I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is to enable His Majesty's Government, in case of need, to give effect to some provisions of the Charter of the United Nations It is not the only legislation which the Charter may require us in due course to introduce. Articles 104 and 105 impose on every member the obligation to grant to the United Nations legal capacity, and to give to its officials and the representatives of Member States, the privileges and immunities they need for what the Charter calls the independent exercise of their functions." We shall perhaps need legislation for that. In pursuance of a mandate contained in paragraph 3 of Article 105, the recent Assembly, in fact, drew up a convention on that question. It had not been fully completed when this Bill was introduced in another place; but, in due course, our adherence to this Convention may involve some small Amendments to the existing Diplomatic Privileges Act, and I may have to come back to the House for that.

Under Article 43 of the Charter, the Security Council is to negotiate agreements with Member States about the Armed Forces and the military facilities which each of the Member States will contribute to the United Nations for the purpose of preventing or suppressing aggression. We shall perhaps find, when the Security Council has done its work, that another Bill is needed for that purpose; but at present they are only taking the first preliminary steps.

Again, a number of existing Acts of Parliament contain Sections which apply their provisions to the territories that are now administered by His Majesty's Government under mandates from the League of Nations. When the new trusteeship agreements have been drawn up, we shall no doubt need legislation which will enable us to apply those same provisions to territories which will in future be administered by His Majesty as a trustee of the United Nations. But at the moment there is only one article in the Charter for the execution of which His Majesty's Government need new powers from Parliament at once. That is Article 41, under which the Security Council can call on members of the United Nations to take measures "not involving the use of armed force "to" give effect to its decisions." This Article is part of Chapter 7 of the Charter, which deals in general with the action which shall be taken in respect of threats to peace, breaches of the peace, acts of aggression, and so on.

Under Article 41, the Government must carry out a decision by the Security Council to take measures, not involving the use of armed force; and the Article specifies that those measures may include a partial or a complete interruption of all economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic and radio communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations. Under the Charter the Government have that obligation; but, as the law now stands, they have no powers to impose on British nationals the duty to comply with such a decision of the Security Council. Hence this Bill, and the main part of this Bill—Clause 1, Subsection (1)—provides that if the Council calls for such measures, then the Government may, by Order in Council, impose on all their nationals the obligation to carry out the measures prescribed.

It further provides, as is plainly necessary, that persons who offend against such an Order in Council, who violate the decisions of the Security Council, and fail to do what the Government demand, may be arrested, tried and punished by the courts.

Subsection (2) of Clause 1 defines the territories to which such Orders in Council may apply. Those territories do not of course include the self-governing Dominions or India, which are separate members of the United Nations. Nor do they include other territories governed by a Dominion; nor do they include Burma or Southern Rhodesia, for the reason that the Governments of those territories possess, or will possess, the necessary local legislative power to take the steps needed to carry out a decision of the Security Council when they are asked to do so by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. The territories to which the Bill does apply, and to which any Order in Council would almost certainly apply, include the rest of the British Empire for which, under the Charter, the Government of the United Kingdom are responsible. They include territories held by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom under mandate from the League of Nations or which will be held in the future under trusteeship from the United Nations.

There are, however, some British protected States for which Parliament has no power, or only a limited power to legislate. Those include the Arab States along the Persian Gulf and Tonga. In those places, therefore, as with Burma and Southern Rhodesia, the matter must be taken up with the local governments so that they, too, may be able to answer any call by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom for the fulfilment of Article 41. It may not, in fact, be necessary to extend the Orders in Council to all the Colonies and territories to which they are capable of extension under the Subsection, but I think in general that will be done. If, and when, some of the local governments obtain the necessary powers to deal with a matter by local legislation, it may be found preferable to let them deal with the matter by local measures rather than by extending the United Kingdom Order in Council to them.

Those are the two substantial provisions in the Bill. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 speaks for itself, so does Subsection (5). Subsection (4) provides that Orders in Council shall be forthwith laid before Parliament, but it excludes the application of a provision in the Rules Publication Act requiring publication in the "London Gazette" of notice of the proposal to make the Order in Council for 4o days before the Order is made. It is evident that that must be so, because, if we are to take action at all in pursuance of a decision by the Security Council, it must be taken with the least possible delay. Therefore, any such notice of 40 days would be really out of the question.

This is a very short Bill and I have explained it as shortly as I can. But it is not an unimportant Bill. The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to play its part in the vitally important measures provided in Article 41 for keeping the peace. Happily, we have no reason at present less this morning, perhaps, even than we might have thought a little while ago for thinking that measures of this kind will be required in any early future. But it is the case that after the last war there were, in the first five years, a number of clashes between Governments, a number of incipient wars which might have become wars but for action taken by the League of Nations then. It is plain that such clashes may again occur, and they may be more serious than they were after the last war. Therefore, we must be ready to play our part. This Bill will make us ready. It deals with economic and diplomatic measures, with the rupture of economic relations and of all means of communication; but such methods may in many situations be quite decisive for keeping the peace and, as we advance with the preparation of the plans required under Article 26 for the regulation of armaments, so I believe will the importance of such economic and diplomatic measures continually increase. It is for those reasons that I commend this Bill to the unanimous acceptance of the House.

11.15 a.m.

On behalf of my hon. Friends on this side of the House I cordially welcome this Bill. Its purpose, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State has explained to us so clearly, is to enable His Majesty to give effect by Orders in Council to decisions reached by the Security Council of the United Nations. It is limited to Article 41 of the Charter of the United Nations, that is, to what may be called non-military sanctions. The reason for that limitation, as I understand it, is that, so far as can now be foreseen with accuracy, this is the only domestic legislation which is now necessary in order to enable this country to fulfil all its obligations under the Charter. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that as matters develop it may be necessary for the Government to come to the House at a later stage with other legislative proposals in order to complete the structure. In so far as legislation of that sort may be necessary, the right hon. Gentleman can rely on the cooperation of hon. Members on this side of the House. In the meantime, as we are now limited to this question of non-military sanctions, I think there will be no division of opinion in this House as to the necessity for this Bill. It is a little interesting to reflect that though the United Nations is a new organisation, there does exist in our ancient and flexible Constitution a ready and effective means for giving effect to these novel obligations. The procedure by way of Order in Council under this Bill when it becomes an Act possesses the necessary combination of speed and authority to enable instant effect to be given to these international obligations to which we are pledged.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman only one question about this Bill, as a matter of interest. How many other States of the United Nations have passed or are passing legislation similar to this Bill? I should not be dismayed, nor would my attitude towards this Bill be affected, if I were told that the answer was "None." I think we have some right to claim the proud title of pioneers in this domain of human affairs. The British people have, as a matter of fact and not only of theory, devised a polity in the British Commonwealth of Nations wherein the nations can live at peace with each other, and render each other powerful and effective aid for a common purpose. Indeed, I rather hope that we in the United Kingdom are the first of the United Nations to pass a Bill of this scope. Such a priority would, in my judgment, he in accordance with our traditions.

11.18 a.m.

I should also like to offer support to this Bill, because it gives effect to the principle of collective action for maintaining the peace, which is laid down throughout the United Nations Charter. Now, the history of economic sanctions in the League of Nations is not altogether a happy one, but that is not to say that economic sanctions themselves are at fault. The reason is, surely, to be found in the lack of power of the League of Nations, as compared with what we hope will be the power of the United Nations. The whole question depends on the strength of the organisation behind the sanctions, and if the United Nations organisation can produce the strength and the collective action that the League failed to produce, I believe economic sanctions can play a very considerable part in maintaining the peace.

During the war we saw a demonstration of both the strength and the weakness of the economic weapon in diplomacy, and I think that that demonstration should be an object lesson to all of us today. In the early part of the war, while Germany was in a position to send supplies—of coal, for instance—to the neutrals, or alternatively, to take strong measures against them by other means, economic threats and sanctions from this country were of little avail in altering the policy of the neutral countries; but as Germany's power to supply those neutrals waned and deteriorated as a result of our operations, the neutrals became far more susceptible to our economic pressure. This, I think, shows the very considerable, indeed, the vital importance of economic sanctions being universally applied. There should be no back door through which a would be aggressor can obtain the supplies which we, the United Nations, are seeking to deny him through the front door. It is for that reason that I hope, most sincerely, we shall have a satisfactory answer to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) about what other nations are passing legislation of this kind.

I have one further point. Article 41 of the Charter envisages, amongst other things, diplomatic action—the severance of diplomatic relations. I really hope that the House of Commons is not to be asked to spend an awful lot of time or money on this policy of "bark and no bite." I am no great believer in the severing of diplomatic relations as a weapon of offence, or defence. We have seen all too clearly the appallingly putrid results of the policy of the Government of the United States of America in the Argentine. What have they achieved by severing diplomatic relations? What, for that matter, have the Russians achieved by severing diplomatic relations with Spain? I believe that it is true of nations, as is often said of men, that the way to their hearts is through their stomachs; and I think that if we can apply and maintain effective economic sanctions against any would-be aggressors, we shall deny them the means with which to wage war. This Bill seems to me to offer the means partly, at any rate, of ensuring the denial of the potential of aggression, and it is for this reason that I hope it will receive a Second Reading.

11.24 a.m.

The Minister of State said this was an important Bill. It certainly is important, and I hope the House fully appreciates the degree of its importance. We are, in fact, sacrificing a portion of the machinery of our sovereignty in passing this Bill. I should like to direct the attention of the House to the words in Clause 1 (1): His Majesty may by Order in Council make such provision as appears to Him necessary or expedient for enabling those measures to be effectively applied … The word "may" in a Bill is a mandatory word and not a permissive word. We shall be compelled, on passing this Bill, to acquiesce in the decisions of the Security Council. I join with my right hon. Friend, the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison), in asking the Minister of State what other countries are now contemplating the passage of a Bill of this nature. We took many steps before the war to play a vital part in the working of the League of Nations which were not taken by other countries and though I do think, as my right hon. Friend said, that we should not eschew the pioneering spirit today, we want to feel that we are followed, and followed closely by other members of the United Nations in any sacrifice of sovereign rights. There now only remains the veto in the Security Council to defend the sovereign rights of this country in what it may be called upon to do in regard to the making of war, the preparation for war, or, as in Article 41 of the Charter, with which we are here concerned, the imposition of diplomatic and economic sanctions. It is very important that the House should appreciate to the full that we are gearing ourselves fully to the United Nations Security Council in advance of any other country in the world, and that there is left only that single right of the veto, provided for in the Security Council, before our sovereignty and absolute rights of saying what action, diplomatic, economic or military, we shall take are transcended altogether.

I would like to ask the Minister a question about Subsection (3), in which it will be seen that Burma is mentioned among those countries which are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Has Burma already achieved that degree of independence in which we can be justified in excluding her from the provisions of this Bill? It seems a little unfair to some of our major Colonies who have fought with us during the war. Although such Colonies do not possess the type of constitution which enables them to claim sovereignty of their own, they at any rate survived against the enemy, whereas Burma has been over run. A new administrative machine has only recently been introduced into Burma. It would seem to be derogatory to the status of our older Colonies to put Burma in advance of them in deciding for herself what she is to do.

I should also like the Minister to say a word on Subsection (4), where provision is made to place before Parliament every Order in Council made under this Clause. What does that mean? Has Parliament the right to amend or abolish an Order in Council made in response to a request of the Security Council? Surely, in all matters affecting the prosecution of war or the declaration of peace, Parliament is not concerned. There seems to be some interference here with the prerogative of His Majesty. Is it possible to move an Amendment or to address a Prayer or is this merely a formality? I do not understand the position, and I should be grateful if the Minister of State would tell us. In conclusion, I would say that I do not differ from the judgment of the House in this matter, but I think that we have to realise the degree to which we are forgoing our sovereignty. On the other hand, we have moved a long way since that period before the war when we were, as was almost every other nation of the world, too conscious of sovereignty and rights. The spirit and intention of this Bill is compatible with the general sentiments of the country at the present time, and, therefore, I give it my wholehearted support.

11.30 a.m.

It must be evident to all Members, and to the country generally, that, in these adventurous days, if this new experiment of the United Nations organisation is to proceed, it will call for some monetary obligation from this country. I take it that this morning we are endorsing that policy, and are expressing our willingness to pay out. I recognise, with the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), that we are giving up some of our sovereignty, but that is inevitable in the world situation, and in the new experience with which we are confronted.

There is no simple explanation for the causes of war. We on these Benches have long believed that much of the trouble in the world has arisen through economic causes, and through the conditions of starvation, distress and inadequacy of the means of life, and it is because of this that we pay so much attention to economic aspects. That, of course, is not the whole story in explaining the causes of war, but, if it is true, the importance of this Bill becomes evident. We on these Benches believe not so much upon the negative aspects envisaged in the provisions of this Bill, but pin our faith on positive aspects. Any Measure which will obviate the physical violence of war commends itself to men of good sense and good faith, but we believe, in avoiding distress, misunderstanding and the physical violence which leads to so much maladjustment in the world, that we should look more to the positive side. In my view, I put greater faith in the setting up of the International World Conference which will deal with economic problems and take account of transport, communications of all kinds, and currency problems. I hope, in passing this Bill, that we shall not overlook the fact that it is the positive aspects we must develop. It will be a most difficult matter for this country to undertake, and it will mean giving up some small measure of sovereignty. I am convinced, if the peace of the world is to be conserved, that great risks have to be taken. We have to chance our hand, otherwise all civilised values may be lost for all time. Therefore, on these grounds, and with these qualifications, I welcome the Bill.

11.34 a.m.

In adding my welcome to this Bill, I should like to comment very briefly on some of the remarks which have been made about sovereignty by the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). Speaking with all diffidence, I suggest that it is not accurate to say that by passing this Bill we are forgoing any part of our sovereignty, because what this House has passed can be repealed. All we are doing is to say that in certain circumstances we are undertaking to apply certain measures, but if other countries do not follow our example, it is open to us this week, next year or at any time to repeal the Measure. But apart from that rather narrow juridical point, I think it would be most unfortunate if this Bill were passed through this House without some remarks being made on the Noble Lord's comments about the veto. It seems to me that if we say that we will pass this Bill and accept its policy, but we only do so on the understanding that we can apply the veto, we should prevent the whole policy from coming into effect. We are, in fact, inviting the great majority of the members of the United Nations organisation who have no power of applying the veto to hesitate to apply to their own countries such legislation as we are today putting into force here.

I believe, and I think that most hon. Members on these benches believe, that some measure of sovereignty will have to be forgone, in order to make the United Nations organisation effective, and speaking for myself I shall welcome any measure of abnegation of sovereignty that is necessary for that purpose. I only wish to say this morning I do not believe we are forgoing any sovereignty by passing this Bill, and I hope that we are passing it without any reservation that we are only doing so because, as one of the five Great Powers, we have the power of veto.

11.36 a.m.

I am glad to have the opportunity of intervening in this Debate not because I have much knowledge of the subject—though in my experience that is not a necessity when discussing matters in this House—but because I wish to offer some remarks on the subject of national sovereignty. National sovereignty is a principle we have upheld in the past; but if we are to build up the machinery of the United Nations, then our position in relation to sovereignty must change. If we want to live in harmony with other nations and if we believe that that harmony cannot exist unless we come to some international understanding then, of necessity, to be logical, we must be prepared to mitigate or reduce our sovereignty. If we are now attempting, not to build up national sovereignty, if the new idea is to build up international sovereignty—an international power which we are prepared to recognise—then, of necessity, we must pass this small Bill. We cannot obtain the bigger object unless we are prepared to accept the smaller one, which is to deal with the question of economic sanctions and other methods at our disposal, as part of an international body, to prevent friction between nations in the future and, in case of necessity, to consider whether we can, by educational means, prevent friction from arising. This Bill deals with the question of peaceful means but, at the same time, there may have to be very powerful methods to obtain the object at which we are aiming. It may be true that you can get to men's hearts and to nations' hearts through their stomachs, and it maybe necessary to quell the aspirations of a nation by economic sanctions which hurt their stomachs, until you can, by some influence, turn their minds towards ways and means of obtaining their national hopes by other means than friction. To do that you have to use the educational machinery as much as possible. Therefore, I have pleasure in associating myself, as we all do, I think, in this country and in this House, with the idea of passing this preliminary Measure in order to get on with the job of establishing, not national sovereignty but a sovereignty which will hold good throughout the world. Unless we can establish that there is no possibility of obtaining the peace about which we are all so anxious.

11.38 a.m.

I am sure that the House and the country will be gratified with the reception which this Bill has had this morning. I could speak at length on the fundamental questions raised by some hon. Members, but I shall endeavour to answer their points as briefly as I can, as I know the House is anxoius to proceed to other Business which is, perhaps, more controversial.

I was asked by the Noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) about Clause 1 (4) concerning Orders in Council. I understand that the Orders must be laid. That does not mean that Parliament has the power to revoke or amend the Orders, but it does mean that it can see in detail what are the Measures proposed, and hon. Members can ask questions and have a discussion on the matter, and make certain that the order really carries out what is intended. The purpose of Subsection (4) is to avoid the necessity of giving 40 days' notice which, but for that, would be required under the Rules and Publications Act, 1893. With regard to Burma, the obligations of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom extend to Burma. We are responsible to the United Nations for carrying out Article 41 in respect of Burma, but that does not necessarily mean that we must legislate. On the contrary, it is open to us to leave the legislation to the Government of Burma. In fact at the moment the Government of Burma already have the power to carry through the legislation required to fulfil Article 41; therefore, it was thought better to leave it to them to do so.

Can we secure that that legislation is enacted by Burma?

That is the best arrangement that can be made and the most satisfactory to all concerned, and I hope that it will be effective. I think that it was the Noble Lord, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. Wells), who raised the question of the sacrifice of sovereignty. It is the Charter which imposed on us the sacrifice of sovereignty, if such it can be called. I would like to assure the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay), who also spoke on this subject, that the whole purpose of the Charter and of the implications which the Charter sets up is to ensure a progressive merging of sovereignty. We want to merge sovereignty and it is as we get international authorities, with greater power and greater prestige and greater certainty to ensure the collective decisions taken by mankind that we shall establish a mechanism for lasting peace such as we all recognise to be absolutely essential. I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester (Mr. W. S. Morrison) whether we were the only people so far who have passed such a Bill as this. I think that it may be proved that technically the answer is "Yes." That does not mean that we are the only people who are hound. In a number of countries the parliamentary ratification of the Charter gives the Government of that country the power to carry out the provisions of the Charter and no legislation is required. I think there are nearly fifty countries which have ratified, so we may assume that a good many countries are, in fact, already able to take the action required. I cannot speak with any great certainty about the United States. They have passed a Bill to implement their obligations under the Charter and I rather think it includes Article 41, but I would not like to dogmatise because the American Constitution is one of such complexity. Nevertheless I have not the slightest doubt that they will take such measures, if they have not taken them already, to make effective their obligations under the Charter. I agree with the right hon. Member for Cirencester that we should not be dismayed if, in fact, no other nation had taken such action as we are taking. We want to be pioneers; I hope we are and shall remain leaders in all affairs connected with the United Nations.

The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Nutting) spoke of the sad history of economic sanctions under the League. In some ways, like much else in the history of the League, and certainly like the history of military sanctions, a great deal that happened was truly sad. But we can exaggerate the failure of its economic sanctions. In fact they were only used or threatened twice. In 1922, when Yugoslavia committed an aggression against its tiny neighbour, Albania, and its armies had almost reached the sea, the Prime Minister of this country, Mr. Lloyd George, summoned the Council of the League of Nations to consider the matter and sent a telegram to the Secretary General implying that economic sanctions would be imposed if Yugoslavia did not desist. I happened to be in Belgrade when that telegram was published, and I do not forget the effect it produced. The dinar fell by 5o points in half an hour, and 5o points was quite a lot. Its downward career continued until the matter was satisfactorily settled by the withdrawal of the Yugoslav armies from Albanian territory under the supervision of a Commission of the League of Nations. It was a hundred per cent. success.

The only other time that economic sanctions were attempted was against Italy in respect of the invasion of Abyssinia in 1935. It would be a bold man who would say that the economic measures which were taken then had wholly failed. They were kept on for only nine months but during that time they produced a marked pressure on the Italian Government. Of course, they were far from being complete. By decision of the Assembly—a decision which I think should have been bolder and more comprehensive—they included only certain measures of economic pressure, but in the end the Fascist Government was undoubtedly feeling very greatly the strain which those limited sanctions had imposed.

Would it not be risking the whole cause we have at heart, to claim that it had any measure of success other than that of strengthening the Fascist Government in office?

I studied the matter very carefully at the time and since, and it is all on record in the publications of the Institute of International Affairs. I venture to think my interpretation is right, and I regret, as I think the hon. Member will regret, that economic sanctions were taken off in July, 1936. Of course, I do not want to say that they produced all the effect that we desired. Of course they did not prevent the conquest of Abyssinia. I think we all agree that much stronger action should have been taken, and if it had been we might not have had the recent war. But within the limits of what was done a certain pressure was produced, and I, therefore, think—with the hon. Member for Melton—that economic sanctions can be effective, provided they are widely continued and universally applied. We must have no back doors for escape; and in the United Nations I hope and I trust there will be none. I think the spirit of the United Nations, as so far shown, is plainly in favour of making this new machine far more effective than that of the League of Nations, and certainly His Majesty's Government will spare no effort to ensure that that is so.

I would not agree that we have always in the past gone forward and have not been followed by other peoples, but I will not go over that subject again. The hon. Member for Melton spoke of the inefficacy of the severance of diplomatic relations. If he meant by that, the severance by one or two or a few Governments for purposes of bringing pressure on another Government, I agree that, usually, that has been a total failure, and sometimes worse. But I think that is very different from the collective severance which is envisaged by Article 41. I think that if the United Nations were considering a dispute, and one of the parties proceeded to take measures which looked like aggression, and then all the other Members simultaneously withdrew their missions from its capital, that would be a very solemn warning indeed. Some people think it might have produced a great effect in Tokyo in 1931. That view was commonly advanced at the time, and Lord Lytton, who was head of the Commission that went there, used to say that it might in itself have sufficed to warn the Japanese that they should stop. But I certainly would never say that the severance of diplomatic relations was a good or satisfactory measure, or one that it was worth while to take, unless the Governments also intended to do more if more was needed. Of course that must be so, and I hope that we shall, all of us, agree to pass this Bill, including the provision for the severance of diplomatic relations, with the determination that, if the preliminary warnings of the United Nations are not heeded, then we shall not shirk the issue that is so presented, but that on the contrary we shall carry through whatever collective action is needed to bring the aggression to an end.

One word about what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. Davies). The Government, and in particular my right hon. Friend, agree with him that the constructive side of the work of the United Nations is a vital part of the plans for preventing war. We agree that everything which can be done to build up international cooperation in respect of transport, economic relations, currency problems, public health and many other matters, will help to create an inter-governmental machine by which the nations will be persuaded that the policy of seeking lasting peace is possible and worth while. We shall certainly press on with that. I think the United Nations have made a pretty good beginning in the short time in which the organism has been in existence. But I feel —and I think my hon. Friends will agree —that the positive side, by itself, is not enough. We must also have effective machinery to stop aggression, and this Bill is the first modest step towards that end.

With regard to my right hon. Friend's question about other nations carrying legislation into effect, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was not aware of what other nations were doing. Will he give an undertaking to the House that he will keep a very close watch on that particular matter?

I certainly will, and if the hon. Member puts down a Question I will try to tell him how many countries have already made their ratification. I shall certainly watch legislation by other countries, and if it does not go sufficiently rapidly it will be open to His Majesty's Government to raise the matter at the next Assembly. I think I can give an undertaking that that will be done.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday next.—[ Captain Michael Stewart. ]

I beg to move, That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, I935, by the Governor of Burma on 10th December, 1942, a copy of which Proclamation was presented on 9th February, 1943 As the House is aware, Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act empowers the Governor, if he is satisfied that a situation has arisen in which it is not possible, to carry on the government of Burma, to issue a proclamation, firstly, declaring that all of his functions may be exercised by him in his discretion, and, secondly, assuming to himself all or any of the powers exercisable by or vested in any authority or body in Burma. The Section also provides that any such proclamation is to have a maximum life of only three years. Such a proclamation was, in fact, issued by the Governor in December, 1942, and was therefore due to expire in December, 1945. Subsequently, Parliament passed the Government of Burma (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1945, extending the life of this proclamation for a further three years, that is, until December, 1948. The passing of this Act did not, however, affect the requirement or the stipulation that is contained in Section 139 of the 1935 Act that any such proclamation requires renewal by Parliament, first, after the expiration of six months from the issuing of the proclamation, and thereafter at intervals of a year. The proclamation therefore expires, unless renewed by Resolutions of both Houses, on 9th June.

The second proclamation under consideration is that issued by the Governor on 17th October last, the day after he returned to Rangoon. This proclamation provides for the constitution of an Executive Council of not more than 15 members and a Legislative Counci. of not more than 50 members. Both these councils have, in fact, been established. Under Section 139 of the 1935 Act, to which I have just referred, the second proclamation will expire on 16th April, unless renewed by Resolution of both Houses. If so renewed, it will then continue in force for a further year.

In asking the House to approve the further continuance of both these proclamations, I should like to take the opportunity to survey the general situation in Burma, both political and economic. As the House knows, it is the declared policy of His Majesty's Government to promote full self-government 'n Burma. If I may quote from the White Paper: It is and has consistently been our aim to assist her political development until she can sustain the responsibilities of complete self-government within the British Commonwealth, and consequently attain a status equal to that of the Dominions and of this country. There may, perhaps, be said to be two phases of this development towards the goal set out in the White Paper. The first phase is the holding of a general election as soon as possible and the establishment of a ministerial Government. Unfortunately, it has not been found possible to proceed upon the basis of the prewar franchise, which was established by the provisions of the 1935 Act. The main basis of this franchise was the payment of the Thathameda Household Tax in North Burma, and the payment of what is called the Capitation Tax in Southern Burma. Both of these taxes were abolished in 1941. Assessment to these taxes was, in fact, the criterion for enfranchisement for a great proportion of the then electorate.

Shortly after the Governor returned to Burma, he appointed a franchise committee of three members of his Executive Council and one non-official, to whom he referred the question of the basis of the new franchise. This sub-committee reported in February, but in order to ensure that Burmese public opinion was given the fullest possible opportunity available in the circumstances of expressing itself on this question, the Governor then referred the matter for consideration by the Legislative Council. On 19th March, the Legislative Council adopted a recommendation that the basis should be universal suffrage for both sexes at 21, with the exception of Buddhist monks and nuns who were apparently to be disqualified from voting. These recommendations are now being urgently considered by the Governor and I am expecting to receive his formal proposals at a very early date.

When these proposals have been received and considered by His Majesty's Government, a Bill amending the 1935 Act will be introduced into this House and everything possible will be done to ensure that the Bill becomes law during the present session. The House will, of course, appreciate that none of the preparations of the new electoral rolls can be put in hand until the Bill has, in fact, been passed by Parliament. Moreover, the actual preparation of the rolls may take a good many months, especially in view of the present conditions in Burma and the greatly increased electorate. It is estimated that, whereas the electorate was approximately 3,000,000 before the war, under the new proposals it will amount to something like 7,000,000 persons. It is, however, the firm intention of His Majesty's Government and of the Governor that the preparation of these rolls, as soon as the Bill has been passed, shall be pressed on with all possible speed. If all goes well, it is hoped that a Legislature will have been elected and a Ministry formed before June of next year. I should not like this to be taken as a firm guarantee, but it is certainly our hope and expectation.

Following the election, and the establishment of a ministerial Government, the second phase in the constitutional development will begin, during which the ground will be prepared for the attainment of full self-government. It is the intention of His Majesty's Government that the representatives of the Burmese people, after reaching a sufficient measure of agreement between the various parties and sections, should themselves draw up a constitution of a type which they themselves consider most suitable for Burma. What the machinery for this would be, will be a matter of discussion and agreement with representative Burmans. A similar process would be necessary for a discussion of the content of the agreements to be made with His Majesty's Government on matters on which the latter would have continuing obligations after the estab- lishment of full self-government in Burma.

There is certainly no difference between the Burmese people and ourselves on the question of full self-government for their country with a status equal to that enjoyed by our own country. I desire to make it plain that His Majesty's Government regard the setting up of a constitution-making body as a matter of the greatest urgency. But, of course, such a body cannot be set up until after the holding of the general election and the formation of the ministerial Government next year. Burma has, however, been twice fought over and suffered great material destruction. During the transition towards complete self-government, she will be passing through a difficult time. No greater disservice could be done to a future Burmese Government, and to the cause of democracy than to permit anything which would hamper the rebuilding of the country His Majesty's Government, therefore, through the Governor, cannot divest themselves of the responsibility which rests upon them of preserving law and order and of resisting any attempt to resolve the constitutional issue by force. The realisation of full self-government must come by the orderly and peaceful transfer of control of the machinery of state to purely Burman authority, and His Majesty's Government will not tolerate any attempt to call the future Constitution of Burma into being by force or threat by force.

As I have just indicated, Burma has been twice fought over and suffered considerable material destruction. Rangoon has been badly damaged as have many other centres of population; some of them have, indeed, been entirely destroyed. Rail and road communications have suffered severely and there is a dearth of sufficient rivercraft, a matter of considerable importance in Southern Burma. Serious problems of accommodation exist, especially in Rangoon. Scarcities exist in many classes of essential goods, for example, clothing, footwear, and cooking ware. There has consequently been a marked rise in prices, but following increased supplies there has been a steep fall in prices recently. During the brief period of military administration, the civil affairs service did much to improve communications and to get the port of Rangoon going again, but the main burden of reconstruction has necessarily to be borne by the civil government, which, it must be remembered, returned only just over five months ago. I should like to take this opportunity of stating that His Majesty's Government are following closely, and with admiration, the way in which the civil servants in Burma, both Burman and European, are meeting the challenge presented by the need to restore the administration of the devastated country, in spite of circumstances of great difficulty and personal discomfort. I should like to pay special tribute to the police force, which is having a very difficult time at present. It is no use trying to underrate the existence of a considerable degree of insecurity, especially outside the towns. There has been considerable dacoity, and the police forces have had to be built up almost from the beginning during a period of just over five months. Although steps are being taken to recruit both Burmans and Europeans to the police force, and also to transfer Army officers temporarily for police duties, there is no doubt that they are strained at the moment and have carried out their duties with great devotion.

The main preoccupation has been to get the vital agricultural industry started again. and, next to that, the timber industry. This has involved measures being put in hand for the improvement of transport. In addition to the transport which is being handed over by the military, large quantities of mechanical transport are being secured from the United Kingdom. Orders have also been placed for railway rolling stock, substantial quantities of which should be shipped from India beginning this month. Substantial progress has, therefore, been made, although much still remains to be done.

Rice cultivation during the Japanese occupation had fallen from 13,000,000 acres to between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 acres. Rice is the premier industry in Burma and, therefore, of vital importance to her economy. Steps are being taken to concert measures to restore the full production of rice, and although this will obviously take time, it is hoped to increase the acreage this year by a further 2,000,000. Provision is to be made for adequate transport to move stocks and machinery in order to process them. Over £1,000,000 has been provided for repayable loans to cultivators during the present sowing season. An acreage subsidy of close on £2,000,000 has been approved with the object of encouraging the cultivators to cultivate land which is now lying fallow.

One of the great difficulties which confronted the authorities in Burma is the question of consumer goods. It is obvious that the greatest encouragement that can be given to the cultivator to extend his cultivation will be an increasing supply of consumer goods, of which perhaps cotton textiles form the most important element. A considerable amount of consumer goods, including a good many million yards of cloth, have already been got into the country, and now that it has been possible to remove very largely the restrictions on imports, we can look forward to a rapidly increasing flow of such goods, although I am afraid they may not be as plentiful as we would like them to be by the beginning of the next cultivating season in May.

We recovered Burma, not as a going concern, but as a bankrupt country, and although we may confidently hope that there will from now on be a steady growth of revenue, a restoration of the former prosperous financial conditions must inevitably take time. In addition to the necessary recurring expenditure, there is also a very heavy capital expenditure on the reconstruction of communications, buildings, and so on. In order to meet this very heavy capital expenditure which must be incurred on the rehabilitation of the country, and to meet the deficits in the recurring expenditure, which must be anticipated at least in the first two years, His Majesty's Government have agreed to finance programmes approved by the Treasury by way of an interest-free loan for the two years 1945–6 and 1946–7 up to a possible total of about £80 million with no fixed date of repayment, and the sum of £30 million is being provided in the estimates for the present financial year. It is hoped that a considerable part of the money so advanced will be recoverable by the sale of consumer goods to the public and by the transfer at a valuation to the various public utilities and industries of the assets which have been acquired through the loan. I think it can be claimed that considerable progress is being made in the rehabilitation of Burma's economy. But undoubtedly much remains to be done. The people of Burma themselves have a vital part to play in the reconstruction of their country and it is the desire of His Majesty's Government to afford them every possible assistance in this great task.

12.16 p.m.

I am sure that we on this side of the House welcome an opportunity for having a short discussion on Burma. There is no part of the Commonwealth which has been more trampled by a brutal enemy than has Burma, trampled backwards and forwards, and we quite understand the reasons which have promoted the Government in making a request today, which we readily grant, for a little more time before Burma can proceed along that path on which we are all agreed she should eventually progress. I feel confident that the House will be grateful to the hon. and learned Member for his clear exposition of the present position in Burma. I will first follow him in what he has said about conditions in Burma, and then follow him shortly about what he has said regarding political development. We feel confident that the resilience of the Burmese character will enable the Burmans to rise above their present misfortunes. The Burmese character may be described in the one word "gay." I know from experience how much one has enjoyed visits to Burma and participated in the brilliance and gaiety of the life in Burma. It is a sad thing that so green and pleasant a land should have been submitted to such terrible ravages, but we are convinced that the Burmese character, which has shown itself responsible in operating the reforms initiated by the 1935 Act, will rise above the terrible conditions which prevail at the present time.

I would like to support what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about the services rendered by the various services in Burma. I refer to the services, both European and Burmese, since the services, as described in the White Paper, have to a large extent been Burmanised. I refer particularly to the police who, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, have had an exceptionally difficult task. It was the case, I think, that no less than 40,000 modern firearms were left behind after the Japanese occupation. This would have been a difficult problem in any country, but particularly in Burma. I understand that large bands of dacoits were formed, and have been enjoying the use of those weapons which had been left behind. Now, thanks to rigorous administration, some 30,000 arms have been recovered, and most of the dacoit gangs have been dispersed. If the hon. and learned Gentleman can give us more information in the course of this Debate, I hope he will confirm or deny these observations. It is of the utmost importance that the whole of the available firearms should be collected, and law and order, with the aid of the police, restored as soon as possible.

The services themselves have had a gruelling time. I remember meeting a man who is at present Chief Secretary, who had walked over the frontier, at a critical time in Burmese history, with British arms, which were at that time being rolled back. I am glad to think that he and his colleagues, and many others, too, have returned to the land they love. I have always found that those who have once served Burma feel that they must go back. That is the case with many of us who have visited Burma, because it is a land which anyone who has been to it must always love. The conditions in Burma were truly described by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I cannot add very much, nor would it be my place to do so. If he is saying anything further, I should like to hear more about the rice crop. I understand that the rice crop is not now in a position even to meet the needs of the country. It is when we consider the recent Debates on food, and the anxieties we all feel, that we should like to know more about the necessary labour which will be required for the rice crop. Will it be the case in future, for example, that the Burmese themselves will be able to sow the crop, and will depend on outside labour, as they have done for so many years, only for the actual harvesting of the crop. If so, that would mean a reduced demand upon the labour which has, through the years, come from India for the purpose of working in the paddy fields.

On the question of transport, I am informed that there were nearly 250 main line locomotives before the war and that these have been reduced to something like 5o. That must have a devastating effect on the transport system. I understand that only one-third of the wagon stock and practically all the carriage stock which formerly existed on the railways, has been destroyed. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the inland steamers. Many of these were sunk in a patriotic manner by their owners when the Japanese menace became a reality. As Burma depends so much on inland methods of water transport, I trust that steps are being taken to try to repair the ravages created, partly by the patriotism of those who owned the vessels and partly by the results of the war. It appears to us who have studied this matter that those who have been responsible for the administration have set about the measures of reconstruction with great ability. Some 800 miles of line were open by last December, and the remaining 1,200 miles may be opened we understand, quite shortly. I understand that a road transport agency has been set up, and that the Government have done their best to get transport going again.

The hon. and learned Gentleman very rightly referred to the great shortage of consumer goods. Burma is probably as short of commodities as any country in the world at the present time. He also referred to the generous offer made by His Majesty's Government of an interest-free loan which is to be repaid in due course, but without a date being given. In the face of this condition, the generalisation with which I can sum up my observations is that anything the Government say about the date for political development must be accepted, in view of the serious conditions which prevail in the country. Those concerned, whether Bur-mans or Europeans, must above all not be academic but practical. The second lesson I would draw from this sombre picture is that we are "all in" together.

" All-in "insurance is a popular phrase at the present time, and in Burma British companies, the British Government, the administrators there and the Burmans themselves, are certainly all in together.

There is a disposition in Burma, where the arts of democracy appear to flourish almost as much as the green verdure of their land, to hurry ahead before the practical task of reconstruction has been fully carried out. There is also a desire among responsible Burmans to take a greater part in the economic life of their country than they have done hitherto. The White Paper uses very definite language on the subject of the part the Burmans have hitherto played in the economic life of their country, and paragraph10 says: A striking feature of Burma's economic life was the small part taken by the Burmese themselves in industries other than agriculture. Indians had a great financial stake in the country, followed by the British; and Indians provided the bulk of the manual labour in industry. Then it goes on to describe the various predominating operations of capital; for example, that provided for industry and the extraction of timber by British capital and British firms, while the Chinese only amounted to small traders. The White Paper, very rightly, goes on to remind us that the fact that Burmans participated to only a very limited extent in these matters was a source of dissatisfaction to politically-minded Burmans. They were also worried about the problems of Indian and Chinese immigration.

I would certainly echo the sentiments of the White Paper. It has been a remarkable fact how little, so far, the Bur-mans have taken part in the economic development of their own country, and I feel sure that they will agree that an all-in policy is essential at the present time and that it should give them the experience necessary to enable them to help, and that they should, at the same time, if Great Britain is really to be of assistance to them, recognise that British capital and British endeavour have still a part to play in restoring their country. If both sides realise these facts, I would anticipate that it should be possible for the hitherto latent talent of the Burmans in economic matters to be developed and for it to take a proper part in the industry and commerce of their own country. If that were to happen, their development would have an important bearing not only upon the Burmans, but on the whole country as well.

I have not many questions to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman about the present situation in regard to British companies. I understand that there is a great deal of control in Burma, which is no doubt agreeable to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House and is understandable on this side. Without the control of imports and the carrying of them into the hinterland, it would be impossible, with the breakdown of the present economic position, to restore the country, but we hope that, in due course, these controls will be relaxed and opportunities given to these companies to play their part, and that those other institutions which have helped Burma in the past will have the opportunity to help her again. I also hope that an opportunity will be given to associate Burmans themselves in the economic development of their country.

Before I come to the question of political development, I want to say a word on education. I understand that a plan has been worked out, which must depend, of course, for its strength and validity upon the ultimate responsible Government of Burma, for the development of the education services. I think there is nothing more important than the adult franchise, which operates well in this country and in any country where the education services are good, and I feel that when the full effects of the new Education Act are felt in this country, a very different result will occur in our political life. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will give every encouragement to any initiative which might be taken in regard to education in Burma. I should also like to ask, as members of my family have been associated with it, about the future of the university. I hope it has been started again, despite all the difficulties. Rangoon has been very proud of its university, just as she has always been proud of her harbour and port, and the Burmans no doubt wish to see their university again playing a useful part in the development of the country.

On the subject of political development, we on this side of the House, adhere also to that paragraph in the White Paper which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted—the statement of policy on page 9. The sincerity of the intentions of all of us in this country towards Burma is quite patent, and the question, therefore, resolves itself into a question of a timetable. The timetable, in his case. must be governed by the serious economic considerations to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, and, therefore, I think it would be legitimate to accept the timetable which the Government have set out. The Government declare that, before June, 1947, they hope that the first steps will have been taken to set up a Legislative Council as a result of the first election, and hope to have completed the election before that date. I accept that, and I realise the difficulties that stand in the way, but I would urge the Government, if that be the case, to hurry on with the small Bill which is necessary to amend the franchise provisions. I know from experience on the Indian Franchise Committee which I had some years ago, that it takes time to prepare the rolls, in India or anywhere else, and not only to prepare the rolls, but, in Burma and many other countries, where tempers are apt to rise at election times, it is necessary to prepare all the necessary security measures and a necessary cadre of officials to make the arrangements work. There are great problems concerning the franchise and the age-level of the franchise, and we want the elections in Burma to be conducted in an orderly manner, and this can be achieved only by creating democratic arrangements and a cadre of officials to see that those arrangements operate in time. Even if we have to introduce a small Bill, I press the hon. and learned Gentleman to go forward with that Bill, and, if necessary, take it on the Floor of the House in order to get it through quickly.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the position of the Legislative Council and the introduction of the franchise for 7,000,000 people. That is an even greater rise than we had, and it includes the "flapper" vote. I think the "flapper" vote is absolutely right in Burma, because women take a very great part, not only in domestic life, but in the trading life of the country. Have we not seen Burmese women taking charge of the shop on which the whole family depends, often smoking those large cheroots which I was given when I was there, and taking part in the public life of the country, and do we not agree that they should have as clear a right to the vote as men? When we come to a decision about adult franchise, there is a difficulty owing to the difference between Northern Burma and the central part of the country, and, from my own knowledge of these matters—and it is a subject on which I know something —I do not think there is any further plane on which to place the level but adult franchise, and, provided educational facilities are increased and every step is taken to make the elections work, I can see that there is a strong case for starting at the adult level.

The only other matters to which I want to refer in the political sphere are the position of Burma in future and the position of the scheduled areas—the hill States or frontier States. With regard to the future, I think we must leave the question of what Burma decides to do in the future to a later date, when we have got through the first election setting up the Council and constituent body. There has been full provision laid down for the time when the Burmans decide what sort of a Constitution they want, and we really cannot prejudge that decision at the present stage. When we come to the question of the frontier States. I think we cannot do better than agree with the last words of the White Paper, which run as follow: '' The administration of the scheduled areas, … inhabited by peoples differing in language, social customs and degree of political development from the Burmans inhabiting the central areas, would for the time being be subject to a special regime under the Governor until such time as their inhabitants signify their desire for some suitable form of amalgamation of their territories with Burma proper. We would support that, and I trust that is the Government's view, too. Many of these people are of a different race from the Burmans, and they deserve every consideration. The resistance movement is particularly strong, and I think we should adhere to the policy laid down in the White Paper for the frontier States. Therefore, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman, if he has anything more to say, will confirm that that is the Government's intention.

I think I have covered as many aspects as were covered by the hon, and learned Gentleman, and, perhaps one or two more. I should like to conclude by thanking him for his remarks and to say that we approve, in general, the line the Government are taking and that, while we agree to leave to a later date what he refered to as the Government's obligation and the ultimate Constitution, we would ask the Government to accelerate the procedure whereby the elections can take place. I will sum up by quoting a passage chosen by myself from the Burmese Press, which, I think, should be our attitude: The period before self-government can be as short as we like to make it "— that is, the Burmese people: That is the startling thought which puts onus on the shoulders of the Burmese leaders, both inside and outside the Executive Council. Let us help the Burmese leaders and the Burmese people in their march forward after the very difficult time through which they have passed.

12.38 p.m.

It is obviously necessary, for the reasons which have been given, that we should today approve the continuation of the proclamations. I hope, however, that this Debate has shown, and will show, to Burma, as well as to people in this country who are interested in Burma, that the problems, economic and political, of Burma are at last being treated with that sense of imaginative urgency which I feel is absolutely necessary. The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), who is one of the all too few Members of this House who take an interest in Burma, has recently been to India and, if I may say so with real respect, some of us have watched with interest and admiration the observations he has made since his return. I believe that that is the sort of new vision which we require, on both sides of the House, in looking a little further East than India—to this smaller and most attractive country of Burma.

I agree with much that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) said about the situation there and, in particular, I would like to support his plea to my hon. and learned Friend for the speeding up of the necessary legislation in this House for the alteration of the franchise of Burma. This would obviously be a non-controversial matter. All that my hon. and learned Friend could say about it was that he hoped it would be introduced in this House this Session. I do not see why it should take longer than half an hour to get the whole Measure through the House. It will be agreed to readily by both sides. I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend to think again and see if we can have it before Whitsun, because that might, as the right hon. Gentleman says, make a considerable difference in the preparation of the arrangements for the general election in Burma. It is a great advance on previous statements from the front bench that we have, at last, something like a fixed date for the general election, a terminus ad quem. My tendency would be to ask my hon. and learned Friend to do all he can to speed it up even more. After all, although conditions are extremely difficult in Burma, I do not think they are much more difficult than in Greece, where an election has just been held in conditions more or less satisfactory to the Foreign Secretary. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will do all he can to speed up both the general election and the preliminary legislation in this House.

One point on which I rather disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman was his apparent dismissal of politics as being "academic" and not really related to the present urgent economic difficulties in Burma. Of course, we all agree that the first thing to be tackled is famine, or the threat of famine, and that the economic rehabilitation of the country is absolutely essential. But, in my view, we shall not get the wholehearted cooperation of the Burmese people in that economic rehabilitation unless we also, clearly and simultaneously, march as quickly as we possibly can along the road to political freedom and independence also. The two things must go side by side and occur at the same time. We cannot simply defer political problems for consideration after we have dealt with the economic crisis.

Some proof of what I say is contained in an important and disquieting despatch, which my hon. and learned Friend will no doubt have seen in "The Times" this morning, from their correspondent in Rangoon. The despatch starts by saying: An unauthorised report in a Burmese newspaper that the question of arresting U Aung San, formerly general of the patriotic Burmese forces, was discussed recently between the Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, and Sir Paw Tun, Home Member, has enhanced the interest taken here in the expected Debate on Burma in Parliament. Though the political situation is quiet on the surface, it is full of latent danger, owing principally to the increasing unpopularity of the Governor's Executive Council. That, surely, shows how seriously purely political considerations might repercuss on the economic problems and their solution. I hope that this Debate, at any rate, will serve to dispel the report referred to in the opening sentence of that despatch, and that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to tell us authoritatively, from the Front Bench, that there could be no question at all of the arrest of Major-General Aung San, the leader of the P.B.F., whose most cordial meetings with Admiral Mountbatten and General Slim took place in very happy circumstances last autumn at Kandy and, again, in Rangoon. It would be a most disastrous error if anything like that were contemplated at all. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will also be able to tell us something about what is really the crux of the political situation in Burma at present, although it has not been mentioned so far in this Debate—the present relations between the Governor and the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League of which Aung San is the leader and which may be referred to, for purposes of brevity, as A.F.O. or the Anti-Fascist Organisation. As we all know, there has been in the past few month a deterioration in relations between them. There seems to be an unhappy deadlock. Are any steps being taken, constructively, to break that deadlock? Whether we like it or not, I am sure that the A.F.O. carries with it considerable support among the masses of the Burmese people, not only in Rangoon and the towns, but also upcountry.

The most interesting document that I have had from Burma recently is a letter from a British officer serving there. With the permission of the House, I propose to read two short passages from this letter, because they illustrate very vividly the present situation and atmosphere in Burma. On the particular point of which I am speaking—the political influence and backing of the A.F.O.—this British officer writes to me as follows: The political unity of A.F.O. has grown and not weakened with time. The Right Wing leader, U Mya, has organised a fair following behind him in upper Burma, but all wholeheartedly under the banner of A.F.O. I quote that to show that although A.F.O. is predominantly under Left Wing influence, it is not exclusively a Left Wing organisation. He goes on to say: The Socialist Party which, with the Communists, forms the nucleus of A.F.O., has also expanded in the cotton belt. Although there is a difference, mainly in stability, between Socialist and Communist leaders, the membership in the districts certainly does not reflect it. It is simply a case of whether the best A.F.O. leader in a district calls himself a Communist or a Socialist, and that is mainly determined by ties of personal friendship. The basis of their unity is a policy which was exported from India by P. C. Joshi, via Thein Pe—the Calcutta end of the guerrilla movement "— which did do valuable work when the Japanese were still in occupation of Burma— The policy briefly is to canalise the enthusiasm and idealism of the young guerrilla fighters into social servants, and so to prevent disillusionment in a particularly difficult period. It seems to me that this is the most important passage in the quotation: It is a policy which might work anywhere in the East today, with liberty in the glory of adolescence; it works peculiarly well in Burma, where it merges perfectly in a strong religious tradition, and is practically unemcumbered by a middle class. Personally, in spite of a few infantile failings in A.F.O., it is the only political movement which I have been able to regard with undiluted enthusiasm. The leaders, especially the local ones, are such delightfully gentle and effective people. There was some difficulty a month or two ago, as my hon. and learned Friend is aware, about the possibility of a deputation of representatives of A.F.O. coming to this country, led no doubt by Aung San and Than Tun. I would be grateful if he could tell me whether there has been an advance in that situation? As he will remember, the A.F.O. asked that its deputation should consist of something like six or seven people, but they were told they could send only two. Although, on one sense, two would be perfectly adequate, since the two would probably be Aung San and Than Tun, it seems reasonable that they should ask for half a dozen, to include one or two secretaries and typists, and also—and this, I think, will appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden—they wanted to include one or two representatives of the minorities, the Chins, the Kachins, and the Karens, many of whom are also inside A.F.O. Can my hon. and learned Friend say whether there has been any development in that situation?

I would like to ask him one other question on the political aspect of the situation. The latest news I have had from Burma indicates that there has been a split on the Left and that one of the Communist leaders, Thakin Soe, has broken away and formed an extremist Party of his own. If this split on the Left has been either designed or welcomed by us in the belief that it will be a clever thing to weaken the influence of the Left in this way, I most strongly dissent from that. I think that, on the contrary, it would be more comparable with the tactics of the more reactionary Dutch —I do not refer to Dr. Van Mook—in Indonesia. Our tactic should be to strengthen so far as we can the influence of the moderate and responsible leaders of A.F.O. In that connection, by way of parallel, I would cite the testimony which has come recently from Indonesia, from "The Times" and other correspondents, saying that the influence of Dr. Sjahrir and the other responsible leaders over their extremists has been greatly strengthened recently, during the course of the negotiations which now look as if they are to have, fortunately, a happy result.

On a previous occasion my hon. and learned Friend committed the Government to what was, in effect, a date for the attainment of Dominion self-government for Burma. He said that it should be attained within the lifetime of the present Parliament—that is to say, within the next four years or so. That is an additional reason for hurrying along the general election as much as possible, because, since we are committed to self-government for Burma, it is as well that the Burmese should start learning something about the actual practice of democracy. In that respect there is one important psychological point that I would like to put to my hon. and learned Friend. "The Times despatch today, to which I have already referred, ends with these words: The continuance of the present unrepresentative Executive Council and the absence of a promise in regard to the date by which a general election is to be held "— that, of course, has now been put right by my hon. and learned Friend's statement today— are undermining the confidence which a substantial section of Burmese opinion had reposed on the British promise of early Dominion status, and there are indications that Burmese political opinion is tending towards a demand for complete independence. The psychological point that I want to put to my hon. and learned Friend is this. Many of the Burmese are, in fact, beginning to be a little suspicious of what we mean by Dominion self-government and Dominion status for Burma. They are almost beginning to feel that we may be working out some kind of Dominion status special to Burma, and less than that enjoyed by, say, Canada or Eire. One of the reasons for this suspicion, which I deplore and deprecate, and which I hope my hon. and learned Friend will do his best to dispel, is that repeatedly in official documents and proclamations—in the White Paper, for instance, or in the speech made by the Governor on his return to Rangoon—the phrase "Self-government for Burma within the British Commonwealth," is used. That phrase is constantly repeated. Of course, we all hope in the interests of Burma as well as in the interests of this country, that Burma will elect to remain within the British Commonwealth of Nations when she has Dominion status; but the more we seem to insist or suggest that membership of the British Commonwealth should be a condition of the granting of Dominion status, the more we provoke the extremists who are urging a complete breakaway. Dominion status is not Dominion status at all unless it includes the right to contract out of the British Empire altogether, and that should he known as clearly in Rangoon as it is in Westminster. I would like to pay tribute to the very wise words spoken by the Foreign Secretary in several recent Debates on foreign affairs, on the whole problem of the handling by ourselves, and by advanced Western countries generally, of these various countries in South East Asia, with the quite irrepressible upsurge of nationalist feeling which is now going on all over that part of the world.

Before I conclude, I would like to say a little about the economic aspects of the situation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden that much has already been done since last autumn for the economic rehabilitation of the country. I have met a number of the senior officers of C.A.S. (B.)—Civil Affairs Services (Burma)—which has been largely responsible for that economic rehabilitation. I must say that I have a high regard for the obvious integrity and efficiency of those whom I met. None the less, there is yet another disturbing sentence in this despatch in today's "Times ": Burmese public opinion, as ascertainable from the Press and from conversations with leading personalities,—accuses the British Government of setting up a puppet Burmese Government to facilitate the re-establishment of British commercial and economic domination over the country. That is a very serious charge indeed. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that these Burmese themselves must be encouraged to play a full part in the economic recovery of their own country. At the moment it is a little difficult to see how this is to be brought about, because the main bare fact of the economic situation appears to be that Steele Bros. are moving in. Steele Bros. are the great monopolists of Burma who, before the war, always dominated the rice, the cotton, and the teak industries. They are steadily moving in again, and, of course, in doing so, are in one sense assisting in the economic rehabilitation of the country. I would like to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether monopoly capitalism is our only possible instrument for the economic rehabilitation of Burma.

What is actually being done to encourage the Burmese themselves, the Burmese producers, the middle men, the Burmese small men, or larger business men, in this regard? Is anything being done, also, to encourage co-operative marketing or distribution? From official documents which I have read it is quite clear that, however much good C.A.S.(B.) may have done, in some districts there is an appalling muddle on the distribution side. Is any thing being done to establish and promote co-operative marketing? Furthermore—and this is very important in the industrial rehabilitation of the country—what is being done to build up a live trade union movement in Burma? I gather that an official who has had a very long experience at the Ministry of Labour in this country has been sent there. Has he actually firsthand practical experience of the trade union movement, and of building up trade unions? Is he going to co-operate straightaway with the existing organisation, the All-Burma T.U.C., with whose executive council I personally have had long discussions, and whom I have found extremely enlightened and intelligent, both economically and politically? I should be grateful to my hon. and learned Friend if I could have answers to those points.

There is one other passage which I would like to read from the British officer serving in Burma, which seems to me to illustrate rather seriously the point I have been making about monopoly capital moving in again. He writes: Steele Bros. are re-opening shop in Burma. Their cotton business in this part of the cotton belt will be. presumably, under Major "X" and his friends. I will not quote the officer's name. These gentlemen, having used their official powers to the utmost for the benefit of their firm, are expected to leave the Government service shortly. Curiously enough, I came across Major X's ' name some time before I came across this cotton racket. This confirms what was said about conditions up-country in Burma, both by my hon. Friend and by the right hon. Gentleman: Owing to poverty, the main livelihood of the local Burmese is the theft and sale of military property. There is a large ordnance lepot nearby. Arriving with my detachment in the area, all innocent and ignorant, I lost seven tents and the kit of 5o men in a night's raid. To recover them, I called in the Burmese Field Security Police. C.A.S.(B.) Police are hopeless. The Burmese Field Security Police traced the stuff to a village nearby, and to three houses therein. One was owned by a clerk in the office of the District Superintendent of Police; the other two by officers in Major ' X's ' Upper Burma supply scheme. The C.A.S.(B.) Police, who are legally necessary to a search, effectively refused to search. But we managed to recover some of our losses and unearth a prodigious quantity of ordnance cloth, all, we were told, owned by Major ' X,' who wished to have it ' made up '! The tailpiece of this story," my correspondent adds, "is an epigram on Burma today. The evening after the raid on the civil officials' houses three very frightened F.S.P. men (Burmese) came to me asking for protection, as they had received threats of sudden death as a consequence of their interference with the officials' criminal activities. I pointed out that the protection I could provide was negligible, the police would provide none, even if they could; the only people who would dare assist them in suppressing corruption, and afford them protection, were A.F.O. So, three of Britain's faithful agents went off to seek the protection of A.F.O. That links up perfectly, as it seems to me, the political and economic aspects of this complex situation, and confirms what I said at the beginning of this speech. That is the testimony of a Captain in the Royal Artillery. I should be pleased to show the letter, which is a very long one, to any hon. Member who is interested. I ought, in fairness, to say that I took this up with the War Office, who are responsible, and they sent me a very long answer and report countering some of the statements made in the letter, saying that some of these allegations were unfounded, but adding: Major ' X ' was posted as supply officer to assist with the buying of cotton in connection with the relief scheme. He was an ex-employee of Steele's and had an expert knowledge of the area. Several local mills were put into working order by C.A.S. (B.), and, of these, it is confirmed that a high proportion were owned by Steele's. But the suggestion that exploitation took place under the guise of official control is unfounded. There is no evidence that Major ' X's ' death "— and, incidentally, that is the reason I have not given his name— was in any way connected with the irregularities concerning the Upper Burma cotton purchasing scheme. There has been only one official complaint against C.A.S. (B.) operations in the area "— I do not quite know how one distinguishes between an official complaint and an unofficial complaint. I do not know how many unofficial complaints there may have been.— In addition, there is a claim made by Daw Kyaw of Natogyi in connection with ginning charges which is at present under investigation. Some of the allegations were repudiated, including the more general allegation. However, there does seem to be sufficient evidence to show that things are in a rather disquieting condition economically. One particular point is in regard to the question of price fixing. I gather that is still largely directed from Whitehall. Could there not be more consultation on the spot, with people who know the actual conditions—perhaps consultation with the All-Burma T.U.C.? It is evident that, despite the advance represented by this morning's Debate, in the statement of my hon. and learned Friend about the election, all is not well, either politically or economically, in Burma. It is too much to expect that all should be well so soon after a devastating war. However, I am not sure that we have really shown that imaginative urgency for which I appealed at the beginning of this speech.

Would my hon. and learned Friend consider something in the nature of a fairly high-level delegation or mission to Burma? After all, we do not want the Burmese to feel that India, much vaster as that problem and country are, gets all the attention, when Burma is near the head of the queue for self-government and will, in fact, be the first non-white self-governing Dominion—an extremely interesting prospect. We do not want Burma to feel neglected. Will my hon. and learned Friend consider either a ministerial deputation or a parliamentary delegation or some kind of official mission to examine conditions on the spot?

When the Governor went back to Burma and civil government was restored, the official publication "Burma Today" gave a description of the great event in glowing prose. It said: The ceremonial re-entry of Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith into the capital of Burma lacked nothing of pomp and circumstance. Even nature was kind. It was a glorious October morning, brilliant with sunshine.…His Excellency took up his position at the saluting base…. Then there were the Royal salute—the guard of honour ' dazzling in their white uniforms.' The Governor then drove to Government House: there was a salute of 17 guns—another guard of honour. As His Excellency arrived, the Royal Salute was given, and the personal flag of His Excellency the Governor of Burma was raised on the flagstaff of Government House. It only remained for His Excellency to inspect the saluting battery and the ceremonies came to an end. Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith had returned where he belonged. In my view, His Excellency the Governor of Burma, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, does not belong in Burma, he belongs here in England, and the sooner he returns finally from Rangoon to London, the better will he and the Burmese be pleased. It is really necessary to speed up self-government to the maximum.

Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are often too courteous to express fully and frankly in public what they really think about the Burmese character and the Burmese people. The right hon. Gentleman said that the essential note of the Burmese character was that it was "gay." In conversation, they will often tell one that the Burmese are gay and charming and picturesque people, rather feckless, and, of course, "they just won't work." They worked pretty effectively just before the liberation of Rangoon, and those of them who were in the resistance Forces or in the patriotic Burmese Forces worked and fought so effectively that they killed a number of Japanese estimated at something like 10,000. Moreover, since we have committed ourselves to this guarantee of self-government, surely we must hope and believe that freedom will be at once the signal and the stimulus to the Burmese people to get down to the job? The more grudging, the more reluctant we seem to be in approaching Dominion status for Burma, the more we shall get this pull towards a complete breakaway. The more fully and freely we give what is not really ours to give—because it is the birthright of every human being—the closer friends shall we and the Burmese be afterwards.

1.9 p.m.

As one of a small group of hon. Members on this side of the House, who have always tried to take an interest in the affairs of Burma, especially during the dark days when no time was given in this House to them, I am glad to have the opportunity given us today. by the, introduction of these Motions, to discuss the affairs, economic, political and otherwise, of this very important part of the British Commonwealth. I shall not follow the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) in his dissertation on affairs which he endeavoured to bring before the House in the form of quotations from letters, which he himself admitted were refuted by responsible authorities—

I did not.

Letters representing somebody who represented somebody else, but were evidently discrediting the British name in that country —

rose

That will not be very helpful in trying to restore confidence in that territory, which is so desirable at the present time.

Might I interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman?

Throwing mud either at the Governor or people who are trying to rehabilitate that country does not do anybody any good.

I threw no mud whatever at the Governor. I am sure that all hon. Members who heard my speech will agree. Nor did I admit that the charges in the letter had been refuted. I said that some of them had been denied. That is not the same thing.

It amounts to the same thing as far as I can see. The hon. Gentleman admitted that only one of his charges were partly accepted by a responsible authority after an investigation. I do not think a contribution of that kind to this discussion will be of any good at this time. I welcome the proclamations because they bring about the day when we shall have in Burma a general election. I know that when the Governor went back to Burma he was very anxious that that day should be soon. A small group of hon. Members in this House, among them the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. G. Nicholson), framed a report on Burma at a time when it was very difficult to get any information out of that country, and they made certain recommendations. I was proud to be associated with them, in a small way, in their investigation and with that report. They recommended a period of seven years at first and then five years, when Burma should be given Dominion status. I know myself that the Governor thought that the time should be shortened; his view was that Burma should be given self-government at the earliest possible moment, consistent with the rehabilitation of the country. I can see that that is a policy which is being carried out, and I welcome it, particularly because of the fact that there are, as the hon. Gentleman has just said, certain elements growing up from the Left. My impression, and my information, is that they are far more noisy than numerous, but a general election will test their strength. Then we shall know what is the strength of these forces. Therefore it is important, as the hon. Gentleman said—and I support him in this—that this election should take place at the earliest possible moment, and that the Government should press on with the necessary legislation for that purpose.

It is not enough to press on with political developments. It is also essential that economic development should march forward at the same time. The rehabilitation of this country, which has suffered probably more than any other part of the British Empire as a result of having been fought over not once but twice, should be pressed forward. That is a very difficult task when you consider that Burma today is barely able to produce sufficient rice to feed herself, and that she was once one of the greatest rice exporting countries in the world and fed other rice consuming countries. It is a very serious thing that today they should be in this position. Why are they in such a position? I understand that it is largely due to the fact that the Japanese, during the occupation, destroyed a great many of those animals that were used in the husbanding of the soil. I want to know what steps are being taken to restore the animals. I also want to know what steps are being taken to mechanise rice production. I see no reason why rice growing in Burma should not be mechanised, for it is mechanised in other parts of the world; although I agree that there is more low-lying land in Burma than there is, perhaps, elsewhere. I am, however, quite convinced that the development of mechanical implements during the war offers every possibility of mechanical implements being used in agriculture and the raising of rice crops in Burma. I ask the Under-Secretary of State to investigate that possibility thoroughly.

I am told that another deterrent to the production of rice today in Burma is that considerable disturbances are occurring and that, consequently, the peasant is afraid to leave his home to develop his paddy fields, except those near his own home. He will no longer go away from home and live in a hut by his crops in the rainy season because he is afraid of the dacoity that goes on. He stays at home to defend his own family. That is a very serious matter, and it is bound to delay the production of this essential primary crop. When I was in Germany recently I was told that the same thing applied in the Ruhr, that gangs were raiding homes at night, and that the miners were afraid to leave their homes to go to the mines because of what might happen to their families while they were away. That was delaying coal production. That alarming state of affairs has been overcome by the restoration of law and order. It is the same problem that we have in Burma today. We must reinforce the Police. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State has said that steps are being taken to transfer officers from the military forces to assist the police, and that the police force itself is being strengthened. I hope the Government will not hesitate to arm those policemen, because the dacoits are very fully armed, and in many cases led by Japanese. The Japanese, as in Indonesia, have been stirring up the dacoits, and not only arming them but leading them. The police. therefore, must be given every support, and they must be given arms.

There are many other problems in connection with the rehabilitation of Burma. Certainly, an important one is that of the development of the industries of that country. While that is being considered, I hope that the Government are not going to be carried away by doctrinaire ideology and that they are not going to discourage private enterprise. There is far too much support for the sort of suggestions made by the hon. Member for Maldon about controls. There is too much support for those suggestions on the other side of the House. I deplore them myself. Burma was once a prosperous land, and it was made prosperous by private enterprise and by private capital. Either Burma is to be encouraged to invite capital from outside sources for the development of its territory again, the development of its timber, oil and other resources, or the capital has to be provided by the British Government. There is no other source of supply. The Government of Burma have no money of their own. It is a very sad thing. Today we are lending them £8o million to help them on to their feet, but we ourselves are not really in a position to lend money to anyone, for we are a borrowing nation. I hope that this Government are not going to allow themselves to be carried away by these doctrinaires who think that private enterprise and private capital must have no part to play in the redevelopment and rehabilitation of Burma.

I also hope that the Government will press on with the franchise and with the election, for which the date has already been fixed, and with the setting up of self-government for Burma. That is our declared aim, and it is one to which we must give every encouragement in order that those people who, today, are encouraged to think we are not sincere in our desire for self-government for Burma may be refuted. One recommendation of the Conservative Imperial Affairs Committee in their report which I support very strongly, is that the affairs of Burma should be transferred from the India and Burma Office to the Dominions Office. I think that gesture would appeal to the people of Burma very much indeed. There was a great demand for that at one time, and they are now anxious, I am quite sure, if they are to be given Dominion status, to find themselves associated with the Dominions Office. I think that that would be a wise move, and a gesture which would appeal to the Burmese and encourage them in the belief that we are sincere in our desire that they should have self-government and Dominion status at the earliest possible moment. Whether this Dominion status is to be within the British Empire or not depends upon the Burmese themselves. It was not a condition laid down by the Government that they should remain within the Commonwealth although we hope that they will be con- vinced that if they should find their place within the framework of the British Commonwealth, they will benefit by it, and by the support—the willing support—which this country arid the Comonwealth can give them in their rehabilitation, which we are all anxious to encourage and develop at the earliest possible moment.

1.24 p.m.

Burma is one of the most delightful countries in the tropics, inhabited by one of the most attractive peoples in the whole British Empire. I should like to say at the start that in our administration of Burma in the past we have nothing of which to be ashamed. I speak with experience of our administration in the tropics, and I do not swallow all the tales told about it by some people in this country. The relations between the Burmese Civil Service, the administrative service, the real rulers of Burma and the Burmese were of the friendliest, and there were very few of these civil servants who wished to leave Burma, because they became so attached to the country and its people. We have, in fact, done a magnificent job of work in Burma in the past.

It may be asked then why there is this agitation for Dominion status or complete independence. The answer is that the rule in the past has not been self-government, and that there has sprung up this nationalistic feeling and a revolt against white domination. It is not a revolt against misgovernment, but a political revolt against white domination. I am glad that it has occurred, because it is much better that people should govern themselves than be governed from outside, however good that government may be. In the case of Ceylon, I had a hand in introducing a radical innovation. It was one of the most radical innovations till then introduced in our Colonial Empire. It was proposed to transfer to elected Ministers the whole internal administration of the country; it was, in fact, three quarters of the way to self-government. Now, Europeans are frequently surprised at the impatience of native politicians in these Oriental countries. They find it difficult to understand, because here, our Constitution is fixed, having been built up over the centuries, and there is no agitation against it. In those countries, the people are engaged in the elementary task of evolving a Constitution which they want and therefore they are in a very violent hurry. They are often ignorant of administration, and cannot understand the difficulties which have to be overcome before a new constitution can be introduced. The people in Burma and elsewhere are in a hurry, and I ask hon. Members of this House and the Government to accept it as a fact and to meet them by acting in a hurry.

In the case of the Ceylon Constitution of 1931 it was agreed beforehand in outline what the Constitution should be. We recognised that people in Ceylon were in a hurry, and we passed an electoral law which enabled the Ceylon Government to define constituencies and pass the electoral law and put it into effect for a constitution which did not exist. The people accepted all this and they were delighted by the rapid work. Meanwhile, we were getting on with the job of framing the Constitution and the result was there was no trouble in the transition and by the time the electoral law had been worked out, the Constitution had been framed by Order in Council. The two coincided and the job was completed in two years instead of five years as was first thought necessary. It was a great success and the Constitution of 1931 gave the people 75 per cent. self-government. I am not going to say that it improved the administration; for the time being it did not, but when the war came we found that the Ceylonese were Too per cent. on our side.

In the case of Burma and India the same procedure might be followed. These peoples are shouting for independence, but when the day comes I am not so sure that they will not find it is not a bad thing, after all, to remain in the British Empire, although that is a matter for them to decide. I urge the Government to get on with the electoral law and get it through as quickly as possible. There is no difficulty about it because it is agreed that there should be adult suffrage. I am glad the Burmese are asking for adult suffrage, and although it is true there are illiteracy and poverty and ignorance, it is impossible to lay down any restrictions on franchise that are satisfactory. You cannot confine the franchise to those who can read and write, because they are not always the only wise people, and it is invidious to confine it to people possessing a certain amount of property. The only way is to have adult suffrage, and that can work as it has worked in Ceylon, where 70 per cent. of the people voted at the first elections in spite of the fact that many are illiterate. There are various devices which can be adopted to get over the difficulty of illiteracy such as by using colours.

Looking at the matter from the point of view of the Burmese, they wish us to proceed quickly; so let us get on with the electoral law as quickly as possible. Many Members have spoken about the present difficulties of administration and economic difficulties but whatever we may do, I do not think we shall give satisfaction. Therefore let us, as quickly as possible, transfer responsibility to the Burmese themselves. Let them run their own country in the future, and the sooner they have the responsibility the better. I hope that whoever replies to the Debate will make it absolutely clear to people who may not understand the Statute of Westminster that by it, any country which has Dominion status can contract out of the Empire and become completely independent if she so wishes. Many people do not understand that, and I hope it will be made abundantly clear to the Burmese that if they want their isolated independence they can have it.

1.31 p.m.

The House has listened with interest and respect to the speech of the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid), as it always listens with respect and interest to people who know what they are talking about. I found myself pretty well in general agreement with everything he said, although I think it is a mistake to draw an exact parallel between Ceylon and Burma. After all, we drew up the Constitution for Ceylon, but we are now expecting the Burmese to draw up a Constitution for themselves. That, I think, makes a difference. As I have said, I agree with practically everything in his speech, and I feel that the House is lucky to have among its Members someone who has had such a long and distinguished experience in the Colonial Service. I want to say a few words about the speech of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg). I hope he will forgive me for saying this, because he has spoken kindly and graciously about myself, and I know that he is a true lover of Burma, but J very much regret a great deal of his speech. I do not think it helps anyone to make an attack on a Governor, and I do not think the Floor of the House is the place for it. I do not think it helps any situation, and it helps less the more difficult is the situation. The reading of anonymous letters about anonymous people who are dead tends only to cloud the situation and prevent good will.

I consider that in his line of thought he violated one of the fundamental principles which we should adopt in dealing with Burma. We are sincere in our desire that Burma should be mistress in her own house, and that the Burmese should draw up their own Constitution and live their own lives. I know that he holds that view as strongly as anyone, but it is fundamentally inconsistent with that view to attempt to embroil this House, the Burma Office, with local politics in Burma or to attempt to get the Administration in Burma or the Burma Office to outline in detail the sort of structure, whether social or otherwise, which should be imposed on the Burmese. Surely, if our object is to make Burma mistress in her own house, we must content ourselves with doing the minimum, and direct all our endeavours to making Burmese politicians and the people of Burma become the architects of their own destiny. I think there are two unhappy parallels which can be drawn. In the case of Greece, I do not think that it helped anyone that Members of this House should try to interfere with her internal politics and ask questions as to whether we are in favour of E.A.M., X.Y.Z., or any other organisation. And I do not think that the situation in Java, which some people mistakenly call Indonesia, was improved by our interference in this House with matters that were the business of the men on the spot. I think that the less we involve ourselves in details of local politics, especially when these areas are administered by ourselves in a purely temporary capacity, and the more we leave it to the man on the spot, if we trust him, the better; and if we do not trust him, then get rid of him. I think that it is impossible to indulge in the details of Burmese, or Javanese, or Greek politics from this distance. I am sure that is a sound doctrine and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my having said it. I think that he has made a great mistake, for I fear that to a large extent his speech will have unhelpful reactions in Burma. In saying that, I am not taking up any political side, one way or another.

There is one matter on which I agree most heartily with the hon. Gentleman, and that is when he said that some mission or delegation should be sent to Burma. It has shocked me deeply to find that very few people in this House have first hand or any recent information about Burma, and that, although we are responsible for Burma in this House, we are very much cut off from Burmese thought. I believe that some sort of delegation or mission would be of very great help, but I hope that it will not be charged with making a report, and that it will not be in the nature of a Royal Commission.

In common with other speakers in this Debate, I welcome the occasion which it affords to this House to discuss Burmese affairs. On and off, I have been in this House since 1931—about 18 months off and the rest of the time on—and I only remember one previous occasion when Burma had anything like a proper run for its money—and that was last June. I am ashamed of that because, first, it tends to obscure in the minds of the people of this country that we are directly responsible for 17,000,000 people in Burma, which is a great Dominion of the British Crown and an important land area. Secondly, it has tended to leave the impression in the minds of the people in Burma that we are oblivious to our obligations with regard to them. I hope that this Debate will set a precedent, and that we shall realise that our responsibility for Burma is of a very high order indeed.

I want to say a few words about the political and economic situation in Burma. So far as the political situation is concerned, I think that we should send out from this House very definite messages of sympathy and friendship with Burmese aspirations. We want the people of Burma to know that we want to help them, and we want to know what help Burma wants from us. We on our part want Burma's help in solving the problem of South-East Asia, and all the other problems that face us. In dealing with Burma's political future, let us remember one thing above all. Hon Members have referred to the Burmese as gay and charming. That is all very well. I am sure that they are, but they have another quality which is even more impor- tant. They are a proud race. No other Dominion in the British Empire has had such a long national history as Burma. For over 1,000 years, Burma has had a national independent history of its own. This pride is a dominant factor in Burmese character, and it often emerges in xenophobia and a dislike of foreigners and outsiders. In any political set-up in Burma, unless this pride is satisfied, the Constitution has not much chance of success. It is pride and self-respect and the question of status which are the predominant factors. The second point I wish to stress is that all our efforts must he directed in Burma, as in India, to making the people and the politicians fully responsible for their own actions. Both times that I have been in India, I have been impressed by the fact that Indian politicians have never been answerable in the ultimate for their actions. The same applies in Burma. There should never be the feeling that if there is a breakdown you can push the responsibility on to the shoulders of the British. I think those are the main points which we have to remember: the satisfaction of Burmese pride on the question of status, and the fact that all our efforts should be directed to seeing that Burmese politicians and statesmen have full ultimate responsibility for their actions.

To turn to the economic side, I was much interested that we have at last been told by the Minister the amount of the loan granted to Burma, namely, £80 million. That is all sterling expenditure. It will be helpful to ourselves because the economic relationship between Burma and ourselves is complementary. We want what they can send us, and they want what we can send them, so I regard this loan as an investment, and I am most happy about it. But I am surprised that the Minister did not say anything about what I regard as one of the primary economic problems in Burma, and that is the question of land indebtedness. Before the war it was estimated that it had reached a figure of about £40 million. About a quarter of the land was owned by the Indian class of moneylenders known as the Chettyars. I do not think that we can blame the Chettyars, because by Oriental standards they have not been unduly extortionate or harsh, and by providing agricultural credit they have performed a service to the community. But because of economic crises they have had, against their will, to do a certain amount of foreclosure, with a result that a quarter of the rise producing areas are in their hands. Another quarter is mostly owned by landlords, and the remaining half was mostly mortgaged. It seems to me that that is a sort of dead weight around the neck of the Burmese peasant which must be considerably lightened. The use of cooperative land banks and cooperative credit has been tried but has not proved a success. I was surprised and disappointed that the Minister did not refer to this, for I do not think that we shall get much further until there is a policy thought out and applied for the solution or, at any rate, palliation of this grievous state of affairs.

I do not want to say more than has been said already about the effect of the destruction caused by the Japanese occupation. But I want to ask the Minister one question, and that is this: There is a small-community in Burma for which we are particularly responsible, and that is the Anglo-Burmans. They are a very remarkable community indeed. They seem to combine the best qualities of both races, and they have done extraordinarily well. They have suffered practically every possible indignity and cruelty under Japanese occupation. Their women are beautiful, and they were maltreated and abused by the Japanese in a manner which defies description. I do not think I have seen anything more tragic in the legion of sad tales one reads about as a consequence of this war than the story of what happened to this community. I am urging the Minister not only to make inquiries, but to let the House know the result of those inquiries and to tell us what steps are being taken for these unfortunate people. I will not harrow the hearts of hon Members by recounting the stories, but I can assure them honestly that they bring tears to one's eyes, and I beg the Minister to do something for them.

In conclusion, I must point out that it is something of an anomaly that we in this House should be directly responsible for Burma and that we should not be responsible for Malaya or Borneo or Ceylon, which are under the Colonial Office. I think it is likely because of that that there is a danger that there will be a lack of coordination between our Burmese and Colonial policies, and I deplore this, for I believe that, without distinction of party, we in this House and in this country have to think out our Asiatic policy. That is the real problem which confronts us. What have we to offer Asia; what do we want from Asia in return? We have to offer a great intellectual and cultural heritage, and we have a great deal to learn from her. We have to offer many of the advantages of Western civilisation and Western commerce; and there are many products, raw and manufactured, that we want from Asia. Relations between us up to date have been good. I believe we are respected in Asia more than any other foreign nation. I believe that relations between Asia and this country can be entirely friendly. But we cannot go on treating Asiatic Dependencies in a piecemeal fashion. We have to do a great deal of hard thinking in this country.

As far as Burma is concerned, we must send out the warmest message of friendship from this House as the result of the present Debate, and add to it that there is no difference whatever between the two sides on this. We stand by the policy for which His Majesty's Government stand. We wish well to Burma and we trust that, in the future, we shall remain on terms of happy friendship and confidence.

1.47 p.m.

I do not join in the welcome for the continuation of the proclamation.

I knew the hon. Member would not.

I would rather we brought out Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, and with him our military forces, and, above all, the agents of corruption—the agents of the big monopoly companies—who can do such incalculable harm. It it utterly nonsensical to talk of free elections and the setting up of Ministers, when there is in Burma a situation such as exists at the present time. We know the corruption which is carried on in this country by the big monopolies. Everybody is aware of it. Every one of the big monopolies keeps a fund for the purpose of buying over people to its side, and in a place like Burma, particularly in its present situation, their agents will be carrying on every kind of corruption among a people where the need is—

The hon. Gentleman has made a most serious charge against a number of British subjects. I challenge him to produce evidence of this corruption.

I will produce the evidence that was published before the war in connection with the big armament and oil firms. What they did, other firms are carrying on. I can produce, for instance, the fact that when the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) made a speech in this House, of which a few words seemed to be favourable to a certain company, he received a letter and a cheque for £100, which he returned.

That is not what the hon. Gentleman said. It is no use making vague statements of that kind. He has brought a definite charge against the great business interests in Burma and I challenge him here—and I will challenge him outside—to produce evidence.

We know how the business interests—

You cannot do it, because it is not true and you know it is not true.

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for the Noble Lord to call the hon. Member a liar across the Floor of the House? The actual words he used were, "You cannot do it, because it is not true and you know it is not true."

On that point of Order. May I point out that a general charge of corruption has been made and that I merely said that the accusation is not true?

I did not hear the Noble Lord use the words in question. He does not appear to have been out of Order.

What goes on in this country with the big monopolies? What was proved to be going on in the monopolies in every country before the war? There was the most amazing exposure of how they were buying up people and even Governments in order to get their way. The letter from an officer over there, read by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), made quite clear —as it is made clear continually by soldiers coming home from these different places—what is going on in the East. It is futile to suggest that the monopolies who are in Burma, as in other countries, have not put their agents there busily trying to corrupt people, particularly because of the present Situation. What is the situation there? As the result of the exigencies and aftermath of the war the Government have control. The following is a news item in connection with a speech made before a congress of anti-Fascists, by U. Aung Sau: The British Government's £87 million to Burma is designed not for reconstruction of economic life of the people but for rehabilitation of economic stranglehold on the country. In the name of State control, British Government try to set up old British businesses and interests for a limited period and cost of that is these economic setups will be handed back to old British vested interest as compensation. Then this is said with regard to these companies and businesses that are supposed to he under the control of the Government: The basis of each of these business projects is a consortium of the old-established firms operating as agents for the Government, and the organisation is so designed that in due course it can readily be changed over to full commercial operation. This was said by Sir Harold Roper, speaking to the East India Association on 24th January this year, So the process is going on now, with the monopolies working there continuously to make certain that they get back their positions and that they control the economic life of Burma. I would say here that I would be happy if Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith were brought out, with the British troops and the agents of the monopoly companies, so that the Burmese were left free to build up their life and their country in their own way. When Walt Whitman referred to the "never-ending audacity of elected persons," I have a feeling he must have had a Tory Imperialist in mind. I listened to an hon. Member earlier saying that Burma should be given Dominion status. Who are we? What sort of people are we? Of course it is not the Members on this side who have developed that sort of mentality; it is the very people who continually talk about giving this or giving that, to the downtrodden poor, to the working class—a little bit here and a little bit there. They talk as superior persons, as the master race. They talk about what we should give to Burma—Dominion status. What impudence. What arrogant presumption, that we can give a status to the Burmese. What the Burmese want, and what any people would want, is that we should withdraw from the country and give them an opportunity to build up their own life —and they will be capable of doing that.

An hon. Member suggested that Burma should be taken away from the India Office and put into the Dominions Office. Some other hon. Members seem to agree. What is it we are dealing with—scrap iron, old bottles or something? Take them out of here, and put them into there. We are told that India is going to get independence, and at the same time, the suggestion is made that we should take Burma out of the India Office and put it into the Dominions Office. It would be more sensible, if India is to be independent, to leave Burma in the India Office so that Burma can get independence with India, but I am doubtful of the Tory Imperialists supporting, or allowing to go through, anything real so far as India or Burma is concerned. One hon. Member was concerned about what the hon. Member for Maldon happened to say about Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith. Who is Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith? He is the Governor of Burma and a nice respectable gentlemanly Tory.

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I ask whether criticism of a Governor in this case comes within the rule that there may not be criticism of the Governor-General of a Dominion, or is the hon. Member technically in Order in criticising the Governor of Burma?

I feel that the hon. Member is making comments that perhaps are not desirable. An hon. Member cannot criticise the conduct of a Governor except on a Motion.

I apologise for having referred to the Governor of Burma as a Tory gentleman. I withdraw. He is no Tory gentleman. I was only drawing attention to the fact that an hon. Member took exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for Maldon about the Governor of Burma and some officers in Burma. He said that the hon. Member for Maldon was throwing mud. When anything is said about the Governor or officers, it is throwing mud, but one can say anything about the Communists or Left Wing, in Burma or anywhere else, without throwing mud. After chiding the hon. Member for Maldon about throwing mud at the Governor, the hon. Member expressed his opinion of the noisy character of the anti-Fascists in Burma. One must not dare in any circumstances to say a word of criticism about a gentleman, but any of the ordinary people—Burmese, dockers, miners or Communists—can be kicked around all over the place and it always gets applause from Tory gentlemen. Then we had an hon. Member on this side of the House who has been in the Civil Service somewhere in the tropics and he pays a tribute to our administrators in Burma, but, after he has paid a tribute, he goes on to talk about the condition of affairs in Burma now, and refers to poverty and ignorance and wide spread illiteracy. It is all right to talk about a nice tropical country and nice pleasant people, but in every generation in Burma, thousands upon thousands of men, women and children die without knowing what life is, because of the terrible exploitation of the monopoly capitalists, and the poverty and illiteracy they suffer. That is one of the shames of the Imperialist role of Britain in country after country, whether it be India, Ceylon or Burma. It is a fact that it has kept people in a state of illiteracy and kept them from the bigger and better and brighter things of life.

The words of Moscow.

The Tories have been demoralised since the Election. They are steadily going out of the picture. Not only in Burma—because the Burmese are going to achieve their independence—but in this country, too, they are going out of the picture. They thought they had a great trump card when they had the man who won the war, but the people of this country did not accept it. As for cheap jibes about Moscow—I represent West Fife and I have been a proletarian all my life and am proud of it. I have never had anything but contempt for the parasites on the other side of the House.

The hon. Gentleman will admit that he has gone very wide of the subject, He must now deal with the Motion before the House.

Where do you get your money from?

On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to address this House without rising?

It is out of Order and undesirable, and if persisted in, increases the length of speeches.

I was referring to the Communist Party in general, and not, of course, to the hon. Gentleman.

In view of that remark may I say that the Communist Party is prepared to publish a balance sheet, but the Tory Party is not prepared to publish one.

It is not permissible for that subject to be introduced in this Debate. Will the hon. Member now deal with the Motion before the House?

The point was introduced by the Noble Lord. There is a very serious question here. We have a situation admitted by one who was in the Civil Service—appalling poverty and illiteracy among the masses of the Burmese—and I consider that, in view of that situation, every encouragement should be given on this side of the House to the progressive forces in Burma associated with the anti-Fascist Association.

The hon. Member for Maldon asked the Minister what had happened about the deputation. It was proposed that a deputation should come here from Burma, and it was hoped that it would be representative of all the principal forces who are anti-Fascist. Five, or half-a-dozen, delegates were selected and they were, very broadly, representative. They were then told that shipping accommodation could not be found for half-a-dozen, but only for two. Here is what they say: It is now known, in connection with the question of travel facilities for the proposed delegation to England, that sea passage for only two will be available when pressure on accommodation eases. I do not know whether it is a complete mental breakdown, or that Johnny Walker has taken possession, but the Noble Lord is certainly giving a great representation of an inmate of a mental hospital.

The hon. Member must deal with the subject under discussion and refrain from indulging in personalities and abuse.

I was quoting from this document, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I felt I had to make a remark.

The hon. Gentleman is quoting from what is obviously a very important document. According to the practice of the House, is he prepared to lay the document?

The hon. Gentleman has described it as a private document and therefore the rule does not apply.

Certainly I will hand over the document to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes. But in quoting from the document it is necessary to say that I am not an expert like Balaam and I do not know how to deal with the talking ass. It would be very much better if the ass would keep quiet while I read the document.

The hon. Gentleman has gone too far. He must finish with personalities.

I will quote from the document: It is now Known in connection with the question of travel facilities for the proposed delegation to England, that sea passage for only two will be available when pressure on accommodation eases. (1) Since accommodation is to be available for only two and not for five as requested, there can be no likelihood of the delegation's object being fully achieved. (2) Travelling all-sea would mean so much waste of time. (3) Though a request has been made to have the travel arrangements complete by 31st March, the reply from the Governor's secretary does not definitely indicate when travel facilities will be really available. For the above reasons, the Working Committee of the A.F.P.F.L. has decided rift to pursue this object of sending a delegation to England. There is an occasion where a real effort was made by the anti-Fascist movement in Burma to get into touch with people in this country through a broad delegation representing all the forces. Every conceivable obstacle was put in its way. First, accommodation has only to be made available for two and then no date was promised as to when that accommodation would be available. The anti-Fascist organisation had to call off the delegation altogether.

The situation in Burma is very serious for the Burmese people, and I wish that action could be taken to withdraw our forces from Burma. What is the use of talking about free elections and of setting up Ministers, and the rest of it, when all these forces are in Burma? Last week end the Foreign Secretary laid down what he declared was a fundamental principle in dealing with weaker nations. All troops must be withdrawn, for if forces remain it is bound to have an effect on the character of the discussions that are going on. Let that fundamental principle be applied to Burma. In the days that lie ahead, let us withdraw forces from Burma and give the Burmese people an opportunity for the first time to get rid of poverty and illiteracy and to build up and live a happy life of their own.

2.13 p.m.

The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), towards the end of his speech, modified a little what he said at the beginning, when he was all for withdrawing from Burma forthwith. In his last few words he spoke of withdrawing in the days which lie ahead. I think perhaps he has come into line with general opinion in the House in those words. I think we have heard similar speeches from him dealing with many other countries.

The attack the hon. Member made on what he pleases to call monopolies seems to me especially unwarranted. British firms enjoy the highest reputation of any firms operating in the Far East. In addition to that British firms have been very largely responsible for building up the economic prosperity of Burma before the war. It would be a strange paradox if, as a result of the Japanese invasion, those British firms were to be deprived not only of their legal rights, but also of the privilege of contributing to Burmese prosperity in the future.

The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) referred to the necessity for the Burmese to start learning self-government as soon as possible. Before the war the 1935 Constitution had already given them a very large measure of self-government, perhaps the largest that exists in any similar country. They had already started, and I think it is doing them an injustice to say they have to start all over again. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will be very anxious to see that Constitution working again as soon as possible with the enlarged franchise. But in the meantime it is obviously the duty of our Government, having finally recovered Burma, to re-establish those conditions of prosperity which make a franchise possible and without which it would be impossible to work the Constitution or make any further progress. The first duty must obviously be to reestablish economic conditions as the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) has so well said. Something has been said about the disgraceful illiteracy of the Burmese people. Here again, the hon. Member for West Fife does far less than justice to the Burmese people. There is a remarkably high standard of literacy, considering that progress has been made in the last 70 years only.

I was referring to a statement made by an hon. Member who had been in the Civil Service. When he was speaking about the difficulties of an election, he referred to those arising out of the great degree of illiteracy.

That did not prevent the hon. Member for West Fife from trouncing the Burmese and the British for Burmese illiteracy. He was doing less than justice to the Burmese and to the British for the degree of education that has been achieved in that country.

I wish to deal with one question which has not so far been dealt with in this Debate, that is, the question of defence. It is idle to offer a people independence unless they are in a position to defend that independence, whether it be within the British Commonwealth of Nations or within the framework of the United Nations organisation. According to the information I have, when the war broke out the Burmese forces,consisted of some four infantry battalions, together with an auxiliary brigade of artillery and three infantry auxiliary battalions. Of these, a large proportion was recruited not from Burmans but from the Scheduled States. In addition, there were some British infantry battalions, this small force, with the addition of some 10,000 frontier police having to maintain order in and defend the frontiers of a country which is, in extent, about three times the size of the United Kingdom. I repeat that it is idle to consider independence for a country which is not in a position to defend itself. It would be idle to ask the Burmans to choose independence or self-government—

Could New Zealand defend itself?

New Zealand would make a very good attempt to defend itself, as its wonderful record and the vast forces which it has put into the field alongside of us have shown during the war. But New Zealand also happens to be an island, whereas Burma is not. I believe I am correct in saying that Burma is contiguous with some five different States.

Therefore, I would urge the hon. and learned Gentleman when he replies to give us some statement as to what are the intentions of the Government with regard to building up sufficient forces of Burmese, so that when the time comes for them to choose, they may choose without a suspicion that there will still be military domination by Great Britain in Burma. In any other circumstances a choice would be very unreal. I do not mean to imply that we should accept absolutely no responsibility for the defence of Burma within the British Commonwealth of Nations, or that there should not be regional schemes worked out for mutual defence within the framework of U.N.O. I wish to know that Burma will be able to play its own part, whatever the framework may be—the British Commonwealth of Nations or the United Nations organisation. I wish to conclude by joining in the tribute that has been paid to the Burmese for their gallant assistance in recovering their country, and in the expression of good will that has been extended to Burma from all sides of the House.

2.20 p.m.

I wish the House had been a little better filled today. I do not wish to repeat parts of the Debate that have already been heard, and I believe that the Minister desires to wind up soon, but I hope it will not be thought presumptuous of me if I intervene very briefly and seek to bring the Debate for a moment to the level of reality. I wish to look at the situation which exists in relation to the present economic and educational set-up. I had the honour to be in Burma in January and to discuss with the Burmese and with Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith the problem of Burma. Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith undoubtedly has a difficult task, but have we looked at this issue of the franchise in relation to Northern and Southern Burma? Let the House remember that we British people are indebted to the Burmese in the Shan States and other places. Many British boys serving with the 14th Army owe their lives to the patriotism and help of people in those remote villages which I visited in Northern Burma. Because of that, I believe that this country owes the Northern Burmese—I am using the wrong technical term but the House will understand the different groups to which I am referring—and the Northern Burmese deserve some system of government of their own.

As a student of international affairs and economics, I am amazed to find that the best books I can procure on the Far East and on Burma are written by Americans. When I spoke to Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith in Government House in Rangoon he told me, I believe I am right in saying —I hope I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the Permanent Secretary for Burma was visiting Burma for the first time in 3o years. Is that the way in which this country hopes to understand Burma, and the remoter parts of this Commonwealth of nations, this heterogeneous system of government which we have hammered out through pages of history? Therefore, I urge on this House the necessity of keeping more direct contact, in this shrinking world, with the remoter parts of our Commonwealth, and of seeing that our permanent officials, who have to deal with these problems, have a real knowledge of the country with which they are dealing.

There is a further point with which I wish to deal. I believe that we must not look upon the democracy of Burma from the viewpoint of Britain, because of illiteracy. It has been asked whether we could not hammer out a constitutional system of a rough and ready kind, for the Northern Burmese, based on the number of houses per village. It was suggested in some of the villages which I visited that 50 houses in the village should select a head man. Give them a little responsibility by which a head man would be responsible for instance for spending money. But it is no use saying, as we have done for "donkeys' years" in this House, "When they learn." It is true to say of Burma that an opportunity must be given to the Burmese now, in the normal way, to learn the responsibilities of government. It is wrong to say that Burma has had any opportunity of developing self-government, especially in the Northern States. Consequently, what we are doing is paralysing them politically while making them bold in theory. We are making them timid in action, strong in opposition, helpless in power, right on paper and incapable in politics.

When I visited Southern Burma, I was amazed at the devastation created by the Japanese. We know the story, which was given in the food Debate. What we sometimes forget is that this country does not worship enough at the shrine of the goddess of education. I wish occasionally that we would nail our flag to the mast of education. I believe that in Burma, as in Malaya, we need to develop an educational system based on the psychology and culture of the people and having nothing to do with the ultra-academic educational outlook of the Western universities. It is through that educational system that I believe that Burma can be developed, but what have we there? I have looked at their system, which is an education based on the philosophy of the past and the teaching of Buddhist priests. I think that only 300 students from Burma have visited a Western university, whereas 3,000 from Siam have done so. Are we trying to develop that educational movement?

One hon. Member on this side of the House mentioned the need for developing an intelligent interest in the trade union movement. I believe we sent out two officers last week to Malaya, but we have only one officer in Burma, and to talk of one practical trade unionist, trying to develop a trade unionist movement in Burma—a nation of mixed tribes and 17,000,000 people—is completely hopeless. In this modern world, these people need to learn the intelligent realism of trade unionism. I was delighted to hear an hon. Member opposite mention the important matter of land ownership and land alienation. We did pass an Act in 1941, but millions of pounds must be spent in Burma to abolish the one-year lease system under which no Burmese farmer can work with success. I distinctly remember asking Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith how these people were living, and I shall always remember being asked 3s. 6d. for a 2d. book or pamphlet. Sir Reginald said that the people lived by looting the Army, Navy and Air Force, and, if we get trouble in the Far East, it is no good blaming it on Communism, or Stalin, or the Kremlin or Russia. Much of it is created by the disorganisation of economic society, by high prices, inflation and unemployment. Much of the trouble in the Far East is created through that and that alone. Consequently, it should be of paramount importance to this country to speed up its economic activities and get our steel industry, silk industry and other industries going, so as to supply consumer goods to those areas and break down this evil of inflation.

Do not let us forget that the strategy of the Far East has completely broken down. In this shrinking world, Burma is no longer a buffer State. The old lectures at staff colleges years ago, when the map was brought out and the lecturer said "This is Burma—impenetrable," no longer apply. Our 14th Army proved, better than the Japanese, that that story is no longer true. This country must have a completely new viewpoint with regard to this Commonwealth of British nations. We must break down that idea of the security of any part of the world, in this stage of atomic energy. We can only offer ourselves in some international organisation like U.N.O. and contribute to the strength of that organisation by organising an intelligent, democratic, party system of government for our dependencies. It is the duty of this House today, to let the people of Burma know that we appreciate the way they stood by our boys in the jungle in the North during our dark days; that we shall not forget, but that we shall implement this Labour Government's policy and evolve a system of self-government which will give satisfaction to the Burmese and do credit to the Government now in power in this country.

2.31 p.m.

I think the House will agree that this Debate is evidence of the fact that there is widespread interest taken in this country in the present position in Burma and in what the future holds for that nation. A good many points have been raised by various hon. Members, and, at the risk of appearing to retrace my tracks on occasion, I propose to deal with the points raised in the order of speaking.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Butler) put a number of points to me. One concerned the question of internal security. The right hon. Gentleman appreciated that present conditions had been accentuated by the fact that a large quantity of arms had been distributed, or have come into the hands of the people in Burma from Japanese sources. I am unable to say what that quantity is, but it is quite correct to say that, as a result of the policy of encouraging the Burmans to hand in their arms, 30,000 weapons of one sort and another have, in recent months, been returned to the authorities. The right hon. Gentleman also discussed the question of the rice harvest and wanted to know more details about present production. As I indicated in my opening remarks, the area under cultivation was reduced to between 6,000,000 and 7,000,000 acres, as against over 13,000,000 prior to the war. In fact, the present estimate is that approximately 2,750,000 tons of paddy will be provided from the last harvest, which is barely sufficient to meet internal needs. It is true to say that Burma has made a contribution to meeting the present food shortage in India and other parts of the Far East, and some export has taken place, but there is no doubt that, at the present time, the rice position is such that Burma cannot, this year, at any rate, be considered an exporting country. I indicated earlier that it was hoped to increase the acreage under cultivation to the extent of another 2,000,000 acres, which will make some contribution to the problem and will certainly aid the position in Burma and might, indeed, allow for an increased measure of export, but I think it would be wrong for me not to indicate that the problem is such that it will be two or three years before Burma can be expected to be back in the position in which she was in 1939.

The right hon. Gentleman also raised questions about labour. Before the war, it was a well-known fact that a considerable number of Indian labourers worked in the rice fields at harvest and the timber industry. The present position is that, as regards the ploughing season which is just about to open, apart from the Arakan, which is adjacent to the Chittagong area in India, where numbers of Indian labourers are crossing the frontier, they do not require Indian labour for the purpose of ploughing. We have been advised by the Government of Burma that they may require Indian labourers when the harvest time comes along later in the year. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about transport; he wanted to know what was being done to replace the inland air. It was made clear to them that His Majesty's Government were not prepared to receive a deputation from any of the parties in Burma, but that they were prepared to provide, should some members of the League wish to visit the United Kingdom in a private capacity, the necessary travel facilities once the pressure on accommodation was eased.

The first request was made by letter on 28th December. The League thereupon put forward a further request for purely unofficial visits on 15th January. That request was replied to on 18th January, and on 2nd February the League returned to the charge and asked for travel facilities for at least five persons. On 25th February the Governor's Secretary replied that the earlier offer, as regards two members of the League plus one secretary, still held good. I think I am entitled to point out to my hon. Friend that, had the original invitation been accepted, it is quite correct for me to say that, by now, those representatives would either have reached this country or have been well on their way to it. It is their own responsibility that that is not the case.

In the statement which I have, they say they asked the Governor to give them something specific and to say that they would get accommodation by 31st March, but that he would give them no such undertaking.

I should be happy to look into any fresh facts that my hon. Friend can bring to my notice, but I still say that the timetable, which I have given to the House this afternoon, is correct according to the information we have received from Rangoon. It indicates that they have missed their opportunity. If, as I have said, they had accepted the offer made by the Governor as far back as 18th January, it is reasonable to suppose that they would either have been in this country by now or well on their way to it. My hon. Friend also asked me about the split in the Communist Party. It is not for me to explain why splits have taken place in any particular political party, and I am sure he does not really expect me to give him an explanation on that point. I was asked where the Government stood with regard to the policy relating to the Shan States. I assure him that the policy set out in the last paragraph of the White Paper still remains the policy of His Majesty's Government, and can be summed up in these words: The administration of the Scheduled Areas…would for the time being be subject to a special regime under the Governor until such time as their inhabitants signify their desire for some suitable form of amalgamation of their territories with Burma proper. We say that the decision must be taken by the inhabitants of the areas concerned.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon had some comments to make about the re-establishment of British commercial and economic domination of the country. I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding in existence with regard to what exactly is being done on the economic side in Burma. There is no question of His Majesty's Government facilitating any kind of monopoly capitalism, as he called it. That is a very picturesque phrase, but I do not think it is in accordance with the facts of the situation. May I explain exactly what the Government are seeking to do? I have indicated to the House that we are providing an interest free loan of approximately £80 million. The object is to finance the economic rehabilitation and reconstruction of the country. In view of the fact that two major campaigns have been fought in the country, and there has been occupation by the enemy for three years, obviously a great deal remains to be done. The way in which the Government of Burma have sought to tackle this problem is by the establishment of what they call projects. We live in days of curious terminology, but perhaps if I explain what they mean by "projects," it may assist the House. They have established four projects—for agriculture covering rice, cotton and other commodities; timber; road transport; and civil supplies. The projects board is appointed by the Government and is under the control of the Government. The chairman is a Government official, and the duties of the board are to rehabilitate the particular industries concerned and get them working on sound financial lines in order that a degree of prosperity may return to the country. It is true they are using private firms as agents. I do not know what else they could do. They have to use the organisations which exist and the experience they possess, and it is, there- river steamers which had been largely destroyed or taken away during the occupation years. I cannot say that anything substantial has been done in the five months during which the Governor has been back, but steps have been taken and orders placed for the purpose of replacing those steamers as soon as possible. Obviously, that is going to take some time, but I believe that some steamers will shortly be back on those waters.

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's question about education, it is true to say that there is a good deal of illiteracy in Burma, especially in the tribal areas, but I believe it is a fact that among the Burmese people there is a high standard of literacy, even higher, perhaps, than in other Eastern countries. Nonetheless, there is a good deal to be done especially in the hill areas. The Director of Education of the Burmese Government was one of the first officials to land in Burma with the military Forces, and he has taken steps to carry out the plans already prepared for the purpose of constructing an overall system of education and bringing education into the hill villages. But we have to be realistic and we must realise that it is going to be a slow process. At the same time, a great many of the schools have been reopened, and the position is very much better than it might have been. Several departments of the Rangoon university have been reopened, but the university is not yet fully functioning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) raised a number of points and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden also emphasised the importance of speeding up the preparation of the Franchise Bill which is to be the basis for the coming election. I hope it is not necessary for me to say that, as far as I am concerned, I am just as anxious as my hon. Friend to have the election held at the earliest possible date and that everything I can do will be done to ensure that this Bill will be introduced into the House as soon as possible. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, with his great experience, will agree with me when I say that even though the basis of the Bill may be simple, in the sense that adult suffrage has been approved, because of the special electorates, and so on, in Burma, it may be more than a one or two Clause Bill. Parliamentary draftsmen are very hard at work at the moment, and that fact will have to be taken into consideration. However, I will undertake that the Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member for Maldon also raised the question whether there was any truth in the statement in "The Times" this morning to the effect that: An unauthorised report in a Burmese newspaper, that the question of arresting U Aung San, formerly General of the patriotic Burma Forces, was discussed recently between the Governor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, and Sir Paw Tun, Home Member, has enhanced the interest taken here in the expected debate on Burma in Parliament. Quite frankly, I am not in a position to say what conversations may have taken place between the Governor and the Home Member, but I would like to say that, so far as the arrest of any political leader such as U Aung San is concerned, there will be no question of such a thing happening except on the authority of His Majesty's Government. My hon. Friend than referred to the relations between the Governor and the Anti-Fascist People's League. I do not think it is necessary for me again to traverse the ground with regard to the formation of the Executive Council. The House is well aware that the Governor did offer in November to this particular organisation seven out of the eleven seats on the Executive Council. The conditions which they sought to lay down were such that it was not possible for the Governor to accept and, as a result, it has not been possible to include those representatives of the Anti-Fascist People's Freedom League on the Executive Council. I can only say that, on several occasions, spokesmen far the Government, including the Governor himself, have indicated quite definitely that the door still remains open and that the Governor would welcome the cooperation of this political organisation in the rehabilitation of the country. They have not availed themselves of that opportunity, and I do not see what more can be done, so far as the Governor is concerned.

As to the question of a deputation, I should like to correct the statement of the facts made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) when he was dealing with this particular proposal. The first move was made by the representatives of the A.F.P.F.L. who wanted permission to send a deputation of five or seven members to this country by fore, correct to say that organisations like Steel Brothers as well as other British concerns, and Burmese and Indian companies, will assist in this direction. There is no question of it being kept as a British monopoly. All organisations—Burmese, Indian and British—will be utilised. It is quite true to say that the Burmese companies are in a minority. The explanation is, as my hon. Friend knows, and as other hon. Members are aware, they have not in the past been as active in business as the British and the Indians, and, therefore, they do not possess the organisation and the necessary experience.

My hon. Friend the Member tor Maldon wanted to know about the trade union movement. It is true we have sent an official from the Ministry of Labour, not to organise the trade union movement, but to give to those who want to organise such a movement the benefit of his advice and experience. I understand he is a very experienced official from the Ministry of Labour, who is well able to perform the task. My hon. Friend also asked about the possibility of a delegation going from this country to Burma. I am sure he will not expect me at this moment to commit the Government and say whether that can be done, but I will certainly bear the suggestion in mind.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) asked what was being done to encourage greater production of rice. I think I have dealt with that point as far as I can. It is a problem of which we are all very conscious, and it is, of course, of vital importance to Burma itself. The question of animals is difficult. There is a shortage in Southern Burma where tractors cannot be used owing to the conditions, and animals have to be used instead, but everything is being done to increase the number of animals in Southern Burma and it is hoped that it may be possible to use tractors by degrees in Northern Burma. Of course, they cannot be turned out like rabbits out of a hat, and there is a great demand for tractors in other parts of the world, but we will do everything we can to secure a good proportion for Burma.

The hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) raised two points in his speech. One had reference to money lenders in Burma. There is no doubt that a good deal of indebtedness does exist in the agricultural areas, and the problem of having to ease this burden which bears upon them very considerably, or certainly has done in the past, will have to be faced by the Government of Burma, but that will depend upon an improvement in the financial position of the country. It is a matter which will have to receive very serious consideration. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the rather tragic position of the Anglo-Burman community, and I entirely agree with what he said about the unfortunate position in which they have been placed, I also agree that we shall have to pay due regard to their welfare when we are forming the political settlement

I would be obliged if the hon. and learned Gentleman could make inquiries and let us know something about the immediate position in Burma; I am not so concerned with the ultimate position, but the immediate position.

I will see that what the hon. Gentleman had to say will he brought to the notice of the Governor, and I will endeavour to get a reply. I was asked a question about the defence forces in Burma. Before the war they were not very large, and at present efforts are being made by His Majesty's Government to reconstitute those forces, but even so they will be on a comparatively limited scale. I am not prepared to argue at the moment as to whether we should go slow on the policy which I have enunciated today, merely because they might not have sufficiently large defence forces to compare with other independent countries. I hope I will not be misunderstood when I say that in spite of any deficiency in that regard, it is the declared intention of His Majesty's Government, which they will carry out on the lines which I have indicated, to ensure that the people of Burma do realise their national aspirations at the earliest possible moment.

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say something on the point I raised, namely, that the functions of the Burma Office should be transferred to the Dominions Office at the earliest possible moment?

I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not expect me to answer that point today, but it will be on record and it can be considered by those concerned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on 10th December, 1942, a copy of which Proclamation was presented on 9th February, 1943

Resolved: That this House approves the continuance in force of the Proclamation issued under Section 139 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, by the Governor of Burma on 17th October, 1945, a copy of which Proclamation was presented on 22nd February."—[ Mr. A. Henderson. ]

Are we to have an explanation of this Motion?

I am very sorry that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has been called away to a rather important meeting. He asked me to take over his notes and, if necessary, explain the matter to the House. This matter, of course, has been before the Committee dealing with these Orders, but they have not made any report. It is not controversial. The Chancellor agreed, on 10th January this year, that the Treasury might make an order to exempt from Purchase Tax centrifugal organ blowers, accessories and parts thereof. A 100 per cent. tax on the wholesale value of parts of the organ blower has been in operation, but those parts dealing with ventilation have been free from tax. Therefore, when the organ blower was taken to a site and built up it was sometimes difficult to assess which parts were tax free and which parts were not. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has now determined to annul this order and make all parts of the organ blower tax free.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell the House exactly what will be the loss in revenue to the Treasury by withdrawing the tax on these items?

I cannot give any idea.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved: That the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (No. 1) Order, 1946 (S.R. & O., 1946, No. 211) dated 19th February, 1946, made by the Treasury under the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1940, a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd February, be approved.

Having regard to the hour, and to the hope I entertain that perhaps other hon. Members may wish to take part in this discussion, it will be necessary for me to telescope the many facts and figures which I wished to give the House concerning this subject. The title of the subject which I desire to raise is: "Reform of the motor industry." I think it would be useful if at the outset I define what I mean by "motor industry." First of all, I mean the manufacture and production of motor cars, distribution and exchange, and finally the maintenance of motor cars. By the term "motor car" I include all types of motor vehicles manufactured in this country. The word "reform" presupposes that there is some evil which it is necessary to reform. Therefore, it is necessary for me to make out a case for the existence of such an evil.

I would go so far as to say that the present state of the motor industry is a national scandal and a disgrace of the first magnitude. From many aspects the motor industry, as defined, is a ramp and a racket on a large scale. I shall have to prove that, as briefly as I can. It is necessary to look a little at the background in relation to which the motor industry in its present condition stands. I, with I dare-say hon. Members on both sides of the House, have noticed a recent tendency to say that almost every industry in which one happens to be interested or talking about at the moment is the most vital and most important industry in the whole country. Then when we go upstairs in committees and in groups to examine the details we constantly find that the industry in question is regarded as the most unattractive industry of the whole lot; that it is unattractive because the labour conditions are bad, and one cannot, therefore, get into it the number of workers required in order to develop and make the best use of it for our export trade.

I would say that our motor industry could and should at the present time be our most important export industry. Secondly, I would say that it could and should at the present time be the most attractive industry from the point of view of the worker. The background to which I referred in relation to the export trade is, of course, this. At the present time the possibilities of exporting motor vehicles of all kinds are immense; they are almost incalculable. First of all, there is Europe, and I need not say more about that, because the facts are obvious. Then there are the Far Eastern countries, including, of course, India, and the one which we have just been debating, Burma. Then there is Russia. I am informed that recently representatives of the Russian Government stated that their present requirements and needs for motor vehicles of all types amounts to the staggering figure of 20,000,000. When one thinks of that figure in relation to the total output in the prewar days, it may seem a slight exaggeration. Nevertheless, I think I have shown that there is an almost illimitable demand for these motor vehicles.

I do not want to say much about the second point, namely, the labour conditions and how they ought to be and could be as attractive as in any other industry, whatever it may be. That is obvious to anybody who knows, as hon. Members do know, what a modern motor factory can be like, and to those who remember what high wages and short hours have been secured in these factories in America. It is not the same here, but I suggest it could be. With regard to the present state of the motor industry, I would ask hon. Members to look through the newspapers or use their own eyes to see what is happening. Look at the new cars that are being turned out, or about to be manufactured, and look at their prices. I; not it obvious that the manufacturers are intending to go back to 1939 as q sickly as they can, instead of going ahead to 1950, as they ought to do? The manufacturers are determined to make hay while the sun shines. They know there is an enormous worldwide demand at the moment, and they think that by taking a short view, by churning out quickly models far which they have the plant, tools and equipment, they can make a big profit and take no heed of the future.

I want to go into some slight detail as regards the multiplicity of models to which it is apparent the manufacturers of the industry as a whole intend to return, models which existed before the war. I have been unable to obtain any accurate figures; indeed, it has been impossible to obtain official figures for any one year in regard to certain matters. Neither the Board of Trade nor the Ministry of Supply, nor the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, nor any other body can give any accurate figures on many of these matters. Upon the best calculation that I have been able to make, before the war there were no less than zoo different types of models of motor cars manufactured by the industry in this country, and there were about 50 or 60 separate firms at the same time, not, of course, each making 100, but a great many of them making four, five and six models and others two and three models or two models. It would be almost laughable, if it were riot so serious, that this state of affairs not only should have existed before, but should be the state of affairs to which the industry appears to be determined to return as quickly as it possibly can. I would like to give the House a figure—again it may seem exaggerated but I believe it to be accurate. In 1938 the industry turned out no less than 550 different types of commercial vehicles.

I have attempted to put the present position of the industry in a nutshell in this equation which I have endeavoured to formulate. It is based on the 1935 statistics which, as I have said, are the last which have any kind of official authority. It is a comparison between our industry and the American. In the United States, with only double the number of man-hours, the industry produced 15 times the amount of motor car. The amount of motor car is, I would suggest, not the single vehicle—that comes to 10 times and is itself pretty formidable—but taking into account the size of the cars, their efficiency, comfort, horsepower and so on, I would say that the amount of motor car produced by the American industry with only double the number of man-hours before the war was 15 times more than our industry could manage or attempt. The remarkable fact about that is that it was achieved in America with double the wages and with the result of producing and selling to the consumer cars at half the price.

That puts it in a nutshell, but I would like to give the House a few figures to support it. In 1939, eight British firms out of a total of 50 or 60 had 88 per cent. of our production; that is to say, of the total number of cars they produced 88 per cent., and amongst that proportion they made no less than 39 different engines. In America exactly the same proportion, namely, 88 per cent. was turned out by 10 different manufacturers —two more than our eight—and they produced only 15 different engines.

Take the leading models. It was found on examination that it may be said fairly that there were three British models which sold more than any others, and that represented only 27 per cent. of the home sales—that is, sales in the domestic market; whereas, in America the equivalent three leading models represented 54 per cent. In 1938 our total production of private motor cars amounted to 342,000, arid of those we exported only 68,257. Of that total production, 62 per cent. were cars of 10 horse power or under and only 34,644 were of the type which has any chance of being sold in the foreign market, namely, cars of 15 horse power or over. In the same year the United States industry produced 2,000,985—and that was a bad year. I am reliably informed that now they are intending to reach their peak, which was 4,000,000, or even get to 6,000,000 in a very short time. Of the few millions the Americans made, they exported 488,650, which, of course, was very much more than the total production of the British industry. However, one of the matters which is so startling, and brings into relief the production figures of the British industry, and the worth of the British product, is that in the same year, 1938, British traders imported from eleven foreign countries no less than 10,800 foreign cars. These were principally from America, but also from Germany, France, Italy and, of course, Canada. In 1937, which was a much better year, we imported no less than 18,000 foreign cars.

Then if we take the value of the imports and exports we get this remarkable figure, that in 1938 the value of all motor vehicles and accessories of all types imported into Britain was £4,500,000, whereas the same figure for exports was only £15,000,000. If one figure be deducted from the other it will be seen how very small was the amount of foreign trade this industry was doing. To complete that picture, look at the figures for the years from 1929, when the value of exports of motor cars was £11,174,000. Ten years later it was only £12,922,000. I come to the present year, and I should like to mention a few prices which exist for new cars in America. At the moment, one can purchase 1942 models—there are some 1941 models, too, but the 1942 models are the latest at present—for between £250 and £300. Generally speaking, they are all of 30 h.p. to 25 h.p. Hon. Members will know what those models are like. Let them compare those models with the kind of models being turned out by our industry now, and with those our industry intends to turn out. Let them compare the prices of the British models with the prices of the American models. I should like to remind the House how prices stood before the war. In 1938 a 30 h.p. Buick, after payment of insurance and freight for bringing it over, cost £500, whereas a 20 h.p. Austin, which, I am told, was the equivalent car, cost £650. I say that it was the equivalent car, but hon. Members who have driven in both makes will be able to judge. A 29 h.p. Chevrolet cost £268, whereas an 18 h.p. Austin cost £350—

Do those figures include duties?

Those figures include duties. To give one example of this determination to get back to the prewar multiplicity of types produced by large numbers of manufacturers in small quantities—some manufacturers are going even further and are to produce new models of the same category—it was announced in the paper the other day that the Wolseley firm was to produce an 8 h.p. car to cost over £300 without any tax, although we already have a large number of 8 h.p. cars made by different makers. Others are going to produce 6 h.p. cars.

I think I have said enough as to the production side. I now want to turn to distribution, because it plays a very important part, not only in regard to the use of motor cars at home, but, also, in regard to the industry as a whole. The cost of distribution, that is, the cost which has to be paid by the consumer, and which arises between the factory and the consumer, is in many cases—in most cases, I am afraid—absolutely fantastic. If one buys a car from a dealer for, say, £400, nearly a quarter of the cost, £100, may go in this cost which is mostly by way of discount or commission on sale to the dealer. Generally the car passes through the hands of two or three dealers before it completes its journey from the factory to the buyer. Hon. Members who have purchased cars or have had experience of this business will know whether I am right or not, but I suggest that for that "£100, or whatever the sum is, we often get absolutely nothing. Indeed, in some eases we receive treatment that is so bad, it would be better to have none at all. Why is that? As I understand it, it is because of the enormous numbers of dealers, and what are called stockists. There is no control or regulation, and no qualification which they have to pass in order to deal with cars. To make a living, these people have to be paid an enormous discount. I think there are 13,000 dealers, or some such stupendous figure, and on an average each one sells only about 15 to 20 cars in a year.

Then there is the question of maintenance, which is of extreme importance. By maintenance, I mean servicing and the repair of cars already on the roads. Here again, we have countless thousands of unqualified and badly equipped repairers, and, therefore, we have to pay a lot for repairs—we may get good value, or we may get very bad value—in either case we pay far too much. Is this not a matter which contributes very greatly to the high running costs of motoring, and is it not of even greater importance in relation to road safety? At the outset, in the case of aircraft, laws were imposed, and have been strictly enforced ever since, to make it impossible for an aeroplane to take the air in an un-airworthy condition. There is a law in existence to ensure that motor vehicles on the roads shall be in good order, but, whether it can be enforced or not, the fact is that repairers in the country would be, as they were before the war, quite incapable of undertaking the task. I do not want to give statistics, but it is known, and it is known to the Minister of Transport, who would confirm it if he were here, that a large proportion of the accidents on the roads are caused by defective maintenance of motor cars. In the case of tyres and spare parts we have the same position, with an enormous number of dealers, many of whom deal solely in tyres. It is necessary, in order for them to make a living, to give them a discount which is something in the order of between 50 to 75 per cent. I want these to be regarded as approximate figures for tyres and spare parts.

What is the cause of this state of affairs which I have described in regard to the industry as a whole? I suggest, first, that there is largely a psychological cause. When motor cars first appeared on the roads—I think is was when a Conservative Government was in power—a red flag had to be carried in front of the motor car in order to retard its progress. That is how it started, and that is how the industry has grown up. There is another psychological aspect to this matter, and that is that, from the outset to the present day, the motor car has been regarded as a luxury, as if it were a yacht or something of that character, not only by the Government, but by people as a whole. It is the opposite of what has happened in America, when, as long ago as 1910, Mr. Henry Ford started, by mass production methods, to produce vehicles for ordinary working people. It was not until 1920 that an attempt was made in this country to produce vehicles in any quantity, and even to this day not a single firm has achieved mass production as it is understood in America.

I want to say a further word about the psychological aspect, because I think that it is important. It may be said that the motor car, instead of being used for the benefit of the people and instead of having the obvious beneficial uses, which I need not mention, has become an instrument of class distinction, surrounded with snobbish barriers from the Rolls Royce downwards; and all sorts of minor rackets have developed, such as producing little metal discs costing about 2d., and getting people to subscribe several shillings a year for the privilege of putting them on their motor cars. I cannot refer to taxation in this Debate and matters that would involve legislation, but the McKenna duties were imposed at an early stage, and it is obvious that from the start the industry has been protected by its friends in successive governments.

I would say that one of the chief causes of the present state which I have described is the unbridled private enterprise in this country—free enterprise, uncontrolled. How can that be cured? Before suggesting a few remedies, which I want to put forward as shortly as possible, I would like to put these propositions and these facts as some of them are, that in this country we have no firm at the present time capable of competing in mass production with any of the firms in America. Any one of half a dozen American firms is capable of producing, and some have in the past produced, more than four times the number of cars put out by the whole of the British industry. One of the reasons why it has been possible for America to produce cars so much more cheaply than we can is that in America practically every one of these large factories is capable of a line of production sufficiently lengthy to get the full benefits of mass production. Opinion seems to differ as to whether the figure is 25,000, 35,000 or 50,000. Whatever it is, not a single firm in this country has ever reached it. It has reached a figure of production of, may be, 80,000 cars a year, but that is supplying six, seven or eight different models.

Will the hon. Gentleman not agree that this magnificent American mass production to which he refers, was created by private enterprise which he is attacking in this country?

It certainly was, but it did not operate under Conservative Governments or anything like that. It operated under entirely different social conditions. I have mentioned one of them. The social conditions in America were entirely different. Everyone knew at once that he had as much right as any one else to have a motor car, and the demand was met accordingly. Although my hon. Friend says there is uncontrolled private enterprise in America, it is in fact, of course, under control. You do not get the rings, combines, monopolies and cartels obtaining in America as a whole. There are the Sherman anti-trust laws. You have the benefit in America of competition between four if not six different concerns. You do not get that here. I hope to show that the whole industry in this country is riddled with monopolies, rings, combines and cartels.

May I give a few figures to analyse the costs as they operate in the British industry? The claim is sometimes made that we cannot pay high wages in the motor industry because they represent such a large proportion and we must get cheap cars. Actually it is only about 10 or 15 per cent. of the cost, and the overhead and labour charges represent 35 per cent. of the total; all the rest are raw materials, prefabricated parts, components and accessories. Believe me, the motor car factory is hardly a manufactory at all. Most of its work consists in assembling things which are made or partly made elsewhere. Sixty-five per cent. of the cost of the car is represented by the raw and prefabricated material. Over 66 per cent. of the prefabricated material is produced by firms completely under the control of price rings, combines and so on. In fact, one firm—I will not mention its name—controls 88 per cent. of certain types of equipment and components.

With regard to the prices which the public have to pay, I have already mentioned the enormous discounts which have to be allowed in the distribution. On the other hand, when one looks at the profits made by the manufacturers, no figures have been disclosed or can be obtained to show what profit is made on each car whether it is £50 on a £400 car or more I do not know—but we can look at the profits in the shape of dividends. We find that for Austins, one of the largest producers of motor cars, the dividend from 1931 to 1938 varied between 50 per cent. and—in one year, including a bonus£400 per cent. Morris were a little more modest; for the three years 1936 to 1938 they paid 45 per cent., and in 1939 40 per cent.

I come now to the remedies, which I will put as briefly as I can. Although they are entirely my own proposals, I shall endeavour to show later that I am not speaking on my own authority alone, and I ask the House to consider them as worthy of attention. First, the industry must produce the right type of car, and this was well described by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade as a car which will give good comfort and cheap running. That is not exactly the American type of car with its large engine, which is not likely to sell very well in any country except the United States because in all of them the fuel costs are almost as high as they are here. The would-be purchaser does not want the present type of American car. Equally, he does not want the kind of cars we have sent him from Britain in the past. Indeed, from some points of view, the 8 h.p. car is nothing more than a joke, a glorified and very expensive toy, but I do not want to dismiss it altogether, because there is a strictly limited but very good market for that car even in the United States provided we produce one model, and produce it cheaply and quickly. I believe we could capture a market right in the United States itself and maintain it for a long time, but not as we are trying to do now by showing a few 1939 8 h.p. models of one make in a New York showroom and hoping that the other six or seven will go along in the future.

That type of car can be produced only by cooperation, and the theme I stress, for the suggested remedies I am about to propose, is and must be cooperation between the manufacturers. They must cooperate and agree upon what is the right type of car, whether 15 or 16 h.p., whether it must have independent suspension on all four wheels or only in front. Surely it should be possible for them to agree to produce a very limited number—it may be three or it might be as many as six—of the type of car which would not only satisfy the foreign user, but would be equally suitable for use at home.

I have dealt with the question of mass production and how it is that we cannot possibly do that at the moment. One has to have at least 25,000, and possibly 50,000, in a line of production of the same model in order to get the real benefit. After that one gets a graph in which the curve's rate of ascent gradually decreases but continues going up almost to infinity. We have not got anywhere near that yet. We must, by cooperation, produce cars cheaply. We have to have the long line of single models, and we can only do that by cooperation, either by amalgamation in the industry or by the sort of distributed production or farming out that was so largely successful in the aircraft industry during the war. That can be done. Before I come to the question of tax, it seems to me that the attitude of our manufacturers is completely wrong. They say that the Americans are able to deal as they did so successfully before the war in the export market because they have the overspill of home production to satisfy the foreign demand, and they are endeavouring to create in the minds of the public and the Government the idea that that theory applies to British industry at borne. Not only is that wrong, but the exact opposite is the true view, and I urge the manufacturers to reverse their position. What they ought to do is to regard this illimitable world market as the market they would satisfy, and, with the overspill from that, sell cars at what would then be almost ridiculously cheap prices at home.

I mention the tax only to say that I cannot really deal with it, but I wonder whether it has hampered development to the extent which the manufacturers claim. I believe that it has only been done because it has been found to be to the advantage of certain great manufacturers. It has been kept on by their friends in successive Conservative Governments. They have proved it by their attitude to the change which has recently been made from the R.A.C. formula to the cubic capacity formula which is, if it is a change at all, a change which involves equal if not greater vices than the R.A.C. formula did before. The manufacturers should not let themselves be controlled by the Chancellor by this ridiculous formula. Let them disregard the tax. Let them decide on the best models, as if there were no tax, and then produce them and nothing else, and the Chancellor will have to change his ideas because he will find himself losing money. So far as we have been able to ascertain, the trouble is that the manufacturers want to keep either to the old R.A.C. tax or to the new one which has been announced, and they want to do that because they have been making a very good thing out of it. They want to do that and not make the changes I have suggested, because making these changes would necessitate the expenditure of a large amount of capital, re-equipment, retooling, new plant, new factories and so on, and they would rather make a quick 100 or 400 per cent. dividend profit by the shortage which exists at the moment without looking ahead. Those are the first two remedies I propose—the right type of car produced at the reduced price by the means I have described.

The third remedy that must be applied is to break down the rings and cartels. They should see that the prices for steel and all the components, which are kept up by the rings, are reduced. They should do all these three things, by reorganisation and cooperation—in a word by rationalisation. These are the remedies which I suggest. I am not allowed to suggest nationalisation because that would involve legislation, but I can, and do, say that if ever there was an example of the failure and inefficiency of private enterprise in this country—not America—it is the motor industry. I do not regard that as a controversial statement, because I think that this side of the House is very greatly to blame. I will not go into that, because I have not the time, but we are, as a Party, and now as the Government Party, not at all free from blame in this matter. I do not think the unions who have to deal with working conditions are free from blame in not having brought to the attention of the public this dreadful scandal—because it is nothing less than that—that has existed and grown from 1925 until today.

How do the Government propose to set about this matter? On 15th November the President of the Board of Trade attended a meeting of the Society of Motor Manufacturers. I am not sure that it was not a dinner at which he was entertained. He told them they ought to plan to export at least 50 per cent. of their output. This was not well received at all; in fact there were shouts of "No, no" and "Tripe" and similar unparliamentary language. I do not know what happened after that, but on l0th December I put down a Question on the Order Paper and asked what the President of the Board of Trade proposed to do about the motor industry. He had the Question transferred to the Minister of Supply. So it really looks as if the President of the Board of Trade had come to the conclusion that methods of peaceful persuasion would not avail, and had shifted the burden to the more ample frames of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Supply. Did they try peaceful persuasion? The answer I had was that they would have a meeting, but what they ultimately did was to give up peaceful persuasion and they decided to institute a system of watching and besetting, and they set up a thing called an advisory council as a picket for the purpose.

That was announced on 10th February and the appointments to it were given on i8th March. That council has no statutory or legal authority or influence at all. Therefore, its influence must depend entirely on the moral authority and upon the intelligence and determination of its individual members. Who are these individual members? The list has been published in HANSARD, but I propose to read it through quickly as I am sure the House will be interested. The first is Mr. R. C. Rootes, who has 19 directorships, including the directorship of a steel pressing company and who is deputy chairman of the Rootes group. Then there is Sir Miles Thomas whom everyone knows. There are Mr. L. P. Lord, managing director of Austins, and Mr. S. Wilks, who is managing director and chairman of Rovers, Mr. R. S. Fryars, particulars of whom I have been unable to find in the ordinary works of reference, and Sir Charles Bartlett, chairman and managing director of Vauxhalls. Then we come to the hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division of Birmingham (Sir P. Bennett). He is the chairman of Lucas's, the electrical equipment people, C.A.V., Rotax, and a former president of the Federation of British Industries. I am very sorry not to see him in his place now, because it would have encouraged me to know that he was there and that he might take part in the Debate.

Is it not more usual to warn an hon. Member of an intended reference?

I did take the necessary step of writing to him, although I only realised the fact this morning, but the hon. Member is not in his place. As I said in my letter, I have no intention to criticise him. I have nothing but praise and admiration for the hon. Member personally. I will not go into details—they are obvious from the record to which I have referred—but I think I am entitled to say I was a little startled to see that a Member of Parliament had been appointed, because I had been informed that Members of Parliament were not eligible. If they are eligible, ought we not at least to have one hon. Member from the Government side put on to this Board? To complete the names on the list, there are a Mr. Black about whom I have found no particulars, Mr. George Wansborough, Mr. Halliwell and Mr. Openshaw, and finally, the joint secretary, Lieut.-Colonel McLaglan, the General Secretary of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, Ltd. Those names, with one, two or three notable exceptions, consist of the very gentlemen who have been in the past, and still are, responsible for the present state of the motor industry. Having nothing but praise and admiration for them personally for their achievements in regard to the dividends paid by their concerns, I would ask whether they are the type of people likely to carry out, not the reform I suggest, but any reform at all. Are they not, on the other hand, the type of gentlemen who believe that no reform is needed, or, if it is, that it lies in the direction of perpetuating and exaggerating the present tendencies? Are they likely to insist on any change in taxation? Are they likely, in regard to the production of certain models I have mentioned, to rationalise production by long lines of fewer models instead of short lines of a multiplicity of expensive types? It is a case of Quis custodiet ipsos custodies ?

I hope that when my hon. Friend replies he will not endeavour to say that he cannot reply to a great many of the things I have put to him because the responsibility now rests upon this Board, and that it would be improper for him so to do. I say that because when I came to try to gather information for this Debate I applied to the Secretary of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, among many other sources—that is, the joint secretary of this Board. I had a courteous reply, and he gave me many particulars for which I had asked. I wrote for further particulars, and after some delay the public relations officer replied, and said that he thought it would be improper for the Society, in view of the appointment of this Advisory Council, to discuss with private Members of Parliament the subjects I had raised. I had not asked for a discussion, but only for facts and figures, such as how many types were produced by how many makers before the war. No doubt, his attitude was a perfectly proper one to adopt, mistaken though I think it was. But yesterday, I received a letter, as I believe other hon. Members did, from the joint secretary of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, asking Members to use their influence to do this and that in regard to the present provision that certain transport vehicles must have six wheels, and they want liberty to make them with four for export. If that is the position, it is nonsense to say that we in this House cannot discuss these matters, and the Minister cannot properly reply, because this Board, the composition of which I have mentioned, is a kind of untouchable body, a kind of judicial body which one cannot criticise or comment upon.

Therefore, I would ask my hon. Friend to deal faithfully with the questions I have put. I have been a devotee of all forms of transport, from small sailing boats to aircraft, for a long time, but the motor car was my first love. Indeed, I first owned one at the age of seven and covered a large mileage in the streets of London under my own power. Since then, I have owned and driven a large variety of makes, British and foreign, and have had much to do with motor cars and the industry in the practice of my profession. But I have not relied on my own knowledge for the views I have put forward. I have consulted with some of the best experts, including the heads of some of the largest manufacturing concerns, and others, who have given me excellent advice. In addition, a great deal of attention has recently been given to the matter in the more serious newspapers. I refer particularly to articles which appeared in "The Times" of, I think, 16th February, and more recently in "The Times Trade and Engineering Supplement" for March. If Members read these, and if they will consult with people in the industry who can give them independent and unbiased views—and there are plenty—they will find that they all come to more or less the conclusions I have endeavoured to urge as to the large scale rationalisation of the industry, and as to the things that manufacturers have to be persuaded or made to do, and which they are highly unlikely ever to do if left to themselves.

I feel that the common people of this country have the right to have cheap motor cars and good motor cars at prices which they can afford to pay. I believe that, next to housing, the motor car might be the most important material instrument in the social welfare of this country. I believe that it can be done, but that it can only be done, at present or at any other time, by cooperation, and I ask the Government to see to it, either through this Board or by any other means that they may feel it necessary to use, to make absolutely certain that these manufacturers do cooperate to the end which we all have in mind. If they do, I suggest that they will find that, so far from being a question of exporting merely 200,000 cars which we are going to do this year, the export of motor vehicles will become not merely an important export but a tremendously remunerative, profitable and permanent item in our vital trade which will, in the end, make us prosperous and safe.

3.46 p.m.

Some years ago I had the honour of sitting for the constituency now represented by the hon. Member who has just sat down, and I feel confident that he will know that I have listened to his speech, through each one of its 46 minutes, with almost a paternal interest. I think his speech was a mixture of admitted facts and conclusions, some of which were good, and others very erroneous indeed.

I take up the hon. Member on his very first point—the question of the possibilities of an export market for the motor industry of this country. To use his own words, "the possibilities are immense, almost incalculable." The possibilities are great, but I do not think that, under the present system, the probabilities are anything like as great as he thought they were. During the last few months, we have been fortunate enough to export to America a fair number of cars, which have, to some extent, captivated interest over there, but I would point out very forcibly that I believe that this is only a temporary phase. It is fairly easy at this time to build up exports in almost anything, because the world is short of goods and people all over the world will eagerly grab anything that is going, and will gladly pay for it. That is why, at present, we are able to sell cars in the United States, where they have a tremendous shortage and where anything on wheels, that will go and has an engine in it, will be very gladly bought. But, if we are to continue to keep that market, then we have to ensure that our product is one which will have appeal both on performance and on price. This country, from now on, if it wishes to secure export markets, will have to produce the car of performance which sells at the right price.

I think our motor industry has made a great mistake in making, as its first slogan, "Buy British." Our motor car industry will only succeed if we can tell people that, by buying British, they are buying the best and not merely being patriotic. I remember that, some time before the war, I went to a dinner given by a motor manufacturer who was launching a new model in this country. He gave a dinner to which large salesmen were invited, and I was asked to go along as his guest. I sat on the right hand of the motor manufacturer, who made a speech and afterwards said to me, "Well, what do you think of that?" He was very angry when I said, "I look forward to the time when we can sell British cars on merit, and not merely because they are British." If the Government do want to help, let them give encouragement in order to improve the general standard of our cars. I do not believe that we shall ever succeed in capturing the export markets of the British Empire and of other parts of the world, while we continue to try to sell cars which are of low horsepower. After all, we have to recognise that distances in this country are comparatively small. If we are to sell cars in Canada, the United States, South Africa, India and Australia, we must produce a car capable of handling the big distances, and that means a very much higher horse-power. We cannot live on exports alone. It is axiomatic that a strong export market needs behind it a very good and lively home market. I believe that such a market can be created in this country.

The hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross) raised another point which I should like to take up. It is absolutely wrong that the Government should have in their minds the idea that a motor car is a luxury to be retained for the few. It is a necessity, and the more people in this country who have the privilege of owning a motor car the better it will be. That is the situation in America. I could not agree with the hon. Member for Widnes in his statement about America. After all, the big American motor car industry was built up entirely by private initiative and free enterprise.

Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman add free corn-petition as well?

Certainly I will add competition. It is good in America, and it is good in this country too.

There, has been competition in America, but have we had it here?

Competition and free enterprise will return to this country when we on this side of the House are in power once again in a few years' time. Until then, I cannot see it returning. The hon. Member for Widnes referred to the American citizen. He is given cheap motor cars in tremendous quantities and of good quality under a system of private enterprise. Because it was in America, the hon. Member thought that was all right, for in America there were no rings and cartels, and so on, but he said that in England things were entirely different. I do not think we should take that view. If that system is successful there, it can be successful here. Some years ago, when I had completed my studies at Cambridge, I went to America to have a look at what there was in that country. One of the first impressions made on me on visiting the industrial areas was that every factory I went to had an immense parking place because everyone in the factory went to work in his own motor car. Every man, whatever his job, expected the standard of living to be high enough to enable him to purchase and run a motor car. He expected the price to be low enough to enable him to have a car. That is a system I would like to see in this country. We ought to have good and cheap cars so that every working man would be able to own one, in the same way as the working men in America. Unless we have some system of reform, perhaps more in the Government than in the motor industry, we shall not reach that stage.

At present we do not produce enough and, therefore, the price is higher than it would be under the American system. It is made higher still because the Government put a monstrously high Purchase Tax on cars and fuel which has the effect of denying the working man in this country the right to use a car. If we can reduce these charges substantially, the motor industry will grow to an unprecedented size and the revenue received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer will go up with it. We ought to rely on the principle of smaller profits and bigger returns. Of course, if more people had motor cars it might be a source of worry to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport because he would have to produce bigger and better roads such as many of us have advocated for a very long time. But do not let us follow the many erroneous conclusions which have been drawn by the hon. Gentleman. Let us run the industry so that we can produce a cheap car with a high horsepower and good performance, which will not be made expensive by overtaxation by way of Purchase Tax, Road Fund tax, or by too heavy a tax on fuel. If we can do that and supply the cars to the people, we shall have a prosperous home market on which we can base a great export market to capture the motor trade of the world.

3.56 p.m.

I will not detain the House very long having regard to the time, but there appears to be a good deal of confusion on this question of horse power. The American high horse power indicates, very largely, high consumption, and the nominally much lower horse power car in this country has a relatively higher performance. I do not think we ought to talk down our own products to the extent that we do. Within the limits of their classes they are very good cars indeed, and it is also true that, taking the run of any roads in this country, comparing the high-powered American car with the average English nominally low horse power car, one will find, having regard to the general conditions, that one reaches one's destination as quickly in the small car as in the large one. That is an important factor in motoring—the time it takes to get anywhere. While there may be an excellent case for saying that we want a standard model for export purposes—that they may have to be of a different standard and of higher horse power, and so on—there is no particular case to be made in this country for making cars of a high horse power, with their consequently large and uneconomical consumpton, because one cannot get the full performance out of the car. That is a factor which has always been borne in mind by the designers of cars in this country. The heavy commercial motor vehicle industry in this country produces vehicles which will sell, if given the opportunity, in almost any part of the world, and are of a quality which no other country produces.

What is needed above all is some degree of rationalisation of the engineering industry as a whole, because we must recollect that the motor car industry is not a specialised specific industry on its own as such. It is one of the material users and one of the channels of consumption of the engineering industry as a whole. It seems to me that the Minister of Supply is putting the cart before the horse in attempting to set up an advisory committee to do something in this industry without looking at the engineering industry as a whole, and in not doing something about the supply of raw materials which will be vital if anything is to be done to bring down the cost of motor car production in this country. Steel costs, which have formed the basis of the prices in the motor car industry, are notoriously high, and, no matter what is done, we could not compete with America because our raw material production will not let us do it. We have to think in other terms. If we could have some degree of rationalisation of the industry as a whole, if a committee or some organisation could be set up to deal with engineering, we might be getting somewhere. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will he able to deal with this question of the people who are alleged to be looking after the motor car industry. Among members of the National Advisory Council are persons in a privileged position, one of them being the chairman of what is almost a monopoly on the accessory side. In addition to that, we have so many diverse interests represented on that Committee that in the end they will probably only agree to differ.

It being Four o' Clock, the Motion, for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[ Captain Bing. ]

I feel that a greater effort must be made for the industry as a whole. We must have the rationalisation that is required brought about by a more effective body than the body now dealing in it, which will probably end with a degree of masterly inactivity. They will find that, through conflicting interests, between the heavy commercial side, the light commercial side, the light car side and the accessory side, it will be practically impossible to give any sound advice at all. That may be what the Department wants, but it certainly is not what the country wants. We want motorcars at a cheap and reasonable price. We want them of a quality not less than the present quality, and we want an increasing quantity. We want something which will compete in the markets of the world, and take advantage of the great demand at the present time. I hope something will be done to assist this, one of our major exporting industries at the present time, so that it can bring prosperity to this country, not only for the industry itself but for the benefit of the people as a whole.

4.2 p.m.

I agree with some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross) but not with all. I feel we should take into account the fact that very few motor cars have been made in this country during the years of the war. We should pay tribute to the industry for the job of work it did during the war, in making aircraft engines, and working on other forms of engineering. I believe the motor car industry has a great opportunity, particularly in places like Holland and Belgium where there are no hills, and where there is an opportunity for the small car to which the hon. Member referred. I agree with him that the types must be few in number. There are far too many light cars made. The ideal would be a car of somewhere around 18 horsepower, which is well sprung, well cooled, with the suspension well raised from the ground; a car which would be suitable for the Far East, and for all the other markets overseas.

When I lived in Hong Kong some years ago, I had a British car which always boiled on going up the Peak there, which was 2,000 feet high. I will not mention the make, because the firm in question is now producing a quite good car. The manufacturers should send their representatives out to these places to explore the markets in detail. My experience in watching the British manufacturers sell their cars has been that they sit in the large ports like Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore and expect the orders to come to them. These men should travel up country and sell their cars direct to the Chinese, Indians and others. There is an enormous market for trucks in Southern China. My information is that General Motors are, at the moment, capturing the whole of that market. It would pay manufacturers to go out in a big way to capture this overseas market. Do not let us criticise the industry too much. It has done a good job of work. I feel sure that if it were given encouragement, and if the bottlenecks could be removed, if allowed to trade freely, it could go ahead and assist to acquire the exports we require so much.

4.4 p.m.

We are grateful to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. Shawcross) for raising this matter, because bringing these things into public discussion clears up a great many misunderstandings which arise on various points, even between the two sides of the House. I do not propose to enter into the polemics of the arguments developed between my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes, on the one hand, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Macclesfield (Air-Commodore Harvey), on the other. I shall have to leave them to tight that out later in private. I think we must recognise that when we are dealing with the motor car, we are dealing with one of the fundamental steps forward in civilisation. There is a very fine exhibition of aircraft on just now in the South Kensington Museum, where there is an exhibit showing the progress of mankind in terms of transport, from the simplest roller, on which the stones for the Pyramids were carried along, right through all the stages up to the aeroplanes of today. The motor car has contributed more to making man mobile than any other form of transport, and the only thing which, so far as one can see, will replace the motor car in the future is the helicopter, because it is not confined to the roads but has a three-dimensional method of transport. I have no doubt that eventually farmers and people in isolated areas, will be able to take the air and go as the crow flies to their destination. At the moment however we are dealing with the immediate thing, which is the motor car.

Some criticism has been made of the industry, and I daresay the industry itself would say that some of that criticism was justified, because we are all much wiser after the event than we were before it. Henry Ford had the advantage of sitting down and planning something which he was going to build. It took him a long time. The motor industry in this country was not planned; it grew like Topsy, in a field of private enterprise where everybody was experimenting and pioneering in order to show how he could do better than the other fellow. I want to say quite frankly that there is a stage in society, and in all development, where there is a certain amount of virtue in leaving people to find the best road for themselves. The industry developed and there was plenty of room in it for that pioneering spirit but, of course, under private enterprise, it led to a variety of product, which again led to competition, and soon competition reached the point which it reaches in all development—the market became too small for the productivity of the industry. Thereupon, there came all kinds of stimulants to produce over-consumption of cars by the usual methods, first of hire purchase, which is a quite justifiable method, and secondly by changing the fashion in cars, as the dressmakers do with ladies' dresses, in order to persuade some people to have a new car every year, so that the old one was passed down until it reached the scrap heap in due course.

There comes a point, however, when an industry, if it is to succeed at all and not commit general suicide, must have some sort of rationalisation, and that normally takes place along the lines of the cartels and the trusts. When it reaches that point, then it comes into conflict with the public interest. As my hon. and gallant Friend said—

On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Hon. Members keep referring to me as "hon and gallant" It does me a lot of harm.

I am sure my hon. Friend is gallant, whatever his official description

When it reaches that point, then the community itself has an interest in seeing that it is not exploited by such an organisation, and that some sort of proper rationalisation is introduced. However, there is this to be said, the motor car industry itself has been driven, by the very necessity of expanding its market, into continually increasing its efficiency and reducing the cost of its product, and from that has grown the gradual reduction in price of the cars that have been put before the public. It is now almost a matter of a mathematical calculation as to what would be the maximum market, or the minimum market which would give maximum production at a proper price. That point can be reached; it is the saturation point. This can he estimated by mathematical calculation That brings in the question whether this end can be achieved with the huge variety of cars we have today. They cannot all reach that point of maximum production. Therefore, the industry is faced with the choice between a variety of cars and a reduction of that variety until we have one or two standard models.

It would be wrong for us to decide today that there is anything specially wrong with variety. "Variety is the spice of life" and I hope we shall never come to a monotonous uniformity in everything we do in this country. Moreover, variety stimulates invention; it stimulates art; and it stimulates higher standards If we have monotonous uniformity we may have no break through the monotony, and we may have no improvement. That we made such progress and achieved such success in the war, both from the mechanical point of view and from the point of view of the contribution of ideas, was largely due to the fact that we have the necessary amount of variety in this country to stimulate competition in ideas and emulation of the highest standards.

Whatever may be the faults of the motor industry, these have been due to its history. I should like to pay a great tribute to its achievement. It may have grown up like Topsy but it has certainly accomplished something. Prior to this war it was producing£100 million a year, and about 16 per cent. of that went in exports. The development of that£100 million industry made it the largest single engineering industry in this country. It developed tool making and a skilful method of production that was of in estimable value to us during the war. Had it not been for that we should indeed have been in a sorry plight. It would be wrong to say that the only thing that helped us to win the war was the ability to "mass produce." Indeed, it was the fact that we maintained a special quality in our motor cars, for instance, in the shape of the Rolls Royce, that gave us a high quality in engines, and that brought us to the forefront in the production of aeroplanes. Therefore: I do not think that quality and quantity need be mutually exclusive things, and we must do our best to maintain both. As far as the Government are concerned, we regard it as a national necessity to maintain in this country the spirit of experiment and development and to see that it does not become stagnant.

Criticism was made of present cars. It is true that the industry is producing 1939 cars. Obviously, during the war there was not the opportunity to produce new designs or to put new designs into circulation. For my own point of view I think it would have been wrong during the war, when we were making so much progress in engineering, to have made a hasty decision as to what was to be the model to be put on the market eventually. I think that is a thing to which great thought should be given. When it is produced, it should be the finest product this country can turn out. But in the meantime this country is desperate to secure the immediate production of goods which will help us with our exports.

Would the hon. Gentle-man explain how it is, then, that the Wolseley company has announced the production of a new 8 h.p. car? He said there had not been time to produce new models.

I could not say offhand, but from what I know about engineering I should think it would not be as new as it would appear. Sometimes a new model is an adaptation of something that has existed before. This model might have been developed from a former 10 h.p. car, or something of that kind, or it may represent the Wolseley company's way of putting a cheaper taxed car on the market. You certainly cannot start production of a new car in less than two or three years, and there has not been time to produce an entirely new model since the war ended. In regard to the Industry's contribution to the war effort 80 per cent. of our peak aero-engine production was carried through by the motor-car industry. That is a very great tribute to it. Before the war, there were 225,000 people engaged in the industry, but before it had ended the industry's manpower had increased to 500,000 workers. These facts indicate the importance of the industry so far as Government planning of industry and manpower is concerned. It is because of this importance that the Minister has set up a National Advisory Council for the motor manufacturing industry.

I think there was a little misunderstanding on the part of my hon. Friend about the purposes of this Council. The word "Advisory" ought to have given him a clue. This is not a council or an organisation formed to dictate or run the industry, but an advisory council intended to guide and advise the Minister as to what action he should take. We hope to have valuable advice from this Council, and, if we have it, the Minister will take it. If not, it will be like the old Scotsman who went to the doctor and, having been sounded, asked the doctor how much it would cost. The doctor told him that it would cost him half a crown. "What is that for?" asked the Scotsman. "It is for my advice," replied the doctor. "I am not taking your advice, so it will cost me nothing," the Scotsman replied. The Minister may or may not accept the advice of this Council, but we are looking forward to having advice which will be worthy of acceptance. My right hon. Friend has invited qualified men from various aspects of the industry to consult together as to the best policy in the service of the public and national welfare.

I should like to pay a tribute to all sections of the industry, who have shown obvious willingness to cooperate with the Government in an endeavour to secure the best results for the country since these ideas on planning, manpower and production were introduced. I will give the House an example. Recently, the workers in the engineering industry, of their own volition, approached the Government and put forward constructive ideas to the Minister as to what they thought ought to be done in the planning of the industry. The Minister was favourably impressed by the representations, and the matter is being pursued. The engineering industry is such a varied and enormous industry that, obviously, any Council for the engineering industry must have general terms of reference. The motor car industry is a specific thing, with a specific purpose, and as such its problems are much easier to deal with than the larger and wider problems of the engineering industry as a whole, but the two matters are proceeding simultaneously and no preference is being given to the claims of any one section. We hope that this cooperation will continue. If the workers and managers of the industry can avoid the temptation to exaggerate their differences, and can put them into their proper perspective in relation to national need, I am certain that this industry, with the cooperation of workers and managements, will accomplish something of which this country can be proud. We hope, with the knowledge engineers have of the dangers of friction, that they will introduce the lubrication of good will, so that the industry may proceed with the maximum rapidity and with the minimum of heat.

There is no intention on the part of my right hon. Friend to tell industry how to run its business. Neither the workers nor the managements in this country respond kindly to hectoring or lecturing from outsiders. I think that harm has been done and irritation caused by undue talking to people in regard to the things about which they know far more than the people who talk to them. Therefore, this Council is composed, not of people who know nothing about the industry, but of people who know the industry thoroughly. It is impossible in the engineering industry to find people outside it who know as much about it as the people inside it. If we take the people inside it, we are taking the people who have been responsible for the industry in the past and are responsible for it at the present time. Therefore, we believe that technical qualifications will far exceed any political deficiencies which there may be, and it is technical qualifications that will be considered. The hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett) is on this Council, not in his capacity as Member of Parliament, but because of his technical efficiency in the industries with which he is connected, and to which my hon. Friend himself paid tribute.

The State, of course, has a responsibility, and my right hon. Friend, now responsible for the engineering industry, must accept the responsibility of seeing that this industry is efficiently conducted within the limits of manpower that are available in the country. Our most valuable asset today is our skill and our manpower. We must make the maximum use of both, and every possible step must be taken to avoid any waste in either of these directions. The motor industry is one of the most vital industries for the expansion of exports, which must receive special attention from the Government in the present crisis. That means that we have a change of purpose in this industry. It is no longer an industry which caters for luxuries. It has to provide two functions in the community. It has to provide the transport for the factories and individuals in the country. Secondly, it has to furnish the nation externally with the commodity money with which we can purchase our vital imports from abroad. I am very pleased to pay tribute to the industry for the response which it has made since the war to the Government's request that it should expand exports to the maximum. At present the industry is exporting 50 per cent. of its cars and 33⅓ per cent. of its other motor vehicles. I think that that is greatly to its credit.

So far as the Advisory Council is concerned, my right hon. Friend proposes to ask it for advice, as he has intimated to the House, on the location of industry, exports, imports, research and development, design and technical development, and on production methods. We propose to invite consideration of the following propositions: That the industry must increase its production; it must secure the maximum output with the minimum of labour power, which means the elimination of waste in production. In that regard it must eliminate possible unnecessary man-hours, possible unnecessary overheads and possible unnecessary development of sales organisations, as my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes has suggested. It must concentrate on fewer varieties of bodies. We certainly propose to ask the industry to pay very special attention to the question of multiplicity of bodies. That, of course, leads automatically to the necessity of more standardisation, but variety of models does not mean that every part in every car must be different, and within different models there can be a great amount of standardisation.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that at present there is very little standardisation?

I would say that there is far too little. There is some. The hon. Member for Edgbaston has managed to establish in his industries quite a lot of standardisation, for example in lamps, batteries and things of that kind. Then there are examples of which we have all had experience—bumpers, which seem to be fitted to a car as an ornament. The safest thing is not to bump with one's bumpers because it may do more damage with them than without them. My own experience is that my bumper usually gets locked in that of the other car and it takes a jack and two or three people to get them apart. Obviously, it is ordinary common sense that bumpers should bump and should touch those of the other car and not smash in the other man's mudguard. I am sure this has only to be brought to the attention of intelligent car manufacturers for it to be put right. Standardisation in such things would help to prevent accidents.

Jacking systems are as bad. I was once out in a Government car with a very senior air officer on an urgent job when, for some reason, the car broke down. The jack, of course, would not work—it had to go under a bumper that could hardly support itself, let alone a jack. There we were on important business, out on the road trying to get a car back "on to its feet." Lorries came along but naturally their jacks were different. It seems ridiculous that in a simple instrument of that kind there should be such a multiplicity of types. The same applies to nuts and bolts, wheels and attachments; standardisation in all these things would lead to fewer delays and economy in stocks and spares—a very important point as my hon. Friend said—and to better conditions of servicing.

We wish for the cooperation of the whole industry in improving itself and we do not intend to enter into argument with it. We mean to leave the industry in the hands of private enterprise and we are willing to help private enterprise to help itself and to realise that, whether private or public, it is part of the common organisation of this country for the benefit of the population. We want to use all our common agencies in order to achieve maximum efficiency. When we have se- cured our livelihood by purchasing the things we need from abroad, then undoubtedly a great function of this industry will be to supply cars to the ordinary people of this country. We hope that the industry will expand in such a fashion that anybody whose particular liking for spending his leisure is to be found in a car, or who needs a car for his domestic or public purposes, will have no difficulty in obtaining one at a price which he can afford to pay. That lies a little in the future, but we shall work towards it and we expect the cooperation of the industry. Otherwise the community will bring its reproach with justification upon the industry.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Eight Minutes past Four o' Clock.