asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why former Sarawak nationals are now required to describe themselves as British subjects by annexation, instead of by cession; and what distinction his Department draws between annexation and cession.

Sarawak was ceded to the Crown by the voluntary act of the Rajah and Councils of that territory. For technical reasons connected with the provisions of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Acts, it was subsequently formally annexed by Order in Council. The Governor informs me that, accordingly, former Sarawak nationals have been asked to describe themselves as British subjects by annexation when applying for passports. Such a description does not appear on passports now being issued.

Can the hon. Member give any reason at all, other than what he has just said, why, the people have been assured that their territory was being ceded, they should now actually be annexed, which is what was happening all along?

What I said I think explains the position quite clearly. Under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Acts three categories are recognised: British subjects, British subjects by naturalisation, and British subjects by annexation. There are no other categories. Therefore, in order to come within the provisions of the Acts anyone who applies for a passport from Sarawak has to do so in one of the three categories, and the nearest category is the last one. It is purely a technicality.

Will the hon. Gentleman recommend the Government to amend the Act so that this description is no longer necessary, because many people in Sarawak who did not want their territory ceded are now convinced that it was really annexed?

That is another question, which should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make about the joint petition cabled from Kuching on 12th February to His Majesty the King from 16 anti-cession associations in Kuching.

I presume the hon. Member refers to the petition dated loth February, which was addressed to His Majesty the King and sent by mail, praying for the revocation of the cession of Sarawak. The petition was referred to my right hon. Friend by His Majesty's command, and the Governor of Sarawak is being asked to send a reply.

Can the Under-Secretary state what that reply was?

The reply was that my right hon. Friend is unable to advise His Majesty that the petition be accepted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what provision exists for the defence of poor persons in the administration of justice in the various African British Colonies respectively.

Provision exists in the legislation of most of the African Territories for assigning legal aid to poor persons in certain cases. I have asked all the Governors concerned for a report on the matter and I will write to my hon. and learned Friend when I have received their replies.

Will the Minister ensure that, as far as possible, the administration of justice in those Colonies is similar to, and as near as possible to, the administration of justice in this country?

I will write to my hon. and learned Friend on the matter when I get the reply.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the number, and the value in American dollars, of American cars imported into Nigeria during 1946 and 1947, respectively.

The number imported in 1946 was 82, valued at 104,000 dollars, and the number in 1947 was 303, valued at 501,200 dollars.

Is the Minister doing all he possibly can to encourage the importation of suitable British cars in preference to American cars; or is this entirely the responsibility of the Colonial Government concerned?

Well, it is really the number of British lorries that are available for export. It is not a Government matter, but a question of, the number of lorries available for export from Britain, which at the moment is not nearly sufficient to provide for requirements in the Colonies.

I asked about motor cars, and not only lorries.

The same thing applies.

What control is exercised over dollar expenditure in the Colonies

There is no actual control, but we are in constant communication with the Governors on what dollar expenditure there shall be.

The Under-Secretary says that there is no actual control but do not these have to go through the Exchange Control?

That is another question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Development Officers have been appointed to take up positions in Nigeria during 1946 and 1947 respectively; how many of these Development Officers have retained their posts longer than one tour of duty; and what is the percentage of those who have not continued in their appointments.

Seventy-four Development Officers were appointed in 1946, and 28 in 1947. Out of the total of 102, only three—or less than 3 per cent.—have not continued in their appointments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the Governor of Nigeria told the Christian Council and Moslem representatives, who protested against the establishment of a brewery in Lagos, that a similar industry in Accra had not led to an outbreak of incidents; and whether, in view of the recent disturbances in Accra, which were aggravated by drunkenness, he will now instruct the Governor of Nigeria to reconsider the Christian Council's protest, and do away with the brewery.

I am not aware of the statement attributed to the Governor. The second part of the Question raises a matter which should be left to the discretion of the Governor.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me a verbatim account of the statement made by the Governor, as published by the Christian Council, and will he make representations to the Governor upon the matter?

I will certainly receive the statement and consider the matter in the light of the statement.

Is the specific gravity of this beer higher than that of the beer obtainable in this country? If not, how on earth do they get drunk?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that the amount of gin imported into the Gold Coast in the first and last year of the period during which the 1931 Ordinance was operative was less than one-half the gin and whisky imported in 1946; and whether there was any further increase in the rate of import during 1947.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "yes," if the imports for 1931 and 1939 separately are compared with that for 1946. But, as the answer includes figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the hon. Member aware that the number of Europeans in the Gold Coast, for whose health a little whisky and gin are very beneficial, has doubled?

In view of the fact that it was the Labour Government, in the time of Lord Passfield, which was responsible for the reduction that took place in the years previous to the war, does not the present Government see the necessity for reverting to Lord Passfield's policy, and arranging for a reduction at a time when great evils and disorders are breaking out in this part of the world?

I was not aware that there was any policy promulgated by Lord Passfield, but I will look into the matter and communicate with my hon. Friend.

Would it not be preferable to encourage the drinking of dear gin by the rioters as an alternative to the cheap native palm wine?

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to further rioting in the Gold Coast; whether he has now received a report from the Governor; and whether he will make a full statement with particular reference to the political implications involved.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any further statement to make respecting disturbances in Accra; the total number of killed and injured; the extent of the damage done to property; how long the inquiry will proceed before issuing its report; if he has further particulars respecting the grievances about which the deputation intended to see the Governor; and what steps are being taken to deal with these grievances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the chiefs or other native authorities of the Gold Coast have expressed their opinion regarding the recent disturbances in the territory; and whether they are actively assisting in the restoration of law and order.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will now make a further statement about the disturbances in the Gold Coast; and when he expects his inquiries will be completed and available to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now make a further statement on the Gold Coast disturbances and on their causes; and how many lives have been lost.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the permission of the hon. Members who have asked these Questions on the disturbances in the Gold Coast, I will make a statement at the end of Questions.

I made a statement on the subject of the disturbances in the Gold Coast on 1st March, and I will now give additional information which has been received since that date.

Since the night of Tuesday, 2nd March, there have been no serious disturbances in the Gold Coast, and prompt anticipatory measures by the police, supported by the military forces on the spot, have succeeded in preventing any further outbreaks and in restoring a satisfactory measure of law and order. I am very glad to say that the attitude of the Chiefs and native authorities in the Gold Coast has throughout been most helpful. They have publicly expressed their disapproval of the rioting and have exercised their authority to urge restraint on their people and co-operation with the Government in the measures which it has taken to restore order. The senior unofficial member of the Legislative Council, on behalf of his colleagues on that body and several native authorities have telegraphed to me pledging their support to the Gold Coast Government.

May I ask the Under-Secretary of State whether any arrests were made in connection with these troubles and, in fact, whether he is aware of the underlying grievances out of which these sprang? Lastly, may I ask whether any warning was given regarding shooting, or whether shooting took place under conditions where no warning could be given?

I understand that certain arrests were made, but I have no particulars of those arrests. With regard to the other point, I prefer to say nothing further on causes until the Commission has reported. I am not quite sure what took place before the order to fire was given, but I know that the police officers were struck in the face by bricks and stones, and that they were bleeding pretty badly before any order to fire was given.

Can the hon. Gentleman give some idea as to who will bear the cost of compensation for these losses? Can he say for what reason the situation got so much out of hand that over £1million worth of damage was done to movable property, quite apart from the damage done to immovable property? Who bears those losses?

That matter will arise, I take it, as a result of the inquiry.

As the hon. Member emphasised in his first reply to the House upon this matter that drunkenness was a considerable factor in the disorders, will an instruction be given when the inquiry is made that full information should be secured on how that took place and what was the cause?

I understand that one of the causes was that the looters broke into a wine shop and drank the wine, but no doubt that will be considered with all other aspects.

Will the hon. Gentleman make quite certain that the terms of reference of the Commission include the matter of compensation for damage?

That is another matter. I shall have to consider that.

I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State if, in view of the appalling character of these events, he and the Government will not consider seriously sending a responsible trade union delegation from this country to make a separate inquiry into the events?

There are trade unions and also trade union advisers in the Gold Coast at the moment. In due course I or my right hon. Friend will announce the composition of the Commission, and then the House can judge for itself.

Can we take it there will be somebody from this country?

We cannot discuss the inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) why Mr. Baker, of the Watch Tower Society, was deprived of his- personal library of literature when he arrived at Takoradi in June last; and why, despite repeated requests, it has not been restored to him;

(2) why certain books on religious subjects, published by the Watch Tower Bible Society and freely circulated in this country, were banned from circulation in the Gold Coast.

I am inviting the Governor of the Gold Coast to furnish me with a report on these matters, and I will communicate with my hon. Friend when his reply is received.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, on the occasion of the return of the Palestine Police Force to this country, His Majesty's Government will arrange for them a ceremonial parade and march in London to enable the general public to express their appreciation of these men.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his suggestion. The arrangements appropriate on this occasion are under consideration.

Can the same action be taken in regard to His Majesty's troops returning from Palestine?

That question should be addressed to the Secretary of State for War.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the 479 Arab members of the Palestine Police, who were posted as deserters or were absent without leave, during recent months, took away with them their kit, arms, or any other equipment; and whether any of the said deserters or absentees have been arrested.

The Arab police deserters and absentees, of whom only two were members of the regular police, took with them their kit and arms, and in some cases other arms of the Police Force. None has so far been arrested.

Is it true that these deserters and absentees have succeeded in joining. the Arab guerrilla bands now operating in the Judean Hills against Jerusalem?

I have no information about them at all.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the leaflet sent from Jerusalem to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and a number of other hon. Members, a copy of which has been sent to him, in which the British League of Servicemen and Ex-Servicemen, Palestine Branch, claim to have been responsible for the explosion in Jerusalem on 22nd February, 1948, and to have killed 100 persons and injured 200 others; whether he can now state the authorship of the leaflet repudiated as false by the Arab Higher Committee in which the guilt is claimed for the Arab commander; and whether he will now order a public inquiry into all the circumstances, with a view to establishing the real perpetrators of this outrage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what inquiries he has made with regard to the letter, a copy of which has been sent to him, recently published and circulated from Jerusalem in the name of a body calling itself the British League of Servicemen and Exservicemen; and if he will make a statement on this and other claims made to the commission of the Ben Yehudi Street outrage there.

I have considered the leaflet in the light of comments received from the High Commissioner for Palestine, and understand that the organisation purporting to issue this leaflet has no branch in Palestine. Nor does the leaflet contain any convincing evidence that it was of British authorship. It is perhaps significant that it did not appear until 10 days after the incident to which it relates. With regard to the second part of the Question, nothing has yet been established regarding the authenticity of the pamphlet purporting to have been issued by Abdul Khader Hussein. He himself has not disclaimed responsibility for either the pamphlet or the outrage. With regard to the third part of the Question, inquiries continue but have been seriously impeded by the refusal of the Jewish community to submit evidence in their possession or facilitate inquiry by the police. I understand that a separate Jewish inquiry is being held with the apparent object of implicating British personnel. When the official police investigation is completed, a statement of conclusions reached will be made public. I see no reason to institute any separate public inquiry.

Do I understand that my hon. Friend is satisfied to leave this matter where it is without any inquiry at all?

There is an inquiry now proceeding. I am fully satisfied that the people conducting the inquiry will conduct it in a proper manner, and that we shall have a report in due course.

In view of the fact that Hussein has not denied issuing the pamphlet to which reference has been made, has my hon. Friend taken any steps in regard to him, and will he make inquiries as to whether he was guilty of this terrible offence?

We have not got possession of Hussein. He is not under our control in any shape or form, or in custody. We are making inquiries, and inquiries are now being held into the responsibility for this outrage, and all these other matters will be taken into consideration.

Can the Under-Secretary tell us whether he has any evidence of the provenance of the paper signed by the so-called "British League"; whether he knows where it was printed, and whether he has any evidence as to who was responsible for issuing it? When he speaks of the date of its issue being "perhaps significant," can he tell us what is "perhaps significant"?

It is significant that the claim was not made until 10 days after the incident took place. Furthermore, we have put the whole matter to the law officers in Palestine, and this is one of the matters they are now considering. If there is any evidence to be obtained, it will naturally be obtained in Palestine and not in this country. We shall hear in due course from the Government whether they have obtained any information.

Can I have a direct answer to the first part of my question: Has the hon. Member's office yet any evidence where this paper came from?

We have evidence that it was posted from Palestine; apart from that, we have no further evidence. The postmark was from Palestine—at least on the letter I received.

Do I understand my hon. Friend to say that the Palestine administration is holding an inquiry into a matter on which it made up its mind before the inquiry started?

Certainly not. The Palestine Government is holding an inquiry into all the circumstances connected with this outrage to determine the cause of the outrage, who was responsible, and whether the necessary measures were taken as a result of the outrage to ensure that injured people were taken to the proper hospital, and the like.

As a result of all these leaflets, and despite these leaflets from whatever organisations they came, I think the House would like to be assured that up to date the Government have no evidence whatever to change the view which they have frequently expressed to the House, that British troops had no responsibility whatever for this outrage.

I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance, namely, that there is no reason whatever to think so. In fact, everything that has come to light since goes to show that our original estimate that British troops had nothing whatever to do with it is perfectly correct.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether he is aware that Fawzi Kawukji has established field headquarters in Palestine and that he is in possession of large quantities of arms which have been brought from Syria; and if he will make a statement on the position, including the measures he proposes to take or permit the proposed victims of this man to take, to protect them against these forces;

(2) whether he is aware that a self-styled Arab Liberation Force, in conjunction with the Arab Higher Command, have declared martial law in the Nablus area of Palestine; and what steps he is taking in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what steps are being taken by the Palestine Government to deal with the most recent incursion of Fawzi Bey and his followers into Palestine, and the establishment on Palestine territory of purported military headquarters and civil administrative organs of an illegal character.

The High Commissioner has informed me of a local rumour that Fawzi Kawukji recently arrived in Palestine and is in the Samaria district. I have received no other information on this subject and am awaiting further reports.

The developments referred to by my hon. Friend in the Nablus area appear to be a measure adopted by the leaders of Arab irregular forces to control their adherents and represent no attempt to replace or curtail the authority of the Mandatory Power in this area. The District Commission of the Samaria district continues to reside in Nablus and his headquarters and sub-district offices are functioning normally. Palestinian members of the Police Force continue to perform their normal duties throughout the district under the supervision and control of British police officers. The District Commissioner is in a position to call for the assistance of such military forces as he may require to assert the authority of the civil power. The security forces in Palestine will continue to protect members of either community who may be threatened with attack.

Has my hon. Friend seen very full reports that have been given in a large number of papers and details of interviews which have been held with this bandit; that he is setting up his headquarters in precisely the same place as he had his headquarters before when he defied authority; and will my hon. Friend take any steps at all to prevent this or allow the people there to defend themselves?

I have no information other than I have given, and no confirmation of these rumours by the High Commissioner.

Can my hon. Friend say whether this is not the ninth or tenth act of aggression committed by Arab forces, and whether the Government proposes to report this continued breach of the peace to the Security Council with a view to action to preserve international peace and security?

As I have stated already, I have had no evidence that these incidents took place, and therefore I cannot say that it is an act of aggression or otherwise.

Can my hon. Friend say that he has no information and no evidence whatever about the invasion of Palestine by armed Arabs for the past six or 12 months.

I was replying to the question asked. I have had no information about this particular man and the alleged invasion by him and his forces.

Does my hon. Friend propose to report to the Security Council any of the breaches of the peace of which he has knowledge?

That is another question.

Arising out of the reply to my second Question, would my hon. Friend say whether any application was made to the authorities in Palestine at all about the imposition of martial law? By what right has anybody there at all to impose it other than the authorities?

That is another question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the memorial sent to him by the British Guiana Labour Party; and whether any action is likely to be taken in respect of it.

I have not so far received the memorial in question. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies on what terms an exclusive exploration licence has been granted to the Permanente Aluminium Corporation of California to prospect for bauxite in British Guiana, whether the Government of British Guiana will in view of the prospective development of hydroelectric power in that' Colony, include in all future mining contracts a clause that mining companies which are also manufacturers must manufacture within the Colony if requested to do so by the local Government.

A licence over an area in the Pomeroon district has been granted to the Corporation for one year in the first instance at a rent of one cent. per acre. The licence may be renewed for two or more successive periods of one year at the discretion of the Governor. The hydro-electric potentialities of British Guiana are now under investigation, and the British Guiana Government will take steps to encourage the local manufacture of alumina or aluminium if the results of the investigation are favourable for such manufacture.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to make it obligatory?

I would not like to say that we will make it obligatory, but we will certainly see that the interest is put before the Government, and that they will take such steps as they can to draw it to the notice of the companies concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies to what he attributes the increase in the loss on the Jamaican Government Railway of approximately £20,000 over the loss of 300,000 for which the Jamaican Government originally budgeted.

I will make inquiry in this matter and inform the hon. Member of the result.

Can the Under-Secretary say what is the policy of the Government towards nationalised railways which continue to lose money. Is it intended to de-nationalise them, or to go on soaking the taxpayer?

That does not arise out of this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is satisfied that measures taken by the Government of Jamaica to check leaf spot disease in bananas have succeeded, and whether experiments have been made to determine the immunity or otherwise of the lacatan variety of banana and with what result.

Spraying with chemicals, now widely practised by Jamaican growers under Government encouragement, is highly successful in controlling the spread of leaf spot disease. It has recently been established that the lacatan variety, whilst immune to Panama disease, is not resistant to leaf spot.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the recommendations of the West Indies Royal Commission Report in regard to sugar have been implemented in Trinidad.

We have carried out the one recommendation which is still applicable, i.e. the establishment of a labour welfare fund; the others are no longer relevant in view of the changed circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many ex-Service men are now unemployed in Jamaica and in other parts of the West Indies; and, if in view of the inadequacy of the resettlement so far achieved, he will introduce new and more far-reaching schemes for the resettlement of West Indian ex-Service men, both in the West Indies and in the United Kingdom.

Full registration of unemployed is not yet in operation in Jamaica and other West Indian Colonies, and it is not possible to say what proportion of the estimated numbers of unemployed is made up of ex-Service men. The West Indian Colonial Governments have introduced schemes for the resettlement of their ex-Service men, and they are fully aware of my right hon. Friend's anxiety that everything possible should be done to assist these people on their return to their homes. Every effort will be made to place in employment West Indian ex-Service men who remain in this country or return here to seek work, but it is not proposed to establish any special scheme for this purpose.

Could my hon. Friend give the estimated number of unemployed that he referred to in his answer? Is he aware that these British subjects, some thousands of whom are now out of work in Jamaica, I believe, feel themselves at a disadvantage in comparison, for instance, with the Polish Resettlement Corps?

I gave the latest estimated figures of unemployment in an answer to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) on 25th February. There are 50,000 unemployed in Jamaica, The machinery of the Ministry of Labour is, of course, at the disposal of these men in this country.

Does that mean that those of them who can get here can work here?

They can apply.

Can the hon. Gentleman say why the Colonial Office have not recruited these unemployed ex-Service men in Jamaica for the groundnut scheme in East Africa, instead of recruiting Italians?

That is another question.

asked the Minister of Defence what form of examination has been given to the question of amalgamating the common administrative services of the armed forces; and what are the principal reasons why it is considered that such a complete amalgamation would not be in the real interests of economy and efficiency.

This question has been very thoroughly examined by the normal process of inter-Departmental discussion both official and Ministerial.' The amalgamation of common services would, in the view of the Government, result in

(a) loss of contact with the Forces they serve;

(b) divided responsibility for the Forces and for their ancillary services;

(c) the establishment of a new Headquarters organisation to deal with such matters as pay, transport, clothing, accommodation, etc., for the amalgamated services;

(d) an increase of detailed liaison work between the amalgamated services and the Forces.

These are the main reasons which led the Government to the view which I expressed to the House on 1st March, that the practical difficulties which the tasks of unification would bring with them would outweigh the advantages. In present circumstances we are not satisfied that amalgamation would lead either to increased efficiency or to economy in money and manpower.

asked the Minister of Defence what reports he has received as a result of the inquiries of the Manpower Economy Committees in the Service Departments; and what steps he is taking.

I have been furnished with copies of the interim reports of these committees. They are being considered by the Service Ministers who are responsible for the administration of their own Departments. Some of the recommendations have already been accepted and no special action on my part is required at this stage.

In view of the tribute paid by the Service Ministers to the work of these Committees, is it intended to publish any of their reports, so that the House may know exactly what they find on examining the situation?

No, Sir. I do not think that we have ever promised to publish reports of this kind, which are internal Departmental reports, for the guidance of the Minister. I did say that we would let the House know from tim3 to time what progress was being made; my hon. Friend may like to put down a Question to the Service Ministers on that point.

Can my right hon. Friend say what would be the estimated saving in manpower if the recommendations of the Committees were put into effect?

This matter has been discussed on the Service Estimates. The Manpower Economy Committees have given a large proportion of their time to studying new methods and new arrangements for economy on a long-term basis.

asked the Minister of Defence the latest figures of the numbers of officers and men of the three Services on regular engagements; and his estimates of the numbers required on 31st March, 1949.

The numbers of Regular officers and men in the three Services on 1st January were: Royal Navy, 111,400; Army, 160,100; Royal Air Force, 99,600.

The strength of the Regular Forces on 31st March, 1949, will depend on recruiting, and, although no firm estimate can be given, it is hoped that they will be built up to about: Royal Navy; 125,000; Army, 190,000; Royal Air Force, 130,000. In addition the Army hope to have about 10,000 and the Royal Air Force 18,0o0 in the regular women's Services.