Egypt
Suez Canal (Oil Tankers)
1.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is proposed to allow Haifa-bound tankers through the Suez Canal now that the terminal ports of this international waterway are under the control of British Service authorities.
15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether vessels carrying oil for the Haifa refineries are now permitted to pass through the Suez Canal.
This matter has been discussed with the oil companies concerned. They, of course, look forward to the day when they will be able to operate Haifa at full capacity again, but they do not feel that in present circumstances the situation would be assisted by Government action. I agree with this view and do not, therefore, propose to take any action at the moment.
The premise upon which my hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) bases his Question is not correct. The British Service authorities are not exercising full control at Port Said or Suez.Does my right hon. Friend agree that the action of the Egyptian authorities in denying passage to these tankers is a continuing breach of international law?
I think my views on that subject are very much on record.
Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider expediting this matter, particularly in view of the fact that, for effective defence in that area, it is necessary to have as much crude oil refined in Haifa as possible, and because of the large loss of revenue to this country consequent upon the fact that the oil is not going through?
The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a very complex matter now with many ramifications, in which I must take account, amongst other considerations, of the views of the oil companies concerned.
Are we to understand that there is going to be no holdup so far as the Haifa refinery is concerned because of any embargo placed on the passage of tankers through the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities?
The position at the moment, as I said in my answer about what the oil companies wish to do, is that control at both ends of the Canal is still, as I have explained, in the hands of the Egyptian authorities.
Are we to understand that the control is to remain there if there is any change on the part of the Haifa refinery people? Suppose they want to effect some modification of the present position, will the embargo placed on the passage of vessels through the Suez Canal continue?
We have always said, of course, that we do not recognise the embargo, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from the days when he was a member of the Government; but I was asked about the position of control, and I said that, at the present time, the physical control at each end of the Canal is in the hands of the Egyptian Government.
Is not the legal position in this matter a matter of considerable uncertainty?
I would not go so far as to say that, but certainly it is—shall we say?—one of complexity.
Situation
3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Egyptian situation.
I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made yesterday.
Will my right hon. Friend keep the House closely informed on this matter so that he may have the utmost possible support from this House?
Yes, Sir, and I should be glad of that.
What is the position about the£15 million a year which we are paying to Egypt under the Treaty? Is that under consideration now? Is there a counter claim against that money?
I do not think that that statement of my hon. Friend is correct—that we are paying£15 million a year. Perhaps he will be good enough to put a Question down.
British Officials (Dismissal)
13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what help is being given by His Majesty's Government towards the repatriation of British officials dismissed by the Egyptian Government; what steps will be taken to provide them with suitable employment on their return home; and what action is contemplated to safeguard their legal rights in Egypt.
His Majesty's Government have every sympathy with these officials, many of whom have given years of devoted service to Egypt and who are the victims of the late Egyptian Government's decisions. His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo has been in close touch throughout with the Association of British Officials in Egypt and there has been frequent consultation between His Majesty's Embassy, the Foreign Office and other Departments concerned, with a view to assisting these officials.
As regards repatriation, it is understood that the Egyptian authorities concerned have accepted financial responsibility and that they have already met the cost of the passages home of certain officials. We are doing our best to help in finding suitable alternative employment for these officials in neighbouring Middle Eastern countries, in the Colonies and in the United Kingdom, and a number have already been satisfactorily placed. Plans to fight the cases of these officials for wrongful dismissal in the Egyptian Courts are already well in hand and His Majesty's Government have accepted financial responsibility for the costs of any such action.In view of the fact that some of these officials are elderly, will the right hon. Gentleman consider with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in certain circumstances, it will be possible to waive the age limit of employment in the Colonies?
I should like to look into that matter.
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that a number of English teachers in Egypt have been summarily dismissed and left without any financial resources at all, and can he do anything to assist them?
Yes, Sir, we are offering financial assistance in those cases.
Are we to understand that His Majesty's Government in all these cases accepts, reasonably speaking, responsibility for their future welfare, because many of them are absolutely destitute?
We have done all that we can to place them elsewhere, and some have already been placed. We are willing to give help.
Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the refund of such financial expenses as may be incurred in looking after these people might well come out of the sterling balance which we hold on behalf of Egypt?
I cannot make any comment on that one.
Germany
Steel Production
6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the annual level of steel production permitted to Germany under existing occupation decree; and by how much German steel production was in excess of such a figure in the year ending 31st December, 1951.
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him yesterday by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied, in view of the special rearmament effort we are making, that we are getting a fair share of the excess production?
Well, we did not do very well last year for a variety of reasons. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not blaming anybody but merely stating the fact; there was a variety of reasons, into which we need not enter. We have had some discussions recently with the German Government and we hope as a result of them to have a substantial tonnage of steel from Germany this year.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, whilst he is exercising his efforts to increase the tonnage, at the same moment his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is withholding licences for imports?
I did not think so. The position is, of course, that Germany has a fixed amount for herself, and over and above that we get a certain percentage. I did not know that there was any kind of withholding. If that is so, I will gladly look into it.
Western Defence Contribution
21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state in precise terms what form of military organisation has been agreed for Western Germany on her contributing to the Western defence system.
The form of military contributions to the European Defence Community by the participating countries, including Western Germany, is now under discussion at the Paris Conference on the European Defence Community. It is hoped that the final report of the Conference will be available for consideration by the North Atlantic Council in Lisbon next month.
The Treaty establishing the European Defence Community will, as the right hon. Member knows, be accompanied by an agreement establishing the future relationship between the German Federal Republic and the three Western Powers.Is the House to understand that agreement on principle is to take place between the Federal German Republic on the one hand and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the other?
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right in that in the first place there will be agreement between the Powers concerned so far as the European defence contribution is concerned—that is between the six Powers—and then that will be referred to and discussed by, and I trust approved, if all goes well, at the Lisbon Conference next month.
Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether His Majesty's Government still abide by the safeguards and conditions upon which the principle of German re-armament was originally accepted, or whether they have abandoned those conditions and safeguards?
This arrangement will only be come to if the other five Powers now negotiating with Germany are in agreement, and if they are in agreement, they will be submitted at Lisbon to the N.A.T.O. Powers as a whole.
Is it not the case that the Bonn Government, or a representative of the Bonn Government, has now demanded association with N.A.T.O. officially before they agree to a German military contribution, and is that, therefore, not a new situation, and may we have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that before this Government agrees to Germany being associated with N.A.T.O. this House will have an opportunity of debating the matter?
I have received no official communication at all in this respect up-to-date, and I would certainly like to consider the matter. We would not wish to take a decision of that kind without the House having an opportunity of expressing its view; but, so far as I am aware, no such official announcement has been made to us.
Has His Majesty's Government given their consent to the idea which has been promulgated in the Press that there should be a two-year period of conscription in Germany and a force of something approaching 600,000 men available?
These details are new. I did not know that the figures were, or where my noble Friend got the figures, but, at the moment, discussion is going on as to the form of the German contribution between the six Powers concerned in the creation of a European Defence Community.
Japan And China (Relations)
7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations His Majesty's Government have made in respect of the Japanese Government's policy of recognising the Chinese Nationalist Government situated in Formosa instead of the Government of the Chinese People's Republic.
12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made by His Majesty's Government with regard to the future diplomatic relations between Japan and China.
14.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he made to the United States Government during his visit to Washington about the diplomatic relations of Japan under the Treaty of Peace.
His Majesty's Government have repeatedly stated in this House and to the American Authorities in Tokyo and at Washington their view that relations between Japan and China should be a matter for decision by the Japanese Government after the Peace Treaty comes into force and Japanese sovereignty is fully restored. That has always been our view, and it is still our view. It applies equally to Japan's relations with countries other than China.
Whilst I appreciate that statement, is it not the fact that America has exerted influence upon the Japanese Government to recognise the Government of Formosa and to refuse recognition to the Chinese People's Republic?
The right hon. Gentleman is not responsible for the American Government.
May I put it this way? Has the right hon Gentleman made representations to the American Government on the matter to which I have referred?
I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I have said here, that we made our views absolutely plain to the United States Government on a considerable number of occasions. They were fully aware that that was our view, and they are fully aware that that is still our view.
Can the right hon. Gentleman say at what date he was informed of the letter dated 24th December which had been sent by the Prime Minister of Japan to Mr. Dulles; and does he not think that the actions of the American Government in this respect amount to a "double-cross" of the British Government about the negotiations?
I was aware of the existence of a letter.
When?
Some time ago. I knew, of course, that the American Government took a different view from us on this subject. Of course I did; that was the object of all our discussions. My attempt was to try to persuade the American Government to take our view, but I did not succeed. However, I think it is only fair to add that each Government is entitled to take its own view. This is a matter on which we agree to differ. Fortunately there are not many such topics between us and the United States Government.
Are we to take it from the Foreign Secretary's reply that the assurances given at the time of the ratification of the Treaty by this House—that the Japanese Government would be left free to decide its own diplomatic relations—were false assurances?
So far as His Majesty's Government are concerned, we have always maintained that that should be the position, and we continue to maintain that that should be the position. That has always been my view, and I agreed with the late Government in that. It is still my view at the present moment. America knows it, and I have no doubt they would say they know we did not agree with them on this subject
On the question of the existence of Mr. Yoshida's letter, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the American Government acquainted him of the terms of that letter, either before or during the Washington talks after which we were told that increasing harmony between American policy and our own was to be the keynote in the future?
I can say that His Majesty's Government have had no part, tacit or otherwise, in the drafting or publication of that letter. We could not possibly have, because it does not express the views of His Majesty's Government, which have been repeatedly stated to the American Government.
As a great many Members of this House voted in favour of ratification of the Treaty in the Bill which was recently before the House on the representation that the Japanese Government would be free to make its choice after ratification—even though one does not wish to accuse the Government of any unconscious misrepresentation on the subject—does it not follow that the House ought to have an opportunity now of reconsidering its decision with regard to that ratification?
I do not think the hon. Gentleman suggested or meant to suggest that we had been guilty of any bad faith in this matter. I really could not have been more explicit at every stage of these negotiations as to what my view was, and it was not based on any previous undertaking by the late Government, although I agreed with them. At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman will realise, although this document has been written by the Japanese Government to the United States Government, it still remains a fact that no decision by the Japanese can, under existing arrangements, be taken until they are free to carry it out, after ratification—that is, after the Peace Treaty has been signed.
rose—
I am afraid we cannot carry on this matter further at this stage. There is a foreign affairs debate next week.
On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
rose—
That point of order puts a stop to further questions.
19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he was informed by the Japanese Government that they intended to recognise the Government of Chiang Kai-shek.
A Representative of the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the United Kingdom Liaison Mission at Tokyo on the morning of the 16th January.
Korea (Cease-Fire Negotiations)
8.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to expedite the ceasefire negotiations in Korea.
On 25th January the United Nations delegates tabled new proposals designed to speed up the armistice talks. These were accepted by the Communists, and as a result some progress is being made.
Could the Foreign Secretary give us some assurance that these proposals will not go through the same prolonged process of discussion as the previous ones; and is he aware that, if there were a ballot of the soldiers on the spot, they would vote for coming home tomorrow?
I cannot possibly give the hon. Gentleman any assurance because it depends on two parties as to whether agreement is reached. If I may express my belief, I think that probably the Communists do want an agreement; I am quite sure that the Americans do, so perhaps we shall reach one. I trust so.
Brussels Migration Conference
9.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the results of the Brussels Migration Conference; and what relation decisions taken at this conference have to his policy for the future functions of the High Commissioner for Refugees.
The Brussels Migration Conference established a "Provisional Inter-Governmental Committee for the Movement of Migrants from Europe," with the object of transporting 115,000 migrants from Europe in the coming year. The decisions taken by the Brussels Conference do not alter the functions assigned to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or His Majesty's Government's attitude to the High Commissioner.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, apart from the fact that the High Commissioner for Refugees has neither the money nor the machinery to carry on the good work of I.R.O., the refugee problem has been seriously aggravated for months past by the fact that about 400 new refugees come every week from the Iron Curtain countries to the West, and that they are not subject to international care; and may I appeal particularly to my right hon. Friend to direct his attention to that aspect of the problem?
I will look into the matter.
Genocide Convention (Ratification)
16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to ratify the Genocide Convention.
His Majesty's Government hope shortly to reach a decision on this question.
Will the right hon. Gentleman consider, first of all, that this matter has been before the Government for a very considerable time; that 32 States have already ratified or acceded to this Convention; and there is really no reason, in view of the decision of the International Court at The Hague, why steps should not be taken immediately by the Government to ratify it?
We naturally abhor the crime of genocide, but there are legal difficulties.
indicated dissent.
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I have not his legal knowledge, but I am told that there are legal difficulties in embodying this into the law of the land, and they were very well explained to him, if I may say so, by the late Minister of State on 8th May, 1950. The reasons were very good then, and, so far as I have been able to discover, they are quite as good today.
I am afraid that will not do. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he put those reasons before the International Court of Justice when they were arriving at their decision, which was reached on 28th May, 1951, that every State could and should ratify or accede to this Convention; and whether he opposed, and for what reasons he opposed, if he did, the decision of the Assembly recently that every member State should be called upon to do so?
I think that what the International Court said was that States were entitled to have reservations when they ratified, and States have had reservations—all sorts of reservations—and that is one of the reasons why we have to look at these reservations before we can decide what we can do.
In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I propose to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
Middle East Office, Cairo
17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what purpose is served by the British Middle East Office in Cairo; how many persons are on its staff; and what is the annual cost.
I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on 3rd December.
In view of the fact that we must economise and that this office appears to be serving no useful purpose, will my right hon. Friend consider closing it down or materially reducing the personnel and expenditure that is incurred?
We have reduced the expenditure of a number of our organisations, including this one, but, with respect to my hon. Friend, this office is serving a very useful purpose. There is a supply there of technicians that gives service to the whole Middle East area. That is a very good thing for the reputation of Britain and a very good service for that area.
Will the Foreign Secretary consider, bearing in mind that this office, as he states, is of immense value to the Middle East, particularly in the economic development of the Middle East and raising the standard of living there, if it cannot be continued in Cairo because of the conditions there, translating it to some other place in the Middle East where it can continue its valuable work?
Part of it has been moved and the work is going on.
Foreign Service (Missing Diplomats)
18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further information to give concerning the whereabouts of Mr. Donald Maclean and Mr. Guy Burgess; and about the extent to which both, or either, of these men were acquainted with confidential matters.
No, Sir.
Indonesia (British Middle East Policy)
20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions were given to the British Chargé d'Affaires in Indonesia with regard to expounding the British Government's viewpoint to the Indonesian Government relating to the Egyptian and Sudanese dispute.
On instructions of His Majesty's Government, His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Djakarta has on several occasions expounded to the Indonesian Government His Majesty's Government's attitude in the dispute with Egypt about Middle East defence and the Sudan. He has made such representations particularly in connection with the accrediting of diplomatic representatives.
East Africa
Overseas Food Corporation Operations
23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the changes in staff and production plans effected by the Overseas Food Corporation to carry out a long-term farming policy on its properties in Tanganyika formerly intended for mechanised groundnut production.
The Corporation have been carrying out the changes in their organisation and farming programme necessary to carry out the long-term plan approved by His Majesty's Government. The European staff, which numbered 1,153 on 31st March, 1951, will be reduced to 590 on 31st March next.
The Corporation's farming policy is now concentrated on establishing, through a variety of small farms serviced from the centre, an economic system of mechanised arable farming. For the time being the Corporation is adhering to a rotation of groundnuts, maize and sorghum, but is pursuing small scale experiments with other crops including beans, castor, cotton, rice, tobacco and various fibres. Under the new plan farming is restricted to 24,000 acres at Kongwa and 60,000 each at Urambo and the Southern Province. The current crop extends to 73,500 acres made up of 15,000 each at Kongwa and the Southern Province, and 43,500 at Urambo.Railway Development
24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what surveys have been made for railway development to link Broken Hill, in Northern Rhodesia, to the East African system, and to the ports of Mtwara and Dar-es-Salaam in Tanganyika: and whether the results were favourable for such development.
Separate engineering and economic surveys are being made of the possible railway links between the two systems and reports are expected in about six months' time. Results cannot be assessed, or decisions taken, until these reports are available.
Deputation
33.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what grounds a deputation composed of the hon. Members for Flint, East, Oldham, West, Rugby, Bristol, Central, and Eton and Slough, and Mbiyu Koinange and Achieng Oneko, representing the Kenya African Union was refused by the Minister of State.
The Minister of State is always happy to see hon. Members. He did not refuse on this occasion, but preferred to meet them after his return from East Africa when he would be in a better position to discuss the problem. The Minister was not prepared to see the two delegates from the Kenya African Union—since, as he explained at the time, he thought it unsuitable that he should consult representatives of any particular race or party in Kenya on the eve of his departure for East Africa.
I appreciate that the Minister was ill while in Kenya, but is it a fact that he was not able to see the representatives either of the major African organisations or the major Indian organisations? In view of that fact, is the Minister now prepared to meet not only the Members of Parliament but the delegations from Kenya?
The Minister will always be prepared to meet Members of Parliament, but he must retain discretion about which delegations he meets and judge whether they are representative or not.
Colonial Empire
Cotton Production
25.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what schemes are in hand for developing the growing of cotton in Colonial Territories; and what further schemes are proposed.
In order to satisfy the hon. Member the reply necessarily contains a lot of detail. I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the statement:
Colonial cotton production in recent years has averaged half a million bales (of 400 1b.) per annum. The figures for 1949–50 were:—
| Bales | ||
| Uganda | … | 342,000 |
| Kenya | … | 8,000 |
| Tanganyika | … | 50,000 |
| Nigeria (Export) | … | 62,000 |
| Nyasaland | … | 10,000 |
| West Indies | … | 6,000 |
| Others (mainly Aden) | … | 6,000 |
| 484,000 |
With the exception of small quantities, it is a peasant-cultivated crop. Production may be increased by improved cultivation in existing areas of production, or by bringing new areas into production. The measures adopted necessarily vary according to the climatic and economic conditions in individual territories. Details of the measures being taken by the different Colonial Governments concerned, to whom considerable help has been given by the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation, are given below.
Uganda which normally produces about 70 per cent. of all colonial raw cotton is concentrating on increasing considerably the yield per acre of those areas at present under cultivation by introducing higher yielding disease-resistant strains, by encouraging improved cultivation methods and by seed treatment to reduce blackarm disease. It is hoped that it may be possible to raise annual production by 50 per cent. to about 450,000 bales per annum in the near future.
In Tanganyika mechanised aids to peasant cultivation are being introduced in resettlement schemes in Sukumaland. In addition the Department of Agriculture has concentrated a large number of staff in cotton-growing areas to encourage improved cultivation and increased planting. By these means it is hoped almost to raise the annual cotton crop by about 80 per cent. to about 90,000 bales.
In Nigeria, which is the second largest colonial cotton producer, a special cotton development team has been charged with responsibility for improving cotton production both by improving yields of cultivation methods and by the opening up of new areas and the improvement of marketing and ginning facilities and communications. It is hoped to expand Nigeria's production of American type cotton by about 300 per cent. to some 200,000 bales per annum in the next ten years.
In Nyasaland better planting methods and pure strains of cotton are being introduced to reduce losses through red bollworm. The extension of the area under cultivation will depend on the possibilities of irrigation which are being investigated at present. If irrigation proves feasible an expansion of production to about 100 per cent. to 20,000 bales per annum should be possible.
The British West Indies are the sole producers of Sea Island cotton, the market for which is limited. Improvements here are concentrated on the introduction of new strains to improve quality, and expansion of output beyond 5,000 bales will depend upon market demand.
A very high grade cotton of the Sudan type is being grown under irrigation in the Abyan district of the Western Aden Protectorate and it is hoped to increase output to about 10,000 bales in the near future.
The possibilities of growing cotton in other territories have been or are being examined but the only one which at present holds out any prospect of large scale production is the Gold Coast, if the Volta River scheme is adopted. Preliminary experiments are being carried out in the Volta Area.
Certain Colonial producers, namely Nigeria, Nyasaland and the Aden Protectorate, have entered into long term contracts with the United Kingdom Raw Cotton Commission, which, by offering a stable market for some years ahead, serve to encourage expansion of production. In addition advances by the Raw Cotton Commission have been of considerable help in starting irrigated cotton production in the Aden Protectorate.
Development Grants
27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the recent financial sacrifices made by British taxpayers by their recent subventions to the welfare and defence of Colonies and the recent planned development of wealth therein, he will now ask colonial governors to desist from making further demands on British taxpayers and to rely more on self help; and if he will ask colonial governors to afford colonial legislatures the opportunity of sharing in the task of solving the colonial overpopulation problem.
No, Sir. As colonial governments are already providing a large proportion of the cost of development I am not prepared to withdraw any of the allocations already promised by His Majesty's Government.
As regards the second part of the Question, I am not aware of anything which debars colonial legislatures from so doing.The reply of the right hon. Gentleman to my Question referred to future grants and not to grants already given, which must of course be honoured.
In my opinion, the general system must continue.
While I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, is not the position the reverse of that suggested in the Question, namely, that some of the arrangements for marketing and pricing of commodities of Colonial Territories amount to their subsidising this country?
That is a different question.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the great body of my hon. Friends support more development aid for the Colonies and not less, as suggested in the Question?
Corporal Punishment
36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of the appeal made in the Trusteeship committee of the United Nations on 19th December that corporal punishment in Colonial possessions should be abolished, what steps he proposes to take to ensure more rapid progress towards the abolition of this form of punishment; and what reduction of corporal punishment sentences took place in Tanganyika in 1951, compared with the over 1,000 sentences in 1949 and 1950.
His Majesty's Government's policy remains that of securing, as circumstances, including African opinion, permit, the abolition of corporal punishment as a sanction of the courts in the territories for which they are responsible.
The information requested in the second part of the Question is not yet available, and I will communicate later with the hon. Member when it is received.As there are practically only two nations left which still utilise this form of punishment; as Tanganyika seems to have a much greater number of instances of corporal punishment than any other Colony, where it is now largely abolished; and, in view of the fact that a large number of sentences for corporal punishment were imposed in 1949 and 1950, does he not agree that much greater speed towards the abolition of this punishment should be pursued?
I hope the hon. Member will not think I am illiberal in my approach to this matter, but we must be very careful to proceed with circumspection. In the absence of a proper probationary system, it is very easy to abolish corporal punishment and end up by making habitual criminals.
Malaya
Kajang Kemaman Tin Mine
26.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what were the reasons for the closing of the Kajang Kemaman tin mine; and on whose authority were these instructions given.
The Kajang Kemaman tin mine is isolated, its approach roads are vulnerable to attack, and its protection involved greater call on police than its importance justified. The mine was closed by the Mentri Besar of Trengganu, with the concurrence of the Director of operations, under Emergency Regulation No. 17 FA. The possibility of making the approach roads safer is under examination.
In view of the decline in tin production and its importance in our economic affairs, can my right hon. Friend say when the tin mine is likely to be re-opened?
It is entirely a question of the calls upon the police. It appears to us that the best thing is to try to make the approach road safer, and that is being undertaken. I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend a date.
Ex-Palestine Police
28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the terms on which the Commissioner of Police, and other police officers who previously served in Palestine and were later transferred for service in Malaya can retire; whether previous service of a special nature can be counted towards pension scales; and how many such officers are affected.
The officers concerned come under the ordinary pension law. The normal retiring age is 55. Previous pensionable colonial service in Palestine or elsewhere counts for pension.
Twenty-seven ex-members of the Palestine Police Force transferred to Malaya as gazetted police officers in pensionable posts. A further 26 Palestine officers were appointed on agreement with a prospect of pensionable employment.War Damage Compensation
31.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what sum was originally made available to meet war damage compensation claims in Malaya; how much has been paid; what percentage of the claims dealt with does the sum paid out represent; and when payments will be completed.
About£50 million will be available in all, of which£9 million has been paid to claimants. Final awards have been made in respect of 40 per cent. of the total number of claims made, and interim payments varying from 30 per cent.-60 per cent. in the various categories of claim.
It is estimated that payment will be completed by 31st December, 1955.Is my right hon. Friend aware that a year ago his predecessor said that these payments would be made quickly? Can he account for the very grave delay?
I cannot account for it, but I will look into this and see if the procedure can be accelerated.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to a letter which I received today from the Commissioner for War Damages in Malaya, there are still 120,000 claims to be examined and assessed and there will be very considerable delay, and will he do his utmost to see that the matter is expedited?
Yes, Sir, I will do my utmost.
General Templer (Appointment)
35.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what time limit is proposed for the appointment of General Sir Gerald Templer in Malaya.
The period of General Templer's appointment will be a matter for arrangement in the light of future developments in Malaya.
May I take it that that will not exclude, say within the period of a year, a review of this work in this House?
That is quite a different question. General Templer holds his appointment for His Majesty's pleasure.
Yes, but is that going to exclude the rights of this House at the end of a certain period to review work which he has been sent to accomplish?
Nothing can prevent this House from discussing this matter. The Opposition have it in their own hands.
Malta (Airfields)
29.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many United States airfields there are in Malta; when they were put there; what are the terms of the agreement under which they were put there; who are the parties of that agreement; and to what extent the Government or the people of Malta were consulted before it was entered into.
There are no United States airfields in Malta; the remainder of the hon. and learned Member's Question does not therefore arise.
Mr. Harold Davies.
On a point of order. May I put a supplementary question about my Question, Mr. Speaker?
The hon. and learned Gentleman was too slow. I gave him an opportunity.
Barbados (Oil Prospecting Rights)
30.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what concessions have been granted by the Government of Barbados to the Gulf Oil Company of Pittsburg to prospect for oil; and how these prospecting rights compare with those granted to the British Union Oil Company.
The British Union Oil Company received the first offer of prospecting rights over 55 per cent. of the Island with the first choice of area. The Company rejected the offer and broke off negotiations with the Barbados Government. The Gulf Oil Corporation subsequently took up rights over 50 per cent. of the Island.
I hope that the British Union Oil Company will apply for rights over the 50 per cent. of the Island which is still available for prospecting.Am I to gather from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no discrimination whatsoever against the British oil company?
As I said in my answer, the oil company received the first offer of prospecting rights.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the British company had been prospecting for oil for over 30 years, and had discovered oil, that conditions were offered to it and to the American company which were quite unacceptable to the British company, and that, after the British company had withdrawn, more favourable conditions were offered to the American company? Is he further aware that when I was in Barbados last year quite serious allegations were being made about this?
These matters were not raised at all by the original Question. This goes into the past. I was asked what concessions had been granted to the Gulf Oil Company.
Will my right hon. Friend consider representations on the subject which I shall make to him?
Certainly, Sir, but, as far as my information goes, the American company received the same offer as was made to the British company.
Central African Territories (Federation)
32.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the purpose of the recent conference of the Governors from Southern and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
His Majesty's Government have received from or through the Governments of the three Central African territories a number of criticisms and objections to the federation proposals formulated by the London conference of officials in March, 1951. They were therefore glad to accept the suggestion made by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia that he should come here to discuss the proposals further with His Majesty's Government. The Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland have also come to advise me, and are taking part in the talks. The talks are not a conference between Governments: they are designed to elucidate points that have arisen since the conference held at Victoria Falls in September last.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these talks, in the absence of African representatives, have further intensified African opposition to the scheme, and that the statement of the Premier of Southern Rhodesia that he wishes to decrease the safeguards to the Africans will, in effect, kill the federation proposal?
I am not aware of any such thing, and I cannot, of course, answer for anything which the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia says.
Did I correctly gather from the original reply of the right hon. Gentleman that the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland came to put criticisms of the plan before him at the conference and, if so, on whose behalf did they put forward the criticisms? May I also ask whether he proposes to let this House know the specific proposals put forward by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia in regard to the plan so that hon. Members have them before them when there is a debate on the matter?
The Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland came to advise me about the various objections raised in their territories to the original proposals. When these talks conclude the Government will issue a communique, and if that does not satisfy the right hon. Gentleman I will try to give him satisfaction in other ways.
On the first count, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Governors, making representations criti- cising the London proposals, conveyed the criticism of sections of the community in those territories or only of one? I understood that the talks were already concluded, and that is why I asked for a statement.
I could not answer the first question. These objections came from various quarters by no means all European or all African. The talks are still continuing.
South-East Asia (Commissioner-General)
34.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what changes are proposed in the powers of the Commissioner-General for South-East Asia.
I am not in a position to give a final reply, but the alterations which I have in mind are designed only to give a clearer definition of his existing functions in so far as they fall within the responsibility of the Colonial Office.
In one of his speeches in Malaya the right hon. Gentleman said that certain barnacles had attached themselves to this office. Could he tell us what barnacles he had in mind and which he proposed to get rid of?
Additions were made to Mr. MacDonald's original terms of reference, which seemed to imply that he had responsibilities in a field in which, indeed, he does not have any, and in fairness to him I think it is very necessary that this ambiguity should be cleared up.
May I ask for an assurance that nothing is going to be done to diminish the functions of Mr. MacDonald?
I cannot give that assurance in those terms, but nothing fundamental will be altered.
Would the Colonial Secretary bear in mind that the policy of the Commissioner-General and the late Sir Henry Gurney of promoting political development on the basis of racial co-operation is of vital importance to the future of Malaya and should be maintained?
I fully realise its importance. I think the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary is designed to ask whether Mr. MacDonald is going to stay or not?
No.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon.
In the second part of my supplementary I asked whether it is the Government's policy to promote colonial development on the basis of racial co-operation, and whether that would be maintained?
I really do not know how often it is necessary to re-state this thing. I have done it on numerous occasions and I do so now.
Was the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety to remove ambiguities related to the fact that he tried to get Field-Marshal Montgomery to take on the job?
Nigeria
Idaure Ondo Disturbances
37.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the origin of the disturbance on 2nd January at Idaure Ondo in western Nigeria; and whether the land dispute has now been settled.
More than 400 people attacked with sticks and stones a survey party which was demarcating a boundary in conformity with a High Court judgment delivered in 1943. The use of tear gas proved ineffective and after 11 of the police had been injured, and the crowd had been repeatedly warned that they would be fired on if they did not disperse and one volley had been fired without effect, it was necessary to fire 27 shots before the crowd withdrew.
I understand that the demarcation of the boundary has since continued without incident.I take it from that that the dispute has now been settled entirely.
The dispute was settled by a High Court judgment, and it was while a survey party was enforcing the High Court judgment after every precaution had been taken that this most regrettable incident occurred. There have been no further incidents.
Elections
38.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details in respect of the Nigerian elections, including successful party representation.
Since the information asked for by the hon. Member involves, amongst other things, a list of the 386 elected members of the Nigerian legislatures I am arranging for it to be placed in the Library.
Hong Kong (Cotton Supplies)
39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what action he has taken to restore the flow of United States cotton for use in Hong Kong.
I regret that I cannot yet give an answer since the matter is still under consideration.
Royal Navy
Torpedo-Dropping Range, Falmouth
40.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has yet selected a site for the torpedo-recovery depot for the range in Falmouth Bay; and where it is.
A site within the urban district of Falmouth has been selected provisionally. The property is at present requisitioned by the War Office, and a formal approach to the local authority is expected to be made shortly.
Ordnance Inspection Department
41.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make a statement on the future of the Naval Ordnance Inspection Department.
No, Sir. This complex matter has not yet been settled, but I am going into it very thoroughly.
Extended Service Officers (Commissions)
42.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has found it possible to offer any permanent commissions to Extended Service officers who are being retained for 18 months beyond the end of their engagements; and what number are to be offered.
Yes, Sir. Permanent commissions are to be offered to 50 of the extended service officers in the Executive Branch, and a number are to be offered in the Supply and Secretariat Branch.
Retirement Benefits
43.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why naval officers who did not retire until the 1st September, 1950, should get a higher rate of retired pay than officers who had to return to the retired list in November, 1945.
I have nothing to add to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Watkinson) on 20th November last.
Is the First Lord aware that a grave sense of injustice exists among the members of the pre-1945 category, and that that category has much more difficulty in obtaining alternative employment on account of their age.
The new system was introduced to stimulate recruiting. As far as the officers mentioned in the hon. Member's Question are concerned, they, of course, cannot be considered, as the Prime Minister said, in isolation from the position of other State pensioners.
Wireless Relay Stations (Licence)
44.
asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when a licence was issued to a private firm to erect a receiver for Continental programmes at Sully, Glamorgan; and if he will allow a similar application for the Pontop Pike area.
A company called "Rediffusion (Wales) Ltd." has applied for a licence to receive sound broadcast programmes at the proposed station at Sully, Glamorgan, and a licence will be granted when the station is ready. Another application has been received from Rediffusion (North East) Ltd. for a similar receiving station at Heddon Law near Newcastle, and the Postmaster-General will favourably consider the grant of a licence when all the necessary consents have been obtained.
Is this receiving station on the island of Sully, or on the mainland?
I understand that it is on the mainland.
Official Car Service
45.
asked the Prime Minister which Minister will be responsible for the new larger London car pool; and why cars from this pool will not be available for Ministers to visit establishments for which they are responsible beyond seven miles from the Palace of Westminster.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is responsible for the operation of the official car service. The second part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question seems to be based on a misapprehension of the position, since cars from the pool will be available for the purpose indicated.
I am glad to hear that reply, because the Prime Minister said categorically, in his answer recently, that official cars would be available for Ministers only for journeys within seven miles of Westminster. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I gather that was a mistake.
It was no mistake, but it was always contemplated that Ministers can draw cars from the pool for official purposes.
Ministry Of Defence
Armed Forces (Expenditure)
46.
asked the Minister of Defence how far expenditure on the armed Forces and defence is expected to fall short of the amount budgeted in the current financial year.
As I stated in the course of the Defence Debate on 6th December, we shall not succeed in spending the£1,250 million originally budgeted for in the current financial year. I am not yet in a position to estimate accurately how far expenditure will fall short of that figure.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister made the very uncompromising statement that we would not reach the target, can he give us some indication of the calculations on which he based his statement?
I have nothing to add to my answer.
Marching Parties (Road Safety)
47.
asked the Minister of Defence whether instructions have now been issued to all concerned that marching parties of all Service personnel are to carry red lights at the rear of such parties, with rearguards at a suitably-spaced interval.
Yes, Sir. All three Service Departments have now issued instructions prescribing that when personnel are marching on roads in formed bodies, look-out men shall be posted at a suitable distance in front and rear and shall carry lanterns at night. This meets, I think, the point which the Leader of the Opposition himself made.
Would it not be simpler to observe the Highway Code, which suggests that people walking on roads that have no pathways should walk on the right-hand side and face on-coming traffic?
I would not venture to deal with such technical matters at such short notice.
303 Rifles (Stocks)
48.
asked the Minister of Defence whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the reduced stocks of 303 rifles.
As I stated in the Defence Debate on 6th December last, we had over 5 million rifles at the end of the war and we now have rather less than half that number. The stocks at the end of the war included about 1 million American rifles of various types; the present stocks include about 300,000, 303 rifles which have been produced since the war. More than 3 million therefore have been disposed of in one way or another.
Of these, nearly 1 million have gone to Allied and Commonwealth countries, about 800,000 were handed over to India, Pakistan and Burma on the withdrawal of our forces, and about 500,000 are accounted for by wastage in Palestine, Korea and other overseas theatres and by destruction in a serious fire at Weedon Ordnance Depot in 1950. The bulk of the remaining 950,000, which were considered to be beyond repair, were disposed of as scrap.Has the right hon. Gentleman any figures showing the number of these rifles that were handed to the Egyptian Government?
I will certainly endeavour to have that figure looked out. It might be of interest to both sides of the House.
Joint Atlantic Command
49.
asked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement on the arrangements contemplated in connection with the Joint Atlantic Command.
I propose to refer to this matter when I make my statement to the House at the end of Questions.
Has the change in policy created any embarrassment for the Prime Minister.
I think I might be permitted to give my own answer to the Question. I trust that it caused no embarrassment to the right hon. Gentleman.
Egypt (Expenditure)
50.
asked the Minister of Defence his estimate of the total sum spent on our armed forces in Egypt since the commencement of our dispute with the Egyptian Government.
I have given directions that the best estimate possible is to be prepared, but the accounting is complicated and may take some time.
Will the Prime Minister explain why£5 million was released during the course of this expenditure from Egyptian sterling balances? It is the intention of His Majesty's Government to finance the Egyptian Government at the same time?
This is not a question which can be answered on the spur of the moment across the Floor of the House; but any Question on this subject will receive a detailed reply from the Minister concerned. Very great restrictions have been imposed upon the withdrawal of sterling balances.
Field-Marshal Lord Alexander's Appointment
(by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Minister of Defence, Field-Marshal Lord Alexander, will be responsible for advising the Government on military matters, and who will answer Questions on defence in the House.
When Lord Alexander becomes Minister of Defence on 1st March, the present arrangement will continue whereby the Chiefs of Staff advise the Minister of Defence, and, through him, the Government as a whole, on military matters. A Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence will be appointed. [HON. MEMBERS: "More money."] We may even beat the record of the party opposite, but it will be by a very short head. A Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence will be appointed who will be responsible for answering Questions and for dealing with Departmental matters in the House on behalf of the Minister. I will myself, when necessary, take part in any major defence debate.
Is it not very difficult, where a very distinguished soldier is acting as a Minister and transmitting the views of the Chiefs of Staff, to see who is the real adviser? Surely, that is a confusion quite contrary to our British system.
No, Sir. I do not think that any difficulty will arise from that. There are lots of people who have been employed in political office who have had professional military experience. Even I myself was nearly five years a cadet and a lieutenant in the Army, and I have frequently interfered in civilian matters. I do not think any difficulties will arise.
Lord Alexander is, of course, a civilian—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—retired from the Army and has had a very honourable interval of nearly seven years' service, entirely remote from the military profession and in Canada. I cannot feel that any difficulty will arise on that matter. On the contrary, I think that all concerned will feel reinforced by his presence and advice.rose—
Mr. Woodrow Wyatt.
While casting no reflection whatever on the qualities of Lord Alexander, who stands extremely high in the opinion of everybody, may I ask if there is not a great difficulty in a high-ranking officer who has held very high command, quite distinct from people who may have had temporary service in war, being the official member of the Government in competition, so to speak, with the Chiefs of Staff, who have not really had his experience?
I do not think there could be any question of competition between the Minister of Defence and the Chiefs of Staff. Certainly, it would be very disastrous if there were. There may be difficulties which arise from time to time, but they are always settled, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from long experience, by discussions in the Cabinet Committee on Defence or in the Cabinet itself.
Do I understand that there is to be an Under-Secretary for Defence? I understood that detailed Questions were always answered by Service Ministers. The whole point of a Minister of Defence is that it is not a matter of detailed administration but of main questions of policy.
During the war the handling machine, through which I, as Minister of Defence, dealt with quite a lot of things that were going on, was a very small-scale affair, but the right hon. Gentleman created, at very great expense, a very large and powerful Ministry, which we have somewhat reduced in scale by economies but which, nevertheless, has many functions attached to it of a special character—for instance, all the intelligence of the three Services, and so forth. It is a very important Ministry that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) held. I certainly feel that all routine and ordinary Questions—the Departmental Questions—ought to be dealt with in the House by a Minister acting directly under the instructions of the Minister of Defence. On the other hand, if very large issues arise, I am quite prepared to submit myself to the House to assist in the matter.
Will the Prime Minister not agree that if he had not appointed a person who sits, or will sit, in the other place, it would have been unnecessary to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary? Is it the intention to continue what is known as the Defence Committee, and who will preside over it? Will it be the Minister of Defence or the Prime Minister?
Normally, the Defence Committee will be presided over by the Minister of Defence, but the Prime Minister himself can take the chair if he desires. That always was so in the old Committee of Imperial Defence, which has been superseded by the modern structure. With regard to the question of the House of Lords, the right hon. Gentleman should be careful, because he may find himself there some day.
indicated dissent.
There are great arguments whether there should be such personalities as hereditary Peers—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—but the differences between parties have been greatly assuaged by the conduct of the late Administration.
I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but would he be a little less academic about the other place and reply to my question, which I repeat: Would he not agree that if it had been unnecessary to appoint to this very high post someone who will have to sit in another place, he would not have found it necessary to appoint a Parliamentary Secretary?
The economy of a Parliamentary Secretary would in itself be an advantage, but that advantage is very small compared to choosing the best man—
Cannot the right hon. Gentleman find one out of that lot opposite?
—for one of the most—[Interruption.]—for one of the most responsible positions in the State. I consider that that should also be brought into consideration, as well as the salary of an additional Under-Secretary. As to anyone from the House of Lords being so appointed, I again think that that is outweighed by choosing the person who is believed to be best fitted for the job.
Is it not a fact that under the terms of the Defence White Paper the primary responsibility of the Chiefs of Staff is to advise the Cabinet on matters of strategy?
To which White Paper is the right hon. and learned Gentleman referring?
The 1947 White Paper. While Lord Alexander may be highly qualified to be a Chief of Staff, is it not, preferable—in fact, highly desirable—that the Minister of Defence should be a politician? Is it not highly undesirable that a Service mind should come between the three Service advisers and the Cabinet?
I should be far from showing any want of respect to the trade union feelings which must prevail among politicians, but I cannot feel that that should over-ride the arguments I have already ventured to deploy.
rose—
Order. This really is becoming a debate.