.

On the related point about which both my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) spoke in regard to the end product, the fat livestock, it is perfectly true, as they say, that the very fat beast has been penalised in price by this change in comparison with the leaner beast. There again it is the Ministry of Agriculture's advisers who are primarily concerned in this matter. Their view is that more meat is obtained per ton of feedingstuffs of all sorts available, if there are relatively more lean cattle and relatively fewer very fat cattle. If the available feedingstuffs are used in fattening up to a certain point more lean beasts, and those cattle are not carried beyond a certain point, one gains as against putting one's feedingstuffs into fewer but fatter animals. That is why they have quite frankly and advisedly altered their price inducements so that it pays the farmer to kill his cattle when they reach a certain degree of fatness, and not fatten them beyond that point.

Granted that their advice is correct, I should have thought that that was the right thing to do. I should not have thought it mattered to the farmer practically one way or the other if it was made relatively more profitable to produce more leaner beasts instead of fewer but fatter beasts. I should have thought that it would be just the same to the farmer. If we are right that that gives us a better conversion value for our feedingstuffs it is an obvious and real gain to the consumer. That seems to me to be a question of fact.

Surely it depends on the type of feedingstuffs available to the farmer? With the coarser types of feedingstuffs available to most farmers it is better to rear stock to a larger size than to attempt to fatten them at an earlier age. It would require a much bigger quantity of concentrated feedingstuffs with a high protein content to be available all over the country for the farmers to produce a smaller weight bullock of good quality.

That may be so, but our advisers take the view that even with the feedingstuffs available today we get more meat per ton of feedingstuffs if the beasts are not fattened beyond that particular point.

As I was saying, that is a question of fact. I should have thought that it would be very interesting if we got the Agricultural Research Council or one of the other authoritative bodies to pronounce on the question, if the Council has not up to now pronounced upon it, as I understand it has not. The object is to get more rationable meat per ton of feedingstuffs, and we think that that is attained by putting the inducement on more lean rather than fewer fat cattle. That is a question of scientific fact. It would be interesting to hear the view of the Agricultural Research Council on the matter, taking into account the type of feedingstuffs available.

I am glad to have the opportunity this afternoon of raising the important matter of the shortage of industrial overalls. For some time past this has been a matter of considerable interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and in the last 18 months no fewer than nine Parliamentary Questions directly concerning industrial overalls have been asked, quite apart from those indirectly concerning the heavier types of industrial drill. Of those nine Questions, four were asked by hon. Members opposite, three by Conservative Members, one by a National Liberal Member and one by an Independent Member. That shows that this is a matter which is not confined in interest to any particular quarter of the House.

This interest in the subject is not extraordinary, because protective clothing is a necessity in these days. No man can work under modern conditions without protective clothing. Its use is not confined to what we understand generally by industry; it includes a large variety of activities, for example, milk and food distributors, dairy and agricultural workers, workers in foundries, tanning and other dirty jobs, hospital workers, local authority employees, hotels and catering, etc. A wide range of activities are concerned.

All the answers given to those Questions, some by the President of the Board of Trade himself, others by the Parliamentary Secretary—of course, not always the same Parliamentary Secretary—have on the whole been very much the same over the past 18 months, and none of them has been at all satisfactory. All the answers blamed the export drive for the shortage of industrial drill available for the home market. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not pursue that hare too far; we are getting a little tired of it. It is by no means the only cause of the shortage, although it is the main one. We would, however, like to hear another excuse. Four of the answers have assured the House that all practical steps are being taken to increase the production of industrial drill. I hope that we shall hear what are those practical steps which are being taken.

Twice we have been told in the last 18 months that there was no evidence of any shortage of industrial drill. On the other hand, we have twice been told that the Minister was perfectly well aware that there is a shortage of industrial drill, which seems to indicate that the Board of Trade does not take this matter quite as seriously as it should. The position in regard to industrial drill has in fact been steadily deteriorating since 1944, despite continuous pressure on the Board of Trade, not only by Members of Parliament but by the industry itself. Figures which I have taken from the Board of Trade Journal, of 7th May last, show that the monthly rate of heavy overall cloth going to the home market was 3½ million square yards in 1946, and only 2.8 million square yards in January and February, 1949. Yet, with this serious reduction in overall drill the total yarn and cloth production has increased from 31.3 million linear yards per week in 1936 to 39.9 million linear yards per week in February, 1949, which seems to indicate a fact which I shall point out in a few minutes.

I have also figures given by some 50 representative overall manufactures regarding deliveries of cloth to them in the 311 grade, that is, the type of cloth used for industrial overalls. Taking the four months September to December, of 1947 and 1948, the total in 1947 was 4,228,000 yards, and in 1948 the figure was only 3,105,000 yards, showing a reduction of 27 per cent. in the supply of this cloth. Of course, there are many other examples. For instance, a firm in my constituency making overalls reports that its production dropped from 1,347 dozen in 1947 to 1,107 dozen in 1949. This compares with 2,585 dozen before the war. That particular factory is working at only 55 per cent. of its capacity. Its workers have now been on short time for 19 weeks, and they would not even be working 55 per cent. of their capacity were it not for a large export order which they have just completed, and for the fact that the firm have had to do a good deal of sub-contracting.

I have also had letters from people all over the country—not in my own constituency—on the subject, and with the permission of the House I will give one or two examples from those letters. One manufacturer has orders nearly two years old which cannot be completed, and he is inundated with calls from all over the country for supplies of garments. Another manufacturer reports that in the last two months he has refused orders from two local authorities for over 3,000 overalls. Another reports that orders totalling 173,800 garments were rejected from August, 1948, to January, 1949. Yet another says that orders totalling nearly 50,000 garments have been rejected during the last six weeks, and that he has orders for 25,000 overalls which he cannot complete until cloth supplies are available. That same firm has orders dating back to August, 1948.

Those are sufficient examples to show the gravity of the situation. Of course, many of the people who write to me point out, perfectly correctly, that if they could increase their production, not only would they be able to supply more overalls, but would also be able to supply them cheaper, when the working man would be able to get his overalls at a considerably reduced price under the more efficient methods of production which would then be possible. At present, not only does the working man have to pay an unnecessarily high price for his overalls, if he can get them, but, if he is unable to get them, it means that his ordinary clothing deteriorates, becomes damaged and has to be replaced. We all know what it costs to buy clothing today.

There is no doubt—indeed, there is a great deal of evidence in support of my contention—that this acute shortage is having an adverse effect on the production of manufactured goods in this country. I cannot see the sense of exporting this heavy industrial drill in the piece if, in so doing, we cause a serious reduction in the production of manufactured goods for the export market. That does not make sense. I agree that certain limited measures have recently been taken by the Board of Trade to try to improve the situation, but those measures by themselves will not solve this difficult problem. Supplies of the necessary cloth have lagged behind consumer demands for so long now that there is an ever-widening gap between supply and demand, and, unless something is done about it very quickly, the situation is going to get out of hand.

The problem will not be solved until the Board of Trade adopt a new and realistic policy as regards the exporting of this cloth. Even if a comparatively small quantity were diverted from the export to the home market, it would make a tremendous difference; it would make the difference between plenty and famine. We know that the real cause of this difficulty is excessive exports of cloth in the piece; and something can and must be done about it by reviewing the whole export programme. That review should take place at once. But that is not by any means the only cause, although it is the favourite excuse of the Board of Trade.

Another equally important reason is that in the cotton industry it is relatively unprofitable to make this heavy drill cloth for the home market, and the productive capacity which could be used for producing it has been diverted to the production of other types of cloth. There has also been created a shortage of weavers, particularly in Lancashire, because the making of this heavy cloth is an unpleasant business. A man can walk out of a factory making such cloth and can equally easily get a job making other types, such as shirting, poplin, and so on. The only way to deal with that situation is to review the whole wages system of the cotton industry, and to try to make the manufacture of overall cloths more attractive and to provide greater incentives to people to make it.

Finally, we should be told today what the Minister means when he says that all practicable steps are being taken to increase the production of overall drill. As long ago as November, 1947, we were first told that all practicable steps were being taken, and we have been told the same thing at intervals ever since. Yet supplies of this material have been steadily decreasing. What, then, are these alleged steps which are being taken? The House has waited very patiently for some signs of improvement in the supply of this material, but none is apparent. On the contrary, as I have said, the situation is getting worse, and meanwhile British industry is suffering under a severe handicap through the acute shortage of protective clothing. We cannot wait for ever for the Board of Trade to make up their mind what they are going to do. Let the Minister take this opportunity this afternoon to tell us exactly what he proposes to do about it.

I am sure we are very grateful to the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) for raising this subject of the shortage of protective clothing for certain industries. I want only to refer to the matter in so far as it affects the food trades and food shops, because it is from those interests in my constituency that I have received representations on the subject. I think it unfortunate that, at the very time that the Ministry of Food is rightly engaging in its "clean food" campaign, we should find in London, at any rate—and I believe it is so elsewhere—the very greatest difficulty in getting protective clothing for those serving and processing food.

We all know that a great deal of sickness is caused through the fact that standards of cleanliness in these industries have not been of the highest in the past. Figures have been given to show that more than 1,000 people a year lose their lives and that many other illnesses are caused as a result of it. Therefore, proper clothing which can be frequently changed and washed is essential. In many cases where people try to carry out the new suggestions and comply with the new standards, they meet with great difficulty. The West Lewisham Chamber of Commerce wrote to me on 10th May sending a resolution which commented on:

"the general acute shortage of white aprons for the use of food shop assistants."

The resolution added that:

"in the interests of clean food the Board of Trade be urged to increase the allowance of these garments on the market."

The Sydenham and District Grocers Association also wrote to me in May about the difficulty of obtaining industrial aprons. Their secretary said:

"My wife tried eight shops in Croydon last week without any success. One of my assistants had tried three shops in Smithfield. … Our President, who has always obtained his requirements from a local trader, has had to go further afield, even writing to the manufacturers who advertise in our trade Press, but with no results."

There is little doubt that those who are trying to do the right thing and to take every opportunity of giving the best possible and cleanest service to the public are experiencing great difficulty. I do not want to suggest any action which would have the effect of reducing the goods which we are able to sell abroad. Many of our standards will be radically reduced if we do not maintain our level of exports. I should have thought, however, that it was possible to see that there was a greater allocation of the materials required for manufacture or that the distribution was more efficiently done. I have taken up this matter with the Board of Trade, but they tell me that they are not responsible for distribution and that they cannot devise any scheme of priorities. Something must be done if we are not to make a mockery of the "clean food" campaign. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Worcester for raising this subject. I hope that we shall get a rather more encouraging answer from the Minister this afternoon.

I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) on raising this subject. I wish to put in a special plea for the workers in the textile industry, just as the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) spoke on behalf of those engaged in food distribution. It is pleasant to go through a textile weaving or spinning shed and to see all the operatives dressed in suitable clean overalls. In fact, in one of my own concerns, we endeavour to do that, even going so far as to have our own laundry in order to ensure that the overalls are kept clean and that replacements are made on suitable occasions. But it is extremely difficult to carry on this practice. It is even more difficult for anyone who wants to adopt a similar scheme.

In these days, when standards are higher as a result of the progress we have made, people like to go to work in attractive clothes and they can do that if they know that they can put on an overall to protect themselves from whatever process they are engaged in. Indirectly, I believe that this is a stimulus to production. People work with a better will if they know, for instance, in the textile trade, that their clothes will not become impregnated with the waste material resulting from the various processes.

This problem has been discussed many times in the House, and I hope that today the Minister will have something helpful to say. The possibilities of exporting these types of materials may not be quite as favourable as they were. There is foreign competition in this field and it may be that foreign products are cheaper than our own. I ask that, if possible, there should be a greater release of material for the home market. The Minister would help all those engaged in industry, especially those who are trying to raise morale and generally to improve the working conditions in their own establishments, if he could do something of that nature.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) has shown that this matter has been continuously under review. A number of Questions have been put and I can assure him that each Question put to our Department receives very full consideration and the best possible answer is given. He said that there had been different answers. That is an indication that at different times there were various changes. That itself shows that action has been taken. I agree that there is a tremendous shortage of this kind of cloth, especially of the drill necessary for making overalls. I have to repeat the same old story with some additions. The main reason is because we are exporting. Is there any hon. Member who is prepared to say that we should stop exporting? If so I think he will have to face up to the outcome of doing so. If we fail to export the goods which we can sell overseas, it means that we fail to get food in return, and factory workers cannot keep going unless they get food to eat.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not like to misrepresent what I said. I made it clear that the position must be reviewed and that there must be a proper balance. It is no good exporting a lot of cloth if, by doing so, we sacrifice other exports of manufactured goods, because this shortage of overalls is having an adverse effect upon the production of manufactured goods.

I intended answering that point. Clearly, you made the sug-gestion——

The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair. He must not address hon. Members as "you."

I am sorry. I was saying that the suggestion was made that we ought not to export, but that we should release supplies for the home market. I was trying to show that that would result in our not getting food for the workers in the factories or the necessary raw materials required to increase production. Inevitably, I must repeat, the export drive has first place. The President of the Board of Trade who has just returned from Canada tells me that the demand for this kind of cloth is as great as ever. It is a good dollar earner. In addition, we send a large amount of material to the Colonies. If we did not supply those cloths the Colonies would go to the United States or elsewhere and pay dollars, so that not only is this a dollar earner but it is a dollar saver.

There are other reasons for the increase in the demand. In industry it sometimes happens that people are encouraged to seek employment by the offer of free overalls. That creates an additional demand. It is true that there are now higher standards of cleanliness and protection, and that involves a further increase in the demand. I know from my own experience as a trade union official before the war, of the struggle we had to get this kind of protective clothing. It is gratifying to know that at long last as a result of trade union action many more workers now get supplies. In particular, the railwaymen are now supplied with overalls. They did not get them before the war. Therefore, there is a general increase in the demand from the more limited supplies available. Hon. Gentlemen may be entitled to say to me, "We know the difficulties as well as you do, but what practical steps are you taking to help in this problem?" Primarily, we are trying to increase production. Our first emphasis is on that. We hope to increase production—indeed it is being slightly increased at present—by a recruiting drive. Unless we get the labour we shall not have sufficient workers to do the jobs in the factories. As a result of our drive we are getting more and more labour.

We are putting European Volunteer Workers into this kind of industry in order to make up for the lack of labour from our own resources. As the hon. Member has rightly stated, some of the machinery is not as efficient as it might be. We are giving priority in cases where additional machinery is needed, and also for the supply of accessories to keep the machines working. As a temporary expedient, in order that we may meet the demand, we are seeing if we can get the cloth required for manufacturing overalls from markets in soft currency areas or areas where it pays us to trade. In that connection, we have imported 450,000 square yards of material from Germany and we are making arrangements to import 200,000 square yards from Italy. It is hoped that by our production effort, and the additional steps which we are taking, we shall have more material available to make the overalls which are required.

On the question of wages, I can only say that this is a matter which must be considered. The House cannot expect me to report upon it this afternoon because the Cotton Manufacturing Commission have asked both sides of the industry to come together, and they are in consultation. We must await their decision before any further statement can be made. As to conditions of service, we are doing what we can to help. Hostels have been provided for the workers, and day-nurseries and schools are available to enable women who have children to come into industry and give us their help.

The export drive necessarily means that we have to sell those goods that are wanted by the overseas customer in order to earn the money with which to buy the raw materials and food which we require. We are doing what we can to increase production, to get supplies wherever available from easy markets and to make conditions better in order to attract the labour which is necessary if we are ultimately to increase our production.

The hon. Gentleman says that he has imported some 400,000 square yards of material from Germany. Is that regarded as a soft or hard currency country?

I said that it either comes from countries where, as a result of bargaining, it pays us to get it, or from soft currency countries. In the case of Germany, it pays us to get material from that country.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the shortage is due purely to lack of labour or to lack of materials? I understood from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. G. Ward) that there are manufacturers not working to capacity at the present time. Is that due to shortage of materials or shortage of labour, or neither?

We are certainly short of raw materials but we are more short of labour. If we were to follow the proposals of the hon. Member for Worcester, we should have still less raw material, which would add to our difficulties. It is raw material in part but primarily labour difficulties which are responsible for the shortage of cloth.

I wish to call attention to certain aspects of de-rationing, and also to indicate to the Minister some of the rather deep fears which people in my constituency have with regard to possible future plans for rationing and de-rationing of foodstuffs. It is a source of considerable annoyance to me when any small group of vocal people attempt to tell me what the housewives in my division are thinking. It has always been my policy to keep in close touch with them, and to ascertain at first hand any opinions which they may wish to convey to me as their representative in this House, and particularly any opinions which they may have with regard to the distribution of food. During the last three or four weeks I have had unusual opportunities of contacting my constituents on their own doorsteps and of discussing with them matters concerned with food rationing.

On a point of Order. May I draw attention to the fact that there is no representative of the Ministry of Food present?

This Debate was due to commence at 3.15 p.m. No doubt the Minister has already been informed that it is now taking place.

I have discussed this matter with many Members, and I think I can say with some assurance that there is grave concern felt about the situation by many people throughout the country. I asked the Minister a Question on 25th February regarding the de-rationing of sweets, drawing his attention in particular to the position in regard to chocolates. We were then informed that it was the intention of the Minister to de-ration all sweets. The reason I asked that question was because there was quite a lot of agitation going on in the Press to free sweets from all forms of rationing. This agitation and the agitation from the trade had the political support of a good many Members opposite, coming under that widely publicised slogan, "Set the people free." We were concerned lest the Minister would succumb to these blandishments without ensuring that adequate supplies were available for the free sale of sweets.

Since de-rationing took place, we are bound to admit that up to the present time it has been a failure. That failure is more evident today than it was three weeks ago, and there is no evidence of a more satisfactory distribution. I realise that in the time available it is impossible to make a full assessment of the position, but we are bound to say that there are no signs at the moment of any successful distribution of sweets without some form of rationing. Today we have shops closed, long queues and all those conditions which existed prior to the rationing of sweets which caused such irritation to the general public. There has been controversy in the newspapers about who is to blame for the shortage. Shopkeepers have been blaming the public for being greedy, and the public have been blaming the shopkeepers for favouring particular customers. The present system of distribution of sweets to retailers is, I believe, unsatisfactory. Better-class sweets are not on sale to the extent that they used to be, and it has been suggested to me by retailers that there is discrimination by wholesalers, who are sending out lower-quality sweets to some shops to an amount greater than they had before de-rationing.

I am sure every Member will agree that the position is gradually becoming more unsatisfactory. On 23rd May, the Minister, in reply to a Question, said he intended to make available fats, sugar and other ingredients to enable sweet manufacturers to put an additional 9,000 tons of sweets on the market. That statement has caused much concern to housewives in my constituency, and I think that concern is shared by many others. They feel that because of the lack of organised distribution the favoured customer—the person with plenty of time and money, who is able to do a good deal of shop-crawling—is obtaining advantages. It is felt that this additional allocation of fats and sugar ought to have been added to the rations permitted to the ordinary householder. I hope my right hon. Friend will take note that these complaints are not lightly put forward, but are the result of close investigations which other hon. Members and myself have made into this question.

I want to mention one or two specific complaints I have had about the present state of affairs. I have had a letter from a shopkeeper in my division who complains bitterly that he has received, since de-rationing, 30 per cent. fewer sweets than he received before de-rationing. Other shopkeepers in my division complain very strongly regarding the quality of the sweets they are receiving. As one shopkeeper put it, they are receiving "jujube babies now instead of chocolate bars. The supply of chocolate bars is gradually diminishing while the supply of "ju-jube babies"—a well-known form of sweets—seems to be increasing to the detriment of quality lines. I hope the Minister will give us some assurance on possible developments in this particularly unhappy position.

There are several other complaints which I should like to air on this occasion. It has been suggested to me that in the confectionery baking trade there seems to be an extravagant use of sugar at the present time. The quantity and kind of cakes which are being produced suggests to the ordinary consumer that these confectioners must have tons and tons of sugar. In other words, sugar must be in plentiful supply in their bakeries, otherwise they could not possibly use sugar so extravagantly on cakes. If an excessive amount is being allocated to the trade, there is available another quantity to be added to the pool that might make it possible to increase the ration of the ordinary householder.

My next complaint is in regard to points cheeses. I am informed that these seem to be distributed most unfairly between the shops. I note the complaint is in regard to the more expensive types of cheeses, but it seems to me that even in the direction of these added luxuries it ought to be the position that everybody should have a fair chance of obtaining them.

Another thing which has been worrying our people is future policy. We notice in the Press and elsewhere that the same technique is developing in certain trades in regard to de-rationing as existed just prior to the de-rationing of sweets. There seems to be trade and political pressure being put on the Minister to abandon the points goods scheme. That is a matter of some concern, because the people recognise that the abandonment of the present points goods system would most probably lead to the disappearance of delicacies like dried fruit, salmon and other savoury foods and would enable the big buyers and the hotels to acquire these delicacies at the expense of the public. I should like the Minister to say something on that particular matter.

I have here an extract from a Co-operative newspaper, in which we are told by the secretary of the C.W.S. Joint Parliamentary Committee that there is every likelihood in the autumn of the points rationing scheme ending. He goes on to say that for the distribution of dried fruits, canned milk, meat, fish, fruit and other things on the present points scheme, the shopkeepers and retailers will have to improvise some form of rationing as yet unspecified to take the place of the present scheme. We are concerned to think that in the near future some of the most attractive forms of tinned fruits and such like commodities will be subject in their distribution to a sort of irregular rationing system devised by the retailer.

Another question that is causing concern—I realise that I am asking many questions, but we shall be relieved if the Minister can answer a few of them—among our womenfolk is that of soap supplies. They are not slightly but deeply worried regarding the story of the possibility of the de-rationing of soap. That would be a major disaster to working-class households because the availability of the better class of washing soaps would immediately diminish very much. Still another question concerns the decontrol of poultry and rabbit prices. The position is unsatisfactory. There is an unsavoury development of black market activities. We are informed by the Minister that his officials have taken drastic steps. I suggest that he should consider very carefully before taking off price control.

I would refer again to the pressure groups who put their views to the Minister and press him to do something to free from control some commodity which is needed but is in short supply. The Minister announced with obvious satisfaction in connection with the de-rationing of sweets that he was able to liberate 400 people from his own staff and that the trade were able to liberate 1,100. There are certain factors to which I would call attention: the pressure groups for greater freedom of trade, and the inclination and eagerness of any Minister to keep his staff within reasonable proportions. Those factors are the most important in bringing my right hon. Friend to the point of making a decision in questions of de-rationing of foods.

There is another point which the Minister to some extent neglects. One criticism in which I am quite sincere, is that the Minister pays too much attention to the trade. I am so bold as to say that in most cases the trade are actuated completely by their own self-interest. Secondly, the desire of the Minister to cut down the rather large staff at the Ministry of Food also inclines him towards consideration of de-rationing. A further factor is that the very important requirements of the ordinary household are not considered sufficiently in view of the high pressure which comes from the other sources I have mentioned. I hope that the Minister will give us strong reassuring words, and that he will not be influenced by the slogan which emanated from the other side of the House about setting the people free.

I want to declare a considerable personal interest in this subject. As a father of four young children I want to know what is happening to the sweets. I am certainly subject to a very lively pressure group in my own home which is at the moment very energetically pressing for a fair share of the sweets and chocolates which are available. I am sure that all hon. Members present are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) for having raised the subject. As another native of Long Eaton, Nottingham, I am very glad to be associated with him on this occasion.

I hope that we shall have a very definite assurance from the Minister of Food that he is not in any way falling for the philosophy of decontrol advocated earlier by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). These bonfires of controls and rationing restrictions are all very nice—we all want to get rid of irksome controls and reduce administrative manpower—but the test which hon. Members on this side of the House apply in approaching this question is whether by de-rationing or decontrolling the consumer will be able to buy and choose more freely, and at the same time we also ask ourselves which consumers will be able to buy and choose more freely in circumstances where shortages still remain. Some of the decontrolling which has recently been carried out has been based on the argument that supply and demand were more or less balanced at current prices. The reason is that some of the consumers have been more or less priced out of the market, and that owing to the increase in the cost of living, or the increases in some prices due to the abolition of price controls, it has been possible to do away with the controls or rationing because effective demand has been lessened. In fact we are going back to the old system of rationing by the price mechanism.

In the case of sweets there is undoubtedly an enormous pent-up demand and, at the same time, the purchasing power is available to express that demand, thanks to full employment and because of the decisions taken by housewives in making up their family budgets. As a result we have seen the goods disappearing from the shops and we have seen the best sweets and chocolates going under the counter. I know from my constituents that since de-rationing many have been worse off from the point of view of supplying their needs and those of their children than they were before.

One must make a protest this afternoon about the riot of spending by greedy customers with long purses that has gone on since de-rationing. I have seen it myself in London and other places, and it accounts for a great deal of the difficulties. Many months ago Lord Woolton told us of the joys envisaged when the young man would be free to buy his girl a box of chocolates. The question today is whether Lord Woolton's young man can find a box of chocolates although he is theoretically free to do so.

This is causing a tremendous amount of anxiety. Far from saving the housewife or mother from the worries of coupon clipping and so on, it has added further anxiety and has given the advantage to those who have the time to crawl from shop to shop and from queue to queue, or have various methods of influencing shopkeepers. Also, it is putting many shopkeepers in an extremely difficult position because it has imposed upon them the responsibility of trying to make some kind of fair share amongst customers in difficult circumstances, and when great pressure is put upon them to sell large quantities to well-placed customers.

At the same time stories are going round blaming the Minister for this situation, for not allocating much more sugar and fats to the manufacturers in order to produce an abundant supply of these goods to overcome the shortage. We in this House know that sugar and fats cost dollars, we know that this situation is bound up with the general economic position of the country, and that it is quite impossible for the Minister to produce at present an abundant supply in relation to the demand which exists. At the same time I think we ought to remind ourselves that we are not out of the wood. We have to look at this question of controls from the point of view that there is widespread unemployment in Western Europe, rising unemployment in the United States, and the likelihood of the contraction of export markets, with the possibility in the near future of having to take steps to cut imports which might affect the supply of confectionery.

Therefore I say to the Minister that having allocated more sugar and fats to the manufacturers in order to produce a better supply, and having appealed to citizens generally not to exploit the position, not to be greedy and take more than their share, he should give the de-rationing of sweets a fair trial.

So far we have had only a limited time to watch results, and I think we should allow more time to give the experiment a fair trial. But the Minister should not be afraid of facing up to the question of re-imposing rationing if the situation we have experienced since de-rationing continues for the next few months. To my mind that is what the majority of people want. The most successful part of this Government's policy is the policy of fair shares. We all know how easy it is to make propaganda out of coupons and so on, but hon. Members on this side know perfectly well that the stability of this country since the war, by comparison with other countries, is due largely to the policy of fair shares and to the maintenance of controls.

I implore the Minister not to experiment with the de-rationing of soap or anything else whilst the present situation continues. Whilst we should allow a little longer time for watching this experiment, we should not abandon the pursuit of a just distribution of scarce goods like sweets and chocolates according to minimum human needs in favour of a policy of satisfying the appetites of those who can afford to buy in pounds instead of ounces.

The House should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) for raising this question. I have been astonished in my constituency at the degree to which women in particular—not only of the Labour movement, but from all sections of the community—have added their voice to the ever-growing demand that there shall be no further de-rationing of goods until the supply position becomes very much more stable. The de-rationing of sweets was a justifiable experiment. It was also a valuable social and economic lesson. It has provided the public with something they could not otherwise have obtained without the far more expensive experiment of a Conservative Government. If lessons can be taught by these comparatively simple and harmless methods, it would be foolish to adopt more complicated and painful methods.

The lessons we have learned have been extremely instructive. The first is that nearly everybody in the community have deluded themselves to a greater or lesser degree into believing that people are much poorer than they really are. In the past I have had some connection with the manufacturing side of the confectionery industry. It is an exceptionally responsible industry and one on which my right hon. Friend places a great deal of reliance for support and advice. That industry was perfectly honest and sincere when they advised my right hon. Friend that, taking into consideration the consumption of confectionery before the war and the increases in price that have since taken place, it was justifiable to believe that the demand would have fallen to an extent compatible with the present available supply. But I think that they grossly under-estimated, as everybody has done, the amount of purchasing power still available in the community for small and comparatively simple luxuries of this nature.

The second lesson we have learned, or should have learned, from the de-rationing of confectionery is that, in order to make de-rationing possible, not only should supply and demand balance, but there must be a very great surplus to normal demand. There is the psychological effect of the disappearance of rationing which tends to make people rush to buy, even though they do not want the commodities, and to join a queue simply because they see a queue. There is also, in the case of soap and points goods, the desire to hoard. There would be a great danger if soap were de-rationed of a rush of housewives to store it, thereby greatly increasing the amount of buying as soon as rationing finished. Salutary lessons have been learned in the most unexpected quarters since de-rationing. Many housewives who, unfortunately, allowed themselves to be carried away by the propaganda of hon. Members opposite about the anti-social nature of rationing, have realised their mistake. I hope my right hon. Friend will now be satisfied with the results achieved in that respect and that we shall have a definite assurance from him that there will be no further de-rationing until supplies are well in advance of any demand likely to result in a free market.

Did the view the hon. Member expresses apply to the de-rationing of bread? Does he think it was a mistake to de-ration bread?

No, I do not, because in that case the supplies available were well in advance of the demand and also the elasticity of the demand for bread is smaller than it is for these other commodities.

An important matter has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham (Mr. Harrison) and I am grateful, as I can see the rest of the House are grateful. He spoke mainly on the subject of sweets and I will deal first with that and then go on to the other assurances for which my hon. Friend asked me. It is true that there was a good deal of pressure on the subject of the de-rationing of sweets. There was a great deal of agitation, but it was completely untrue that we were influenced by it.

The party opposite were influenced by a by-election.

No, certainly not. The de-rationing of sweets turned out to be an unpopular move, not a popular one. What we were influenced by was the very well reasoned and perfectly sincere case put up by the manufacturers. The agitation on the subject is rather interesting to look back to. I have one or two instances which might interest the House, Lord Woolton's remarks, for example, on 1st May, 1948. He was saying that the ration of sweets was "not worth the trouble and the administrative cost." From there we went on very strongly to the "Daily Express" which said on 25th August last:

"A cure for the cigarette shortage? Certainly, Easy, instant and painless. Take sweets off the ration."

Again the "Sunday Express" on 6th February last:

"The simple and obvious thing is to forget this absurd artificial distinction between 'cheap' and 'dear.' Let Mr. Strachey take all the sweets off the ration."

Finally the "Evening Standard" said on 2nd November last when I announced that partial de-rationing of sweets was in prospect:

"Never was a policy which was urged upon a Minister, and which the Minister rejected, more fully vindicated or more authoritatively justified."

Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not regret having taken that step?

I am coming to that. We were not influenced by these assertions but we were influenced by the sober calculations of the manufacturers of sweets who are very able men, firms like Cadbury's, Rowntree's and the like who keep very careful accounts and very good consumers surveys. They were able to produce what seemed to be, and I know they thought they were, figures which showed that at the level of ingredients which we could allow them and which we have now allowed them, they would be able to meet the demand at current prices. I am not in the least blaming them because the decision and the responsibility was mine, but I was strongly influenced by their calculations; above all, by the one which showed that the proportion of the national income which would be spent on sweets if between 4¾ ounces and 5 ounces a week were taken up per capita would be much higher than before the war. It is quite clear that, so far at least, a much higher proportion than that is still being spent on sweets because we are supplying over six ounces at the moment, and that does not satisfy the demand at current prices. So that calculation has gone wrong.

I think the reason is one which several of my hon. Friends have suggested, that the manufacturers and I did not sufficiently take into account the redistribution of income since the war, which has increased the effective demand for commodities like sweets, which are in great mass demand.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the manufacturers are blaming him for not supplying them with sufficient quantities?

I will come to that point in a moment. I do not think that any responsible manufacturer has taken that line. I have seen it said more on behalf of the retailers. If it does prove to have been a miscalculation I think that was the root of it.

The question of more ingredients was very well dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham. We have gone a long way in supplying scarce ingredients to the sweets and confectionery trade. He was criticising me, and there is something in it, for having gone too far in that direction, because in the matter of sugar and fats we must surely give the domestic ration an overriding priority over any manufacturing needs. We cannot simply solve the sweet problem by pouring in unlimited quantities of sugar and fats because we should only do so to the detriment of the domestic ration. That is the simple answer to any manufacturer or trader who thinks that we can quite easily solve the present position by pouring in further ingredients. We cannot do it. We have gone a long way in providing ingredients.

I still think it is too early to come to a final conclusion on the matter. We must give it quite a little while longer, but I repeat the statement which I made to the House the other day, that if the present shop shortages go on indefinitely I am sure that the whole country, and I think the trade itself, will agree that by far the best thing to do is to reimpose rationing. We shall have no hesitation in doing that because our philosophy on these matters is very simple. We shall de-ration when we can meet demand at current prices, and if it is found that demand is well and persistently ahead of existing supplies at current prices I am quite sure that everyone prefers to receive a regular ration than rely on a sort of improvised rationing by the shopkeeper which can never work properly.

How long is this trial period to last, and are there any factors which my right hon. Friend thinks will make possible the restoration of equilibrium in this matter? I am sure he appreciates that the impatience of people is increasing on this matter.

I would not like to state a date at this time. The removal of rationing is rather recent; it is only just five weeks since it took place, and we always anticipated a very heavy rush in the early weeks. Therefore, I think that it is too early yet to come to a conclusion. I would say quite frankly that there is no sign at present of that rush ending, and if it proves that effective demand is really at the current level, then, undoubtedly, the only thing to do is to reimpose rationing.

I agree with several of my hon. Friends who have spoken in this Debate in saying that if the de-rationing of sweets does prove to have been a mistake, it will have been a most instructive one. We, of course, chose this food for this experiment because it is by no means a staple foodstuff, and because no tragedies would occur if the demand were in excess of supply. We should certainly never dream of making such an experiment in the case of a staple food.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Nottingham spoke of sugar for cakes and sugar confectionery. I can assure him that that trade does not think it is getting too much. Actually, they have a fairly good case; they are between 50 and 60 per cent.—speaking from memory—of their pre-war usage, and I do not think they are one of the more favoured trades. However, I agree that whatever increase in the supplies of sugar we may be able to obtain from the sterling area should be used for increasing the domestic ration.

I am surprised to hear that my hon. Friend thinks that there are difficulties with regard to cheeses on points. Most cheeses have now come off points; only a few are left on, and I should have thought they were readily available. Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me any examples he has in mind. With regard to soap I can give him the most clear-cut assurances that we shall not de-ration soap until we are absolutely confident that the demand can be satisfied at the current price. I think that the next increment in supply which we get will simply be used to increase the ration. Some people think we shall be getting near to demand with one more "ration," as they call it; I think that we shall perhaps need two more "rations," but we shall not de-ration soap until it is obviously and clearly in full supply.

My hon. Friend also asked me about poultry. As soon as we can, we should like to remove price control in respect of poultry, because, frankly, the enforcement problem is always considerable there. Any control which cannot be enforced is a bad thing, and is apt to infect other controls. I think this is a matter which is tied up with the level of the meat ration. If only we can restore the meat ration to better levels, then, I think, a price de-control of poultry—but not necessarily of rabbits—would become possible.

Can my right hon. Friend say where the rabbits are going at the present time? We very rarely see them in London.

We attempt to enforce a price control on rabbits, but there, again it is one of the most difficult to enforce. The supply of rabbits is very high; actually the number of rabbits consumed in this country is extremely high, but, of course, the pressure on that supply again varies with the level of the meat ration.

But does my right hon. Friend know where the rabbits are going—who is getting them? The ordinary people are not getting them; we do not see them in the shops these days.

They are going into the shops, and they are going out again pretty quickly.

My hon. Friend also referred to the question of the cutting of staffs. We, of course, regard that as very important, and if we can get rid of these controls we regard it as useful to cut our staffs. But, in connection with that matter, let me say at once that we have no intention whatever of abolishing the points system until and unless all, or almost all, points commodities are in such good supply that they can satisfy demand. I think that the future of the points system is that of its recent past. We shall take one food after another off points as it comes more fully into supply. I do not think that we have taken any off so far which have not satisfied demand when they have been taken off the points system. There are one or two commodities, such as tinned salmon and tinned meat, which are very far from meeting supply. Certainly we could not possibly take them off at present.

Dried fruit.

Yes. Tinned salmon, dried fruit, canned fruit—so long as they are as short in supply as they are now, it is absolutely necessary to maintain the points system. We have not the slightest intention of doing anything else.

I should like to say a few words on the other side. It would be a mistake to suggest that de-rationing is not a great advantage when demand meets supply and it can be done. After all, we have de-rationed three important foods in the last 14 months—potatoes, bread and jam. In all these three cases we were satisfied that our supplies would meet demand, and they have met the demand. Whenever we get a foodstuff, even a staple foodstuff, into that position, then we shall de-ration it instantly, because it is an enormous benefit to everybody. There is no vested interest whatever in rationing. I would point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler) that there was no question of reverting to a system of rationing by price, because these are all price controlled foodstuffs, and we have kept the price control on. In the case of these basic staple foods he is quite right when he says that it would be better to keep rationing for a little longer and to maintain the price control rather than let any avoidable increase in price take place. We have been able in these cases to satisfy demand at the current, and in most instances, subsidised price. Bread, of course, is quite heavily subsidised.

That is our philosophy. My hon. Friends who have expressed this anxiety have performed a public service. They can rest assured that we shall never de-ration or de-control these staple foodstuffs until we are convinced that we can satisfy the real demand which will arise.

Is not one of the reasons for the great run on sweets that they were de-rationed almost at the same time as the meat ration was cut? Was not a contributory cause of the shortage of sweets the fact that people have not got enough food?

I should not have thought that the meat ration had a very close connection with sweets. I would not agree with the hon. Gentleman if he made his remark in the sense that people have not got enough calories. They have. The level of calorie intake is good, but if the hon. Member means that there is not enough of some of the most attractive and desirable foods, such as meat and fats, then of course I entirely agree with him. We all agree that it is extremely urgent and we are bending our very greatest efforts to produce more meat, fats, bacon and other highly desirable foods. If that is the hon. Member's point, I would agree with him. How much actual reference that has to sweets, it is difficult to say.

I propose to raise a point of very great importance, namely, the under-staffing of mental hospitals. I think that we might make it an even larger subject, namely, the general understaffing of hospitals throughout the country. It is a very serious matter today that, because we have conditions of full employment, it is difficult to attract people into the nursing profession. I am very proud of the record of the Labour Government in full employment. I well remember that when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office we always had about two million unemployed, owing to the disgusting policies which they then pursued. But because of this position of full employment we are faced with the situation in which it is most difficult for us to attract people into professions like the nursing profession.

I am raising today a case which occurred in my own constituency and I hope to be very brief because I know that the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates), whose constituent was involved in this case, has some observations to make to the House——

—in the event of his catching your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, upon this case at Rubery Hill Mental Hospital. I have today received a telegram from Mr. David Rhydderch, who is chairman of the mental hospital in question. I think that all the facts about this mental hospital have been in the newspapers, and I want to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has any statement to make upon the inquiry which the Ministry is conducting into this matter.

I want to refer to the utterly disgraceful allegation which was made yesterday by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). In my opinion, his behaviour was caddish. I think that it is absolutely disgraceful that the noble Lord should have got up in this House of Commons, in relation to an event which took place in my constituency and to a constituent who is looked after so ably by the hon. Member for Ladywood, and made an allegation of murder. Let me say that if he were decent he would have withdrawn that allegation yesterday. I know that he has gone away today, but I am sure he will observe the remarks I am making, and I ask him in all decency to get up and withdraw those remarks at the earliest moment.

On a point of Order. I do not know whether you were listening, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I heard the hon. Member use a phrase for which the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) was made to withdraw from this House a short time ago—that was that he used the word "caddish" in connection with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham.

If I used any unparliamentary expression I, of course, withdraw it, but I do say that the behaviour of the noble Lord was utterly disgraceful, and I think that most of the people in this House agree with me. What right has the right hon. Gentleman to get up in this House and make an allegation against one of my constituents that he has committed murder, without bothering to find out what are the facts relating to the matter? That is typical of the attitude of the party opposite. It is all very well for them to smirk. They are responsible for this very grave situation that we have today.

I believe that it is true that there were 80 mental cases in my constituency left without a nurse during a whole night, but the basic reason for this is that we have not yet provided proper conditions for the nursing staffs both of mental hospitals and of all other hospitals. I am not trying to make any personal observation on this particular case because the Minister is inquiring into it, and I will leave it to my right hon. Friend to deal with it to the extent which he considers it proper to do so. In general—and I know that my hon. Friend will agree—the main point is this: we must provide proper conditions in order to attract sufficient nurses so as to ensure that our hospitals are properly staffed. I have here a letter from a lady who is not politically on our side. I think, however, that the points which she makes are worthy of our attention, and I will quote the letter:

"The first thing that happens in almost every home where a daughter wants to go in for nursing is strong opposition from the parents, of which I am one; and why?—"

She says:

"I oppose my daughter going in for nursing because, firstly, the work is arduous, the hours are long, there is little freedom and little spare time, and by the time the spare time comes they are often too tired to do anything but lie on their beds. Secondly, the tying up of a girl of 19 for some years is all wrong. Suppose she wants to marry? Three of mine have married at 19, 22 and 23 years of age. The latter was doing massage but did not complete her course. Thirdly, living in should be optional and not compulsory. Fourthly, there is often so much dirty work which in a house would be done by a char and could be well done by someone not trained for nursing."

Personally, I consider it absolutely wrong that nurses, particularly nurses in mental asylums who are specially trained for that job, should have to do the work that ought to be done by a char. I hope that the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary, who is going to reply to this Debate, will have a nurses' charter. I hope that from now on we shall decide, because we have a Labour Government in power and no longer have a Tory Government which exploits and believes in unemployment, to have a real charter for the benefit of nurses and to do everything in our power to attract people to the nursing profession. After all, these are the people on whom we all depend. We are all subject to the vicissitudes of fortune, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and you, Sir, as well as I, will eventually die. You, Sir, as well as I, will have your final moments perhaps eased by the work of a nurse, by someone who will look after you, help you and smooth that passage over the Styx which comes to us all in due course. We are entitled to remember that benediction passed by our Lord:

"Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

We ought to recognise the fact that the nursing profession is a vocation and a great calling, but it is not sufficient for it merely to be a calling. The profession should be provided with proper conditions of employment so that people will want to become nurses. I know that my hon. Friend agrees with me when I say that we in Birmingham are proud of the work done by the Midlands Health Executive in trying to improve the conditions which the party opposite allowed to exist for so many years. We will do everything in our power to back up the Minister, in all the steps he takes, to see that people are attracted to the nursing profession by attractive conditions of employment.

An allegation was made by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) that sane people have been certified by doctors because it was desirable to get them into hospital. That is a disgraceful allegation which is utterly untrue, and the hon. Member, to whom I have written, should be present today to substantiate what he said. The attitude of the Opposition is a matter of party prejudice against the Minister of Health, who has done a wonderful job for the people of this country in spite of the party opposite. We shall get back at the next Election precisely because in these matters we are deeply concerned for the working people of this country, because we want to see them have proper conditions in sickness and health.

I feel that this is a matter of very great importance indeed. It is also a matter of profound political importance, and for this reason. I said 2½ years ago that unless this Government produced a relative wages policy, voluntarily accepted by the trade union movement, the only alternative was direction of labour. As the House knows, I am absolutely opposed to direction of labour in all circumstances. Our policy is a policy of making the job attractive, whereas the Tory policy is mass unemployment, so that people are directed, in effect, by starvation. We do not believe in direction of labour but in making the conditions attractive so that the workers want to go into the undermanned industries. I think that that general proposition must be applied to this very important profession, the nursing profession. I am most grateful that this subject has been raised, and I hope the Minister will be able to say that he will give due consideration to the issue of a general charter for the nursing profession.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) for raising this subject, which has arisen out of two Questions which I put in the House just over a week ago, and for kindly permitting me to share some of the time for this Adjournment Debate. I am extremely sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is not present today. I took the opportunity of advising him last night that the statement he made yesterday would cause the greatest distress among the nursing staffs of the City of Birmingham, and I said I hoped he would see his way clear to withdraw the epithet "murder," which he used most unwarrantably and unjustifiably. I also think it regrettable that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) is not here, because he gave notice that he would take the Adjournment on this matter and, that being so, in all fairness he should have been here today. I entirely support what my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton has said about the noble Lord the Member for Horsham.

The incident to which my hon. Friend has referred concerns a former constituent of mine who had the misfortune to have to go into a mental hospital. I would like to quote from a Birmingham newspaper which refers to this incident—the "Birmingham Mail," which is a Conservative organ. It states that the coroner's court were very clear in their decision that the death was accidental—the death being of Mrs. Leah Caroline Walker, a patient in the Rubery Mental Hospital, and formerly of Great Tindel Street, Ladywood. This is the statement made about the evidence given at the inquest by her son, Frank H. Walker, of Castle Road West, Quinton:

"He had visited his mother on many occasions. He had never had any occasion to complain about her treatment or to make any suggestions."

I say that when a son can make a statement like that, it must cause the greatest pain to those responsible for looking after his mother to read a statement by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham that she had been murdered. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will read what my hon. Friend and I have said, and will think differently about the matter.

My hon. Friend said he had received a telegram today. I, too, have received a telegram from which I would like to quote. It is from the Chairman of No. 6 Group, Hospital Management Committee, Birmingham, and says:

"I wish to protest at the unwarranted misrepresentation of the truth regarding unfortunate incidents at this hospital on May 3rd after the inquest held under the direction of His Majesty's coroner, sitting with a jury, had brought in a verdict of accidental death, and said there was no evidence to prove that the patient had been attacked. Earl Winterton's statement has caused very great distress among our staff, who have most conscientiously and loyally carried out their nursing duties. In the circumstances I am entitled to ask, on behalf of the staff, for a withdrawal of his completely wrong statement."

As there are some right hon. and hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, I think it would be appropriate if they would get up now and say that they realise that a serious mistake was made by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and that they themselves feel—I am sure the noble Lord, if he were here, would agree—that his allegation ought to be withdrawn.

I am sorry, but knowing nothing about this case I could not possibly intervene in this matter.

This unfortunate woman, as I have said, lived in Great Tindel Street, Ladywood, in the heart of my constituency. I remember calling the attention of the Birmingham City Council, 21 years ago, to the fact that 45 people were living in a 10-room house. If anyone is justified in using the word "murder," I say that many hundreds of my constituents were murdered because of the social conditions which were permitted by the party to which hon. Members opposite belong.

I wish to congratulate the staffs of our hospitals in Birmingham. They are entitled not to unwarrantable slurs of this nature, but to distinguished service medals for the way in which they have shouldered, and are shouldering, a burden which they themselves cannot control.

As to the general problem, my hon. Friend and I both have hospitals in our constituencies, which deal with the chronic and aged sick such as the one in Selly Oak, and there are mental hospitals in our constituencies, too. The problems of staffing are interwoven. I have seen beds touching each other in the Dudley Road Hospital. That was before 5th July when the National Health Service Act came into operation. Only a short time ago I discussed this matter with a medical superintendent. He asked me how I thought he could take my constituents who were ill in Ladywood. It is a grave responsibility for any medical superintendent to take in patients where there is not the staff or accommodation for them.

In regard to mental hospitals, the medical superintendent has no alternative but to accept patients who are certified. Never at any moment did I make a statement in this House which could have been calculated to give the impression that any of those patients that went into hospital had not been correctly certified. Looking at that problem there is undoubtedly a very great problem. The number of nursing hours in Rubery should be 6,000 per week, but we can only provide for 3,000. For that we do not attack our staffs or our medical superintendent. We give them the greatest praise for what they have done.

In conclusion, may I say that the kind of statement that appeared in the "Daily Express," attributed to the chairman of the hospital concerned, saying that old people, who have nothing wrong with them except old age, are being admitted as voluntary patients to mental hospitals under the National Health Act——

He never said it.

He has entirely denied it. He actually made a statement to the Press, and I have here the statement as published in the "Birmingham Despatch" in which he denied the charge made by the hon. Member for Solihull. In fact he has been accused of giving information and he said of the hon. Member, "I do not know him, I have never spoken to him nor written to him, and if that is typical of his contributions in the House of Commons I have no wish to meet him." I should have thought that the hon. Member for Solihull would have had the decency to withdraw so that the City of Birmingham might have had the truth.

This is an issue which is of the greatest possible importance. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton and I, together with my other colleagues representing Birmingham, stand together on this particular issue of chronic and aged sick, because we feel that it is one for the most careful examination and wide inquiry. We shall want to know who is responsible for giving the information which was supposed to have been given to the hon. Member for Solihull. I thank my hon. Friend for permitting me to speak in this Debate, and I hope the Minister will be able to probe the matter fully so that he will be able to bring a report to the House at an early date.

I myself did not hear any of the remarks to which reference has been made, but I learn that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) left this morning on an official delegation for Denmark. It was, therefore, quite impossible for him to be here this afternoon. The report of this Debate will be brought to his attention.

We are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having made that statement. We all respect the noble Lord. We realise he could not have meant to make the statement which he did yesterday, and we are very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having gone as far as he could towards withdrawing this allegation.

I am very grateful to my hon. Friends for having raised this matter. It is of the utmost importance that the allegations that have been made and the innuendoes that have been put forward should be cleared up. They have caused the greatest distress throughout the country in the nursing profession, particularly in the mental hospitals. I should like, first of all, to say something about the matter which has been referred to, the death of a patient in the Rubery Hill mental hospital, to which both my hon. Friends have referred.

I have myself examined the depositions that were made to the coroner in the inquest on this case. It is true that the ward in which the patient was receiving attention had no full-time attendant that evening, due to shortage of staff, but it was visited on many occasions during the evening, so that there was, in fact, a nurse in attendance most of the night. There is nothing at all in the evidence to suggest—and I have examined it most carefully—that this old lady was involved in the incident which did occur between two other patients in the ward that evening. She was seen by a nurse immediately after that event took place and appeared to be perfectly all right then. The coroner sat with a jury, who returned a verdict of "Accidental death." I would strongly support the comments of my hon. Friends that remarks of the character which were made, apparently without reflection at all, by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—I appreciate that he is not able to be here this afternoon—were utterly without foundation, were irresponsible, and were mischievous in the effect that they have had throughout the country. I can well understand the bitter feelings of the nursing staff and of the management of that hospital.

I would say a further word with regard to the question that was raised about wrongful certification. It was the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay) who raised that matter. There is still no evidence whatever of this having happened. The names of some old people who, it is alleged, have recently been admitted to one of the Birmingham mental hospitals, are now being obtained by my right hon. Friend so that a detailed investigation shall be made in each case. It is most reprehensible that a charge of this character should be made, impugning the conduct of the medical and legal professions. Wholly irresponsible statements of that kind ought not to be made by hon. Members of this House without the most careful and searching investigation. It suggests that some hon. Members opposite are so anxious to cause trouble in the development of our Health Service that they will lend themselves to this kind of remark.

My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) raised a wider aspect of the matter, the important question of the staffing throughout the country. He mentioned not only mental hospitals but general hospitals as well. We are well aware that we are suffering from a general shortage of nurses especially in the mental hospitals and among the female nurses. I would assure him that we are doing our utmost to try to overcome that very serious difficulty. We appreciate that nurses, both in the mental hospitals and in the general hospitals, have suffered under real difficulties such as bad accommodation—appallingly bad in some cases. So far as pay is concerned, improvements have already been announced for general nurses. The position of the mental nurses is now under consideration by the Whitley Council and any recommendation that it makes will be retrospective to 1st February. I am sure that this will be a further encouragement to nurses to undertake this very important, strenuous, difficult and highly necessary job of work.

Can my hon. Friend tell me if the report is to be long delayed?

I certainly hope not. There is no reason why it should be long delayed, and I am most anxious that we should receive it very soon. Hon. Members know that there is before another place at this moment a Nurses Bill which opens out the way to general improvements in the whole organisation of the nursing profession. That will act as a great encouragement to young girls to enter the nursing profession, assured that this very fine and rewarding service will be made much more attractive to them than it has been in the past.

I am very grateful indeed for the opportunity which has been given for this Debate to take place this afternoon, because it is most essential that the facts about the matter should be known not only here but throughout the country. I would just like to add that my right hon. Friend himself strongly encouraged the non-certification of old people, and in an instruction which he issued to regional hospital boards back in November, 1947, he stated that:

"It is now commonly accepted that it is undesirable to certify old people, especially those over 70, suffering from mental infirmity if certification can be avoided."

The instruction went on to say that except where it was essential to certify because the patients were too difficult to manage without this step, accommodation should be found for them outside the mental hospital service. We are fully aware of all the difficulties of accommodation which exist at the present time. We are doing our utmost to overcome them, but it does not help in those efforts to have the sort of irresponsible remarks thrown across the House to which we have been subject during the last week.