I desire to make a statement with regard to Burma. Questions have arisen as to the manner in which the pledges given by successive Governments in this country to the Burmese people should be implemented and, in order to assist in the elucidation of these matters, His Majesty's Government propose to invite a representative group of Burmans from the Governor's Executive Council to visit this country in the near future for discussions.

In a statement made to this House on 20th January, 1931, at the time of the decision to separate Burma from India, it was stated that His Majesty's Government wished it to be understood that the prospects of constitutional advance held out to Burma as part of British India would not be prejudiced by the decision to proceed with the separation of Burma from India. Since that time great steps forward towards self-government have been made in India and developments in the same direction have taken place in Burma. In the latter case, however, the matter has been greatly complicated by the Japanese invasion and occupation, from which Burma emerged after the surrender of the Japanese in a condition of great chaos and without any settled Burmese Government. In the White Paper which was subsequently issued by the Government and agreed to by this House, a plan was set out whereby it was hoped that Burmese self-government could be rapidly achieved.

Recent developments in India have led the Burmese people to desire to expedite their own advance to self-government and their leaders have expressed some impatience with the apparently slow development of the White Paper plan. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government think that that plan requires reconsideration and that the Burmese leaders should be given the fullest opportunity of putting forward all the suggestions which they may wish to make with a view to their discussion.

His Majesty's Government do not regard the White Paper plan as unchangeable in the light of developing circumstances. Their desire is that the Burmese people should attain their self-Government by the quickest and most convenient path possible. His Majesty's Government further take the view that the pledge of 1931 must be fully carried out. In particular, I would repeat, so far as Burma is concerned, what I have already said with regard to India. We do not desire to retain within the Commonwealth and Empire any unwilling peoples. It is for the people of Burma to decide their own future, but we are certain that it will be to their interest, as it will be to ours, if they decide to remain within the Commonwealth and we sincerely hope that they will arrive at such a decision. Likewise, we consider that the new Constitution for Burma should be settled by nationals of Burma and we believe that arrangements to this end can be made as a result of the forthcoming elections, without the necessity for holding fresh elections for a Constituent Assembly, on the analogy of what has already been done in India where the Constituent Assembly is based upon the ordinary provincial elections.

In the same way, His Majesty's Government are of opinion that the Burmese Government which has now been formed should, within the existing Constitution, exercise a full measure of authority in Burma. It is not possible, of course, as was pointed out in the case of India, to enact a new interim Constitution, and the old Constitution must, therefore, be carried on in form, but, His Majesty's Government have no desire to interfere with the day to day administration, which is now in the hands of Burmese members of the Governor's Executive. We shall endeavour in the forthcoming discussions to remove any difficulties that the delegates may still feel to exist in this regard.

In all these matters, it is the desire and intention of His Majesty's Government to hasten forward the time when Burma shall realise her independence, either within or without the Commonwealth, but for the sake of the Burmese people it is of the utmost importance that this should be an orderly—though rapid—progress. It is because of their anxiety that they should be in a position to continue to help the people of Burma in that progress that His Majesty's Government have invited the Burmese leaders to come here for discussions.

It was said, in the days of the great Administration of Lord Chatham, that one had to get up very early in the morning in order not to miss some of the gains and accessions of territory which were then characteristic of our fortunes. The no less memorable Administration of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is distinguished for the opposite set of experiences. The British Empire seems to be running off almost as fast as the American Loan. The steady and remorseless process of divesting ourselves of what has been gained by so many generations of toil, administration and sacrifice continues. In the case of Burma it is hardly a year since, by the superb exertions of the Fourteenth Army and enormous sacrifices in life and treasure— sacrifices in British blood and in Indian blood—the Japanese were forced to surrender, destroyed, or driven out, and the country was liberated. And yet, although barely a year has passed away, there is this extraordinary haste that we should take the necessary measures to get out of Burma finally and forever. The same formula, the right hon. Gentleman says, will be used as was used in the case of India, with the same extensions he put on to that formula when the Indian Mission was sent out, eliminating the—

Order. There is no Motion before the House.

With great respect, Sir, I thought we were entitled to make some observations on this very important statement made by the Government

That would be the case if there was a Motion before the House, but it is not the usual thing otherwise.

May I put myself in order by moving, "That this House do now adjourn"?

That is a Motion which can be made only by the Government.

Do I understand then, Sir, that this statement is to be made by the Prime Minister, foretelling in a very short time the loss of Burma and the departure of the British from that country, and that no counter-remarks are to be made from this side?

I must obey the Rules of Order; that is my duty. If there is no Motion put before the House we cannot discuss the matter.

Surely, Government statements which are not on a Motion, have been followed frequently, if not invariably, by comments from the other side of the House?

I do not think so. The practice was started during the last Administration, and time after time, statements were made that could not be debated.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. If we went on to the Adjournment would you not call right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who desired to make a few observations on this Burma declaration?

That would be quite in Order.

I am on the previous point of Order and your Ruling, Sir. If I had a moment of leisure, I could submit to you a great number of precedents in the present Parliament where statements of importance made by Ministers have been followed by comments, and where you, in your position in the Chair, have yourself permitted and tolerated that comment. But, of course, if you are now giving a new Ruling that Ministers may make statements involving the disappearance of large portions of His Majesty's Dominions without any comment being permitted in the House at the time, then all I can say is that I am sorry I was not aware of this change in the Rules before I ventured to rise.

I have been trying to get back to the old practice of moving the Adjournment when such statements are made so that discussion may follow. We did that several times in the last Parliament and it is the proper procedure. When we have the Adjournment Motion we can have a short talk about it.

But on this point about the principle of Government statements being made without discussions, am I to take it that you rule that no comment may be made upon them? If so, there have been a great many breaches of the Rules in this present Parliament. I can cite one that now occurs to my memory, which was in respect of the decision to nationalise the steel trade and on which a considerable conversation went on. I should have been most grateful to be in possession of the change in your views as to the change in the practice before I came down here this morning. It is very disconcerting, when one does one's best to keep within the Rules of Order, to be informed that the Rules and practices have been changed.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, Sir, that on that occasion you advised him to put himself in Order by asking a series of questions?

Erskine May, under the heading "Ministerial Statements in the House of Commons", says: As no question is before the House, debate on such statements is irregular.

This question turns on the word "debate" and whether comment is debate. No one would attempt a full-dress Debate on such a subject, but when a statement of this startling, far-reaching and grave character is flung out to us, it does seem strange that this should also be the occasion when we are told that owing to the new interpretation which is to be put upon, the Rules no comment is to be permitted by the Opposition on that subject.

On that point, Sir, may I submit to you that many hon. Members on this side of the House have taken a great deal of interest in the Constitution and development of Burma in the past, and that we feel that we should be notified beforehand of a grave and serious statement of this nature instead of its being made on a Friday morning when no one expects it? We have no chance of raising questions on it, and I respectfully suggest moving the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of debating it now.

Further to that point, I am bound to state that yesterday the Prime Minister did inform me and my colleague the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) that he intended to make a statement, and although I did not see the text, it follows very much along the lines of what he said. That was confidential information, however, and I did not feel entitled to impart it to my colleagues except to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) who was to be here. Therefore, although I appreciate the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman in mentioning the matter to me, hon. Gentlemen on this side are in no way relieved from the inconvenient position in which they were put, namely, that this grave and irrevocable step is to be announced and, apparently, we are not allowed to comment on it. If you, Sir, give this new Ruling on the subject, which is a departure from the practice which has been in force both in the last Parliament and in this, I have no choice but to submit, and I shall not attempt further to comment upon this lamentable and deplorable event and announcement at this moment, but I ask the Government if they will move the Adjournment of the House. We are later to discuss the Motion for the Adjournment for the Recess, and I shall endeavour to present myself to your attention, Mr. Speaker, in the hope that I may perhaps be fortunate enough to catch your eye.

There are one or two short items to dispose of, and then it is proposed to move the Adjournment of the House. Thereafter, it is a matter for you, Sir, whether a short discussion on this subject may be interpolated among the other subjects to be discussed, of which notice has been given. But once the earlier items have been disposed of, the right hon. Gentleman may be quite sure that I shall move the Adjournment of the House.

My attention has been drawn to a statement which appeared in a daily newspaper the day before yesterday, alleging that an answer which I gave to a Question on Tuesday, replying to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus), was incorrect, and naming a particular officer in the Public Relations Department in the War Office as the source of a statement which I denied had been made by the War Office. I have inquired into this matter, and I am satisfied that there is no foundation whatever for this further allegation, which is completely denied by the officer concerned.

I was not proposing to embark upon a formal or full-dress Debate upon the evacuation or abandonment of Burma. This, it seems to me, must be a subject for discussion upon another occasion. All that I was intending to do was to mark, for the nation and the country at large, the significance of the statement which the Prime Minister rattled off so quickly and so smoothly as if it were an ordinary matter or routine. It should be realised that a very important and far-reaching declaration has now been made by the Prime Minister, and we should consider what its consequences will be.

As I said on another occasion, it is less than a year since the Japanese were expelled or destroyed. There have been no adequate, elections, no representative assembly formed, and nothing that could be said to be a representative or settled view of the people there. Those people are only now returning, with great difficulty, as the Government have pointed out, and as was pointed out in the White Paper issued last year, to their ruined homes in many parts of that country, which were ravaged by the Japanese. Yet we are told that we must accelerate the process of our departure as much as possible, that special measures must be taken, and these gentlemen invited from Burma to come over here and discuss with the Government the peaceful transference of power and the rapid departure of the British. Before they come, before they would even condescend to come, a declaration has to be made in terms which place this matter in the same state as what is happening now in India.

This must be realised. We have held Burma since 1885. We have followed its affairs with attention. My father was the Minister responsible for the annexation of Burma. During that time, great progress has been made in that small country. There are 17 million people, mostly, or a very large proportion of them, primitive people. Good progress has been made. We defended them as well as we could against the Japanese invasion, but we were not successful. It was only after the tremendous campaign of three years of heavy fighting that the Japanese were driven out, and the country was liberated from the invaders' hands. In those circumstances it would have been reasonable to allow law and order to be established, and the people to settle down on their farms and in their habitations. Then we could have resumed consideration of the question of self-government, to which we had definitely pledged ourselves, but all in due course, and in due time. Again, by the unfortunate form of the Prime Minister's declaration to which the right hon. Gentleman has now given vent, and which has taken its place as an operative declaration, the intermediate stage of Dominion status is, to all intents and purposes, eliminated, just as it was in India. In eliminating that interim stage in India it was said: "This makes no difference, because Dominion status implies the right to contract out of the British Empire."

The proper stages are of the utmost consequence. If, in India, we had proceeded under Dominion status, and had established a Government based upon Dominion status, that Government could then have addressed itself to the question whether to use what I call the escalator Clause or not. A very different situation would then have arisen. There would have been an opportunity for the friends of this country who desire that we should stay, and who appreciate the blessings which British rule has conferred upon those regions, to rally. They would have had a chance to decide whether, upon a basis of full Dominion status, they would be partners in the British Commonwealth of Nations or not. The elimination of that stage, the short-circuiting of that process, has the effect, and could only have the effect, of repulsing all loyalties, the abandoning or friends, and compelling everyone in India to face the fact that the British were going. The result is that no fair chance has been given to the people of India to express themselves, in a calm atmosphere and under proper conditions, upon the question whether, having obtained full self-government, they would wish to leave the British Commonwealth of Nations or not.

This evil process, which has been attended by disasters of which at present we are only on the threshold, and which will to a large extent occupy or dominate the mind and attention of the present Parliament in the months and years to come, is now quite needlessly extended to Burma. I cannot see why this should be done, unless it is to try to induce the Burmese representatives to come over here and discuss this matter with us. This haste is appalling. "Scuttle" is the only word that can be applied. What, spread over a number of years, would be a healthy and constitutional process and might easily have given the Burmese people an opportunity of continuing their association with our congregation of nations, has been cast aside. We are seeing in home affairs the unseemly rush of legislation, disorganising our national life and impeding our recovery, legislation thrust upon Parliament at break-neck speed, hon. Members debarred from taking part in Debates by matters being transferred from the Floor of this House to other parts of the building. We see the same haste which, I suppose, will be paraded as vigour. "Labour gets things done‡"

As regards divesting ourselves of these great possessions of the British Crown, and freeing ourselves from all responsibility for the populations—primitive and often divided—who have hitherto looked to British justice and administration for the means of leading their ordinary lives in peace, I thought it necessary at the earliest moment to dissociate myself and those who sit on this side from the course of action which the Government are taking. I said the other day about India that we take no responsibility for the course the Government take; they must bear the responsibility. I see it was said in another place that I was suggesting that should the Conservative Party be returned to power, we would reverse this process. I think it would be utterly impossible to reverse it. The words that have come from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman today, supported as they are by the overwhelming majority of this House—unrepresentative of the balance of forces in the country—are irrevocable. He has in fact shorn Burma away from the British Crown by what is being done. That, at least, is a matter of which notice should be taken, if it be only passing notice, even in this period when we are getting so accustomed and indurated to the process of the decline and fall of the British Empire.

11.32 a.m.

I have always thought of the right hon. Gentleman as a great historian, but he seems to have forgotten some recent history. When he talks of India, he seems to have forgotten the Cripps Mission; he seems to have forgotten the declaration made in his own interim Government by Mr. Amery, and our declaration has gone no further than that. He has also forgotten that when I made my statement on India in this House, there was no opposition in this House, there was no opposition in the country. I think he was the only objector. He has so often found himself alone on these matters—

He is generally right.

I think he has not been right on these matters. Perhaps he has here one supporter, but he had very few supporters right through the long period in which we were dealing with what he said was the right process, that slow, constitutional advance that he suggested, which he opposed at every step. When he says it is the right way to go first by Dominion status, did he accept Dominion status in those days? No, he opposed it. The fact is that he opposed every step in advancement.

The right hon. Gentleman was reproaching me for not stating all history in a short exposition, but he is quite wrong when he says that I opposed every advance in India. The 70 gentlemen who acted with me in the five years of that Parliament accepted fully the Simon Report offering Provincial Government. Where we differed was in the attempt to build up the Central Government. He should not omit that, because the Simon Commission of which he was a Member, but which was spurned by the Government of the day and sidetracked for a much more ambitious scheme, would never have recommended that. We stuck to the main line of the Simon Report and the right hon. Gentleman must not suggest that that was a reactionary document.

No. I am very well acquainted with the Simon Report, and I am very well aware that we envisaged there a federal structure for India. Why we were unable to do anything with regard to the set-up, was because it was quite uncertain at that time as to whether the Princes would come in. The whole position was changed by the Princes coming in, which gave a reason why there should be further extension. I am well aware that the right hon. Gentleman was in this long before; he was in the Government of Minto and Montagu. You cannot put the clock back in this case. There is a necessary advance in public opinion, and it is much more dangerous to lag behind, than to keep up with the movements of public opinion in these countries. I should have said that in these matters this country had not been too fast but too slow. If the right hon. Gentleman is going back into history, I must refer to one of the unfortunate things, the failure to deal with the Irish question for years and years, until the right Gentleman himself and his Government had to act in what I think he would call a policy of scuttle at the end of the last war.

In the matter of Burma, it is undoubted that at the time Burma was separated, the Burmese were assured that their constitutional advance would go pari passu with that of India and, as a matter of fact, the problems are not so difficult in Burma. There is not that terrible communal trouble which there is in India. The declaration we have made is not one in which we say to Burma, "Go out of the British Empire." On the contrary, we believe they will stay in. We invite them to stay in, but we say that we do not compel people to stay in and I believe that is the right attitude. It was the attitude adopted towards India by the right hon. Gentleman's Government in the declaration made by Mr. Amery. I see no reason why the Burmese should be treated worse than the Indians in this respect.

11.36 a.m.

It is perfectly clear that it is a lamentable practice for these vitally important statements—for this is a vitally important statement—to be made at the beginning of Business on a Friday, with no warning to the House. Whoever speaks on such a subject must speak with a heavy feeling of responsibility, and it is not fair that we should not have time to prepare our words, just as it would not be right that we should pass over the matter in silence. I hope the Prime Minister is right in saying that this problem is a good deal more simple than the Indian problem. It certainly could not be more difficult, I quite agree. Before I say anything else I would like to say that the Government are pursuing the right course in asking Burmese representatives to come to London. I believe that such a course could, with advantage, have been followed in India instead of sending a Cabinet Mission out there. The right hon. Gentleman may remember that I suggested that to him at the time. I think you get wiser consideration and a calmer atmosphere here than you do on the spot. But that is all as it may be, and we shall see what happens.

The point to which I wish to call the attention of the Government is that there is a grave danger that we shall concentrate on political issues, partly as a means of relieving our consciences about the extraordinarily unsatisfactory administrative situation in the countries in question. During the recent Indian Debate, it became quite clear that the Government were washing their hands of any responsibility for the continued efficiency of the administrative machine in India. I suppose it is true of all countries in the world over, but particularly is it the case in Eastern countries, that the daily life of the people does not depend upon the political fabric but upon the elementary framework of the civilised state which we call administration. There is no doubt whatever that the administration in Burma is in a parlous condition of efficiency. I rose to say that we on this side of the House earnestly trust that the Government will realise that, whatever the political conversations going on may be, we in this country and in this House are still responsible for the daily life of the Burmese people. We are responsible for their safety from murder and dacoity. We are responsible very largely for their feeding. We are responsible for their economy. In a country like Burma, which has been ravaged by several campaigns which have rolled over it and left a trail of devastation and disorder, the economy is in a parlous state, and we are responsible for it. The situation is very grave in Burma, and I repeat I do most earnestly beg the Prime Minister to recognise that we must not slacken in our efforts to restore Burmese economy and standards of life in Burma, because these gentlemen are coming to London to conduct political conversations.

I take a different view of Dominion status from that taken by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. I regard it as a privilege, and the line I would take with these Burmese representatives is that they have to prove themselves worthy of inclusion in the Empire. I shall not regard Burma as conferring a favour on the Empire by remaining in it, but I shall regard this country as conferring a favour on Burma.

The hon. Member will have no difficulty.

I do not know. I think the advantages of remaining in the British Commonwealth are so manifest—

The hon. Gentleman is not a Burmese.

No, I am an Englishman. I think the advantages of remaining in the British Empire are so manifest that that represents a considerable bargaining counter in our hands. I agree with every word the right hon. Gentleman said about the precipitate haste of the present Government to dispense with the great and proud position we have reached in the eyes of the world. I think there is a great deal of indecent haste about it, but I do not despair, or take the same pessimistic view which he takes of the future. I believe if we do what we think is right in regard to Burma, and say that while we offer full freedom to Burma if she desires it, at the same time if she remains in the Empire we shall fully carry out our obligations to Burma, then we shall walk together hand in hand in the future. But, on the other hand, I think if the Government lay themselves open to this interpretation —the interpretation that we find Burma a devilish difficult job—and these administrative problems are devilish difficult— and if we wash our hands of Burma, because the position is a difficult one, our name will stink throughout the world. It is not going to be easy to carry out the dual policy of encouraging the Burmese to national self-expression, and also seeing that they prosper. There are not only administrative difficulties of a grave nature, but also financial commitments in Burma. This country is responsible for enormous sums. We are heavily committed—I think the minimum is £100 million, and it may be twice that amount.

I have not had time to prepare my remarks, and I will conclude them by saying that this is not a simple problem, even relative to India. It will need the full and careful attention of the Government, who must not run away with the idea that they are doing their duty to Burma by concentrating on political advance, while the people are living in misery and fear owing to the breakdown of administration. Politics is fundamentally a matter of bread and butter and safety of life. It is a matter of a full belly and a safe night's sleep, and all the political advances in the world will be as nothing, if the people of Burma are allowed to go back to a state of misery not very far removed from the state of misery they were in before the beneficent rule of British law and order was installed.

11.45 a.m.

I sympathise with the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) but, at the same time, he makes the suggestion that we should allow law and order to be established before going forward with political constitutional changes, if I understood him correctly. In my opinion, if we try to delay constitutional reform, that is the very best way of creating disorder. The Burmese intelligentsia are determined to push forward towards independence, and it is quite in vain for us to put obstacles in their way at this stage. If we put a paper check like Dominion status in, and they are able to contract out of it as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, that would only exasperate the Burmese. If we want to keep Burma within the Empire, we shall have to do as in the case of South Africa—

We never gave them independence.

We gave the Union to South Africa. The best way is to offer them independence. I do not know what negotiations are going on between the Burmese and the Government, but I am perfectly certain that if difficulties have arisen, it is the wisest thing to bring the leaders over here to discuss the matter. I understood that elections were to be held next April, and I hope that no serious obstacles have arisen to prevent the holding of those elections. I congratulate the Government on the step they are taking in bringing the leaders of Burma over here to discuss Burmese affairs in London.

11.46 p.m.

I do not want to interfere with other Business, but I am very much alarmed that this statement should be sprung on us today, especially as we are going away for a month, and do not know how much of the British Empire will be left when we come back. It was once said of a Frenchman that when he got up in the morning, during frequent changes of Government, he asked his valet "What is the weather like, and who is the Prime Minister today?" In this country we always know what the weather is like; but we never know how much of the British Empire will be left when we get up in the morning. I took a great interest, with others, in the Burmese situation, and joined in the issue of a report making certain suggestions to the Government. One was that Burma should be transferred from the India Office to the Dominions Office, as a first step towards constitutional development and Dominion status. I should like to know why that step was never taken: I am convinced that Burma resents being tied to India. They still consider themselves tied to India while they are administered by the India Office. We may call it the Burma Office, but from what I know of it there is no question of separate administration of Burma. The first step the Government should have taken when we were acclaimed as the saviours of Burma not long ago, was to see that a proper administration was set up to administer the country from this end.

I should also like to know what has happened recently which has made these people change their attitude. Who are the people who are coming here? Whom do they represent? That is very important. We have heard of politicians in Burma making very extravagant demands, and then have found that they did not represent anyone but themselves. How can anyone come here and negotiate on behalf of Burma when they have not had an election, and when the will of the people has not been consulted? Certainly, I should think it a very important factor in any negotiations that people who come here to speak for Burma, should have proper credentials and should be able to prove that they really represent a democratic constitutional Government.

Is the hon. Member aware that one of the leaders in Burma is U. Aung San, who was in fact the leader of the resistance movement of Burma and has full authority to speak for the people he represents?

There are many resistance leaders in the British Commonwealth but they do not claim the right to speak for the whole of their country. I consider that the setting up of a constitutional Government is the first essential step that Burma can take. Then whoever are elected as leaders can come and speak for those they represent, and we shall be able to listen. I trust that as we are to go away for a month, we shall not be committed to any further trouble in Burma or any other part of the Empire before we come back. I ask the Prime Minister to state that no definite constitutional advance is contemplated until this House has reassembled, and that this country will not be committed to any change in the administration of Burma until this House reassembles. Also, that these people who come here do so with some credentials, and that we shall know whom they represent.

11.51 a.m.

I think that the apprehensions of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald) are exaggerated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid) has said, elections are not to be held in Burma until April, and it is, therefore, unlikely that Burma will have been detached from the Commonwealth and Empire before we resume after the Christmas Recess. I cannot share the view expressed from the opposite Benches that there is any excessive or intemperate haste about this matter. Certainly it does not seem like that to the Burmese people themselves. On the contrary there have been many expressions of indignant impatience at what seems to them the very modest pace at which they are advancing towards self-government.

I rise to say how warmly some of as on these Benches, who have taken a special interest in Burma in the last year or two, welcome this morning's statement, how glad we are to hear that leaders of Burmese political thought will shortly be coming to this country. I can assure the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight that those of us who have actually seen Burma since the end of the war know that these people will be coming here to represent the overwhelming opinion of the younger and at any rate the more politically conscious people in Burma, whatever their particular points of view, politically, may be—[ Interruption ]—not only in Rangoon, but up country as well. As my right hon. Friend has said, the situation in Burma is, in some respects, considerably simpler than the Indian situation. There are not the same communal difficulties, the standard of literacy is much higher, and so on. Therefore, I also hope, with the Government and, if I may say so, with the Leader of the Opposition, that Burma will opt to remain within the British Commonwealth. I am sure it will be for the mutual advantage of both nations if she does. But the decision must be an absolutely free one for the people of Burma themselves to take. I repeat that we very warmly welcome the wise spirit that has been shown since the appointment of the new Governor, which was immediately followed by very good developments in Burma, and has now been followed by this admirable statement this morning.

11.54 a.m.

I hope the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) will excuse me if I do not follow his argument. I rise to point out, very respectfully, the extraordinary difficulty in which I, as a private Member, have been placed this morning by the Prime Minister's statement on this matter of Burma. To many of us—I think everyone on all sides of the House—any matter concerning the lives of our fellow subjects in the British Empire must be one of great concern. When a statement of this kind is made many, like myself, who are not experienced on a particular matter, like to hear from those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on all sides of the House who have taken great trouble to inform themselves on these matters—to be able to hear their considered statements on these questions. That has been denied to the ordinary private Member today by the Prime Minister's statement coming at this time. We knew nothing whatever about it beforehand, at any rate the majority of us, and we are placed in this curious position: We are now going off for four weeks, we have had this very important statement made to us, we have had no real opportunity of hearing the two sides of the matter, and even judging, still less giving any decision, as to whether the statement is good or bad.

I am not arguing on the quality of this statement, but on the fact that it seems to me that there is a responsibility upon this House which is very great. The House has hardly been treated with adequate respect by the Prime Minister this morning. The Prime Minister must have known as well as any other Member that we are adjourning for the Christmas Recess. The Prime Minister must have known as well as any other Member that on the last day, Friday morning, early, and inconvenient to many people, and to Ministers very often, to come here and make such a statement under these circumstances means that the discussion or thought upon this matter has less chance of being ventilated than would be the case on almost any other day, except two or three similar days, during the whole year. I deprecate the fact that the statement has been made this morning in this way. It could surely have been made a few days ago.

The Prime Minister indicated dissent.

The Prime Minister denies it. I entirely accept that, of course, but that being the case surely it could have waited until the House came back and we were in a proper position to deal with it. Surely, when one realises the great difficulties in Burma, the large numbers of our men out there, the extreme poverty as a result of the war, and all that kind of thing, it could have been put off until that time, until we could have given it further consideration.

I say quite frankly that as far as I am concerned I, and I believe other private Members, deeply regret that, realising the immense responsibility which rests upon the House in this matter, such an inconvenient and unsuitable time should have been chosen by the Prime Minister—inconvenient to the House, unsuitable in every way—to deal with a matter which is the responsibility of the Government and even more of the House of Commons. I regret that we are called upon to consider a matter of this kind, which really ought to have had much deeper and fuller consideration given to it.

11.59 a.m.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said that this haste was appalling. On the contrary, I say that the position in Burma is such that the slightest delay would be fatal. I think the right hon. Gentleman quite fails to realise the ferment that has been working in the Far East during recent years. There is a tremendous upsurge of national feeling among the Burmese. Young political leaders have got the people under their sway, and the most important thing at the moment is to try to canalise all that force, all that steam, into useful channels. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) said about the immense importance of bread and butter, and law and order, but we shall not get that unless we have the co-operation of the people. The way to get that is to do just what this Government are doing. My mind goes back to a conversation I had with a very distinguished soldier and administrator who had had experience both in India and Ireland. He said that the mistake we made in both countries was that we always did the right thing too late. Thank goodness, the Government are not making that mistake this time in Burma. I think we shall get the steam working the engine instead of blowing up the boiler as otherwise it might do. I most heartily welcome the statement which we have heard.

May I ask whether the Prime Minister can say anything about dates?

I cannot until I have extended the invitation. It will be realised that the elections have been fixed, and therefore we are tied down on that part. I would have brought this before the House earlier if possible. My chance was either to bring it today or not to bring it at all.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like now to turn from the discussion of Burma to the subject of Mr. Anthony Brooke, and his entry into Sarawak. I am sure the House will not have missed the comparison between the giving away of Burma and India, and the rush to get rid of all the major parts of the British Empire, with the equal rush with which a tiny area the size of England, with a population of some 500,000 people, has been almost snatched into the British Empire in the last few months. There is no evidence, as far as one can see, that the people of Sarawak particularly desire to come into the Empire. The unseemly haste was particularly noticeable yesterday in the answers made by the Colonial Secretary to the questions which I and other Members put to him at Question time.

Anybody who reads HANSARD today will be much interested in the many things which have taken place. These are items of particular interest to anyone who follows Colonial history. We saw the Colonial Secretary trying to protect his office from being shown up—as it may yet be shown up—for a series of the most appalling muddles in the taking over of a Colony, whether it was right or wrong that it should be taken over. The Colonial Secretary got himself completely tied in knots and put himself in a position in which he seemed to be denying the constitutional right of a British subject who, as far as we know, has done absolutely no wrong, to visit different parts of the Empire, especially in peacetime. I must give some of the background of what has been happening, because there are large num- bers of people, not only in this House but all over the country, who are not quite sure what all this is about.

Sarawak was a Raj belonging to the Brooke family. By a series of treaties, she became closely connected with Great Britain. During the war it became probable that she would become still more closely connected. There are very few people, as far as we know, who objected to the Brooke family being there, or to the very benevolent rule of the Rajah. The late Rajah—he is still entitled to call himself the Rajah—has no male heir. Therefore, the title normally would have passed to his brother and his brother's son, who also has a small boy. As far as one can see, there is no reason why the title should not have passed to them or why they should not have worked amicably with the British Colonial Office, as they had done formerly.

This particular Rajah decided to sell out, entirely off his own bat. He came to an arrangement with the British Government which, in effect, means that he sold out his interest and handed everything over without consulting the rest of the family, or the people of the country. When it is realised that the country has an area similar to that of England with only 500,000 people in it, it will be seen that it is not easy to get about there. Sometimes it is very difficult for the people in the country, many of whom are very ignorant, to know and understand affairs of this nature. Naturally, it takes a long time before they understand a situation. They have always looked upon the Rajah as a sort of father who would give them advice. This particular Rajah told them that they were to be handed over to the King of England. Presumably to their mind, that would mean that they would be seeing the King of England as often as they saw the Rajah. On the contrary, they have been seeing a Governor who does not speak their language, who came from Africa and who knows nothing about Sarawak problems. As far as one can see, he has been making the most arrogant statements to the Council in Sarawak, statements strongly reminiscent of those which the Germans made in West Africa before the 1914–1918 war. That was one of the reasons why the Germans were' not allowed to have their colonies back after the war. Among other things, the Governor is reported to have said that the whole question had been settled constitutionally, and there was nothing more to be discussed.

I want to point out to hon. Members that a majority of native members of the Council, which approved the cession, were against the proposal. One or two European members who should have been there, and were known to be against it, were told not to report back to duty until everything was over. There is much doubt as to whether the cession was properly carried out. If it had been considered by this House of Commons, we might have said that it had not been properly approved and that we did not want to take over a Colony in that way. That being so, it is quite possible that the matter will come up at a later date. It would then be possible for His Majesty the King to hand back, if necessary, this Colony to the Brooke family. The Governor had no right whatever to say that the whole matter was completely finished.

Now I come to the question of this young man, Mr. Anthony Brooke, being allowed to visit Sarawak. If what I have said is more or less true, then it will be very unpleasant indeed for the Colonial Office if the facts eventually come to light. Therefore, it would be very nice for the Colonial Office if they could stop Mr. Brooke from entering the country. In the past there have often been white men who have gone out to native countries, and who have done their best to fight for the interests of the natives. That, I believe, has always been the tradition of the Brooke family. It continues to be their tradition. There is also a libel action due to come on in this country. It is a libel action taken by the Rajah's Secretary, with whom the Colonial Office were working in close touch during the arrangements for the cession. Several statements have been made, some by the present Colonial Secretary's predecessor, pointing out that in no function in which this particular man took part in his visit to Sarawak was he allowed to work without the close co-operation of an important official from the Colonial Office.

The libel action against Mr. Brooke is one which will be familiar to the House because at one time Mr. Brooke sent a circular to hon. Members. It deals very largely with affairs in Sarawak, a country which Mr. Brooke has not been allowed to visit for a long time. It is considered by Mr. Brooke and his solicitor essential that he should go to Sarawak to have the opportunity of getting together his own information on the different subjects raised so that he can put up a proper defence. When the libel action comes before the court, if he does not present a proper defence and the result is against him, then that will be very much a feather in the cap of the Colonial Office. It is a very dangerous thing indeed, that the Colonial Office should give anybody the impression that they are doing anything to prevent a man from getting information which he requires in order to take an action against the Colonial Office, or against a friend of the Colonial Office. On 6th November, Mr. Brooke wrote to the Colonial Secretary pointing out that he was going to Sarawak for that purpose. It is true that he was also going to study the country and what was going on there. He asked if he could have a priority for the journey and, also, whether he could have the opportunity of getting about the country. On 13th November the Secretary of State wrote back and said that the Colonial Office could not agree that the reasons which he stated warranted their giving him the priority or the facilities to go about the country.

Yesterday, the Colonial Secretary told us that before 13th November, and even since, Mr. Brooke had been making statements which the Colonial Secretary considered would be liable to cause considerable disturbance in Sarawak. From the different other statements which he made on similar lines when he was questioned— I will not quote them now—it would seem that he knew perfectly well before 13th November, all that he really needed to know if he was going to make up his mind to prevent this gentleman from entering the country. Yet he never took any such steps. He said he did not know when Mr. Brooke was going. Actually, Mr. Brooke left a few days after the end of November. I would like to know what it is that the Colonial Secretary considers that Mr. Brooke has said or done that is unconstitutional, or, in fact, whether he can give us any of those famous quotations with which he defended his case yesterday.

We hear so much of the Press. When it is against the Government, we are told to wait for the full report. We know how often we are told that, in America, the Lord President or others, or the Minister of Food have been misquoted, and then there is a repeat back to get the full statement made in the House. Has the Colonial Secretary taken the trouble in these supposed interviews in the United States and elsewhere with Mr. Brooke to get the exact serious statements that caused the trouble, because I would like to challenge him today to state definitely what are the particular statements that have been made by Mr. Brooke which are considered unconstitutional, or likely to lead to unconstitutional acts? Secondly, he pointed out yesterday that Mr. Brooke and his father had claimed that they wished to be Rajahs. After having made inquiries from the solicitors and elsewhere, I can state categorically that at no time has Mr. Brooke or his father said that he wished to become the Rajah, or is working to that end in any way whatever. I also challenge the Colonial Secretary to state whether and when that claim was made.

The Colonial Secretary stated that dangerous telegrams had been sent in Sarawak. I do not know whether he means to Sarawak, but, if he does, I again categorically state that no telegram has been sent by Mr. Brooke or his father which can in any way enable the Colonial Secretary to prove that he intends to be the Rajah, or wants to be the Rajah, or says that he intends to be the Rajah. I know nothing about a telegram inside the country, but I am prepared to produce to the Colonial Office telegrams which either of these gentlemen have sent since the cession took place. Therefore, we find ourselves in the position that this man is allowed to go as far as Manila and then on to Hong Kong. No one seems to care about the expense involved, or where he goes in the next few weeks. Although he has never committed an unconstitutional act anywhere, he is told that he is not to be allowed to talk politics or to give any interviews to the Press. Not only is he told that that is not to happen in Sarawak, but that it is not to happen in Malaya or Hong Kong. The Colonial Office is sending out to all Colonial Governments all over the world a warning against this man as a sort of criminal type.

What has the young man done which is in the least bit criminal? Why should he not be allowed to speak on political matters and about what is going on in Sarawak? It is not so absolutely final that the Privy Council have ruled that the whole thing is in order. There are many who think that it is not. There are only 500,000 people in the country, and there are many groups, perhaps small ones, in Sarawak who strongly disapprove of what has happened, and who want, if possible, to have the order reversed. It is possible to have that done. Two days ago, the Colonial Secretary said that it would be possible to have the order reversed if it is wrong. That is part of the Constitution of this country. Why should not this man, who knows the country and who comes from the country, be allowed to go there and meet his friends, and debate and discuss with them the different points at issue? If the Colonial Secretary says that he is deliberately going to cause sedition and rioting, and so on, there may be a case for it, but I cannot see that he has any right to say that until the man makes the first step towards doing it. I cannot find any proof that he has ever said or done anything which really justifies the Colonial Secretary in taking away the rights of a perfectly ordinary British subject from going where he likes within the British Empire. There is nothing whatever against the man.

I end on that note. I think that it is a very gross injustice and something which has not happened in the past, and that it is most unfair that it should be allowed to happen at the present time. I believe that it must do an immense amount of harm in the United States, in Soviet Russia and in all our Colonies, especially in the Far East, if it is felt that this is the attitude of the present Colonial Secretary.

12.7 p.m.

I should like to deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling), and, if possible, in the order in which he raised them. As the House knows, I had some slight connection with this matter of cession, and was actually present when the council, to which the hon. Member refers, met. In the first place, when I was in Sarawak, I got from the Library the diaries of the first Rajah in published form—a very rare edition. I read them while I was on my tour of the country, and I was interested to note that, time after time, the first Rajah expressed his urgent desire that the country should be handed over to the British Crown. He never intended to set up an Empire of his own. But, at that time, in 1841, the party who were in power were not so enlightened as the party in power in 1946, and they refused to take this territory from him.

In the second place, the first Rajah, James Brooke, obtained from the Sultan of Brunei, which is at the North of the territory, a small portion of land around the little town of Kuching, in the South. Before they had finished, the first and second Rajahs, partly by conquest and without any referendum from the people of the country, obtained almost the whole of the territory which had belonged to the Sultan of Brunei so that, today, the amount of territory the Sultan retains is, roughly, in the proportion of the Isle of Wight to the rest of England.

It is a very important place.

No doubt it is a very important place, from the hon. Member's point of view I had forgotten that he was here. I was talking about it from a territorial point of view, of course, and not in any other sense. In a hundred years, the unfortunate Sultan of Brunei was pushed into a little corner of his own territory, and that was done without any referendum or any Parliamentary mission. It was done at one stage actually by an armed expedition, and the Sultan of Brunei was told that unless he gave a portion of the territory to the Brooke Rajah he would have his palace blown about his ears. Those are fighting words in any language. I am not saying they were wrong. It was not always wrong in the past to do that sort of thing, but I do say that if one Rajah can seize territory by those means another Rajah can give it up.

In the next place, at this council meeting which we have heard about this morning, when the territory was ceded to the British Crown, by no means were all the officials of one mind. Some officials were for cession and some were against it. The Roman Catholic priest, who was a member of the council, was for cession and voted for it. The Protestant padre was against cession and voted against it. There was a complete division between the Europeans on the council. They were, in many cases, more able than many of the Asiatic members to appreciate the issues involved, and I see no reason at all why these gentlemen cannot be regarded as having the fate and issues of the country at heart when they voted on that matter.

I saw Mr. Brooke on several occasions after I came back, and I tried to persuade him to drop this matter. I told him that I thought he was mistaken in holding himself out as a "young pretender," that it was much better to drop the question. I said that I did not think any good would come to Sarawak by proceeding with it, and I thought that it he did proceed with it he would live a life of misery. In my experience as a lawyer, I have seen many people in the position of Dickens' Miss Flite. Those who have read "Bleak House" will know the person to whom I am referring. Such people are always hoping for some legacy; they may have some justification for doing so, but they make a misery of their own lives and those of everyone else around them. I advised him to drop the matter, and at one time I thought he would do so. A few weeks ago he came to me and said that he intended to go back to Sarawak in order to see the position and assure himself that the people of the territory did want to remain under the present Government, that they were not anxious to go back or, at least, were acquiescent in the suggestion that they should not go back to the old system; and, furthermore, he wished to collect evidence in respect of the law suit which is impending. I understand that he informed the Colonial Office of this fact.

The next point which has been made is that the Colonial Office have no right to prevent him going there. If the Colonial Office believe that this gentleman's visit would result in disorder, they have not only the right, but the duty, to stop him. That is the point, and on that the matter turns. There is no doubt about that at all. The whole of the King's prerogative to raise forces or a militia, and the whole of the King's peace in this country, depend upon this right and duty of the King's Government to maintain order. We have always been very tender on this question of people who are likely to cause trouble, whether coming from outside or whether in the country itself. In the reign of Henry VIII—and remember that conditions in Sarawak now are very much as they were in England in the reign of Henry VIII—a squire, looking out of his window one day, saw one of the King's stags eating his—that is, the squire's— corn and, in a moment of justifiable irritation, the squire wished the stag, horns and all, in the King's belly. That was held to be high treason. It was said that if the stag, horns and all, were in the King's belly, the King would naturally die, and thus it was tantamount to wishing the King's death. He was accordingly hanged, drawn and quartered. We would not go as far as that nowadays, but it does show how tender we are on this question of treason or sedition, especially in circumstances as they were in the days of the Tudors. If George I and George II were entitled to keep the Old and the Young Pretender out, surely, His present Majesty is entitled to keep Mr. Anthony Brooke out. I do not see what the defence of habeas corpus, which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) yesterday, has to do with it because, as the House knows, a writ of habeas corpus is issued to force the delivery up of someone who is in custody. It has nothing to do with a case in which a man is prevented from going into a territory. That is the law of England, I think hon. Members will agree.

Since the hon. Member is assuming agreement, may I for one say that I disagree with almost everything he says, particularly with his notion that it is a principle of the common law that if anybody intends to do something orderly and proper to which Ministers suppose there may be disorderly results, Ministers are entitled to prevent that person from doing what he intended.

Lest it should be assumed that silence indicates consent, may I say that there is the strongest opposition to that view? I am wondering whether, if my right hon. Friend considered there was anything wrong in my going to Northern Ireland, this law could also be applied in that case. I do not know where this matter is going to stop.

Would the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) say whether there is any evidence of sedition in this case?

It is not a question of evidence of sedition.

But the hon. Member has mentioned sedition.

I mentioned it by way of analogy. The point at which I was getting was that the very nature of a man's mission, or the fact that he himself is in some degree a "young pretender," might in itself lead to disorders. I am reinforced in my view of the law by the objection of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), because I feel that if he is against me I am on the right track. We have always exercised this power in the Colonies. I remember that in Singapore there were four ladies who answered an advertisement of a certain Eastern potentate, whose name I need not mention, for typists. Everyone knew that this gentleman did not need typists, and there was a great suspicion that he did not want those ladies for this purpose at all. These ladies were immediately taken into custody, as it were, and were bundled off on the next boat.

For fear that they would create a disturbance?

No. One of the points which have been made is that one cannot prohibit a British subject from going to British territory. These were four British subjects who were prohibited from going to British territory and were packed off on the next boat. For one reason or another, in the Colonies we have often done that. In Sarawak, before we took it over, that was constantly done. There was in Sarawak a law called the Undesirable Persons Enactment. In April, 1936, Mr. MacBryan, whose name hon. Members will known, and who was secretary to the third Rajah, returned to Singapore to announce his intention of revisiting Sarawak. He was not then in the service of the Government. He was told that he would not be permitted to enter the State, but he was undeterred by this warning. On his arrival in Sarawak, he was detained and deported under the Undesirable Persons Enactment. The only reason this action was taken with regard to Mr. MacBryan, which is exactly the same action as we are now taking, is that it was thought he might inflame the native population. [ Interruption. ] They have said so. That was the reason given: they thought he might inflame the native population. If they thought Mr. MacBryan—who, after all, had no constitutional Connection, no hereditary connection with Sarawak, who was married to a Malay lady, and had perhaps some little influence with a section of the Malays—was undesirable and might make a fuss, how much more likely that Mr. Anthony Brooke would. If the practice of prohibiting people from coming in for this purpose was pursued by the Brookes, then my right hon. Friend is quite entitled to carry out the same practice.

I do not want to delay the House much longer. I would like to point out that at the moment Sarawak is, to some extent, in a disturbed state. It is not long since it has been recovered from the Japanese. Head hunting was resumed on a very large scale. On the Baram River alone 300 heads were taken at the end of the Japanese war. In the whole of Sarawak it is estimated that 1,500 heads have been taken, and not all Japanese heads. Once the Dyaks start head hunting they are apt to take any heads that come in their way, that is, when they really get going. As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) and I were offered two heads when we were there.

Not each other's, I suppose?

No, better ones.

We had more consideration for constitutional propriety than that. There are no roads or railways in the country, and no troops in the country. If there was a great inflammatory movement in Sarawak it would take a good deal of putting down, because it is very difficulty country in which to operate. Therefore, with all these matters in my mind, my right hon. Friend has a great responsibility, and if he, with knowledge of these various matters, has acted as he has done I, for one, would not criticise him. I do not say I, myself, would have taken the same view of it, but I have not got all the facts. I might have been inclined to let Mr. Brooke in. However, my right hon. Friend has taken this view, and as he has all the facts, I support him. I think we ought always to support Ministers in cases of doubt who have this heavy responsibility. With regard to the last point made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton, I think he has got something there, quite frankly. I think Mr. Brooke should have been told before he left this country that he would not be allowed in. I think it is rather unfair and unkind to him to let him get as far as Manila after going to the great expense involved, before stopping him. I hope, therefore, that perhaps some compensation might be paid him, that in some way or another he could have restitution for what is, I feel a departmental blunder so far as that particular aspect is concerned.

12.34 p.m.

I have the honour to know personally the Governor of Sarawak. In view of the confusion about him, and the statements made by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling), I feel it only proper to say to the House that he is a splendid Colonial servant of long standing, a man with a liberal outlook, whose administration in South Africa has been progressive. Any comparison between him and prewar German governors is grossly unfair and, in my judgment, ought not to have been made. That is really the only point I wish to make, except to say this. The blame for this muddle should rest fairly and squarely upon the Colonial Secretary. It is not surprising, because he has spent most of his life making trouble in the Colonies, and when a man turns from poacher to gamekeeper it is not always a success.

12.35 p.m.

I am very glad that this matter has been raised in the House. This, after all, does affect the liberty of the subject, and that is a matter in which Parliament always is and, historically, always has been, particularly conservative. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that the importance of this matter goes far beyond the particular case which we happen to be discussing this morning, because whatever is done, creates a precedent for the future. Whatever arguments are used to justify this action can be used to justify further actions in the future. We may today be setting a precedent which I feel might have, for the future, a most disastrous effect upon our Colonial system. I need only refer to the speech of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams), and the arguments that he put forward to support the action which has been taken, to show into what a dangerous position we are getting. If it is said that if somebody thinks a man going there, who intends to behave quite correctly, intends to take every effort to observe constitutional decorum, may, because of his presence, cause disorder, it is perfectly right to stop his entry, I can only say that had that been applied rigorously by Colonial Governments before the war quite a number of people who today pose, or in fact are, experts on Colonial matters would never have been allowed to see a Colony at all.

I do not want to go over the history of this case, which was covered fully by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling). I want to refer to only one point, a point on which the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon is in agreement. I simply cannot understand why, if the Colonial Office were going to take this view about Mr. Brooke's visit to Sarawak, he could not have been told that when he first let them know he intended to go there. We really cannot pretend that the Colonial Office did not know at the time that Mr. Brooke still called himself Rajah Muda, that Mr. Brooke still believed that the action of the Government had been wrong, and that he was still hoping, through the Privy Council, to get a reconsideration of the case. All that information was known when the Colonial Office heard of Mr. Brooke's desire to go to Sarawak, and they could have told him then that his entry would be forbidden. That would not have affected in the least the principle of the case we are discussing, but at any rate it would have saved that gentleman considerable inconvenience and expense. Of course, I do not for one moment challenge the legality of this action. I am perfectly certain no Colonial Governor— certainly not the Colonial Governor concerned in this case—would have acted in any manner that the law did not permit him to do.

I confess I am not quite so certain as to the legalities of the action taken elsewhere. For instance—this may not be true; perhaps the Secretary of State for the Colonies will tell us—when I read that not only is Mr. Anthony Brooke refused entry into Sarawak, but that he is also refused entry into Malaya—and no one is going to say he is a "Young Pretender" in Malaya—and that while he remains in Hong Kong, having nowhere else to go, he is kept incommunicado and not allowed to communicate with the Press, then I must ask under what law that is enforced, and how it is that a. British subject, in a British Colony, can be ordered to have no communication with the Press, and, presumably, to make no public statement. With regard to the refusal to allow entry into Sarawak, I do not challenge the legality, but I do challenge the justice and wisdom.

In the first place, I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to make any charge that he has evidence that Mr. Brooke intended to act in an unconstitutional manner, and that he knew Mr. Brooke was going to Sarawak for the purpose of trying, by force, to subvert the existing Constitution. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman can say "Yes," then I certainly should say no more in the House on this matter. If the right hon. Gentleman says "Yes," if he makes that charge, it should be investigated, not in the House of Commons, but in the Old Bailey, and this man, against whom this grave accusation is made, should be put on trial before a jury of his own countrymen. But if the right hon. Gentleman cannot say that, he has no right to give sort of half hints and half statements. In his answer yesterday, he used these words: This attempt to subvert existing: authority …. The use of the word "subvert" has, in the minds of most people, a common meaning, and it is to overturn authority by some illegal means. At a subsequent stage in the proceedings yesterday, I interjected the word "constitutionally," and the right hon. Gentleman said: The assumption of the right hon. Gentleman is that all his proceedings are constitutional,"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th Dec, 1946; vol. 431; cc. 2180–1.] That is my assumption. Is my assumption not right? Certainly, by using phrases in that way, the right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that my assumption was wrong and that, when I said Mr. Brooke was acting constitutionally, the right hon. Gentleman in, fact had evidence that that was not the case. If that is not the case, let us hear it. Let this charge either be made definitely today and the proper consequences taken through the Law Officers of the Crown, or let it be withdrawn and no more hints of that character given. If that charge is not to be justified, what is the reason why this man, against whose moral character no one can bring any imputation—and I rather object to the analogy drawn by the hon. Member for South Croydon between a case where four women were prevented from entering a territory because it was suspected they were going to be used for immoral purposes and the prevention of this perfectly respectable man who has been in the—

No one has greater admiration than I have for the moral character of Mr. Brooke. I was only saying that there have been many cases in our territories where people who were British subjects have, for one reason or the other, been either prevented from entering or, when they have entered, have been removed from the territory. That is the only point I made.

I am obliged to the hon. Member. I quite accept that people have been prevented for one reason or the other; the reason the hon. Member referred to was the other reason. I want to refer to the reason in this case. What is the reason in this case, providing that no charge of unconstitutional methods is made? It is that Mr. Brooke takes a different view from the present Government as to the future of Sarawak, that he believes the people of Sarawak would be better off under the old regime than they will be under the new one, and that he hopes by perfectly constitutional methods to get the present Government to change the decision they took last year, to reverse the annexation and restore the ancient regime. The hon. Member said that he warned Mr. Brooke to drop that line because it was hopeless. That may be so. But is it wrong? Did the hon. Gentleman tell him that to hold those views was not only hopeless, and would make him unhappy, but was wrong, and would make him dishonest?

My answer is that I told him, first of all, that it was hopeless and that the territory having been ceded to the Crown, the Crown would not willingly give it up. Secondly, I said, "You will become a Miss Flite"—using the analogy of "Bleak House"—"and you will be unhappy for the rest of your life. It is better to cut adrift from it and to build up a new career without worrying about Sarawak."

That may have been wise advice from the personal point of view. It may, indeed, be that Mr. Brooke is pursuing a hopeless quest. It may, indeed, be the result that he will be less happy than he would have been if he had settled down to this decision and had perhaps received some appointment in Sarawak. But the mere fact that it may make him unhappy does not necessarily make him wrong, and I believe it is perfectly legitimate for him to say that a mistake has been made and that he hopes, by constitutional methods, to get that mistake remedied. The House will remember that, as a result of pressure in the House, the whole decision to annex Sarawak finally depended upon the will of the people of Sarawak itself. The House showed conclusively that it was not prepared to accept merely a private arrangement between the late Rajah and the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor unless it could be convinced that that arrangement was in accordance with the will of the people. If it was then demonstrated that it was the will of the people that annexation should take place, is Mr. Brooke wholly wrong in thinking that, if, subsequently, the House should feel that the will of the people is that that decision should be reversed, the Government, desiring only in Sarawak, as elsewhere in the Colonies, to meet the will of the people for whom they are responsible, might thereby be influenced to reverse their decision? We were told there was a great threat to security in Mr. Brooke being allowed into Sarawak. How can there be? We have the words of the Secretary of State himself yesterday that the view of Mr. Anthony Brooke is voiced only by a small and unrepresentative minority of the people of Sarawak."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December, 1946; Vol. 431, c. 2180.] If that is so, if it is such a tiny and unrepresentative minority, what harm is the presence of Mr. Brooke going to cause? How can one, therefore, foresee those great disorders which we were told would be the inevitable result? The mere fact of this refusal does cast doubts, at any rate in my mind, on the whole basis to which I and my hon. Friends agreed earlier in the year to the annexation of Sarawak. We believe that that should only take place if the will of the people was behind it. Although it was not clear beyond dubiety, we did accept both the decision of the Council, and the representations of two of our Members who went out there, as evidence that that was the will; but when I find that the Government dare not allow Mr. Brooke to go to Sarawak, I am doubtful if on that occasion we ever learned the truth, and whether, if he were to go there, the support behind him is not so great that it might demonstrate beyond doubt that the assumption on which we proceeded last spring was not correct.

I think it is a very great mistake of the Government to give this impression that they are afraid of having Mr. Brooke there, that they are afraid of public opinion being manifested in his favour. That they are afraid, therefore, that what they have assured the House on many occasions would be proved to be untrue. The fact is that I do not believe for one moment that the visit of Mr. Brooke to Sarawak would be dangerous to the local administration. What I do believe is that his visit would be inconvenient. All of us realise that there are certain circumstances in which the fundamental liberties of the individual have to be checked. They have to be sacrificed to the security of the State, they have to be sacrificed to the good of the greatest number, but the one thing that fundamental liberties ought not to be sacrificed to is administrative inconvenience. If this matter is allowed to go unchallenged, if people take the view of this particular case, "We do not particularly sympathise with Mr. Brooke's point of view, we think his quest is hopeless, we think that, on the whole, we had much better leave the people of Sarawak without the disturbing influence of a different point of view being put to them," if we accept that as a reason for excluding him from these territories, where do we end? It is no good pretending that this case, once passed, will not be used as a precedent. How can you blame any Governor, when he sees the action in a case of this kind, saying, "I am entitled to use those same powers in a case which may be strictly analogous?" There might be people, even Members of this House, who believe that it would be for the benefit of the inhabitants of a Colonial territory that they should be given independence, or that they should be given a new Constitution, both things to which His Majesty's Government and the local Governor were opposed. They might say of a man, "It is quite true that he will act constitutionally, that he will not try to raise the people by violent means against the Government. He is only going to try and raise public opinion in support of a perfectly constitutional proposal, but if we let him in he might create disorder, or disorder may result from his visit, and we must keep him out." That is a most dangerous precedent for this Government, and this House, to set.

I want to appeal most strongly to the Secretary of State in this matter. I appeal to him, because I know he accepts this as his responsibility, and not the responsibility of the Governor. I cannot believe that the Governor's action was taken without prior consultation with the Secretary of State. In any case a Governor in a difficult position, in an unpleasant climate, overworked, and harassed by many worries, cannot be expected to take the same view, to see the full implications of a step of this kind, as we are entitled to expect the Minister, sitting in London, to do. I know the temptation. I happened to be at the Colonial Office during the war, when we were in full possession of wartime powers. I know how convenient those powers were for administration—and by "convenient", I do not mean merely saving the troubles of officials in making the administration work smoothly. It is a terrible temptation to go on with these powers, to use them, but it is a temptation that must be resisted. It is perhaps peculiar that I should be pleading with the right hon. Gentleman to exercise these powers which have been given to him in a more liberal way. It might have been expected that the position would have been reversed. But I can assure the right hon. Gentleman—and we on this side have given evidence of it since this Government came into office—that we do not adopt, have not adopted, and will not adopt, any position of factious opposition on Colonial questions.

I am prepared to support the right hon. Gentleman in any proper action he takes to put down disorder and maintain security, because I and my hon. Friends believe, and Members opposite who really know and study Colonial affairs believe, that law, order and security are the prime pre-condition to any real advance among Colonial peoples. But I do not believe that it is by actions such as this that law and security will be maintained in dependent countries. I think we must demonstrate to them, and to the world, that we are a democratic country, trying to advance dependent territories by democratic means. One essential of advance by democratic means is not to prevent the free expression of opinions differing from the Government, provided they are made with due regard to legal obligations and the constitutional position.

I do not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being a dictator. He is, if I may say so, not cast in the dictatorial mould. But if he looks through history, he will find that it is mistakes of the well-meaning which have paved the way for the success of those who mean ill. I plead with him to reverse this decision. If he does so, I do not believe that it will do any harm to Sarawak at all. I believe it will have a great effect in this country, throughout the Colonial Empire, and the rest of the world, and will be convincing proof that this Government and this Colonial Secretary are prepared to stand up to their own opinions, to argue their own case, to find their own support, and are not driven to attain their results by the' use of arbitrary powers which were never intended for an occasion such as this.

12.56 p.m.

I feel that the House is in a difficulty today in the spectacle that has been presented to it of the Conservative Party, in the first part of the morning, urging that the integrity of the British Empire should be preserved and, later, adding their weight to an increase of trouble for His Majesty's Government in their efforts to maintain good order in the British Empire. I want, first, to repudiate the suggestion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) that I have had my wild moments in Colonial advocacy, when perhaps I might have been prevented from admission to a Colony, for declarations or statements I made, or action of which I may have been guilty. I also want to repudiate the malicious and libellous insinuation by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), that I have been guilty of making trouble in the Colonies, and that in this case I am poacher turned gamekeeper. It is a wicked insinuation. I have consistently and for many years fought for justice in Colonial administration—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do it now."]—and I have done my best to build up a better standard of living, better economic opportunities, and wider political freedom for the people in our Colonies. I do not in any way retreat from that course.

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me one comment? I do not know that either poachers or gamekeepers are necessarily worse people; they compare favourably with the Secretary of State.

At least, the hon. Gentleman might have had the decency to withdraw his lying insinuation.

Order.

Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to accuse an hon. Member of a lying insinuation?

I think "lying insinuation" are not words which we ought to use.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

I may withdraw the word, but I do not withdraw the content of the word.

On a point of Order. Whether or not we really care twopence about the substantive part, do we not make complete nonsense of all Debate, and empty all words of their meaning, if we allow a right hon. Gentleman to withdraw a word, without withdrawing its content?

A serious accusation has been made against me by an hon. Member. I repudiate completely that insinuation, and, therefore, I am not withdrawing the content of the word, which—

Which word?

The word "lying." It is not true.

I think the position is this. While the right hon. Gentleman used those words, what he wanted to do was to repudiate entirely the statement made by the hon. Member and that, of course, is perfectly in Order.

Surely, Mr. Speaker, you have laid it down that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw?

The right hon. Gentleman has stated perfectly clearly that he has repudiated what the hon. Member said. I think he put it the wrong way round, when he said the word "lying" was wrong and that he did not withdraw. I think, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has put it right now, by saying that he repudiates entirely what the hon. Member said.

Perhaps I can get on.—[ Interruption. ]—Well, you should not make these statements.

Mr. Speaker has not made any statement.

I want to make my position perfectly clear in regard to this matter, because, again, it seems to me that the Tory Party must be pretty hard pressed if they are trying to make political capital out of this affair.

May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? I would like to make it perfectly clear, since I may not have an opportunity of speaking in the Debate, that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong in this. The Tories are not alone in protesting against the action taken over the entry of this man into Sarawak. There are many people on this side of the House who wish to protest just as strongly.

Well, perhaps we can get on. I do want, as I have said, to put the position of the Government in this matter. It was not the Government that asked for the cession of Sarawak. If I recollect aright, there were representations by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when he was Minister, that the Foreign Jurisdiction Act should be made to operate in this Colony. We now find him tending to champion the particular individual who, at that time, created the greatest difficulties for him in trying to obtain the results he wanted.

I am not championing a particular individual. As a matter of fact, I supported the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor last spring in this action, but the mere fact that I do not support this individual, or, necessarily, consider all his conduct right, does not prevent the matter of principle being raised. If the right hon. Gentleman would deal with the matter of principle, instead of throwing about all kinds of insinuations against hon. Members on this side, we and the country would be much better pleased.

There is no need for the right hon. Gentleman to be so touchy about this. I am merely stating a fact, and that is that, when he was at the Colonial Office, he did seek to bring Sarawak under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. There is no occasion for heat about the point. I merely stated the fact in order that the background of the right hon. Gentleman's argument should be understood. I am not making any accusations. I am merely saying that the transfer of Sarawak was determined this year, and that it was done only after a Commission of this House had gone to Sarawak, to discover the feeling of the people there. It recommended that, in all the circumstances, the cession should be conceded.

I do not want the House to be misled. We did not actually recommend anything of the kind.

It is not my recollection that it was what the hon. Gentleman describes as a Commission of this House. I do not think that is an accurate description.

The hon. Member always carries on a commentary while I am speaking. Whatever the delegation may be called—Parliamentary mission or commission—we went out there, and what we actually decided was that there was enough acquiescence or favourable opinion in the country, so far as we could judge, to allow the matter to go to the State Council. If we had found that there was no opinion for it, we would have advised the Secretary of State that it was no good sending this matter to the Council, because, whatever the Council decided, it cannot represent the opinion of the country. That, I think, was a very fair statement for us to make.

I thank my hon. Friend for his amplification of the point I was trying to make. It was perhaps a mission, rather than a commission, which went out to inquire into this matter. The cession was also decided constitutionally in Sarawak itself by the appropriate Councils. All excuses may be used as to the State Council, but the fact was that this was a constitutional decision by certain courts, which were established in accordance with the recognised Constitution of Sarawak. It is quite irrelevant for hon. Members to argue that, because certain Europeans were present or took part in the proceedings of those Councils, those proceedings should have been set on one side. If they had been set on one side, we should then have had to face a charge of not employing the proper constitutional method for ascertaining the position. Furthermore, it was generally recognised in Sarawak afterwards that the decision should stand, and the matter has never been seriously challenged in this House. The transfer of Sarawak has been generally accepted by the British Parliament, and it was accepted only this year. I do suggest that, in the circumstances of the Colony, it is reasonable that a period of stability should now be permitted in order that the necessary development and reconstruc- should go forward.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if we were, at any time, allowed a Debate on this matter, or if it was even suggested?

The Opposition had perfect freedom to demand a Debate or to make representations through official channels. In any case, hon. Members had the opportunity, certainly on the Motion for the Adjournment, of challenging the decision which the Government took.

I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that, for something like four months, I have been trying to get the Adjournment on Sarawak, but without any success.

May I say that this matter could also have been raised on a Supply Day on the Colonial Office Vote, but that it certainly was not? The point I am trying to make, however, is that the decision was taken with the general accord of the House, and also with the broad agreement of the people in Sarawak. Since then, because this terri- tory had passed through a great deal of disturbance on account of the Japanese invasion, our anxiety has been that conditions should be restored in which a good life could be built up and the Colony go forward. At the time of the cession the Brooke family had their opportunity of putting their view to the people of Sarawak. Indeed, a member of the Brooke family went out before the Councils took their final decision. They were represented there, they were permitted freely to influence public opinion, and, if the decision went against them, it was not their fault but rather it was the decision of the Sarawak people and the agreement of this House. Today there are no very large pockets of opposition, although there are one or two organisations which have been trying to spread their propaganda in various parts of Sarawak. There is a Malayan organisation as well as a small organisation of Dyaks, but despite their work they have not been able to create a broad body of feeling in opposition to the policy which was decided during the past year.

The present Government, like all Governments, have a very definite moral responsibility which they must discharge on behalf of the peoples concerned. Many of the people of Sarawak are in a somewhat primitive condition. They are often the prey of ugly rumour and they have not reached particularly high social standards as yet. Consequently, it is important, after the tragedy of war, that the fullest opportunity should be allowed for the people to have settled and orderly government, the proper development of their territory, more education, better health, and all those services which can be rendered. It was because the Rajah felt that with the limitations of his own Government the progress of the people could not be achieved that he ventured to offer Sarawak to the British Crown and asked that His Majesty should take over jurisdiction in order that the necessary conditions of development might be attained. Meanwhile, an agitation has been kept up by Mr. Anthony Brooke in this country and also in Sarawak itself. He has sent messages in which he has inspired agitation and opposition to the cession. He has looked forward to the time when the restoration of the Brooke family would be brought about, and has been, to some extent, behind certain of the agita- tions and actions which have been troublesome, sometimes intimidating, and certainly of a very disturbing kind.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question which is most important? Does he say that any of these acts or agitations was illegal? He has spoken of insinuations but he himself has made statements full of insinuations against this gentleman. Does he or does he not say that any of these acts or agitations was illegal?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to proceed with my argument, perhaps some of these questions may be answered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Perhaps."] I repeat that over a period there has been considerable agitation by certain groups.

Legal or illegal?

I said "certain agitations": I am not determining at this stage whether legal or illegal. But there have been certain agitations and they have been, to some extent, inspired by the messages which have gone to Sarawak from Mr. Anthony Brooke.

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of agitations. Have these agitations been the subject of criminal proceedings, or were they perfectly legal agitations such as meetings in the country of which we partake here? It is an important point.

The point is quite irrelevant at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I repeat that it is quite irrelevant. I am saying that there have been agitations—I have not said whether they are legal or illegal—inspired by Mr. Anthony Brooke. I do not think that anyone can deny that. There is ample evidence in this propaganda that in Sarawak itself the methods of intimidation have been employed and have resulted in difficulties and disturbances which have been extremely confusing to the local population. As I said earlier, we have a very real responsibility with regard to the peaceful and orderly development of the people of Sarawak. It is an obligation we cannot escape and it was important, therefore, when it came to our knowledge that Mr. Anthony Brooke was proposing to pay his visit to Sarawak, that we should ascertain from the Governor what was likely to be the effect of Mr. Brooke coming into the territory. Let me say here that the Governor is a very enlightened and progressive man. He is not a Blimp, but belongs to the younger generation of Colonial servants. His record of service is one which indicates a deep sense of responsibility and a very forward mind.

He made it clear to us that the presence of Anthony Brooke would have a very disturbing effect in the Colony. He said that the majority of the indigenous peoples are easily misled by false reports, that fears are readily engendered among them, that quite half the population are primitive people, and that if agitations and propaganda were pursued there was risk of violence in their settling of the disputes aggravated by long periods of Japanese occupation, and that lawlessness would undoubtedly result.

There is the point that the presence of one of the Brookes would probably lead to a definite threat to peace and good order. If we in London have responsibility for our Colonial territories, we cannot set lightly on one side the views and advice of the Governor of the territory. Regard had to be had also to the views expressed by the Governor-General. He was of the same view as the Governor that the arrival of Mr. Brooke would stimulate a great deal of difficulty which, in the long run, would probably result in disturbance and possibly resort to violence. These people arc inflammable and primitive. War came into the territory, and the effects have been described by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams). There is no doubt that active propaganda would produce bloodshed and disorder among these people Therefore, with that background, to talk of constitutional agitation is really making words meaningless. The kind of propaganda engaged in by Anthony Brooke undoubtedly would have inflamed and confused the good working which we are anxious to promote. I want also to add that the decision to ban Mr. Brooke was the decision of the Governor, taken in consultation with the Governor-General and in consultation with the Government in London.

Why was the decision not conveyed to Mr. Anthony Brooke? The fact was that when Mr. Anthony Brooke applied for priority, it was pointed out that he had said that he wanted to collect material for a libel case, and that these grounds did not entitle him to a priority passage. In the statements made by Mr. Brooke to the British and to the American Press, and even the recent statement which was made by his solicitor, there is no reference at all to his seeking to go to Sarawak to collect evidence for impending legislation. He declared clearly what his intentions were, and what was the purpose of his visit, in the Press interviews, and it is also clear in the telegrams that he sent that he wished to collect evidence as stated when he applied for a priority passage, he subsequently declared his intentions in visiting Sarawak in quite different terms, both in the British Press and in the American Press.

Why did Mr. Anthony Brooke seek to go there? To judge from the statement he made, it was clear that he wants to terminate His Majesty's authority within Sarawak. Further, he wishes to revise cession and to restore the Raj. He goes to Sarawak with the object of deposing His Majesty from sovereignty and reinstituting the Raj. He goes there to enlarge the opposition to His Majesty's Government in order to achieve that purpose. His presence there is likely to lead to disorder. With an inflammatory population, that is a very grave risk for a Government to take. This is not the employment of normal constitutional ways with a people who can be easily misled. His activities were likely to prove of a seditious character.

When the hon. Gentleman says that this action was likely to prove of a seditious character, does he mean the action of Mr. Anthony Brooke? We really must get this point clear. Is there any charge against Mr. Brooke that he wanted to do anything except what was perfectly constitutional? When the right hon. Gentleman talks about deposing the sovereign, is that an allegation against Mr. Brooke that he went to subvert the Constitution of that country? Surely we are entitled to say that the decision taken last spring was wrong and that it would be better for Parliament to reverse it. Surely there is nothing illegal about that?

It is one thing to carry on an agitation of that kind in this country and another thing to inflame a primitive population into opposition to established order in Sarawak. If it was desirable that the Constitution should be changed in Sarawak, the place for that agitation is in this country. It is not a fit and right thing that when a decision has been taken constitutionally, and approved by Parliament within the past year, and generally accepted by the people of Sarawak that the King's jurisdiction should run, that an agitation should be started amongst these people which must inevitably lead to violence. It is largely on those grounds that the Government feel, and the Governor felt, that it was most undesirable, in view of the responsibilities and obligation we have to discharge to the colonial people concerned, that this person should be permitted to enter the territory to conduct an agitation which could only have one result. Suppose he had been admitted and that he had carried on his propaganda. There would have been only one course open to the Government—to deport this gentleman. It would have created, in the existing circumstances in Sarawak, a very considerable feeling and agitation among the people, and undoubtedly a clash and disturbance in the territory. It was far better, rather than that events of that kind should happen, that steps should be taken to prohibit this gentleman's entry into the territory. He was not told before he went, because none of us knew the date he was likely to go. Discussion took place about the possible departure but no decision was reached, or could have been reached, until after the Colonial Office was informed that Mr. Anthony Brooke had left the country.

Why?

We had no knowledge that he had gone. Indeed, I got my first knowledge of it from a newspaper. There was no prior knowledge from Mr. Brooke's solicitor or from Mr. Brooke himself, giving us information that he was leaving. If we had had an opportunity, there is not the slightest doubt that the decision taken by the Governor would at the time it was taken have been given to him. If we had an opportunity, and had known that this eventuality would arise, we should have taken it, but Mr. Brooke disappeared. He was in America before any of us knew anything about it. We could not act before he left.

Has the Minister forgotten that in the letter of 6th November Mr. Brooke said he wished to leave before the end of November?

That is perfectly true, but, as we understood the position, there would be very considerable difficulty in his making the journey. He did finally go across to America. He crossed to the Pacific. It certainly had not occurred to anyone that that would be his likely course. There was no opportunity or time to convey to Mr. Brooke that if he set out on his travels this decision would operate.

I really do not understand this position. Mr. Brooke did inform the Colonial Office on 6th November that he wanted to go to Sarawak as soon as he could. As soon as the Colonial Office came to the decision that he was not to be admitted—we have not yet been told when that was—what prevented them from communicating that decision to Mr. Brooke? What was there to wait for? After all, they had refused to give Mr. Brooke any facilities. There was no reason to anticipate that he would approach them again, and as soon as they had taken the decision that he was not to be allowed in, knowing he wanted to go, it was the duty of the Colonial Office to communicate that decision to him at once.

But as the right hon. Gentleman knows, from his long experience inside the Colonial Office, there is frequently, before a decision of any kind is taken, either in the Colony or in the Colonial Office or by His Majesty's Government, all kinds of discussion with the respective parties and interests. In this case, before any final decision was taken in the matter, Mr. Brooke had left the country. It is no indication of inefficiency on the part of the Colonial Office, nor did it arise from any muddle.

I have tried to indicate what was the situation in which the Government found itself in dealing with this matter. This view, I would remind the House, is also shared by the reliable press in the vicinity of Sarawak and in Sarawak itself. For instance, the "Sarawak Times," in its article several days ago, said this: First, second and third Rajahs governed by methods and according to principles that were most obvious in special circumstances of their respective periods, but times change, and men and institutions change, likewise the act of cession was a natural but inevitable step on the road to a full life for an advancing people.

Where was that?

In the "Sarawak Times," which is published in Kuching. If the hon. Gentleman wants another quotation he can have it from the "Straits Times." The truth of the matter is, of course, that the fundamental issue in this matter is that Brooke is a pretender to the Raj.

Why not call him "Mr. Brooke"?

If he were an alien, nobody would suggest that he should be allowed to go to Sarawak to subvert His Majesty's authority. The fact that he is a British subject does not alter this fundamental fact; if anything it increases the irresponsibility of his activities. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That he is a completely irresponsible person is perfectly clear from the recent history of this gentleman in the government of Sarawak itself. I think he has been deposed no less than three times from the job he was doing. He has not shown—

I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he ought to tell the House that it is a feature of the history of Sarawak that there should be these constant depositions of the heir apparent and his heir by the reigning Rajah, as the reigning Rajah seems to think his time is coming to an end.

Yes, but that is precisely what I am saying, that in this particular case he was deposed no less than three times.

The right hon. Gentleman is making very serious accusations. Surely it is equally possible that the depositions may have been due to the irresponsibility of the Rajah? Before this man is to be called irresponsible, we ought to hear a little more than that he was deposed three times by a Rajah— whose responsibility nobody has ever exaggerated—once because he accused the Rajah of improperly handing out a new Constitution.

That is an extraordinary interruption from the right hon. Gentleman. If I recollect aright, because of his personal difficulties and his negotiations with the Rajah Muda, that is, with Anthony Brooke, he appealed to the Rajah to intervene in the discussions. Also no one knows better than the right hon. Gentleman that when in 1941 some effort was being made to get a liberal form of Constitution in Sarawak—or a little more liberal than it was before—the mainspring of opposition came from Mr. Anthony Brooke.

The right Gentleman said —[HON MEMBERS: "Order."] No, the right hon. Gentleman has referred to me. He said that nobody knows better. The right hon. Gentleman also knows better about that Constitution in 1941, and the less we say about the circumstances under which that Constitution was introduced, the better. If not, his hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Reid) will tell him.

The fact is, however, that in the efforts to get a more liberal element in the Constitution, the opposition came from this irresponsible young man. The Rajah himself said in his statements to his councils: You may be asking why nephew Anthony Brooke, who was formally proclaimed Rajah Muda, should not succeed me as Rajah. My answer is that I have no confidence that he will be a good ruler. I have given him three chances to prove his worth and he has failed. All my experience in the Colonial Office confirms the irresponsibility of this person, and I point that out because, if we are vitally concerned about the progress of Sarawak, we have perforce to pay some regard to his possibly irresponsible actions when this man arrives in the Colony. I rest my case on the fact that this Government has very definite responsibilities to the Sarawak people. A decision was taken during this year that it would be fatal at this moment to confuse the Sarawak public again, when the great work of rehabilitating the country, of restoring order, of getting social services running, must at once be taken in hand. It was because, from his own pronouncements, he intended to extend his authority to inspire the agitation in order to upset the authority of His Majesty, that the Government felt obliged to accept the advice of the Governor that, in all the circumstances, Anthony Brooke should not be allowed to go into the country.

What about Malaya?

I desire to invite the attention, of the House to a subject quite dissimilar from that which it has just been discussing, save only in the respect that it affects the allocation and acquisition of land; that is to say, the subject is the allocation of land for the purposes of military training areas. I notice with regret that while the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War is present on the Front Bench, his colleague, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, whom I have notified of my intention to raise this subject and who was in the House this morning, is not on that Bench this afternoon. I hope it is merely due to the fact that the timetable of today's proceedings have been somewhat upset, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman whose Department is very directly concerned, is not indicating that he is not interested in the subject.

The subject is one of grave importance to the whole of this country and it is also, for reasons which I hope to bring out, one of some considerable urgency at this moment. In raising it, may I make two things clear? Firstly, it is not my intention, nor, I am certain, is it the intention of any of my hon. Friends, to do or say anything which would hamper or harass the Service Departments in obtaining their necessary and reasonable requirements. Given the immense developments in the technique of military training which have taken place during the last few years, it must be accepted that substantial areas are required for the proper training of our Armed Forces, and in the present condition of the world, no one but a lunatic, or an avowed enemy of this country, would attempt to impede proper facilities being given for training. Secondly may I express the hope that this discussion will not proceed on the basis that hon. Members should urge that at all costs their constituencies should be left alone, and training areas be placed in other Members' constituencies. I suggest that that approach is one somewhat inappropriate to the House of Commons in discussing a matter of very considerable importance.

The first point I desire to call to the attention of the House is the method and administrative technique by which the demands of the Service Departments are sifted and coordinated, or not sifted and not coordinated. As the House is aware, during the war very large areas of this country were taken over in great haste and at great inconvenience, but quite justifiably, for the purpose of providing proper training facilities for British and Allied troops. When the war ended, the delay in the return of these areas to normal use gave rise to considerable apprehension, and on 2nd July my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) raised the matter in a Debate on the Adjournment. The Secretary of State for War, whom I am glad to see on the Bench opposite, in his then capacity of Financial Secretary to the same Department, replied to the Debate. I hope he will not think me discourteous if I say that his reply did nothing to diminish the apprehensions which are felt. There is a particular passage in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 2nd July in which the right hon. Gentleman said:. Since the end of the war it has been the policy of the War Office only to hold that land which we consider will be required, either now or in relation to our long term training policy for military purposes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 2141.] The House will appreciate that that remark appears to indicate that the right hon. Gentleman treats this matter as one concerning the War Office alone.

In the Debate on the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) raised the matter on 15th November and the Prime Minister, in his reply, gave my hon. Friend the assurance that whatever procedure, whether the Act of 1842, or the Act of last year, was invoked in the case of acquisition of new training areas, a public inquiry will be held. The matter goes one stage further in as much as I understand that, in addition to these promised public inquiries, there is at present in session an inter-departmental committee which either has reported, or is shortly to report to the Government on the central policy. The point I want to urge on the Government today is that that administrative machinery is quite inadequate for the purpose. Local inquiries, however admirable they may be for the ventilation of local grievances and the expression of local opinion, cannot in the nature of things deal with anything more than the local issues involved. They cannot settle satisfactorily any such questions as the amount of land in the country as a whole which can properly be used for training purposes. Nor can they be a proper forum for the discussion of the question of whether one area is to be protected rather than another. Those are decisions which are vital, not from the local, but from the national, point of view, and apparently they are to be taken on the advice of this inter-Departmental Committee. Nothing I may say of course, detracts from the fact that the final decision is the responsibility of the Government, but the machinery of this Inter-Departmental Committee seems quite inadequate for the very important service of deciding the great questions involved. One of the questions is as to-the precise priority to be given as between claims of the Service Departments, food production, the health and recreation of the people in areas which serve as recreational centres, and what priority is to be given to questions of amenities and of historical and architectural importance. In a small island such as this, in which, as I understand, at this moment 2½ million acres are held by the War Department alone, these questions, which necessarily involve the very careful consideration of one priority as against another, cannot properly be dealt with by an inter-Departmental Committee. They are not questions which it is proper to leave to the responsibility of civil servants of the various Departments, however competent and efficient those gentlemen may be. The matter is one which raises political questions of the very greatest importance.

In a moment I shall make a suggestion as to how these questions can best be tackled. Before doing so, I would mention another matter both on its own merits and because it seems to me to illustrate the impossibility of a question of that nature being settled at the level of an inter-Departmental Committee. In the Debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodbridge on 2nd July, to which I have already referred, the point was raised with the Secretary of State for War whether proper consideration was being given to the utilisation of land in Germany for the purposes of large scale operations involving the use of armoured fighting vehicles and considerable quantities of live ammunition. I do not propose to say more on the merits of that proposal, except that, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, Luneberg Heath in the British zone was the prewar training ground of the German Army and served for training purposes for very large numbers of troops and it is available to the right hon. Gentleman if he cares to use it. In the Debate in question the right hon. Gentleman referred to the matter only in passing. He said this: In that connection, I have been asked what utilisation has been made of land outside these areas for training purposes. A good deal. We are in process of making surveys outside these islands, but it must be remembered that it is not easy to go into other countries—even occupied countries— and take their land for purposes of military training."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1946; Vol. 424, c, 2142.] I want to make two points on that. In the first place that statement was made on 2nd July. I think the House is entitled to know today whether the question of using land in Germany has been fully investigated by now, and if so, with what result? Secondly, it is obvious that that question, which the Secretary of State himself regards as one of difficulty, is one that cannot be settled by an inter-Departmental Committee. There is a further, and to my mind an insuperable objection to the use of the inter-Departmental Committee as the main piece of machinery in these questions. It is this. The Service Departments will put forward certain demands. I hope I am not being unfair to the War Office if I suggest that those demands can profitably be examined with a certain closeness of scrutiny. The matter was well put in a leading article in "The Times" as recently as 9th December: Secondly, there is always the danger that men who are left largely free to determine their own needs will quite honestly define as necessary for defence what is in fact merely convenient to military administrators. I am not satisfied, and I believe a number of hon. Members are not satisfied, that the claims of the War Department have been properly examined by independent people, with power to examine closely the evidence in support of the claims that are made and, if necessary, call for witnesses.

There is not time to go into what might be very fruitful avenues of inquiry, but there are, obviously, such questions as to whether the present almost watertight division of training areas into separate training areas for each. Home Command cannot be gone into—for example, the large amount of land already held by Southern Command. It seems to me that a fair, by no means hostile but quite determined analysis of the demands of the War Office, on a military basis, as well as on the basis of the relative priority of military as against civilian use, should be undertaken by someone with time, ability and authority at their disposal. That argument also applies to the question of Germany. I am well aware that a good deal of the reason why Germany has not been used resides inside the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I do not think he will seriously disagree with me if I suggest that the main basis of that opposition comes from inside the Directorate of Military training. There are obvious objections of convenience to the use of Germany, and also the question of transport, but the question arises as to whether these objections have really been examined by independent people who are prepared to differentiate, as "The Times" puts it, between convenience of administration and real necessity.

As I know that many other hon. Members want to speak on this subject, I do not want to raise any other point on the merits, except the further point that must, be taken into consideration—because, granted the use of Germany, many areas in this country will still be required —which is, what general principles are to be laid down whether land is to be taken or not? That, again, is not a matter which can properly be left to an inter-Departmental Committee. There is the obvious question whether, in general, open land close to big cities should really be taken— proposals such as that to take 2,000 acres more from the Surrey commons, regardless of the fact that they adjoin and provide recreation for the largest centre of population in the world, or the similar proposal to take a good deal of the coast near Formby, on the outskirts of Liverpool. These sorts of proposals come within this general principle, which should surely be laid down, that areas which provide recreation for great numbers of people in our large cities should be as sacrosanct as possible.

Equally, there is the question of what is to be the protection given to areas of historical or archeological value. All these questions cannot be solved in the House of Commons this afternoon, though I think hon. Members can do some service to the country, and to their constituents, by raising these questions, and urging their importance. But the concrete suggestion I desire to make is that the whole of the central co-ordination of these questions— the question of the amount of land to be allotted for Service purposes at all, and the major questions of principle which arise on the allocation of particular areas to these purposes, including, for example, the question of Germany, should not be left to an inter-Departmental Committee. They should be submitted for consideration by a Select Committee of this House, or, if those concerned think fit, a Joint Committee of this House and another place. That would be a body which would, without in any way interfering with the ultimate responsibility of the Government, which I would not dispute for a moment, not only be competent in the individual sense—that is in the sense that the individuals of whom it was composed would be accustomed to examine these great matters from a broad public point of view—it would also have that independence of any particular Department which is equally essential if the task is to be properly carried out.

Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State—to whom I intend no discourtesy, but for reasons I have mentioned I am sorry to see that he is the only Government spokesman—when he replies will be able to indicate the reaction of the Government to this proposal. It would be of some reassurance to the House and to hon. Members who, from certain constituencies I know, are expecting somewhat anxious interviews with their constituents during the Recess on this very subject. It will be some reassurance if the Secretary of State can tell the House that this big responsibility is not to be left to an inter-Departmental Committee, but is to be placed in the hands of a body in which I think the country generally would have great confidence, a Select Committee of this House, or of this House and another place, leaving the final decision whether or not to accept that advice to His Majesty's Government.

1.58 p.m.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd- Carpenter) has raised this matter today, because we should expect the Government to be able to give an early statement as to the exact amount of land required in this country for the training of the Armed Forces. That decision is of course a matter for the Government. I certainly agree with the hon. Member that we cannot hope to decide that here this afternoon. But we want to face, at an early date, the whole problem of the amount of land needed for the future training of the Army in this country. I am afraid I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman in his argument so far as training our Army in Germany is concerned. I was under the impression that one of our principal purposes in Germany at the present time, and for the future, was to demilitarise her. I cannot see how that purpose can be achieved if we make part of Germany one of the principal places for training our Army in the future.

The area to which I particularly invited attention was Luneberg Heath, which has, for many years, been a military training area, and therefore, no change from its prewar use is contemplated.

It is not merely a question of taking a piece of land from its prewar use. It is a question of changing the German mind and outlook on these matters, and I am principally concerned with that aspect. I should not like the Germany of the future to have for a long period a continued pouring in of recruits from this country to Luneberg Heath or anywhere else. I do not want the Germans to gain the impression that we are disarming them in order to arm and train for military purposes ourselves. Whatever the decision of the Government, the House today should give attention to the problem as it affects this country. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it ought not to be the attitude of hon. Members on this occasion to ask that their own Division should be excluded from demands in connection with future training schemes and that land elsewhere should be taken. In my Division there is a battle training area but I do not want to look at the problem merely from the point of view of South-West Norfolk. I want to consider it from the point of view of the county of Norfolk as a whole. As a result of our geographical position, we have had to shoulder the main burden of providing land for airfields. We have a great number, some large and some small, some of which are still extending, and, in addition, we have a large battle training area. On one part of the coastline we have an artillery range, which is in the Division represented by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise). Other parts of the county of Norfolk are used for those purposes, in, addition to aerodromes. There is not far away from the Stanford battle training area, a bomb practice ground which was used during the war by the R.A.F. It is retained by that Service though it has not been used for over 18 months. It has not reverted to agriculture.

Considering the matter from the point of view of the Eastern Counties, we say that if, by reason of our geographical position, we must accommodate a large number of aerodromes for defensive and offensive purposes, we do not desire also to have in our midst great areas used for other military purposes. The chief means of livelihood in Norfolk is productive agriculture. We have not a large number of unproductive beauty spots. The land is mainly used for agriculture and forestry and the War Office and Air Ministry deny us a large part of it.

People in Norfolk have been annoyed by the way in which the War Office has held on to the land which it took during the war. The Eastern Command gave a specific promise to the people of the neighbourhood that the land would be needed only for the duration of the war but the War Office still holds the land. If I may say so without giving offence, they hold it somewhat in the manner of an army of occupation in a foreign country. The use of the land is denied to the local inhabitants. Roads pass through the areas; they were made by the local inhabitants and paid for out of the local rates. They were built in order to make it convenient for the people to get from one town or village to another. Yet the War Office denies the use of those roads to the local people.

The hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn and my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Gooch) accompanied me to the War Office on 19th November last, when we made a special effort to persuade the War Office to make one of these roads available to the public. So far as I can see, the road is not yet open. The only notice I have seen in our local Press is to the effect that the road, which we asked should be opened on 19th November, might be opened between 20th December and 31st December. In my view, to take a month to open a road, which is not damaged in any way though it has been in the battle training area, shows that those who are in charge of the War Office do not appreciate that this country must be able to produce, in order to carry, the arms which we are called upon to bear. We must impress upon them, that we cannot build up our exports, unless every part of our country is put to the fullest possible use.

The result of the closing of these roads has been that many farmers have had to transport their sugar beet by an alternative route, adding between five and 10 miles to the journey, in order to get their produce to the factories at Bury St. Edmunds and King's Lynn. That means that the farmers had to pay more money for the transport of every load of beet which they have produced. In addition, more tyres, which are in short supply, have been worn out, and more petrol has been used. Therefore, the fact that the roads have been closed, has added to the costs of agriculture. The roads could have been opened earlier, because this battle training school has not been in full operation for some months. I ask the War Office to consider these things from the point of view of the wellbeing of the country. They are not apart from the country: they are a part of it. If we must have battle training areas for the Army of the future, let us be good neighbours. If we must have the Army in Norfolk, let them be honoured guests not imposed upon us and not withholding from the local inhabitants the things which are justly theirs—the use of the roads and, in some cases, of the homes which they have built.

Since I have been a Member of this House I have endeavoured, in my communications with the War Office, to get them to see the point of view of the civilian. Unfortunately, it seems to me that I have failed almost completely in that respect. When we came to consider negotiations with the War Office and the county authority so far as the use of this road was concerned, the officials of the Norfolk county council could not find the appropriate people to contact, in order to get on with the job. We must have closer contact and a willingness to get on with one another. Freedom to use the roads is an important aspect of this matter. In many cases where the Air Ministry have taken over land for airfields, they have built alternative roads round them, but in the case to which I refer, no alternative accommodation has been provided. The roads which are used are worn out and cannot take the traffic which is diverted to them.

There is also the problem of housing. Some 200 to 300 families were evacuated from this area, but not a single new house or hut, temporary or otherwise, was erected for their accommodation. The result is that these people have crowded in upon others, and, although I have made every effort since I have been a Member of this House to get temporary houses or some of the new houses built for their accommodation, so far, I have completely failed. Consequently, we have overcrowding in this particular neighbourhood. The forestry which has developed in this area is of great importance to the Eastern Counties, and to the country as a whole. It is also hoped to develop a national park in the neighbourhood. But these things are all being held up pending a decision by the Government. We cannot make the necessary plans for rebuilding our villages, or for replanning our roads, unless the Government make up their mind as to whether they will retain this area as a permanent battle training school or whether it can be handed back for civilian purposes.

There are those in the neighbourhood who think that the decision is being delayed too long. They doubt whether the Government, or those of their officials who have to collect the necessary information, are considering the matter on the right lines. Local people are saying that some officials are more interested in the game in this particular area, because, although we are told that it is very dangerous to go into the battle area, pheasants, partridges and rabbits are regularly shot. We have recently drawn the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the large number of foxes which have accumulated there, and which prey upon the poultry farms. This is one of the greatest poultry breeding areas in the country. As there is likely to be a greater quantity of feedingstuff for poultry next year, it would be possible for this area to produce, for the next Christmas trade and throughout the year, not hundreds of thousands of ducks, turkeys and chickens, but millions. Therefore, it is a valuable part of England, and not a wasteful part. I want to impress upon my right hon. Friend that there is a feeling that delay has gone on too long, and we would ask him to come to a decision at an early date.

2.13 p.m.

I have already had two opportunities of addressing the House on this topic and, as a number of other hon. Members wish to speak both on this and other topics, and in view of the fact that we are running behind time, I shall not attempt to cover the whole ground. I should like however to associate myself very strongly with all that my hon. Friend has said and, particularly, with his plea that it is quite insufficient to leave this matter to an interdepartmental committee.

As we know, there has been considerable correspondence about this matter in the Press, and some of the letters in "The Times" have accused those who have interested themselves in this topic, of an indifference to the defence schemes of the country. I wish most strongly to repudiate that. The Motion which was put down during last Session, and signed by some 130 hon. Members in all parts of the House, began by specifically calling attention to the defence needs of the country. I have never heard any speech on this topic, down to the speech made by my hon. Friend today, which has not given full weight to the defence needs of the country. I go much further than repudiating the suggestion of indifference; I would say that it is absolutely essential to the defence needs of the country that this problem should be satisfactorily settled. In a democratic community, we cannot possibly hope to carry through our defence programme, unless the Service Departments have the good will of the population at large and, in particular, of the population among whom they are living.

The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) has just told us how, to a large extent, the Service Departments have forfeited that good will in his part of the country. I am sorry to say that, to a great extent, that is also true in Wiltshire, where the War Department is one of the biggest landlords. Up to 18 months ago, it was a popular landlord, but it is now an unpopular landlord. Therefore, I feel that, in insisting on a solution of this problem, so far from being indifferent to the defence needs of the country, we are making an essential contribution to the solution of that problem.

2.16 p.m.

I think that we on these benches should impress upon the Secretary of State the extent to which the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and other hon. Members, is felt on all sides of the House. It is not only in this House that anxiety is felt. Many large sections of the public who may not be politically vocal are, nevertheless, united in their desire to preserve what is left of the natural beauty of this country. I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies he will be able to say something which will show that that anxiety is unfounded. When the Prime Minister spoke in the Debate on the Address, he did a great deal towards removing anxiety concerning the procedural side of this matter. But I am bound to confess that other official spokesmen have not been equally successful in removing anxiety about the principle, or lack of principle, on which this matter of the requisitioning of land is handled by His Majesty's Government. That anxiety persists. It is shown in the resolutions passed by local authorities, and the letters which all hon. Members must now be receiving from ramblers, hikers, and the Youth Hostel Association. It is shown, too, by the constant reports which we find in national newspapers like "The Times" and the "Manchester Guardian."

I appreciate, as does the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, the difficulties that the Service Departments are experiencing at the present time, and the need for training areas. But there is a feeling abroad in the country that, at a time when we might expect the situation to be improving, it is, in fact, deteriorating in this respect. When my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Sharp) addressed a Question to the Minister without Portfolio on 17th December, he was told that there are at present 157 areas of more than 1,000 acres, totalling altogether 1,860,000 acres, in the posses- sion of the Service Departments. What we really want the Secretary of State to tell us this afternoon is what is the target of land at which the Service Departments are aiming. We must know what their target is, and we should like to be reassured as to the principles upon which the Government decide whether land shall be allocated to the Service Departments, to the production of food or to providing open spaces for the population I know that the Secretary of State is sympathetic on these matters, and that many of his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench are sympathetic also. I hope that, when he rises to reply, he will be able to go a long way towards allaying the anxiety which most of us in this House are at present feeling.

2.19 p.m.

There seems to be a slight atmosphere of conciliation in the House this afternoon, and I am anxious to tell the Secretary of State that I hope nothing that I say will, in any sense, prejudice certain negotiations which I believe to be now going on in respect of Dartmoor. I must also say—he will expect me to say it—that that does not mean that I could not hit hard. But, at the moment, I think it is advisable, if possible, to reduce arguments and criticisms as to how this matter has been handled during the earlier stages. At the same time, I would also like to refer to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I am satisfied that, at the moment, he is playing a most important part in getting some sense into this matter. He is trying hard to see that these demands are reduced to the minimum. I should like to quote one instance to show that the public are justified in thinking that Government departments should be closely watched, as one hon. Member has suggested this afternoon. The quotation comes from the "Western Morning News" of 18th December, concerning a letter from the First Lord of the Admiralty in respect of a threat against certain commons in Devon: Here is the First Lord of the Admiralty writing in respect of these very large plains, saying to the local authority 'I would like you to know that the proposals have recently been re-examined and the area which will be required for them has been very much reduced.' Hon. Members will agree with me that it is quite probable that that can be done in many of these cases, which, I am informed, amount to some hundreds of training areas, for which the Secretary of State is going to ask. I hope it will be appreciated that, as regards the fight in Devon to preserve Dartmoor, we are most anxious that all the land which is necessary for the defence of the country and the training of the Army should be surrendered. But we are not prepared to see it go simply at the whim of some person in private; there should be a public inquiry if and when it is necessary.

My final observation is this. As I wrote to "The Times," I do not believe a public inquiry will be necessary in that respect, because I have every hope that, as a result of getting sensible persons who are inspired with a desire to see all interests satisfied, such as the Secretary of State for War and the Minister of Town and Country Planning, we shall find that in the majority of cases there is no real dispute. At the same time, we shall watch the matter very carefully. I think we should go away and have a good holiday, so as to make quite certain that we are fit for a major battle if things do not turn out as we hope.

2.22 p.m.

I have promised not to detain the House for more than a minute or two. I wish to refer to the position in Wales. I promise to you, Mr. Speaker, that although you asked me whether I would speak in Welsh or English I will make my remarks in the English language.

Give it to them in the "language of Paradise."

The trouble is that most hon. Members have not learned the "language of Paradise." The other day the Secretary of State for War told the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) that the War Office held about 500,000 acres of land in Wales; at least, I believe that is the figure. We are very much concerned with the large amount of land in Wales held by the Services. There is no demand that the War Office should hold no land at all in Wales, but the holding of some of this land constitutes not merely a threat to agricultural production or to some of our scenes of incomparable beauty but, in some locations, to our national way of life. Therefore, I would like to associate myself and my Welsh colleagues with all that has been said today on this subject.

I am glad to know that a public inquiry will be held in respect of each particular establishment, but it is also important that we should have soon an overall plan for the country as a whole and for Wales as a whole. Although I do not wish to develop this theme, it is a matter for serious consideration whether the Army which is proposed, with its large size, does not make such demands in personnel, equipment and land, as a result of military conscription, to an extent to which this country cannot afford in men, money, equipment or land, if the country is to survive and be reconstructed in the postwar world. With those remarks, I wish to endorse and associate myself generally with what has been said this afternoon.

2.24 p.m.

There is a slightly different aspect of the matter which I wish to raise briefly, and that is the question of the necessity for inquiry into whether the War Office demands for land are not being inflated because they are not making proper use of the land which they already have. I make no apology for referring to what is happening in the part of the country which I represent, in order to bring home that point. The War Office hold 100,000 acres of land in a ring fence, entirely sterilised to agriculture. It is known as the Imber training area. There is no aerodrome there and, of course, there is no beach. Before the war, barracks were built in the vicinity for tank training units. Today, and since the war, this has become an infantry training centre. I am advised that the land is not suitable for infantry training—they cannot get the cover they want—with the result that the War Office, in spite of the fact that they hold 100,000 acres sterilised to agriculture in that area, are spilling out over the perimeter and, under Schedule 52, have requisitioned further good agricultural land.

I think at a time like this, particularly in our straitened circumstances, it is most intolerable that this sort of thing should still be happening. I urge that any inquiry should consider not only the necessity, but the use which the War Office are making of the land which they already hold. We are not opposed to the Service Departments having what they want, but I think it intolerable that they should have more than is necessary, through improper use being made of the areas they already have.

2.27 p.m.

First, I should like to say that this Debate has been conducted on very reasonable and lucidly argued theses, and, on the whole, it has been helpful in what to me is an unpleasant task, namely, holding on to areas of the country, and thus causing a certain amount of irritation, putting it no higher than that. That is something which, I can assure the House, we at the War Office do not want to do. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Dye) said, we realise that we have to live together with the civilian population, and we should live together as good neighbours. That is our whole purpose, particularly in peace time, when it is not possible for the Services to override civilian interests as they had to do in the war emergency.

Perhaps in the short time which is available, I ought to set this whole matter in its correct perspective. Why are these large areas wanted at all? One can understand that during the war, when we were training so many millions of men— not only our own men but Allies—it was necessary for us to have large areas of land in order to train those men, so that on D-Day they could go overseas and finish the war. The House knows that although we finished the war, we cannot quite yet say that we have got peace. No government could afford to ignore the national safety and proper defence as we did between the last two wars. We must, as far as we can, guarantee peace by being ready for any possible aggressor.

The House also knows that we have to keep a larger Army than we had before the war. I am speaking for the War Office this afternoon, because we are the main users of land in this country. We are reconstituting the Territorial Army on a bigger basis than we did before the war, and that inevitably means that we must not only have the weapon facilities for training, but, with modern mechanisation in modern warfare, we must have the land on which to train those Forces. The land that we have at the moment, the land that was acquired during the war, was acquired for the Regular Forces, the battle forces who had to go and do the fighting. The Regular Forces in the future will use this land, but so also will the Territorial Army. As the Territorial Army is only a part-time Army we have to economise in manpower and time, and therefore it is very necessary that those training areas should be within easy reach of those areas, mainly industrial areas, from which we have to draw our Territorial Forces. The House can be quite sure of this, that we shall economise in the use of land not only as between the Regular and the Auxiliary Forces, but we shall cooperate with the other two Service Departments, as far as we possibly can, for the joint use of such land as we require.

There is another factor which I think the House has overlooked, but which I ought to mention. A large portion of our Forces at the present time are serving overseas. Therefore, it is possible to train a large portion of our Forces overseas. That brings me to a point which was raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), as to why we have not surveyed Germany, and why we are not thoroughly utilising Germany for the training of our Forces. Believe me, we are using not only Luneberg Heath, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but a large portion of Germany which the German Wermacht set aside before the last war for training their own forces. I am bound to say that that training area— the area in the neighbourhood, I think, of Göttingen, and that part of Germany—is 60 miles square, and from a military point of view is most ideal for training purposes. If we, the Army and this country, could have an area like that—I would not say in England, because that would of course be impossible—but somewhere within easy reach, where we could train our Regular and Territorial Forces, there would be no need to debate this matter in the House. We should then have from a military point of view—I will not say from any other point of view—an ideal training area such as I myself have seen, complete with every possible facility for training infantry, and indeed all arms of the Service.

On that very important point, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those areas in Germany to whose admirable facilities he has just paid tribute, are being used or will be used for training troops who are sent there for the purpose of training and exercise, and not for the purpose of garrisoning Germany.

Yes, Sir, as long as the occupation lasts. But surely there has to come a time when peace treaties will have to be made? As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk said, it is not our purpose to destroy one military organisation in Germany and then to set up another military organisation, an alien one, on their soil. As long as the army of occupation remains there, of course it will use, and will continue to use, these training areas.

For troops sent from this country for the purpose of training?

Yes, certainly. Part of the service of the conscript soldier and the regular soldier will be spent in Germany, at any rate for some time, the end of which I cannot see at the moment. It will be used for carrying out corps training, and unit training, such as it might not be possible in the short time of conscription which we envisage in the future in this country. Arguments have been advanced that we should train our troops either in Scotland or overseas—in Canada, for example. I do not think I need dwell too long on the Canadian situation. I need only mention that the time, the shipping necessary, and the cost of sending large numbers of troops to Canada in peacetime—even if Canada would accept them, and I am not in a position to say whether they would or not—would prohibit any possibility of training our Forces, at any rate our conscript Forces, over in Canada. Scotland has been mentioned. I have no doubt the inhabitants of Scotland will also have something to say about sending large numbers of troops there, just as Wales does. Wherever we turn for training, we are told to go somewhere else. It is quite easy to say that, but not always so easy to accomplish.

We have, I admit, a large portion of our training areas in the Southern part of England. Hon. Members, especially those with military experience, can readily understand why these establishments have grown up in the Southern part of England, which is nearest to the Continent. They have grown up over a large period of years, especially in regions where the armoured corps trained, behind Lulworth Cove, at Bovington, and those sort of places. They have grown up since 1916, but now, of course, they have reached a pitch when the public begins to take notice.

To continue my very hurried survey of the situation, I would now like to turn to the present machinery for examining Service demands. I agree entirely with those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have said that there ought to be some machinery set up for watching the Service requirements and demands, to see that they do not become exorbitant or out of all proportion to the national economy. We have that machinery at the present time. We have the Inter-Departmental Committee, to which several hon. Members have referred. I can say—and I have confirmation of it in a speech made only a moment or two ago by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude)—that the Inter-Departmental Committee under the supervision of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning, is already achieving some agreement between the Services and the civilian population. The hon and learned Gentleman the Member for Exeter referred to one particular case, namely, Dartmoor, about which there has been a great deal of agitation, not all of it well-informed, in the public Press. He mentioned it, and therefore I can refer to it. The Inter-Departmental Committee have been examining that area, amongst others, and we have got a good deal of agreement between our side, the Services side, and the local people represented by the local authorities, by hikers' associations, and indeed by all those who could object to the Services being on Dartmoor at all.

In addition to the inter-departmental committee, which is doing excellent work, and which has been examining certain areas, particularly the more controversial areas, if I may so call them, we have a ministerial committee. The purpose of that ministerial committee is to weigh the demands of the Service Departments against the other interests. For example, the Ministry of Agriculture, are represented on that, and I can assure my hon. Friends, and hon. Members opposite, too, that the Ministry of Agriculture are by no means silent on these matters. Indeed, there are some right royal battles fought in this Committee between the Service Departments and the civilian Departments—particularly the Scottish Department—over these matters. The ministerial committee will, I presume, in due course report to the Cabinet itself. There is one other Committee which obviously must have a considerable say in these matters, and that is the Defence Committee. The Defence Committee are, if I may so call them, the consumers' committee; they present to the Government what they consider to be, after weighing all the factors, the minimum requirements of the Services for land. So, between the inter-departmental committee, the ministerial committee and the Defence Committee, the Cabinet will be the final arbiter and they, of course, will have to present their plans to the House and the country in due course. May I just for a moment give the House some figures? Too often in making our speeches we find they are sometimes out of relation to the actual facts.

Before the right hon. Gentleman passes from the committees may I put this point? The trouble with these committees is that they are all representative of Government Departments really. Will he consider the possibility of associating representatives of the agricultural and amenities societies on the Inter-Departmental Committee?

Those societies and organisations have the opportunity of coming to the Inter-Departmental Committee. I think certain hon. Members may know that representatives of those organisations have already expressed their points of view to the Inter-Departmental Committee, and thereby helped us to reach some satisfactory conclusion to both sides.

They can give evidence before the Committee, but they do not sit on it.

No, Sir. That is a Government Committee and I see no reason—at any rate judging by the results of the Committee's deliberations—to impose on this whole matter another committee, or even to incorporate on that official Committee outside representatives.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose —

I really must go on.

This is very important.

No, I cannot give way. Several hon. Members have put their points of view, and I am now trying, in a short space of time—because other matters have to come before the House—to give a condensed view of the facts.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter rose —

I am sorry, I must go on. I was about to give the House some figures. Our peak hold—that is, the War Department only—during the war amounted to 11,400,000 acres. We have already given up 9,505,000 acres, leaving a balance of 1,895,000. Of this 1,895,000 there are now in the process of release, going through the machinery, 360,000 acres. We hold a further 494,700 acres, out of the global figure I have given, which we are clearing of "blinds" and dud shells. When those areas are cleared they will be handed back. That brings me to a balance in use of 1,040,300 acres, and even that is not the final figure because that is being reduced. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) asked me if the Government could give their tax-get. Obviously, the Government will have to give a target figure in due course. But we have not reached that target because our demands are being whittled away, or at any rate reduced as far as possible, in accordance with the evidence which is now being sifted. I can assure the House that when those figures are produced they will be considerably less than the fantastic figures which have been mentioned in certain organs of the Press.

In conclusion, I would like to say this. I may not have answered, certainly in detail, the points which have been presented so reasonably and moderately by hon. Members on all sides of the House. But I would say that I, myself, the War Department and the Service Departments are deeply conscious, as well as hon. Members, of the necessity for the Army to cause as little inconvenience as possible to the public. This will be our endeavour. We have already given evidence of this in the investigations which have gone on before the Inter-Departmental Committee. This will be our endeavour, because in peacetime we realise we cannot ride roughshod over the public requirements, and we do not intend to do so. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk, we want to live as good neighbours, because we realise we are only a part of the community. But this House should not forget that twice in one generation our land was in danger of invasion.

It was only freed under great exertion, under great inconvenience to the general public, from an enemy that came very close to taking more than 1,000,000 or 2,000,000 acres of our native soil. We do not intend to revert to the position of that disturbed period before the last war, when Britain neither had men nor, apparently, money, nor weapons, nor training areas, with the consequence that we were ill-prepared to meet that enemy when he thrust at the heart of the Commonwealth, in 1939. Although it is right for Members to criticise any attempts of the Service Departments to be exorbitant in their demands, or to be unmindful of the public interest, I ask them to do their best to help us allay that public anxiety, as we shall do our best to meet local requirements in a considerate manner.

As the right hon. Gentleman would not give way just now to a perfectly friendly interruption, may I now ask him this? He will remember the suggestion was made that a Select Committee might deal with the central coordination of these problems. I do not expect him to give a definite answer now, but can he give the assurance that a suggestion will be considered by himself and his colleagues, and a statement made in due course?

I do not think that it is for me to consider that suggestion. I think it is for the Prime Minister to consider these matters. I am very doubtful whether my right hon. Friend could agree to that suggestion. There are matters of security, and for them the Government must accept the entire responsibility.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient cooperation between his Ministry and the Air Ministry to ensure that there is no duplication either of bombing grounds or firing areas?

Yes, Sir, I am completely satisfied that the Air Ministry and the Army are acting in close liaison in these matters.

Without any disrespect to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, may I first register a complaint that the Minister of Education is not in her place today to reply to this Debate? If the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for War could be here today, I should have hoped that the Minister of Education could be here also. Last week the Minister made a deliberate statement, after which she was questioned by 12 Members, on the subject of training grants for ex-Service students. In that statement, and in subsequent cross-examination, she said that 7,000 applications had been received this term, and later. She asked us to imagine the flood of applications there must be. She said that 22,000 awards had been made, but she did not say how many were pending. In a letter to me on 27th November, about an individual case, the right hon. Lady said that I should be reminded that there were 12,000 cases in front of this particular case. She said in the House that she could not investigate general charges of delay, and that the position was bad enough without exaggeration. Further, the right hon. Lady said that there were so many forms to be sent in, that individual investigation held up the process of assessment and payment, that colleges did not return the primary certificates of attendance, and that, in some cases, it was the fault of the students. She said that if Members felt aggrieved they must go to the Public Accounts Committee and, finally, the right hon. Lady said that her Department was not master in its own house.

What a series of confessions, admissions, and contradictions, all in ten minutes. In a word, the right hon. Lady blamed the colleges, the Public Accounts Committee and the students—a particularly mean line to take—and suggested that there was an unknown body, or Department, which prevented her from running her own Department. She blamed Members for exaggeration, and stressed the number of forms which had to be examined. All this after 12 months of letters, questions and deputations warning her officials that this would happen. In June, one of her officials said to a deputation that precautions, including an increased staff, had been taken which would ensure that no breakdown occurred when applications flooded in. Note the word "flooded." When after 12 months of interviewing and deputations, the students lobbied—a legitimate democratic method—this was described by one high personage in the right hon. Lady's Ministry as "exhibitionism." The right hon. Lady, as I have said, accused the colleges. On the contrary, I find that form 0.5 is returned within 48 hours after receipt. One of the universities employs a fulltime clerk to track down difficulties. Some universities have instituted loan systems and other special charitable organisations for their students.

The right hon. Lady blames the students. Like all other humans, they sometimes err in filling up forms, and, having seen the acceptance forms, I am not surprised. I therefore treat this accusation with the contumely it deserves. The Minister said that she was not master in her own house. Will the Parliamentary Secretary explain why she is not? Who is interfering? Yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary told me that the bottleneck was not only in his Department. Will he explain where it is? Is he aware that these ex-Service students were told that it was a concession for payments to be made to them before the end of the term, because it was the recognised custom of the Treasury that all Government payments should be made at the conclusion of the contract. In answer to the hon. Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning), the Minister said that it was impossible to speed up the payment of recurrent grants, because of certain duties laid on her Department by the Public Accounts Committee. In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proved and practical interest in the universities, I refuse to believe that the Treasury are holding up this matter

Is it, therefore, the Ministry of Labour? Apparently, this is the procedure: There is a three weeks' delay through the Ministry of Labour, about four weeks through the Ministry of Education, five or six weeks for the assessment stage, and three weeks for the payment stage. The actual payment comes from the Paymaster General, via the Ministry, to the university, or directly to the man. I want to quote one or two cases which have come to my notice. The right hon. Lady challenged me about Leeds but I have here 60 cases of people who will not receive any payment this term, and who will go home for Christmas with no payment. In Leeds, the bursar of the university there sent all certificates to the Ministry on 1st October. The first payments were made on 20th November. On 14th December, 276 payments had been made through the normal channels. Today, 300 are outstanding out of the 600 to be made to ex-Service students. In Leicester, where there is a small university, 40 men are concerned. Six have received grants, 22 have been accepted for grant, and 12 are still awaiting assessment. In Aberystwyth there are 26 cases of particular hardship, four with dependant parents or relatives, four in debt, and four making allowances to parents, and so on. Twenty-five of these applied, but have not yet received an acceptance statement. Fifty per cent. have received acceptance, but are awaiting assessment, and 25 per cent, have been assessed but, up to 3rd December, had received no grants.

Take London, University College, where 41 per cent. of the ex-Service men have had to wait for three months for a decision as to the eligibility. Thirty per cent. have had to wait five months or more for assessment, and now the end of the term has come and 300 out of 600 are awaiting cheques. I have proof of cases from Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Aberystwyth, University College, London, The London School of Economics, and various university colleges such as Lough-borough and Leicester. Here is a file from the London School of Economics, from which I will give these examples: Mr. X applied in February, and got his grant on 20th August; Mr. Y applied in July, and got his grant on 28th October. Mr. Z applied on 14th January, but no grant was received until the end of the summer term. Now I come to one of the individual hardship cases. Mr. X of Lough-borough College wrote on 19th August advising of the birth of a child and asking for prompt attention. There was no reply. On 20th September he sent a registered letter, to which there was no reply. On 17th October he wrote again, pointing out the impossibility of making the grant last for the allocated period. He pointed out that he was practically "broke"—I am using the picturesque language of this student—and that it was 20 weeks since the last instalment had been received. Mr. Y was released under Class B, filled in a form, and sent it to Cardiff regional office. Nothing was heard up to mid-October, when he approached Cardiff again, and was told that everything was in London, and that "he would receive an answer in due course." On 3rd November a financial form was received from the Ministry, but he has heard nothing since. Here is a case from the Royal Technical College, Salford, about a man taking a course in mechanical engineering, a most important industry at this time. He says: After Christmas I will have to apply for public assistance owing to the muddle of the awards grants of the Ministry of Education. My application form was accepted by the Ministry as correct on 21st August, 1936. I wrote saying that my wife had had a baby, and that the old saying about living on love did not apply these days. From an R.A.F. meteorological department, I quote the case of a married man, with a son aged two years, with a little savings. This man says that he has to withdraw money weekly, and that this cannot go on indefinitely. He says that he chose teaching because he loved children, and because his country claimed that they wanted teachers. Mine is not an isolated case, an oversight, an unfortunate mistake. None of my colleagues has received an instalment. We are entering the third month. Here is another case of a man released from the Royal Air Force. He has no other resources, and he cannot meet his rent or the hospital expenses of his wife. So I might go on. How can anybody think this is a case of exaggeration? Why should these boys have to undergo this suffering? They have not done anything wrong, except go away to serve their country and come back to try to rebuild their broken lives.

I want to try to be constructive. The one thing which the Minister refuses to do is to re-examine the machinery of her own Department. The right hon. Lady blames all these others. I know that there has been some extra staff provided, and that there are now 20 officials and 120 juniors, but there are 20,000 cases. I believe that this scheme is a good scheme and a generous scheme, more generous, in fact, than when I came out after the last war, but the administration is clumsy and callous, and, in my opinion, the delays are avoidable. I find it very hard not to accuse the Ministry of complacency, neglect and misrepresentation. We have been too tolerant in this House, but we ought not to have had to quote these individual cases, which are holding up justice for the others. I doubt whether the Ministry of Labour should come into this at all. Much delay has been caused by the interpretation of paragraph 5 of P.L.150, a form which is sent to the regional office of the Ministry of Labour to establish a prima facie case about going to a college or university. Either the Ministry of Labour ought to go on with it, or not be brought in at all. I could quote a case in which a man was sent to Leeds, then to Manchester, then to Newcastle, because the student happened to live there, and finally back to the Ministry of Education. But that delay is nothing like the delay of the Ministry in deciding on eligibility.

I ask the hon. Gentleman this afternoon if he will speed up the issue of the memorandum giving provisional notice of the award of the grant Form 0.5. I ask him to separate the certificate of attendance of the student so that he may receive a maintenance grant as soon as he goes into the university. I ask him if he will grant the student £150 straight away and let the details be settled later. The other form, 0.9, is the definite acceptance. I know that this is a highly technical matter and that I can only suggest lines of improvement. Why is it that the Ministry of Pensions, which has got much more complicated claims to deal with, can deal with them at the rate at which it does? Why do the Minister of Agrictulture's students get treated more equitably? I suggest that this Ministry is not fitted to do executive work, either by its history or nature. It broke down-over emergency training, which, finally it had to park out on the local educational authorities. This kind of legislation is likely to last, and this further education scheme may become part of our social system. Therefore, I must ask the Minister to assume complete control.

I do not come to this House pleading with individual cases and questions. I demand that this very thing, which was refused last week—a general investigation—should be made at once. I demand a reconstruction of the machinery of administration. I demand a simplification of forms, and a speedier payment of recurrent grants to students, when students in their second and third terms wait six or seven weeks before they receive any payment. I demand that something should be done for travelling expenses and equipment, such as microscopes, which might mount up to £60 or £70 in a year, and, above all, I demand common courtesy for applicants.

It is within your recollection, Mr. Speaker, that I tried to move the Adjournment of the House on this matter. I say that the claims of ex-Service students to enter into their rightful heritage are at least as important as that of Mr. Brooke to enter Sarawak. We have been given this Debate in order to say that we want swift and businesslike action to be applied to these young men and women, in the interests of justice, and, surprisingly, of higher education.

3.5 p.m.

The senior Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay) has on many occasions raised subjects of the first importance in the educational world; he has today raised one which is of importance not only in the world of education, but in the social life of our nation as a whole. It is a case of the pledged word of the Government being kept to the ex-Servicemen, and it represents, in my opinion, a glaring instance of a complete breakdown in administration. No one likes to be critical to the extent which I feel obliged to be, of a Department in which one is interested, but I am tired of receiving letters which, in their strain, make me ashamed of the treatment which has been given to these people. This morning I received a list of 90 cases from University College, Cardiff. The chairman of the ex-Servicemen's Students' Committee tells me: I am sending to you some 90 forms of people of University College, Cardiff, who have not been assessed. There are more than 90 in reality, but I send these as an example of the hardship being imposed upon these students who are dependent upon the grant. Several students have had to apply to the college authorities for loans. That is being repeated time after time. Why should these young people be obliged to change the person from whom they are borrowing, owing to maladministration somewhere? Why should a person have to go to the professor of his department or the principal of his college and plead poverty? I like to think that when I was in college I was on good terms with the University staff, but I should never have liked to have had to go to them and plead poverty and beg for financial assistance, but that is what is taking place in almost every university college in Britain at the present time. The Parliamentary Secretary is to reply, and I readily associate myself with the words of the Senior Member for the Combined English Universities when he said that that is an unpleasant task for my hon. Friend. He has already given the information that there are now 23 officials and 153 juniors at the Grants Department of the Ministry to deal with these 20,000 cases. He reveals further that the problem is that outside the Civil Service a higher wage can be obtained by the clerical assistants who are required. The House undoubtedly feels strongly on the subject, but I know that it will also want to be reasonable, and if the way to deal with this problem of staff is by tackling the wages problem inside the Civil Service it must be said that if wages there are too low that, although in turn a scandal, cannot be laid at the door of my hon. Friend.

I promised not to speak for more than five minutes, but I believe that I have another half minute. There are also university colleges which have not played the game in this matter—and it is here that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for the Combined English Universities. I am informed by the National Union of Students that two of the worst grievances concerning delays on the part of the colleges are in the respect of Exeter and Loughborough. The Minister pointed out that at both these colleges, the necessary registration forms were not returned until six or seven weeks after the beginning of term. The whole machinery must be checked once again. The Minister said last week that if only they would write to her, they need not have a delay. Perhaps if they would write to her instead of to me, there would not be a delay, but I write to her and I experience a delay. I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that things have now reached such a pass that further delay is not only intolerable but unjustifiable in any way whatsoever.

3.10 p.m.

I know that there are other subjects which it is desired to discuss and I will therefore be extremely brief. I think all sections of the House are indebted to my colleague in the representation of the Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) for bringing forward this subject again. I believe that nobody who was in the House when this subject was raised at Question time could doubt how widespread and how justified is the anxiety.

Most hon. Members attempt to do their duty when they get a large number of letters, and they do not forward them all to the Ministry. They use their own judgment whether the complaints are substantial and well-founded or not I would say at once to the hon. Gentleman who is to reply, that whenever I send a letter to him I always receive an answer which is both courteous and comes with as much promptitude as possible. Nevertheless, in spite of all that, the impression left on my mind—and I have some experience of the inside of a Government Department as well as of this House—as on the minds of the two previous speakers, is that there is here an administrative breakdown. Not only is great suffering caused; that would touch us all in any event: but these men and women are working under great anxiety, which hinders the very work they are trying to do.

We could tolerate all this much better if it were not for the sense of smug self-satisfaction on the part of the right hon. Lady. The fact is that the actual tragedy would be very much greater than it is if it were not for the extremely good behaviour of the universities themselves. If it were not for some of these university schemes, with which the universities ought not to be troubled at all, and by which they come to the rescue of the students in order to deliver them from the effects of the administrative breakdown, the outcry would be much greater than it has been. Somebody has said that it is hard to be blackmailed for one's vices, but it is almost worse to be blackmailed for one's virtues That is happening to the universities. They are behaving so well that their good behaviour seems to be delaying the moment when the Ministry puts its own house in order. I promised to be brief. I, therefore, content myself with supporting the general case put forward by my hon. Friend, a case which I believe is supported in every quarter of the House.

3.14 p.m.

I would like to put forward a suggestion which might be helpful to the Ministry in connection with the problem which has been raised, and in the payment of the fees. This is quite a simple administrative problem. I would ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to pay a sum of money to the universities at the beginning of each term so that the universities themselves could make payments punctually to the students. If that were done I do not think there would be any possibility of payments being made to people who were not entitled to them and it would get to the root of one of the difficulties, the great delay, the continual delay, term after term, in the payment of the grants, a delay which has been causing so many people so much hardship.

3.15 p.m.

As the hon. Member who introduced this subject said, this is an urgent problem, and I want to say at once that it is a problem concerning which I have every personal sympathy with the students Up to a year and a half ago, I was professionally engaged in meeting students and, indeed, only a fortnight ago, I resigned office as treasurer of a well known students' union society. So I feel that I can appreciate the anxiety that this matter is causing to individual students and to then dependants; and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this urgent matter and for the very considerate and moderate way in which he has spoken about it. I must confess that I also have a personal feeling towards it because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) I had to go to the length, after the first world war, of borrowing money from my college tutor.

At the same time I want to impress upon the House not a series of excuses for the Department, but some of the difficulties which face us. In doing so, I want to assure hon. Members that I am personally determined that everything will be done to speed up the machinery for the payment of these grants as soon as posible. As my hon. Friend said, a candidate for grant applies to the Ministry of Labour, and, in due course, usually after three or four weeks, we get a certificate from the Ministry of Labour saying that we can now go forward and investigate the details for the payment of grant. We have to decide whether the candidate has a justifiable claim to fulltime education from public funds; whether he is of a suitable standard of education to benefit, and whether the course he intends to take is justifiable at public expense. Therefore, each application is a matter for individual attention, and so of course it ought to be; yet many cases are not straightforward.

There may be a man who has studied part-time for, shall we say, a National Certificate in engineering for a year and he asks, as he is entitled to do, for a fulltime degree course lasting three or four years. There may be a girl clerk going to evening classes and she decides that she wishes to take a degree at Cambridge. There may be a man who has had some three years' training for architecture, who asks for a six years' course to take a medical degree. The result is, and my hon. Friend knows this as well as I do, that many preliminary individual inquiries have to be made. As he said we have made 24,000 of these individual awards and when, in the late summer and early autumn the great rush began, we found at the beginning of term all over the country that we had nearly 10,000 applications at various stages of consideration.

Since then we have made just under 10,000 new awards, and since the term began we have received a further 7,000 applications from students who have actually started their courses. Now the average value of each award is a matter of £250 a year, and as each application has to be considered on its own merits, and as the value is calculated in relation to the needs and resources of each candidate, a certain time must elapse before payment can be made and then, before we can pay, we need an undertaking from the candidate that he will go through with his course or will refund the money if required to do so. We also need a certificate from the college that he is attending the course. I must apologise to hon. Members for going into these details, but I feel that in this matter I am not only giving facts to hon. Members, but also explaining the position to the thousands of students outside who, naturally, feel individual anxiety.

Let me come to the question of the time taken, because that is the crux of the matter. In the summer we met it by putting the whole thing through, in a clear case where there were no really serious inquiries to be made, in a matter of six weeks. When the great autumn rush came, this lengthened to 12 weeks. Sometimes it was less, but, where individual inquiries had to be made I must admit that sometimes it was longer. We had a target of 500 new awards a week as our aim, and in the last three weeks, I am glad to be able to inform the House, we have been making more than 900 a week. The intake of new applications is now under 400, so I can say that the situation is improving every day, but we are not satisfied even at the Ministry, We are in fact getting several hundreds of applications a week from people who-began their university and college courses several weeks ago. It is true that we have not got a large enough staff to deal with this problem. There are some 20 administrative officers, as has been said, and a clerical staff of about 150. I would like to remind my hon. Friend that many members of this staff are themselves ex-Servicemen and women who are extremely keen to get on with the job and who do it as quickly and efficiently as possible. Some of them have been working on individual cases which have been causing us anxiety, and which have been sent from hon. Members even at weekends.

It seems to me that there are two distinct problems, the need for making new awards as quickly as possible, and the need for making regular terminal payments as quickly as possible. I have already referred to the machinery for new awards. We had an extremely difficult patch in the late Summer and Autumn, but the awards are now being made at the rate of 900 a week, and the situation is improving In regard to terminal payments, we are the only Department which, makes grants in advance, and not in arrears. But, at the beginning of each term we must have the certificate to show that the students have come back to college. In spite of the optimistic remarks of the hon. Member for Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) I must say that we have had difficulty with some of the universities and some of the university colleges. I am sorry to say that the colleges in some instances—by no means in all—have often made very heavy weather of this. May I give the House two or three examples? A college had certificates in the first week of this Michaelmas term. In spite of repeated reminders, we did not get them returned until 18th November. That was less than a month before the term was to end. We had cleared the whole lot through the Department by 26th November. That is one instance. Another great university was to send us certificates—

Before my hon. Friend leaves that point, will he answer this question? Does he chase them to send these things in, or leave it until they move?

I said that after repeated reminders we had the certificates returned on 18th November.

The second instance is of a great university which was repeatedly asked for certificates of attendances and we had returned to us at last a complete roll of all the students in attendance at the university, and it was the business of the Department to tick off the names of students who had applied for grants. That was a laborious addition to the work we had to do. A third example was that of two colleges from which certificates of attendance were returned to my Department on 9th December last. These certificates were filled in six weeks before they were actually posted to my Department. I am glad to say that after receiving these certificates on 12th December, payment was made in the course of ten days. I will not elaborate this, and I am not attempting to shift the blame, but I am attempting to suggest to the House that there are other bottlenecks, as I said at Question time yesterday, which are not in the Department.

It is perfectly true, as hon. Members have said, that students are suffering great personal anxiety. I wish to tell the House that we intend at the Ministry—and indeed we have already started to do this—to look at the whole machinery for making these awards. I wish to say to my hon. Friend who, quite rightly, raised this matter, that I intend to take a personal responsibility in talking to the heads of the Department, and in seeing what can be done to revise the machinery and to speed up the method of making these awards. One important modification can be made, and I hope it will be possible to make it, by separating the maintenance grants from the fee grants, as was suggested. At the same time, we can overhaul our administration of the scheme and take every possible step to prevent any delays on the part of institutions in the return of forms. That was the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb), who asked whether reminders were sent.

Could my hon. Friend take one of the 20 people he has in his organisation, and send him round the universities on a kind of internal audit, to see that these things do not stay there?

That is an extremely good suggestion, and it is one which we have already been considering, though I must point out it will be very difficult to send a responsible person from the Ministry to the universities, the colleges and the technical institutions all over the country. But it may well be possible that something along these lines can be done in the immediate vicinity, shall we say, of the Metropolis.

It may help my hon. Friend to know that the Ministry of Supply has, with very good effect, recently dealt with a similar kind of problem by sending special representatives round all the universities, and not merely those in the Metropolitan area.

We are grateful for the suggestion. If it can be worked by one Department, it can be worked by another. It is possible that we may find other ways in which we can simplify the present procedure without undue financial risks, and I have issued instructions for an examination all the possibilities of meeting this extremely urgent matter. I conclude by promising the House that my Department will do everything in its power to overcome the difficulties to which hon. Members have, in my opinion, quite rightly drawn our attention.

Would the hon. Gentleman answer the point about letters which were not acknowledged, even registered letters?

As the hon. and gallant Member will admit, the difficulty in answering letters that come in that way, is that the file has to come out of the machine, and in due course a reply is sent; this undoubtedly causes delay, as my hon. Friend admitted in his opening speech. But I agree that courtesy is an important virtue, and if we can only have more staff—and we are making a determined drive to extend our staff—I hope we can be as courteous as is suggested.

I am grateful for the opportunity this afternoon of raising the subject of the shortage of coal trucks and the coal shortage, because I believe it is both urgent and important and it concerns the whole nation. The House may judge of my astonishment this morning when I received my morning papers, and learned from the "Daily Telegraph" that Leyland Motors' Iron Foundry near Preston closed last night for a fortnight, and 600 workers were stood off, because of the exhaustion of the company's coke stocks. I learned from the same report that the Austin Motor Works in Birmingham may have to close after Christmas because coal stocks are running out. In this news report it was also stated that the shortage of coke at Leyland Motors' was due to the lack of railway transport trucks. That is the evidence that is afforded to me today, and it is this to which I draw the attention of the Minister. I would emphasise that in the case of the works of Leyland Motors, they are less than 15 miles from the nearest coal area. That is a fact which must be borne in mind.

This subject of coal shortage and the shortage of coal trucks and wagons is by no means new to me. If the Minister cared to look up the files in the pigeonholes at the Ministry, he would find that I raised this subject as long ago as 1944 with the Ministers of the Coalition Government. I have raised the question of the use of timber and other materials in the repair of railway wagons and the nature of the repairs themselves. I am not unmindful of the grand job of work that was done in our railway works and workshops throughout the war when tanks and other war weapons were made. Indeed, they were using their labour in so many different ways that they had hardly time to keep in good repair the railway engines and wagons. When I raised this subject in 1944, very little was done except, I believe, on the question of railway wagons. An attempt was made to fashion some kind of austerity scheme for the repair of the wagons. Instead of wasting labour painting names, and so forth on the wagons, they put an austerity repair scheme into operation. However, that is about as far as they went. In 1944, and again in 1945, I put questions to the Minister of War Transport regarding the very serious position of the large number of engines laid up at that time. The stock was out of commission and I regret to say, on the evidence given to me from the highest authority, that many hundreds, in fact, thousands, of these railway engines are still laid up, as they were in 1944.

It occurred to me that we were really playing about with this subject in 1944 and 1945, because we were fashioning a scheme to bring trainees into the building trade. We were negotiating with the trade unions so that young men who were coming out of the Armed Forces could be trained in order to augment the vast army which we would require to build up the homesteads of Britain. I ventured to express the opinion to the Minister—if he cares to look through his files he will find it—that young engineers should be trained for the railway industry in order to repair locomotives and do all these jobs which are required to put Britain's transport in the premier position in the world, as he said the other day. In fact, during the war, it is true to say that shop assistants, fellows from behind the counter, men from the offices, and so forth, who never thought even of repairing as much as a bicycle before the war, became in 18 months trained engineers in our R.A.F. depots. They became efficient engineers adaptable and capable of doing any kind of job required to keep our bombers, those magnificent engines of war, in the air. These men became so efficient that the people who were their instructors were-astonished at their attainments.

At that time I offered the opinion to the Minister that if we could train young engineers for the R.A.F. so that they became highly efficient, it was not asking much of our young manhood, of the trade unions, nor of the different industries, to accept or encourage these young men to go as engineers, fitters, and boiler makers, so that in a similar period we would be able to train a sufficient number to be in a position to be able to repair these engines and the different rolling stock which we knew would be required after the war. We have no such training system in operation today. What is the position that we have to face? The fact is that, in the matter of locomotives and rolling stock which are out of commission today, the most up-to-date figures which I have been able to gather—although the Minister will probably contradict me—show that one-seventh of the wagons in the railway pool are at present out of commission. It is true that some are being repaired, but one-seventh of the railway wagons in Britain, and, also, almost one-seventh of the privately-owned wagons, are out of commission. That is a very serious state of affairs and, as far as I know, there are very few revolutionary ideas about how to put these wagons on the road again.

But when we come to locomotives the position is worse still. One-fifth of the locomotives of the railways of Britain are awaiting repair. One-fifth are in the sick bay. Can we possibly tolerate such a situation, whether the railways are State owned or privately owned? Whoever is responsible, it is an intolerable situation. But when we come to the L.N.E.R.— and I know precisely what was happening in Doncaster where we had over 6,000 people employed—we find that almost one-quarter of its railway engines are in the sick bay awaiting repair. I believe that in Doncaster alone we have 400 railway engines many of which have never had a wheel turning for two or three years. The people concerned have been pleading for some kind of generous help. They have been making representations, either for labour or material, because they recognise the urgency of the situation.

Many of my friends are equally puzzled by the figures, which have been announced in recent months on the export of railway engines. I know that the Minister can say, "We must export. The figures were presented to you." But they have not told us the actual figures of railway engines which we have been, and are still, exporting: There is an all-round figure in the "Monthly Digest," and it suggests that that figure is three times greater than our prewar rate of export. What has the Minister, and what have the officers of the Board of Trade, through him, done to make representations that we should slow down on this question of exporting railway engines, at least for the time being, and make urgently needed engines for an entirely different job? There is evidence in Doncaster where we have engineering equipment, coal and every kind of commodity going abroad— evidence presented to me by the different manufacturers in my own town—that embargoes have been placed on Doncaster goods going abroad because the railway companies have said that they cannot possibly handle the goods. Yet, at the same time, we are making engines in the same area and sending them abroad.

I beg the Minister to get down to this problem, and tell the country exactly what is happening. Somewhere not far from London, for example, we have an enormous number of good-looking engines standing idle. I saw a picture of them the other day in, I believe, the "Evening News." They belong to somebody— perhaps to the Minister of Supply—but I know not whom. I would ask the Minister why these engines are not put into running order right away. Why are they not brought into use immediately? The Minister may say that they were nor produced in Britain, that spare parts are missing or that there are some odds and ends which cannot be provided here in our factories. It is rather singular that when I was in France a few weeks ago, I was assured by one of the French engineers who dealt with the same type of engine that, despite the difficulties of the French Government and the engineers and railway companies in France, they are using practically every one of their engines. Where they are getting the spare parts I know not, but I know they are using the engines and we are not. These engines are standing idle. Whether it be a matter for the Minister of Supply a question of fittings or spare parts, or whatever it may be, I suggest to the Minister that those engines should be brought into use without further delay.

I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power with us this afternoon, because this question of transport and wagons is linked up with coal production, particularly in the mining villages in South Yorkshire. We are very seriously concerned with the wagon shortage. I believe it is true to say that, had it not been for the seaborne coal during the war—that is, coal conveyed in ships which sailed down the East Coast in the teeth of the enemy-Londoners would have shivered every winter during the war. It was the seaborne coal which saved London. Lon- doners certainly shivered for other reasons on many occasions, but they would have been very cold and there would have been a shortage of electricity but for the sea-borne coal which was brought down the East Coast and into the Thames Estuary. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fuel and Power may be able to give assurances that the problem of London's coal supply, for the time being, at least, and for the next month or two possibly, is better than in many other parts of the country. He may say that, owing to this other form of transport by sea, we are in a better position. But I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary: What about the pits in the Midlands and North Midlands, in Yorkshire and Lancashire; what about the coal position there? It is a very serious question for us. Let it be placed on record—and I believe in this as I believe in my own existence—that the spirit in the mining industry among the men at the coal face was never finer in my lifetime than it is today. They are, indeed, keen to do a grand job of work and they are determined to help out in this battle of Britain. The Minister of Fuel and Power may be assured that they are backing him up to the hilt, but they feel very disturbed, as do the managers and the colliery officials, by the nightmare of wagon shortage. It is facing them every day. If snow, fog or any other similar condition comes along, these officials and members of the different staffs are disturbed.

Recently in one week, I believe we lost 25,000 tons of coal; that is, taking the coalfields as a whole. The figure may be on the decline now, but if we are losing 10,000 tons of coal a week owing to wagon shortage at the pits, it is a very serious matter for us and it must be stopped at once. We cannot afford to lose coal output owing to wagon shortage. The men at the coal face are disturbed. The locomotive drivers, particularly on the L.N.E.R. and the L.M.S., are saying, "Do not blame us. We ask you to believe that we are doing our best." I believe they are. The railwaymen generally say, "Do not blame us; we are doing our best." The locomotive drivers are troubled by the fact that there are tens of thousands of wagons stocked with coal, lying in railway sidings up and down the country. As I travel from Kings Cross to Doncaster, I myself see wagons which I know have been lying there week after week. Many of them are still there. I wonder why somebody does not make some suggestion that these wagons should be emptied. It is quite obvious that they will have to be emptied and the coal dumped somewhere, so that we can have the wagons back at the collieries, particularly certain of the collieries of South Yorkshire.

I know the Minister may say, "But that needs extra labour. We have not the manpower to empty the wagons, and to reload the wagons when we need the coal." No one seems to have suggested, as yet, that we can use these two-ton and three-ton mechanical shovels to reload the coal. We are using them in open-cast mining. We used them for all sorts of jobs during the war. I believe it would be better to dump the coal near the towns where we may, or are certain to require it. and get the wagons back to the coal mines, rather than that there should be a stoppage of our production at our pits, particularly in South Yorkshire.

I know there are other points to be raised. But I beg the Minister to accept the suggestion I have made, and to tell us precisely what his Department have done about it. What have the railway companies done? What is actually taking place? I maintain we cannot afford to allow the present position to continue. This state of affairs is very serious for us; it is serious for the railways, it is serious for the coal workers, and it is serious for the whole nation. Factories are closing down, as has been said in the House today. Factories will close down within the next week or two if some of our pits are closed as a result of wagon shortage. The people of Britain are entitled to know. I beg the Minister to avoid this industrial breakdown, and to avoid the chaos as best he can, and to tell us what plans he has, not for nationalisation which may lie months ahead but immediate plans to get over this problem of the winter, the shortage of coal, and the shortage of railway trucks.

3.48 p.m.

I wish to intervene for a very few moments, because I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) has let off the Government far too lightly on this serious issue. The failure of the Government to realise the need for dealing with the shortage of railway wagons is, to my mind, one of the prime examples of their incompetence. The Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade have done little or nothing to provide the railway workshops or wagon repair shops in this country with adequate materials. With a little foresight they would have seen this situation arising, but nothing has been done to help at the present time, when two and a half times the normal amount of wagons are under repair. Even more to be accused is the Minister of Transport, because he is really responsible for the present inability to distribute coal as it should be distributed.

We knew three or four months ago that the existing shortage of locomotives on the L.N.E.R. and other railways would become serious during the winter, but the Minister of Transport, who has control of the railways, and who had control of the railways during the whole of the war, allowed a programme of increased passenger services to be put into operation. If the Government are controlling the railways they should control them and accept responsibility for them, and it certainly should not have allowed this enhanced passenger service to be put into operation when it knew it would mean breaking down the distribution of coal and other essential products. What is the position today? Take one coal area, Nottingham. On Monday of this week in one group of collieries they had 727 loaded trucks at the colliery, and a lot of those trucks had been there since 6th December waiting, not in the siding but at the colliery The result is that in the Nottingham area in December the production of coal has gone down very considerably as compared with November. All this because the Minister of Transport has taken no steps to deal with a situation which will obviously have serious consequences to the country. If he were a planner at all—and to judge by the enormous Bill he has produced I assume he is—he would have foreseen this situation. The only thing I can see is that the Minister of Transport has been so busy working out this prodigious Bill that he has neglected his essential duty to the community.

I wrote to the Minister of Transport several months ago and said that to allow these increased passenger services was asking for trouble. I imagine many other hon Members have approached the Minister on similar lines. Nothing has been done, until disaster faces us. Now we are faced with factories closing down because coal cannot be got from the mines to the users. It is a story which can be retold in many other phases of our life, where the Government's preoccupation with the brave new world to come has not enabled them to look at the problems which are at their very feet, and which are leading us to disaster I hope that this time the Minister will take energetic action, because if he does not I am afraid this country will have a very difficult time during the coming winter months.

3.51 p.m.

The broad facts about the deterioration of locomotive stock and wagon stock in this country, as portrayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden), are not disputed, of course. In recent months each Monday at Question time, and particularly during the three-day Debate we have just had on the Transport Bill, the problems arising from the general deterioration of railway rolling stock in this country have surely emerged in a manner that is apparent, not only to hon. and right hon. Members of this House, but to the public at large. I am not discussing for the moment marginal adjustments that can be made on this matter, or the steps to be taken to remedy them, but the broad causes obviously are for the moment beyond the capacity of the railway companies. One cannot dispute the fact that it is there, first because before the war, as I indicated when dealing with the Transport Bill, in many respects capital equipment had not been kept up to the standard that possibly it should have been; secondly, the war came along, and for six years the railway companies of this country had to carry a really abnormal strain of heavy traffic.

Whilst that was part of their obligation, it was a military movement, moving all the military stores in this country. Hon. Members know very well that Britain was the base of the whole operation. Not merely our own military production, but a great bulk of American military production was brought into this country, and had to be handled by our railways. Because of the necessity for economy in petrol, tyres, and many other directions, traffics that normally would not have passed over our railway system were put through that form of transport. Yet, whilst the railways were carrying this abnormal burden they were not treated as a War Department; they did not get the same facilities of priority that the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and the munition factories had, with the result that there was this accelerated process of deterioration. The munition plants were shut down after the war, and had a period for retooling for peacetime production.

Whatever criticism hon. Members feel that at the moment they must direct towards either myself or any other Department, to ensure that the maximum is being done now to repair the situation, I do not think any purpose is served unless we get the practical picture in our minds. As far as the railways were concerned, there was no let-up. They had to carry on after the war. There was no pause for retooling and establishing new plant, and so on. Last year there was a general demand for increased passenger services. Pressure was brought upon the Minister to Transport on the ground that the general industrial population had experienced six years of the stress and strain of war, and were now entitled to a little relaxation with regard to holidays.

Members, at one period of the year, first press for increased facilities and then, in another, complain that they have been granted. Who would deny that the industrial workers of this country were entitled to a little relaxation last summer? The winter passenger services are not nearly so great as the services which were run in the earlier parts of the year, but even those services, inadequate as they are, are being carefully combed for the purpose of seeing what economy in locomotives they can yield.

It ought to have been done before.

The railways are still running passenger services 14 per cent. below what they were before the war. In recent months economies in that direction have enabled 20 additional locomotives to be secured. I do not dispute the main essentials of the case which my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster put up, but, as I stated the other day, 20 per cent, of the wagons—about half are privately owned, and a half railway owned—are obsolete, and ought to be completely scrapped. Fifty per cent. of our wagon stock is over age. When there has been a slow accumulation of arrears of maintenance before the war, and a rapid accumulation during the war and since, you cannot replace half a million railway wagons in 12 months with our present condition of labour and materials shortage. One of the first things I did, when I went to the Ministry, was to place an additional order for railway wagons. For the purpose of assisting the general situation an order was placed for 50,000 16-ton steel wagons. During 1946 there has been an output of about 30,000 new wagons, half of which will be available to carry coal.

I would like to say a word or two in connection with the austerity engines which were built for war purposes. Many were built in this country, some were brought back and, recently, another 200 were made available. They all needed extensive repair. I want Members to realise that the railway-owned workshops and the privately owned workshops are working to their fullest capacity with the timber and steel supplies that are available. Here we have a problem that cannot be solved readily and easily by plans for training establishments and increasing our labour supply, because our present productive capacity in railway workshops and private workshops is not being fully utilised because of this difficulty of labour and materials. Despite that, steps are being taken to prepare some of the railway shops that were used for munitions production during the war and are now moving towards release, and, so far as plant and labour and materials can be obtained, they will be put in operation as quickly as possible.

Is it not true that, in a good many instances, evidence can be found that labour is now regularly leaving the industry?

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."—[ Mr. Snow. ]

Yes, I readily admit that, but we cannot lift the Essential Work. Order without recognising that we have to face a period in which labour is likely to be shifting. Surely, that is a desirable position to reach, even if it represents temporary difficulties. With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member on the use of coastal shipping, he may be interested to learn, that, up to the end of October, 17,400,000 tons of coal were moved by our coastal shipping services. Here again, however we come against another difficulty, and I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate and will in no way dispute the desirability of getting all the timber supplies into this country that we possibly can for our housing programme, for our factory extension programme, and, as a matter of fact, to maintain the railways The supply of sleepers is reaching a very serious position in regard to the permanent tracks of this country. The necessity of getting timber supplies is just as urgent and vital a factor in getting transport moving as the building of wagons or locomotives themselves. Before what is known as the freeze-up of the Baltic, it has been essential that we should use the maximum of our coastal shipping and our short sea shipping at our disposal, to get as much timber into the country before that source of supply is closed. When we are out of the wood as far as that is concerned, we may be able to do a little more, but I want to assure hon. Members that their comments will be carefully noted and that everything that can be done, both by the railway companies and the Government, will be done.

I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, for his presence here today, but I would like to say, on behalf of the House, if I may, that we hope that the Home Secretary will soon recover from his indisposition and be back with us when we resume after the holiday, showing all his usual tolerance and good humour. I raise this question of Fascist activities, because, on 31st October, I put a Question to the Home Secretary regarding the multifarious activities of Sir Oswald Mosley, in regard to which, unfortunately, I received no satisfaction. At the same time, this question goes back much further than that. Today, 20th December, is an anniversary. It is a year ago since this question of Fascist activities was raised in any substance. Last year, on this day, there were 10 Questions down on the Order Paper about the activities of Sir Oswald Mosley arising out of his Royal Hotel meeting, and great concern was expressed by many hon. Members.

There are three points arising out of the Home Secretary's answer of a year ago. The first, which is dealt with in Col. 1548 of HANSARD, is with regard to the question of an armed truculent minority, seizing power against the will of the people, and it was this which not only prompted me, but impelled me, to put down a Question early this year, which resulted in the surrender of firearms on a gratifyingly large scale. However, I noticed in this morning's Press that, according to the police, gangsters in London are still in possession of Bren guns, Sten guns and grenades, and I am afraid I must come to the conclusion that, if that is so, it may well be that Fascists in this country are still in possession of firearms of various characters. I hope the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and that of his Department may be directed to that.

The second point that emerged at Question time on 20th December, 1945, was the fact that the Home Secretary said at the time, in regard to the Royal Hotel affair, that the police were not empowered to interfere as this was a private function. I am not a law student and I know nothing about the law, but my researches have led me to a case, namely, Thomas v. Sawkins, in the King's Bench Division in 1935, the sub-title of which is: Police—light to enter private premises—to attend meeting to which public invited—reasonable anticipation of misdemeanour or breach of the peace. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was counsel for the appellant in that case. I know that that referred to a public meeting, but I should like to draw the parallel that that public meeting, where it was anticipated that there might be a breach of the peace, is certainly on a level with the many private meetings of Sir Oswald Mosley with his Fascist activities, and I cannot for the life of me see why the police cannot be empowered—quite rightly—to enter premises in which there is a Fascist private meeting with a view to preventing what is bound to be a breach of the peace. Fascist activities of any character are certainly anathema to the British public.

The third point that arose last year was the fact that the Home Secretary stated at the time that, if necessary, he would come to this House for further powers. My complaint is that he has not come to the House for further powers. Why is that? Is he satisfied that there has not been a resurgence of Fascist activities in the past year? Is he satisfied that Sir Oswald Mosley and those of his supporters in the past—the 18 B-ers—have all been converted to a democratic point of view? I must turn now to a very potent weapon that is being employed today by Fascists in their activities. It is the weapon of organised anti-Semitism. This very undesirable element of anti-Semitism is going on in organised form throughout the length and breadth of this country wherever there is any size or congregation of Jewry present. It may be that it is a legacy from the depredations of Hitler, wherein six million Jews were killed, but it ought not to be and must not be tolerated in a democracy. I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there is not something that can be done with regard to this Fascist menace that affects the lives of a minority of His Majesty's subjects.

If I may, I should like to quote an appropriate resolution which came into my possession yesterday. It was moved by His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, supported by the representative of the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, the Moderator of the Free Church Federal Council, the Moderator of the Church of Scotland, and the Acting Chief Rabbi, and was carried unanimously. It reads: The Council of Christians and Jews, which draws together members of all sections of both the Christian and the Jewish communities in this country, desires to place on record its abhorrence of the terrorist outrages perpetrated by certain irresponsible Jewish groups in Palestine. These outrages are a fundamental violation of the spiritual and ethical principles common to Judaism and Christianity. The Council appeals to the people of this country to guard against any tendency to condemn Jews as a whole for the crimes of a numerically insignificant minority, already publicly condemned by responsible Jewish bodies throughout the world and emphasises the need for deepening active and friendly cooperation on a basis of mutual understanding between Christians and Jews. Out of that resolution, with which I do not think anybody can quarrel, arises the fact that the Fascist elements in this country are trying to make capital out of the activities of their counterparts in Palestine—Fascist terrorist elements among the Jews there. That is not satisfactory. It is the duty of the Home Office to put a stop to this organised anti-Semitism.

What are the other activities that are going on? We have seen the development of the Book Club organisation by Mosley and the Fascists, and the development of the so-called discussion groups, which have so far created numerous breaches of the peace throughout the country because of the resistance and hostility of the audiences who have been invited to the meetings. We see also the re-emergence of splinter groups of Fascism—the League of ex-Servicemen, almost avowedly Fascist, the British Vigilantes League. the Kingdum House group who almost deify Adolf Hitler as Christ returned to earth, the British People's Party, with which John Beckett ex-Fascist and 18B-er, and the Duke of Bedford, are associated, the Face the Facts League, and many others. If the House requires any further information upon this resurgence of Fascism and its pernicious creed, I recommend hon. Members to read a book by Frederick Mullally, entitled "Fascism inside England." It will surprise them, and should prove most illuminating reading. If the Under-Secretary of State has not yet read it, I commend it to him with the utmost vigour.

Are we to understand that Sir Oswald Mosley is inactive, although he is responsible for the parent organisation? Is he doing nothing at all? Has he been converted to democratic principles? No, Sir. These Fascist splinter groups have re-emerged. They are nothing but the unnameable creatures emerging from the slime of the cesspool of Fascism. The real parent organisation is beneath, and from it comes the propaganda for an assault upon democracy. Sir Oswald Mosley has been freely allowed to publish a book. Many people in this country have been puzzled why we have allowed that freedom to an avowed Fascist to publish his opinions. It is thought, quite rightly, that the war was fought not in order to destroy Germany and Italy, but to extirpate Fascism wherever it might be found. Why, having made all these efforts to stamp out Fascism on the Continent, do we allow its re-emergence freely in this country? There is the injustice.

I understand there is now a regular weekly publication by Sir Oswald Mosley. Are we shortly to see a daily newspaper, or a Sunday newspaper, published by him? A Debate in another place recently unfortunately gave the impression that Sir Oswald Mosley has only to make a fresh application, to be able to leave this country and carry on his foul, nefarious planning abroad. I feel that that is not right and that something ought to be done. Perhaps we may see Fascists attempting to wear uniforms again, or attempting all sorts of demonstrations counter to the public order. Is a watch being kept upon his various supporters? In this House there were Fascist supporters. There may be one today. I repeat there have been avowed supporters of Fascism in this House itself, strange as that may seem.

It was openly stated by Sir Oswald Mosley that he was financed by industry and by financiers in this country, before the war. Have we the equivalent today? I am rather inclined to the opinion that we have. These people are acting as the equivalent Krupps and the Thyssens and Hugenbergs who put Hitler in power in Germany. To these people, this Government is so obnoxious that they will stop at nothing to put Fascism into the saddle. Assistance was given to Sir Oswald Mosley by various newspaper organisations, notably the Rothermere Press and the "Daily Mail" in particular. The "Daily Mail" recanted. There are publications today, who do the same. I name the journal "Truth," which is the vilest travesty of the word "Truth" that I have ever known. This publication lends itself to Fascist propaganda. There are many others. Are they being watched?

It may be that there are many men in the Services who are sympathetic to the aims and objects of Fascism in this country, just as there were before the war, men like Major-General Fuller and Admiral Sir Barry Domville and many others, and that these elements have not been converted. I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary that this is urgent. I turn to Captain Ramsay—who was a Member of this House—and his Right Club. May we now have the names of the members of that Club? Why are they kept from the country? Why is the nation not told the names of those who had a traitorous intent in regard to the future of this country? I do not care who is being shielded; the country has the right to hear the names of the members of Captain Ramsay's Right Club, and as I have given notice to the Under-Secretary, I hope he will agree to supply them.

There is another menace. I do not wish to offend the susceptibilities of the Opposition. I admire those amongst the Opposition and in the Conservative Party throughout the country who are broad-minded, tolerant and public-spirited. But those elements are not the only constituents of the Conservative Party and, as far as I can see, we shall witness the peculiar phenomenon of a split in the Conservative Party. We shall see shortly the development of a move towards the Left by some. There will be a Liberal trend—

What about the split in the Labour Party?

There will be a Liberal trend in the Conservative Party of those who more or less agree with the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Liberals. On the other hand, there will be another trend irrevocably to the Right, which will sympathise with this element in the country who, thwarted and frustrated by the good administration of this Government, and in consequence of the administration of this Government, and its beneficial results, will feel that there is no other way of seizing power than by resort to Fascism and sympathy with Sir Oswald Mosley. I know that time is short, and I shall conclude with an extract from a great democrat, Mr. Emery Reeves. It is no good being doctrinaire or dogmatic in our liberalism regarding democracy and our treatment of those who would suppress democracy and rot and undermine it. We have to fight to preserve democracy and use the same methods on the Fascists as they will use on us if necessary. Democracy must be a live and virile body. The extract, which is from "A Democratic Manifesto," is as follows: Only if we define quite clearly what we understand under each one of the democratic freedoms which our state can grant to the individuals, and only if we establish the necessary organism for the prevention and the suppression of all such forces which are working against those democratic privileges, and only if we accept the doctrines that liberal policy means to be liberal towards those who are liberally minded and to treat all individuals, parties or nations according to their own principles, can we hope that in future-we shall be able to stop at any time such movements as are represented in our generation by Nazism and Fascism. Only then can we hope that we shall have a democratic order that will work according to the present realities of our world. I rest my case on that very admirable quotation.

4.18 p.m.

I have listened to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Austin) with great interest. It would appear that wherever he looks he can find a Fascist—in this House, in industry, in the Services, and I have no doubt, if he looked under the bed tonight, he would discover one there.

That is not funny.

If a person looks for a thing and continues to look for it, he will invariably find it or believe he can find it. As to whether there is a Fascist in this House, I can assure him I do not know of one. As to whether there are Fascists in industry, considering that there are millions of people in industry, it is more than likely that there will be one or more among the millions. Having regard to the fact that there is a considerable number of our people in the fighting Services, it may well be that my hon. Friend will find one or two there—

Are they being watched?

—but that does not constitute a menace, that does not constitute something which would invoke repressive legislation. We must not forget that this is a democracy and criticism of the political institutions, and political views in this country, is the basis of democracy. It is not necessary to believe that the Labour Government was sent from Heaven, and that if it is suggested that it came from another place, somebody should be repressed for holding that view. I think it is quite erroneous to think that because there are criticisms and meetings in small meeting rooms, that the Fascist menace is growing so much that something should be done by the Home Office.

Reference was made by the hon. Member to firearms, and to the fact that people are in possession of firearms. There are thugs in this country in possession of firearms, and it naturally follows that there may be Fascists who have firearms, who, in certain circumstances, may resort to their use. I do not know whether the hon. Member will recall that the Home Secretary, as far back as last February, made an appeal on the wireless for the surrender of firearms, a demand for the surrender of unauthorised firearms.

At my suggestion.

Very good. I am glad to know that the hon. Member inspired the Home Secretary to make this appeal. As a result, 75,966 firearms were surrendered. I ought to tell the hon. Member that the Service authorities are very careful to see that men do not retain their arms on demobilisation, and do not bring weapons, other than Service equipment, into the country without authority. There is no reason to think that large quantities of firearms are getting into the hands of unauthorised persons. That is the view of the Home Office. I hope my hon. Friend will not be timorous about this matter. He can rest assured that firearms are not being spread about and further that every effort is being made as far as the Home Office can, to get in firearms held by unauthorised persons. If there are firearms in the hands of unauthorised persons, I am sure that the Home Secretary is doing everything possible to get them in.

The other point my hon. Friend raised concerned the statement made by the Home Secretary that he would come to the House for further powers. The Home Secretary no doubt said that, for my hon. Friend is referring to questions which were asked a year ago. This is the anniversary, he tells us, of questions being asked in 1945. Much water has flowed under the bridges since then. If in the opinion of my right hon. Friend, he did not possess the necessary powers to deal with the Fascist situation, such as it is, we may rest assured that in the 12 months which have passed, he would have sought the authority of Parliament to have the necessary instruments placed at his disposal. In the view of my right hon. Friend we have the power to meet the situation as we visualise it. There again, my hon. Friend can rest assured that this matter is not being ignored. I am asked to look into the question of Captain Ramsay's Right Club. Captain Ramsay's Right Club is as dead as mutton and is not likely to rise again, for a long, long time.

Are all the members dead?

I do not suppose that they are dead, but it ceased to function when Captain Ramsay and the other leaders were detained in 1940. It seems unlikely that there is a prospect of a resurgence of the activities of the Right Club at this time. I feel sure that if the Government continue to handle the economic, political and social problems of the day as they are doing, Fascism is dead for all time. I have no doubt that there are in the present Government enough men and women competent to meet the political and economic situation, who will evolve a policy which will mean that Fascism will not rear its head again in our time.

There is only one other point. In the early months of this year the Government considered carefully the problem created by the activities, such as they were, of a small number of Fascists and Fascist sympathisers in this country. It examined the size, character and potentialities of this small minority, and the resources available under the existing law for dealing with it. As the Home Secretary said, on nth April, the Government reached the conclusion that Fascist and potentially Fascist bodies in this country were small, disunited and ineffective, and that the existing law was adequate to enable action to be taken against all dangerous activities. The Home Secretary gave an assurance that these bodies would be watched with the utmost vigilance, and that if their members engaged either singly or in conspiracy in specific activities, or if they disturbed the peace, they would be dealt with firmly as law-breakers. The situation has not materially altered since that statement was made. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the Home Office will continue to watch this matter, and I can assure him that he has no need to be alarmed.

On a point of Order. As the position of the barley industry and the whisky industry in Scotland is of such desperate and dire, importance would I be in Order in asking the Government to allow an extra hour in which to debate this subject?

That is not a point of Order.

4.27 p.m.

I have only two minutes left but I can still get over a lot of ground. I want to ask the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food what she intends to do about the barley which is rotting in bags in the North-East of Scotland? Scottish agriculture cannot take advantage of wheat growing to any great extent and we are dependent upon oats and barley as our main cereal crop. In Scotland today the distilling outlet has been closed because the Ministry of Food will not allocate any barley to the distillers. There is only one other outlet—the domestic outlet. That is also restricted because the Ministry of Food has applied a points rationing scheme to barley, including pearl barley It is just nonsense to suggest that today there are guranteed prices and an assured market for barley. My point is that the Government have broken their pledge, in that there is no maximum price payable, and even the minimum price is uncertain, because points rationing has been put on pearl barley. This means that in the North-East, particularly in Moray, Nairn and Aberdeenshire, hundreds of thousands of quarters of barley are lying rotting because farmers cannot get the maximum price. We want to know what the Minister intends to do about it? Considering that farmers are under direction to grow crops and be as efficient as possible, and having become efficient 100 per cent. by producing a first quality sample, to have it thrown back in their teeth by the Government and to be offered only a miserable minimum price of 81s. is a gross injustice. It means a loss of £5 an acre. We want to know what is to be done about it. I hope the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Government intend to over the distilling barley, which is now rotting in bags on the farms, at the maximum price of 101s.

4.29 p.m.

I regret that time is very short, because I wished to speak in greater detail upon this subject. I know that several Scottish Members would like to have spoken and perhaps we may have an opportunity to discuss this matter fully at a later stage. I fully appreciate that farmers are disappointed but I must remind the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) that there was no guarantee that the barley grown by the farmers in Scotland would be used by the distillers.

The maximum price.

The hon. Gentleman is asking for the maximum price. Certainly there was no guarantee that the farmers would have the maximum price for all the barley they produced. The Ministry have said they are quite prepared to buy any surplus barley at £4 1s. per quarter.

That is a loss of £1 per quarter.

It is a loss of £1, certainly, on the maximum price. The hon. Member asks me to answer and I would point out that already my time is up. It is a loss of £1 on the maximum price but the Ministry of Food have never guaranteed to the farmers that they would pay the maximum price for surplus barley.

They have taken away the market.

All fair-minded men think that £4 1s. is a fair price

It being Half-past Four o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, till Tuesday, 21st January, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.