Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 454: debated on Thursday 22 July 1948

House of Commons

Thursday, July 22, 1948

Prayers

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair ]

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

Private Business

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

INVERNESS BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Trade and Commerce

Sodium Chlorate

asked the President of the Board of Trade what was the total quantity of sodium chlorate available in each of the last five years giving in each case the amounts supplied to farmers and railways respectively.

I regret that the information is not available in the form in which the hon. Member has asked for it.

Can the Minister give an assurance that the railways are not getting sodium chlorate at the expense of farmers, who are unable to obtain any?

The allocation of this material is made by the single firm in the industry which is responsible for production and that is why I obviously cannot give the figures relating to a single firm. But I understand that after deducting the minimum quantities needed by the railways and certain priority industries the rest is reserved for farmers.

Are the railways getting their minimum quantity at the expense of farmers, who are getting none?

The farmers are getting a considerable amount, but obviously we cannot cut off supplies from the railways so that farmers can get more.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what priority industries have a chance before the farmers?

Textiles, dyestuffs and metal refining, but they have only a relatively small quantity.

Did I understand my right hon. Friend to say that the production and allocation of sodium chlorate are in the hands of a monopoly; and, if so, will it come within the scope of the new Measure?

Motor Cars (Export to Germany)

5 and 6.

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) the number of private motor cars exported during the last three months to Germany for the use of private individuals in that country;

(2) what are the Government intentions for the future with respect to the despatch to Germany from Great Britain of motor cars sold or intended for sale to private purchasers in Germany.

During the three months ended the 30th June, 137 new cars were exported to Germany. It is not possible to state how many of these cars were for the use of private individuals; the figures quoted would, however, include cars purchased by United Kingdom and United States officials in Germany for their private use. I understand that for the present the resources of the Joint Export Import Agency do not permit the purchase of cars for the private use of German individuals. As soon as private persons in the Combined zone in Germany are in a position to buy motor cars from the United Kingdom, the despatch of such cars will be treated in the same way as the export of any other normal commercial commodity.

Is the President of the Board of Trade fully aware of the appalling shortage of cars for the agricultural community in Cornwall?

Women's Shoes

asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage of women's shoes manufactured in this country which are made available for the home market; and whether these maintain an adequate variation of sizes and widths to meet the needs of the population.

About 95 per cent. of the women's shoes manufactured in this country are sold on the home market. With regard to the sizes and fittings produced, there appears to be considerable improvement in supplies of shoes for women whose feet are outside the "average" size range.

In view of the appeal by the Government to women to return to work in the factories, will the right hon. Gentleman realise the importance of these women and, indeed, all others, having comfortable and healthy feet?

Yes, Sir, but the exact production of particular sizes of shoes is a matter for the various manufacturers. The various points raised by the hon. and gallant Member have been brought to the attention of the manufacturers during the last two or three months.

Timber Control

asked the President of the Board of Trade when the accounts of the Timber Control for the year ended 31st March. 1948, will be published; and whether he is satisfied with the organisation and working of the Timber Control.

With regard to the first part of the Question, I am unable to give a specific date. The trading accounts of the Timber Control for 1946–47 were published, with those of other Government Departments, on 20th January, 1948. I hope that in future the interval between the closing of accounts, and their publication, will be shorter. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir."

Does the right hon. Gentleman also hope that in future the losses will also be smaller?

The losses on this year's trading were due to the fact that world prices rose very considerably, and the increase in world prices was not immediately passed on to the consumer. In fact, the whole of the loss to which the hon. Gentleman referred was quite comfortably taken up out of previous years' profits enjoyed by this Timber Control.

Moth Damage (Inquiry)

asked the President of the Board of Trade if his working party on moths has yet reported; and when the report will be available to Members.

On a point of Order. Can we be told whether this Question relates to aeroplanes or insects or vermin?

No, Sir. A preliminary survey of the extent of moth damage in industry and trade, and in the home, was found to be necessary; a good deal of work remains to be done on the merits of the various methods of prevention. It would be optimistic to expect a report before the end of the present year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this will cause great disappointment to the women of this country, who will not now be able to deal with this season's moths and the corruption and depredations for which moths are responsible on small and valued wardrobes of clothes?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the women of this country would have been even more disappointed if we had rushed out a report which did not deal with this important subject as it needs to be dealt with.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when the report on spivs and butterflies is to be issued?

Will this working party on moths put a stop to the private enterprise of working parties of this particular type of vermin?

If the working party are running short of subject matter, will my right hon. Friend invite them to open the door of the policy cupboard of the Conservative Central Office?

Leather Prices

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now able to report the result of his discussions with the tanners and leather dressers with regard to the reduction of their profit margin to conform more closely to a figure of 8 per cent. on the capital employed.

A revised basis of assessing full chrome leather prices has been agreed with the trade and the new prices are now being determined.

Utility Footwear

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is prepared to bring within the range of utility footwear one or two types of sheep skin lined bootees since these are popular for winter wear.

This matter is at present under consideration, but I cannot yet say what the outcome will be.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the shoes which his schoolfellows did not wear were of this type?

The shoes which my schoolfellows did not wear, as would have been clear if the statement of the Mayor of Huddersfield had been published in full by the Tory Press, were in fact clogs.

Closed Film Studios

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a statement about the re-opening of closed film studios.

No, Sir, but I would ask the hon. Member to await the statement which I propose to make at the end of Questions with regard to financial assistance to the film industry.

Controls

asked the President of the Board of Trade what recommendations made by the Examiner of Controls have received his approval; and, in particular, whether any controls no longer necessary have been removed as a result of the comprehensive review of the controls operated by his Department.

As a result of recommendations by the Examiner of Controls, I have, as already announced, withdrawn the control over the manufacture and supply of toilet preparations and am withdrawing the control over toys as from 31st July. I have also decided to withdraw the control over the manufacture of mechanical lighters. The controls over glue, gelatine and size, leather and paint are to be modified. Other recommendations to enable greater efficiency to be achieved without waste of resources are under consideration.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether, as a result of the removal of these controls, labour has been released for more productive work?

Controls have been removed in those cases in which production was adequate to meet public demand without control, and wherever possible we shall remove further controls and attempt to economise in the amount of labour particularly that dealing with the control forms.

Will the removal of the control on mechanical lighters make any difference in the present tax on lighters?

Bookcloth

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that a shortage of cloth for bookbinding is now anticipated; why less yarn for bookcloth is now being delivered to weavers than last year; why his Department have not answered the letter addressed to them by Sundar Bookcloths Ltd. on 7th June on the subject of the importation of cloth from Germany; and what steps he is taking to prevent a shortage of bookcloth.

There is a shortage of cotton cloth generally, including cloth for bookbinding. The cotton yarn allocation for bookcloth is the same as last year and yarn deliveries to weavers are only very slightly less than last year. As my hon. Friend knows, every effort is being made to increase the production of cloth, particularly by the recruitment of additional labour for the spinning and weaving industries. A reply was sent on 30th June to the letter dated 7th June from Sundour Bookcloths Ltd.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the book publishing trade generally that he will not allow a situation to develop in which, although there is only a limited quantity of paper, they are able to print their books on the paper but have not the cloth with which to bind them?

I will assure them that we will do everything we can to increase the supply of bookcloth, remembering that it is an important dollar export.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to learn that there are something like four million unbound books lying in the cellars of binders today awaiting the cloth which he has now reluctantly promised?

Is the Minister aware that in the paper mills in Scotland they make what is called "Linson" which enables bookcloth to be dispensed with entirely and makes as good a binding?

Oil Stove Wicks

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a more adequate supply of No. 21 wick for Valor oil cookers can be made available in the rural areas where gas for cooking is not available and cooking is done almost exclusively on oil stoves, since many households have been put to great hardship and inconvenience for long periods as a result of supplies not being available.

Extra supplies should be reaching the shops soon following an increase in output. Priority in distribution is given to rural areas.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he will take steps to ensure that from now onwards there will be adequate supplies of these vital necessities to the rural areas? Surely he is aware that worn-out wicks are absolutely useless to the rural areas, as indeed the Government are? They do nothing for them.

I will not follow the hon. Member into all his remarks, but I am fully aware of the importance of this wick to rural areas. The supply of No. 21 wick is up to pre-war level and is increasing all the time. There is priority of distribution to rural areas.

Paper (Folding Letters)

asked the President of the Board of Trade if, in order to save paper, he will instruct paper manufacturers to produce folding letters similar to the single sheet forces air mail letter, instead of envelopes.

No, Sir. Envelopes are required for a number of purposes for which it would not be possible to substitute folding letters. We are, however, anxious to encourage the use, as far as possible, of gummed labels so that envelopes may be re-used.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposal contained in this Question actually has the blessing of the Post Office, and if adopted would mean a saving of two or three thousand tons of paper per year? Would it not be a good thing to look at this matter again?

It would be difficult to enforce or to push in all the places where these things are made and used. I am not satisfied that the saving in paper—I accept my hon. Friend's estimate—would justify the use of manpower in pushing this proposal.

Consumer Goods, Burma

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has taken any steps directly or indirectly to reduce the allocation of consumer goods to Burma.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if there is any diminution of the flow it will directly affect the amount of rice coming out of Burma, which is vitally needed in the Far East?

Distribution of Industry

asked the President of the Board of Trade when he will publish the promised White Paper giving the review of the operation of the Distribution of Industry Act over the last three years.

As I am anxious that this review should be as comprehensive as possible, the preparation of the White Paper is taking rather longer than was expected. I hope that it will be ready for publication by early September.

Coal Industry

Industrial Coal (Cost)

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will state the percentage increase in the cost of coal to industrial users at the present time, as compared with 1937, based upon the British thermal unit content.

I regret the information is not available.

Is it not possible for the Minister to have another look at this Question and issue some sort of statement as to the cost? Surely he has the figures at his disposal?

The difficulty is, of course, that the precise thermal value of pre-war coal is not known.

Redundant Workers (Compensation)

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he has now approved the draft scheme for compensation to colliery employees declared redundant since nationalisation of the coal mines; or when he expects to be able to give such approval.

No, Sir. The National Coal Board are, however, making every effort to expedite the submission of schemes and I expect to receive them shortly.

Is the Minister aware that he gave me practically the answer, a very courteous one, quite a long time ago and gave us to believe that it would be much sooner? Does he really think that within the next two years something will be done?

Yes, it will be done long before that. The difficulty is that there are a number of different classes of employees, and it is not desirable for schemes for a number of different classes to be submitted separately.

Closed Pits

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on the closing of a number of pits in the Yorkshire Area.

Since the vesting date, four pits have been closed in the Yorkshire coalfield. Provisional plans already announced by the Chairman of the North Eastern Divisional Coal Board indicate that over the next ten years, the winding of coal from about 20 Yorkshire pits may cease, due to re-organisation of underground haulage arrangements, but that only about four pits will close completely. Final plans, however, will have to be settled by the National Coal Board as part of their long-term re-organisation plans for the whole country.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in carrying out his responsibilities under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, for approving the fines of development planned by the Coal Board, he will give directions that no colliery is to be closed unless all fit men under 55 can readily be found work in the industry, and unless alternative employment and training to undertake it is available for all those whom, owing to sickness or disablement, it may not be practicable to transfer.

Is the Minister aware that his answer will cause deep apprehension among the miners in regions where coal seams are such that output is low compared with other areas, and will he take steps to review the matter?

I would not agree with the first part of the supplementary question. My answer does not imply that the National Coal Board or the Government are in the least unsympathetic in this matter but merely that that particular proposal for dealing with it is not practical.

Would the Minister consider this point in the light of other matters, and particularly the stay-down strike which took place at Waleswood a few months ago?

I think we can leave these matters to the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers to settle.

Clergy, Mining Areas (Grants)

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether, in view of the hardship resulting from the decision of the East Midlands Coal Board repudiating responsibility for certain grants which have in the past been made to clergy in the mining areas, he will give directions that such grants be continued.

As my hon. Friend will no doubt be aware, the National Coal Board announced yesterday that they have decided to continue these grants on a diminishing scale until 1951 in cases where the maintenance of the Churches' work would otherwise be seriously prejudiced. Grants which constitute a substantial part of the income of a particular living agent may in cases of hardship be continued in full and for a rather longer period.

Is the Minister aware that this fair-minded decision by the National Coal Board will be very much welcomed by those concerned, as well as by a wider public, and can he tell me how many incumbents are actually affected by the decision? May I have an answer?

I should have to have notice of the latter part of the question. I have no doubt that the National Coal Board will take note of the first part.

Why is the year 1951 given as a sort of terminating date? Surely, the need will persist, even after 1951?

There is no question of any legal covenant upon the Coal Board. This was a question of what one might term moral obligation. I think they have discharged it very fairly, after consultation with the Church Commissioners.

Is the Minister aware that there is no reason why the miners should support the clergy of the Church of England, and will he get the imposition terminated as quickly as possible?

Firewood Logs

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many prosecutions have been instituted by his Department as a result of the purchase by the National Coal Board of firewood logs at prices in excess of the maximum controlled price.

Nationalisation (Compensation Payments)

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power why, in the financial directives issued to the Coal Board in page 204 of the Annual Report, he has required the industry to bear the full cost of compensation to the former owners; why he has discontinued the subsidy to the industry given in the period 1942–46 through the Coal Charges Account, amounting to 1s. 9d. per ton in 1946; and whether he will now reduce the payments the Board is required to make to the Exchequer so as to avoid any necessity either to restrict necessary improvements and modernisation, or to raise coal prices.

The Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946, placed on the National Coal Board the responsibility for repaying, over a suitable period, the compensation and certain other costs incurred in the nationalisation of the coal industry. The directives merely specify in detail the manner in which the Board is to comply with the Act. Any reduction in the amounts payable would have involved a subsidy by the Government, which is not considered to be either necessary or desirable. With regard to the second part of the Question, if the hon. Member will refer to page 9 of the Coal Mining Industry Annual Statistical Statement for the year 1946, he will see that, far from receiving a subsidy in 1946, the industry, in fact, contributed a net sum of 1s. 9d. per ton to the Coal Charges Account in that year.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether having regard to the economic position of the industry and of the country, he will now introduce legislation to reduce the amount of compensation payable to the former owners, and also the interim income payable while the division of total compensation is under discussion.

I wish to ask the Minister, very seriously, would it not be very much better that the ex-coal owners should go on the National Assistance Board rather than that the industry should be handicapped in its efforts to get fully reconstructed? Why should money be paid out to these people in this manner? Will he not discuss with the Leader of the House legislation to put a stop to it?

Has the right hon. Gentleman reached any decision with regard to extending the payment of the interim income during the unexpectedly long discussions on compensation generally?

In answer to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) I would point out that this matter was settled by Parliament only two years ago. It would be quite undesirable and, indeed, a breach of faith, in my opinion, to reopen it. As regards the question of the junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Wilson Harris), I have no further statement to make on that matter.

Is the Minister aware that the latest report of the National Coal Board states that for the first quarter of this year it made a profit of £4,551,000, and that of this sum £3,800,000 is going to the coal owners? What steps has he taken to circulate these figures to the Conservative Head Office in order to get the fullest possible publicity?

Fuel and Power

Supplementary Petrol Allowances

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give more sympathetic consideration in the issue of supplementary petrol to those men who, owing to their employment and lack of housing accommodation in the neighbourhood, are forced to live at great distances from their homes.

The standard ration should normally be used for such journeys but regional petroleum officers will give sympathetic consideration to applications for small supplementary allowances in special cases.

Is the Minister aware that his Department have twice turned down applications for sufficient petrol to allow men to travel from South Wales to Dorset, that it is impossible for them to go by train owing to the short time for which they can be away from their work, and that consequently they only see their families about once in six months?

If the hon. and gallant Member will let me have particulars, I shall always be glad to look into individual cases.

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether it is an authorised practice of regional petroleum offices of his Department to inform applicants for supplementary petrol that if they are engaged upon work for the local authority or Government Department further consideration will be given to their case upon receipt of certification.

Where an applicant bases his claim for a supplementary allowance on the fact that he is under contract to a Government Department or local authority it is the general practice to ask for supporting evidence.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that according to a letter which I sent him, the impression has been gained in the North of England that an architect gets priority if he is doing work in a country district for a local authority rather than for a farmer, and will he dispel that false impression?

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he has considered the representations made to his Department by the Surrey County Council on the subject of the hardship to individuals and damage to local government resulting from the deduction of the amount of the standard petrol ration from supplementary petrol allowances granted to members and officers of local authorities; and what action he proposes to take to remedy this.

Yes, Sir; my Department is discussing with the County Councils Association the whole question of the issue of allowances to county councillors and county council officials.

Prices (National Insurance Contributions)

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will give an assurance that there will be no increase in the price of coal, electricity or gas to the consumer as a result of the increased contributions paid by employers to the National Insurance Scheme on behalf of their employees.

No assurance can be given that this increase in cost, though small in proportion to total cost of production, can be met in every case, either in private or socialised industries, without an increase in price.

May I ask the Minister whether his reply means that the Government will permit private firms and farmers, who are not subsidised by the taxpayer, to increase control prices?

I do not think one can possibly give a general answer to that. Each of these cases is considered on its merits in the light of the general Statement on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices, issued by the Government.

Hams Hall Power Station (Boiler-ash)

asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the nuisance caused by boiler-ash blown over adjacent parishes from dumps at Hams Hall Power Station; and if he will direct the British Electricity Authority to abate this nuisance by wetting the dumps or otherwise.

I have not received any representations in this matter, which is one relating to the day to day operation of the British Electricity Authority generating station at Hams Hall. I am, however, informed by the authority that certain representations were made to them by the Meridin Rural District Council and that steps were at once taken to remove the grounds of complaint. The last part of the Question does not therefore arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of when the nuisance is likely to be abated?

Aliens

Dr. Wladislaw Dering (Extradition)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to state what steps he is proposing to take with regard to applications for the extradition of Dr. Wladislaw Dering as an alleged war criminal.

I regret I cannot yet add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 1st July.

Can the Home Secretary say when he expects to be in a position to announce a decision in this case?

No. I should be reluctant at the moment to announce a date, but the matter is now being energetically pursued.

Entry Permit Application

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds permission has been refused for Freda Erna Klara Helsenrath and Klara Anna Maria Nuchling the mother and grandmother, respectively, of Mrs. M. E. Cunningham-Craig, to come to this country where a home is ready to receive them and where the necessary financial guarantees are provided by the British husband of Mrs. Cunningham-Craig whose address and position had been furnished to him.

In present circumstances the admission of foreigners to this country for settlement has to be limited to certain categories. The case of these ladies does not, in my view, come within any accepted category, and I am sorry that I can see no sufficient ground for treating it exceptionally.

Has not the Minister himself stated that the mothers and grandmothers of persons resident in this country, who are widowed and in need of filial attention, come into that category? Is he not aware that there is a grave anxiety on the part of relatives of these people, that the old lady is extremely ill and desires filial attention and, as this matter has been in his hands for a couple of years could he not expedite it?

No, Sir. The elder of these two ladies has a son, a daughter and a son-in-law in Germany. It is not her only relative who is in this country, and on the inquiries I have made, there is no evidence that she is in a distressed position in Germany.

Metropolitan Police (War Service)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will credit recruits of the Metropolitan Police Service with their years of war service for the purpose of pensions and seniority.

No, Sir. This point has been fully discussed by the Police Council, but to concede it would have involved discrimination as between the police and other local government services.

Will the Home Secretary bear in mind the deep sense of injustice that is created among members of the Police Force when one set of men have all the advantages of continuous service throughout the war while others who have been risking their lives in the service of the country have not those advantages?

Subject to the general consideration that I mentioned in my original answer, this is a matter that could be represented to the Oaksey Committee who are now dealing with Police pay and conditions generally.

Gulls Eggs, Brightlingsea

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now completed his inquiry regarding the removal this year of all but 13 of the 50,000 gulls eggs laid on Rat Island, near Brightlingsea; and whether he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. My information is that on 10th July there were literally thousands of seagulls on the island.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that what has happened here is a case of private enterprise running amok, and making a fool of itself, and will he see that the county council by-law which exists for the protection of the nests of seagulls on Rat Island is properly enforced in the future?

That is a matter for the Essex County Council, and I have no reason to think that they are failing in their duty.

Would the Minister discourage his hon. Friend from this persistent playing to the "gullery"?

Will the Home Secretary consider representing that the Minister of Health should be appointed governor of Rat Island?

While congratulating the Home Secretary on his elementary biological knowledge, may I ask him how many thousand seagulls were expectant mothers?

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the private enterprise to which reference was made was that of the gulls?

Ukrainian Prisoners of War

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the status of the Ukrainian prisoners of war now in this country is comparable with that of E.V.W.s or with that of German prisoners who have been allowed to stay on here as civilian agricultural workers; and if he will consider initiating, in addition to courses in the English language, a scheme of general education and study of British institutions similar to that which was of benefit to many German prisoners.

These men are still prisoners of war but, as indicated in the answer given to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Cooper) on 15th July, selected individuals will shortly be assimilated to European Volunteer Worker status. In addition to the knowledge of the British way of life which these workers obtain from the contacts made in the course of their employment, classes are arranged for them by the local education authorities with assistance from voluntary bodies.

May I ask the Home Secretary on what basis these men are being selected for absorption into industry?

Arising out of my right hon. Friend's reply, and in view of his classification of these people as prisoners of war, can he assure the House that they will not be forcibly removed from this country, but that in fact they are being used as European Volunteer Workers?

I have had a number of questions put to me about these people. There is no decision as yet, and, as far as I know, no consideration has been given to removing them from this country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what date he assumed responsibility for the 8,397 Ukrainian prisoners of war now in this country; and what is to be the future disposal of these men.

So long as these men remain prisoners of war, the War Office is responsible for them, but the question whether a number of them should be allowed to settle in this country as civilians is one that concerns the Home Secretary. No final decision has yet been reached regarding those not selected for assimilation to the status of European Volunteer Workers.

Can the Home Secretary say when it is expected that a decision will be made about those men who have not been allowed to take up civilian occupations?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the War Office refuses responsibility for these men and passes Questions about them on to the Ministry of Labour, but that the Minister of Labour then also refuses the responsibility of answering Questions about them?

As far as I am concerned, I have answered a number of Questions with regard to these cases.

Prisoners (Letters to Members of Parliament)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether prisoners serving sentences in H.M. Prisons have the right to communicate with Members of Parliament.

In view of the facilities which are given to prisoners to make representations to the Secretary of State on matters connected with their trial, conviction or prison treatment, it has for many years been a rule that they are not permitted to make such representations to judges, public authorities or Departments, or Members of Parliament, and hitherto a prisoner has only been permitted to write to a Member of Parliament in special circumstances, for example if he is personally acquainted with the Member or if the Member has written to him. After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, I have decided that there are grounds for making a concession in respect of prisoners writing to Members of Parliament, and I am issuing instructions that prisoners may be permitted to use letters from their ordinary allowance to write to a Member of Parliament of their choice and that special letters may be permitted in certain circumstances.

Does the Home Secretary agree, therefore, that such people should also be in a position to take legal action against Members of Parliament even if they have not known them before?

If a person has sound ground for legal action against a Member of Parliament, I do not think that I should preclude him from taking that action.

Does the Home Secretary's reply mean that a prisoner, when he writes to a Member of Parliament, has that letter counted against his ration?

In certain circumstances, yes; but in other circumstances a special letter may, and will, be given.

Must the letter be sent to the prisoner's own Member of Parliament or can it be sent to any Member?

It may be sent to any Member of Parliament, but I am sure that hon. Members will realise that, in addition to looking after prisoners, I have some duty in this matter in protecting Members from getting a large number of letters when they are not themselves acquainted with the circumstances of the case.

Could the right hon. Gentleman arrange that they are all sent to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg)?

Sport (Organisation)

asked the Prime Minister if he will move for a Select Committee or appoint a Royal Commission or Departmental Committee to investigate and report on the organisation and functioning of all kinds of sport; and how it can be further encouraged, financed and harnessed for the benefit of the nation.

I have been asked to reply. No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister does not consider that the setting up of such a body would be appropriate or would find general support. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education has wide powers to entertain requests by sports and games organisations for financial assistance.

Will the Minister bear in mind that Government interference with sport of any kind on the scale suggested is part of the stock in trade of all totalitarian States?

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the recommendations of his hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) as to organised leisure will no longer be taken into consideration?

European Economic Co-Operation (U.K. Delegation)

asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint someone of ministerial rank to lead the United Kingdom delegation at the Office of European Economic Co-operation in Paris.

I have been asked to reply. His Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to the work of the United Kingdom delegation and have appointed at its head a most experienced official, Sir Edmund Hall-Patch, who has Ambassadorial rank. The Council of the organisation meets both at the Ministerial and at the official level. When meetings are held at the Ministerial level, the United Kingdom representative is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. If Ministerial meetings are held at which he is unable to be present, arrangements are made for other Ministerial representation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister considers this is the most effective arrangement and it is working well.

Without in any way reflecting upon Sir Edmund Hall-Patch, for whom I have great respect founded on experience, does not the Lord President think that in view of the fact that the American Government have released their Secretary of Commerce to head their delegation, and also in view of the fact that our delegation is to speak for the acceding Colonial territories as well as for the United Kingdom, it would further this work if someone of ministerial position were appointed? Would he consider this seriously?

The point has been considered. It is, of course, not really possible to make an exact comparison between the constitutional position and the responsibilities of Secretaries in the United States and Ministers of the Crown in the United Kingdom. I can assure the hon. Member that policy is determined by Ministers—[ Laughter. ] Well, it is, but there is a great deal of continuous work which must be done on the spot. There is a great deal to be said for it being done by officials but, whenever it is appropriate, a Minister will go over and be in active operation.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman give a little further consideration to this suggestion, in view of the fact that the success of this organisation is due largely to the fact that the Foreign Secretary of this country responded so promptly to the advances of the United States Secretary of State; and would he not consider the importance of showing what weight we in this country attach to the deliberations of this body by sending a Minister rather than an official?

The hon. Gentleman appreciates that this work must continue over substantial periods. If a Minister is to be set aside for that, it should be the appropriate Minister who is normally the Foreign Secretary. It is impossible to set him aside for substantial periods for the work. Therefore, this is the most practical and effective way of doing it.

Without reflecting on the abilities of the diplomatic official appointed to this post, would it not be desirable, for important jobs of this kind, to have someone who believes in economic planning and has had experience and knowledge of the work?

As a matter of fact, Sir Edmund Hall-Patch has had considerable economic experience in connection with his work at the Foreign Office. Of course, if the presence is required of other officers of State who are experienced in the appropriate way, according to the matters under discussion, I can assure my hon. Friend that they are there, or will be there whenever they are required.

Olympic Games (Film Rights)

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will instruct the Government Film Unit to arrange for a full record to be made of the Olympic Games so that an official State record will be available after the Games are over for use in any country in the world.

No, Sir. The Crown Film Unit will not film the Olympic Games. The film rights have been purchased from the Organising Committee by a commercial company, but copies of the film will be available for record and historical purposes.

Is it the intention of whoever is responsible to see that this film is shown throughout the world, and will my right hon. Friend also consider the preparation of a book with photographs so that the Olympic Games, as run in Britain, can be on record throughout the world?

The understanding with the firm concerned is that the film shall be available for world showing, and everything possible will be done to promote its exhibition throughout the world. I think that means that the point raised by my hon. Friend will be safeguarded.

I do not ask this question in any spirit of levity, Mr. Speaker, but may I ask if this film which is to be made by this company will also show the rations received by British competitors so that that also will be known to the world when the film is shown?

Employment

European Volunteer Workers

asked the Minister of Labour how many European Volunteer Workers were placed in employment in the coalmining, textile, and agricultural industries in the first six months of 1948.

Coalmining 8,885; textiles 4,215; agriculture 10,722.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the allegations that many of the workers placed in agriculture have already left the farms, and will he explain the discrepancy between his figures and those recently given by the Ministry of Agriculture?

This was a bit of journalistic fiction. It did not account for those employed in Scottish agriculture, nor those individually placed in English and Welsh agriculture.

Is the Minister satisfied that all are employed in the industries to which they have been sent?

Directed Persons

asked the Minister of Labour how many persons have been directed to essential employment under Defence Regulation 58A in the first six months of 1948.

Can the Minister also give the number of those who have been told that a formal direction would be issued if they did not go quietly?

Statistics

asked the Minister of Labour how many previously non-employed persons have been found employment in the first six months of 1948.

Six thousand one hundred and fourteen unoccupied persons registered under the Registration for Employment Order were placed in employment, but during the period January to May, 1948, 182,721 persons entered insurable employment for the first time.

Engineers and Shipbuilding Workers (Wage Claim)

asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to set up courts of inquiry into the wage claims of engineers and shipbuilding workers, respectively.

I have at present nothing to add to the replies given on 20th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith).

Ex-Service Men

asked the Minister of Labour what plans the Government have to facilitate the provision of satisfactory employment for members of His Majesty's Forces on completion of service under Regular engagements.

The Government recognise that those who devote some years of early life to this service thereby miss opportunities of starting a career in industry or in one of the professions at the normal age. Plans are therefore being worked out to provide an entry into civilian careers for ex-Regulars on completion of their engagements. These will include special arrangements for entry at an appropriate level into the public services and into industry and the provision of training courses where needed. I hope shortly to be in a position to announce the details of these arrangements.

National Service Call-Up (Emigrants)

asked the Minister of Labour whether boys approaching the age of call-up for National Service, whose parents are emigrating to Australia, may obtain exemption from service and accompany their parents.

There is nothing to prevent a young man who is approaching the age of call-up from leaving this country.

National Finance

National Investment Council

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many meetings of the National Investment Council have been held this year; and when the next one is due to take place.

Since the institution of the Council, there have been big changes in the machinery for considering the subjects previously appropriate to the Council, notably the creation of the Planning Board and the Central Economic Planning Staff. As a result, there has been no business so far this year which justified the summoning of the Council.

If business should arise which justified its being called, I think we should wish to call it.

Would the Economic Secretary say what business is likely to arise which might justify its being called?

Passages from Canada (Sterling)

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he does not permit residents in the United Kingdom to pay in sterling for the passages in British ships of their children desiring to visit them from Canada.

This would mean foregoing dollar receipts by British ships, to which my right hon. and learned Friend can only agree if special circumstances are present.

Does not the Financial Secretary think that it is a shocking thing that a mother in this country cannot pay in sterling for the passage of her invalid daughter and young children to come home in a British ship, and will he not stop this reactionary and anti-social practice?

I certainly agree that it is unfortunate, but it is forced on this country by the dollar situation.

Would it be considered an exceptional circumstance if the relative in Canada were more or less destitute and could not afford to pay for the return to England while the relative in England could afford to pay the passage?

Oh, yes. That is one of the special circumstances and can be taken into consideration.

Surely, this is a matter of British ships and sterling? There is no question of dollars arising here, and why cannot sterling be used in British ships in cases of this kind?

A ship coming this way would earn dollars. There is only a certain number of berths on a ship, unfortunately, and if an individual is using a berth and paying sterling for it, he is denying it to someone else who would have paid dollars. Therefore, we should, to that extent, be short of those dollars.

Does my right hon. Friend really mean that only those with dollars can use British ships on returning from Canada to this country?

Anglo-Brazilian Agreement

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what agreement has been reached between the Bank of England and the Bank of Brazil to implement the revaluation guarantee contained in Article 12 of the Anglo-Brazilian agreement of 21st May, 1948.

The scope of this guarantee is clearly expressed in Article 12. The technical arrangements required to put it into effect have been agreed between the Bank of England and the Bank of Brazil, but it would be neither customary nor in the public interest to publish them.

Can the Economic Secretary say why it would not be in the public interest? It is a considerable liability to this country, and, surely, where we can guarantee to pay the depreciation of a particular account, this House should be informed of the terms of the guarantee?

It is only the technical arrangements for the guarantee which have not been published. We are conducting a large number of negotiations on these points, and it really is not in the public interest that they should be published to the whole world.

Will the hon. Gentleman say why? It seems a perfectly obvious thing to disclose.

Because we are conducting a number of other negotiations on this sort of point.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the anticipated drawings from sterling balances for the current financial year that will be allowed to Brazil under Article 19 of the Anglo-Brazilian agreement of 21st May, 1948.

No, Sir. Article 19 of the Anglo-Brazilian Agreement sets out the purposes for which we have agreed that Brazil may use her accumulated sterling balances. How far Brazil will do so, and over what period, depends on the intentions of the Brazilian Government. It is, therefore, impossible to estimate what drawings may be during the current financial year.

May I ask the Economic Secretary, first, whether in fact whatever money is released under Article 19 is in addition to the £10 million under Article 18; and, secondly, does he think it is correct, with the present housing shortage in this country, to release £250,000 in order that Brazil may have an Embassy?

The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes." I understand that it is an addition, but, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, it is not money for the purchase of British goods but for the discharge of various debt obligations and the purchase of properties, such as the Brazilian Embassy, and I think all must agree that the Brazilian Government must be properly represented in this country.

Is my hon. Friend telling the House that this discharge of debt obligations means that we pay interest on the sterling balances?

It does not mean that, but we are in fact paying interest at the rate of one-half per cent., as is shown in the Agreement.

Sterling Balances

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why His Majesty's Government proposes to regard releases from sterling balances to other countries for the purpose of working balances as not constituting a net liability to this country.

All sterling balances, whether released or not, constitute an external liability of the United Kingdom and it has never been suggested otherwise.

Why, then, did the Chancellor of the Exchequer give the figure of total releases of £82.5 million and indicate that that was the total liability on unrequited exports? Surely, these working balances are just as much a liability?

That is not quite what my right hon. and learned Friend said. He gave the figure of £82.5 million as the total sum so far released for current purposes, but that is not the same thing as the working balances.

Income Tax Arrears (Ex-Service Men)

59, 60 and 61.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he is aware that in 1948 the Inland Revenue claimed from Mr. Druiff, an ex-soldier, arrears of Income Tax for 1939–40 and 1940–41 amounting to £45 1s. 9d. and under what statutory authority claims are made for more than six years from the date of application;

(2) if he is aware that on 22nd April, 1948, the Inland Revenue claimed from Mr. W. G. Martin, an ex-soldier, arrears of Income Tax for 1940–41 of £14 os. 6d. and an underpayment of £12 15s. for 1941–42; and why the claim is being pressed without an answer being given to Mr. Martin, who has written on two occasions inquiring the authority under which the claim is made;

(3) if he is aware that in 1948 the Inland Revenue claimed from Mr. Leslie S. Martin, an ex-soldier, arrears of Income Tax for 1941–42 amounting to £39; and why the claim is still being pressed although it appears to be out of date.

The arrears in all the cases to which he refers arise under assessments which were made before the six years' time limit for making assessments had expired. I am advised that there is no statutory authority which imposes a time limit on the collection of tax assessed within the six years' time limit. The details of an individual's liability to tax cannot be dealt with by way of Question and answer, and I am therefore writing to the hon. Member about these three cases.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how it is possible for assessments to be made in respect of these soldiers who were serving from 1939 to 1945 in the desert, in the air, or on the sea? The actual fact is that, in all the cases, the claims were only made in 1948 when the men concerned learned of them for the first time.

It is difficult to discuss this matter during Question Time, but I can assure the hon. Member that these assessments were made before the expiry of the six years' limit.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that this matter was discussed at some length on a Motion for the Adjournment when I understood him to say that he hoped to be able to look into the matter and make a statement. Is he not yet in a position to inform the House whether a statement can be made?

If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look up that Debate again, I think he will find that I did not say that a statement would be made. I certainly undertook—and very properly undertook—to look into the cases brought to my notice, but no more.

Could the right hon. Gentleman now say whether a statement will be made, and whether it will be possible to make it before the Recess so that it can at least be discussed on the Motion for the Adjournment?

In view of the fact that during service these soldiers were entitled to hardship grants with which to meet their domestic liabilities, will not my right hon. Friend consider waiving the claims for this tax because they seem to be hard and burdensome on the men concerned.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Adjournment Debate already referred to, he gave an assurance that, so far as he knew, no claims going back for seven years were now being made?

That is true, but these are old assessments. I am advised by the Inland Revenue authorities that what I then said was true. [ Laughter. ] I have to take their advice; I do not send out these assessments. There is nothing humorous about that. I am advised that, although the assessments may cover past years, actually the claims do not go back further than the period I then mentioned.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to the point put to him by my right hon. and gallant Friend? He gave, I understand, an undertaking to look into these things. Does it mean that, at some stage, he is prepared to come to the House and make a statement on the Government's policy on the point? Does not he realise that the officials of his own Department regard these cases with considerable distaste?

Of course I cannot. These cases are individual cases, and vary from individual to individual. It is quite impossible for me or for anybody else to give a general undertaking about arrears outstanding by Income Tax payers.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a general answer on the individual cases?

What I will say is that my right hon. and learned Friend is very willing, on grounds of hardship, to see whether anything can be done to waive such claims for the tax outstanding.

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that a suggestion was made that for the small sums involved a ceiling might be introduced, which seemed a very reasonable administrative proposal. Does he not realise that hon. Members are continually receiving letters on this subject, and that some general ruling would go far to facilitate administration at the Treasury and relieve pressure on hon. Members?

Beaver Meat Imports

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what allocation of dollar exchange has been made available for the importation of beaver meat.

In that case, can my right hon. Friend explain how it is that dishes of beaver meat have been appearing on the menu of the House of Commons for the last week or so, having regard to the fact that beavers are only to be found, outside of zoos, on the American continent?

I am advised that beavers can be, and are, found on the European continent.

Is it not a fact that some beavers are to be found in certain constituencies?

Tourist Travel, Spain

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now has any statement to make on financial arrangements with Spain for tourists.

Yes, Sir. Spain was not included in the original list of countries to which tourist travel was resumed from the 1st May because of certain difficulties which arose over the operation of the Spanish Exchange Control. As a result of recent discussions with the Spanish authorities these difficulties have now been resolved and Spain will be included in the list. Details are being worked out and the date on which the arrangements will become effective will be announced shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this decision to make sterling available to the Spanish Government is in direct contradiction of the discussions which took place on the Marshall Plan when Spain was quite rightly excluded.

National Insurance Regulations (Publication)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the National Insurance (Transfer of Assets) Regulations, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 1408), was not published until after it had come into operation.

I regret the delay which was due to pressure of work at the printers.

Are not these cases of late publication becoming much too frequent, and will the right hon. Gentleman shake up the Ministries responsible, instead of allowing himself to be made the whipping boy?

War Damage Claims

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the War Damage Commission has refused to complete the war damage repairs to 27, Holland Road, Peverell, Plymouth, on the grounds that the application is outside the normal time limits for notifying the Commission, when the Commission has already done a part of the work and failed to complete.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave to similar questions on 20th July. I have asked the War Damage Commission to look into this case.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great amount of dissatisfaction that exists in all blitzed areas on account of the War Damage Commission, and will he make representations to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about the necessity for setting up a committee of inquiry into their work?

I am, of course, aware of the feeling which has been evinced from time to time in this House, and I will certainly convey to my right hon. and learned Friend the desire of my hon. Friend for an inquiry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everyone in the West Country feels very deeply about the gross mismanagement of this matter by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Statutory Instrument No. 1275

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what steps have been taken to see that everyone who obtained Order No. 1275 of 1948, the explanatory note of which was inaccurate, obtained also the corrigendum which was subsequently issued.

The corrigendum was issued to all known recipients of the Instrument, and was also notified in the Statutory Instrument Issue List.

Will the Minister really take steps to see that these explanatory notes do explain what the Order means, and will he see to it that whoever has to draft them understands the Order?

Regional Medical Officers (Superannuation)

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury why unestablished regional medical officers are denied superannuation benefits.

Superannuation rights are conferred by the act of establishment. These officers, who were over 50 years of age when recruited, were ineligible for establishment under current regulations. But as they were ineligible, they were granted immediate salary advantages over their colleagues, entering the salary scale in every case above the minimum and in some cases at the maximum.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the nature of these appointments required men with extensive experience in general practice; that the amount of salary he mentioned was due to that experience and was not received in lieu of superannuation benefits; and that the Treasury decision causes hardship?

My information is to the contrary; it is that they knew exactly upon what terms they were coming in, and they accepted them.

Representation of the People Act (Parish Councils)

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will issue a circular or pamphlet setting out those portions of the Representation of the People Act which relate particularly to parish councils.

Berlin (Soviet Note)

( by Private Notice ) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the Soviet Note concerning the situation in Berlin.

I am in close touch with the United States and French Governments on the Berlin situation and, in particular, on the further steps to be taken in the light of the Soviet Government's reply to our Joint Note. Our policy remains the same, namely, that, as Mr. Marshall said yesterday, we cannot be coerced and as soon as the technical difficulties which have prevented normal communication with our sector of Berlin have been removed, we shall be ready to discuss Berlin and other matters with the Soviet Government.

We on this side of the House, of course, will continue to give our support to the foreign policy of His Majesty's Government, but may I ask the Government—the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary—whether they will consider making some statement, necessarily in general terms, about the military aspect, because it is very important that the military aspect should not be out of line with the diplomatic procedure—

Would the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary make a statement on that subject, perhaps next week in the Debate on the Appropriation Bill? I should be glad to know, because we ourselves are taking some responsibility in giving this support to His Majesty's Government, and we should like to know that the whole aspect is being considered. Up to the present we have had no information.

Of course, the most careful and active consideration is being given to all defence matters, and I should be quite prepared to discuss with the right hon. Gentleman whether any statement could be usefully made next week.

Arising out of the Foreign Secretary's statement and the steps that are being taken, may I ask whether in the discussions it would be possible to discuss the reinstitution of the Four-Power Control and central administration of Germany?

We have been ready to discuss any of these problems with the Soviet Government. We did not end the Control Council; the Soviet Government walked out. We did not end the Kommandatura; the Soviet Government walked out. We were unable to continue the currency discussions because the Four-Power Council could not function. As soon as the agreements and rights of the Occupation Forces are re-established so that neither I nor any other representative of the Government will be meeting under duress to discuss these matters, then I shall be open to discuss any matter which the Soviet Government desires.

Further to the question put by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) and the reply of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that hon. Members on this side of the House are also concerned about the present international situation and the plans that may be made? Therefore, will he give an assurance that any information that is to be given either about the situation or about plans made by His Majesty's Government will be given not only to the Leader of the Opposition but to hon. Members on this side?

Before the Prime Minister answers that question, may I say that my request was for a statement to be made to the House? Of course, my colleagues and I are always at the service of the Prime Minister if at any time he wishes to summon us.

In this connection, is the Prime Minister aware that a great number of us are very concerned at the obvious deterioration of Western Union into a military alliance, and will he give us an opportunity to discuss that matter before we part for the Recess?

That question should be put to the Leader of the House. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) the answer I gave was in reply to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman as to whether a statement could be made on the defence situation. I said I should be prepared to discuss that with him. If any hon. Member also wishes to discuss whether a statement should be made, of course I shall be very glad to speak to him.

Is the Prime Minister aware that there is grave disquiet in this country at the belief that we are going to land in war, and has he considered the suggestion made in the leading article of the "Manchester Guardian" yesterday that there should be a Four-Power conference to discuss the whole relationship between ourselves and the U.S.S.R.?

On behalf of His Majesty's Government, I attended every meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers which has been summoned. I have not ended the Council of Foreign Ministers; none of us has. That still exists, and if the Soviet Government wish to discuss these things we are ready to continue discussion, but it is impossible for a self-respecting Government to sit down and discuss these things when their troops are cut off from normal communications and when 2½ million people are being used to put pressure upon them to come to a decision. Under those conditions, I am afraid that the ordinary normal arrangements existing between the War Allies cannot function. If what we were first told were technical difficulties, are now removed, and we have free access to our troops and to the people whom we have undertaken to feed, then nothing can stop discussions continuing at once.

Further questions will only aggravate a difficult situation. I cannot allow any more.

Business of the House

Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:

Monday, 26th July—Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Gas Bill, to the Representation of the People Bill, and to the Monopoly (Inquiry and Control) Bill.

Tuesday, 27th July—Supply (26th Allotted Day); Report. Debate on Rural Water Supplies until 7 p.m., and afterwards a Debate on Civil Aviation.

At 9.30 p.m. the Questions on outstanding Votes on Report will be put from the Chair.

Committee and remaining stages of the National Service Bill [ Lords ].

Motion to approve the draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Order.

Wednesday, 28th July—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. Debate on the International Situation.

Thursday, 29th July—Committee and remaining stages of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. Debate on Service Pay and Disability Pensions until about 7.30 p.m., and afterwards a Debate on Education.

Friday, 30th July—Motion to adjourn for the Summer Recess until Monday, 13th September.

During the week we shall ask the House to consider the Report from the Select Committee on the Revision of the Standing Orders; any Amendments to Bills which may be received from another place; and any other business which may be required before the Adjournment for the Summer Recess.

May I ask why so short a time is being given to the Debate on the Education Estimates? Is my right hon. Friend aware that we have hardly had a full-time Debate on education during the whole of this Parliament?

That is a matter for the Opposition. The time is at their disposal, and they have seen fit on two days to split the days into two subjects. I am afraid there is nothing that I can do about it.

The Prime Minister asked me to re-address an earlier question to the Leader of the House. May I, therefore, ask if he will give an assurance that we shall not part for a number of weeks without having some opportunity of discussing the latest moves in regard to Western Union—a statement or a Debate or both—since this is obviously deteriorating into a military alliance and is giving great alarm to ourselves and the country?

I cannot predict exactly the shape and the lines of the Debate on Wednesday, but my hon. Friend will see that there is to be a Debate on the international situation on that day.

May I ask a question with regard to the Debate on the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Order? That order refers to and in part relates to workmen's compensation schemes established by the National Coal Board. May I ask whether that order will be tabled before that Debate takes place, so that hon. Members can be acquainted with the contents?

The relevant documents are, I think, already available in the Vote Office. If not, I will look into it and see that they are available.

May I ask the Lord President of the Council when we are to be given an opportunity of debating the Report of the National Coal Board? Can he give an assurance that there will be the possibility of a Debate on this in the short Session in September, if we cannot do it before the Adjournment?

We had better wait until we get there. I did indicate that that Session will be devoted to another subject.

Is the Lord President not prepared out of Government time this Session, to give an opportunity to discuss the Coal Board's accounts?

Referring to the Debate on Wednesday, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether arrangements will be made to suspend the Rule that day in order to give a little extra time?

May I ask when we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy?

I had hoped, as I indicated, that possibly a Supply Day might be taken for that purpose, but it has not been, so I am afraid I see no immediate prospect of a discussion.

Does the Lord President accept that it is the Government's responsibility to provide a day for the discussion of the Coal Board's accounts?

I cannot do it. It is perfectly clear on this lay-out that if we are to adjourn by Friday, which I think is the general agreement on which we have been working, it could not be done unless it had been taken on one of those days in the nature of Supply.

Of course, I accept that on the present programme, but I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether, when we come back in the Autumn, it should not be the Government's responsibility to provide an opportunity for the House to discuss what, after all, is an industry under Government control?

I am not sure that is the right doctrine. We do not yet agree about the doctrine as to how these things are to be handled. We have got along pretty well up to now. [ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) should cheer up and not be so miserable and pessimistic. We shall be willing to discuss the matter through the usual channels.

Film Finance Corporation

As I have previously told the House, the Government have been examining the provision of finance for film production. The film industry, like other competitive industries, must look to the usual sources for its money, and must so conduct its affairs that it can obtain money on reasonable commercial terms. I am certain that the House, the industry itself, and the financial interests which will be ready to support it, will agree with this principle.

The present position is, however, abnormal for the industry and, in particular, the independent producers, who are building up their production and have not yet had a chance to establish the necessary working capital after the dislocation caused by the war. With my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I have been trying to arrange for the provision of financial facilities which will help the industry to overcome these handicaps. Difficulties have emerged, and, as a solution is urgent, the Government have decided to make special arrangements, and in due course to seek the approval of the House for the necessary financial provision.

Briefly, a Film Finance Corporation will be created, which will have at its disposal a sum fixed provisionally at £5 million. It will have power to lend this money, on reasonable commercial terms, for film production. It will not, in the initial stages at least, lend directly to producers, but to distribution companies who, in turn, will use that money to assist in providing finance for producers.

I am certain that this is the best method in present circumstances by which some central financial stability can be introduced into independent film production. Later, it may be practicable for the Corporation to help in financing other experiments in methods of production and distribution. I know that I can also count on the continued co-operation of the commercial banks who are already helping the development of an industry which has growing importance in our economy and our balance of payments.

The Corporation will have no power to own, lease, or build cinemas or studios. It will naturally conduct its affairs on business lines and will have the final decision whether a loan should be made to an applicant company, and on what terms. The Government consider that the Corporation's powers to lend public money for this purpose, which is required to meet the difficulties of post-war transition, should come to an end after five years.

The Corporation will be set up by legislation which will be introduced at the earliest opportunity. I am anxious that, meanwhile, the present plans for expansion should not be held up. Therefore, with the agreement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I am arranging, as an interim measure, for a company to be constituted, and for finance to be raised by Treasury guarantee under Section 2 of the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act, 1946, of £2½ million, which will, of course, be part of the £5 million of which I have spoken.

The necessary preparations will be put in hand by an Organising Committee. The Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation have agreed to release Mr. J. H. Laurie to act as Chairman of this Committee. I shall announce the names of the Committee within the next few days.

May I ask the President of the Board of Trade one or two questions about this matter? Does he consider that it is really treating this House with respect to pledge public money for so hazardous and novel an undertaking as this without any Parliamentary discussion? It is many weeks ago since he said that he would introduce, or was going to consider introducing, special financial arrangements for films. Why is it slipped in after Questions at the end of the Session when we are told there is no Parliamentary time for discussing measures of this kind, which are entirely novel in the field of public finance and raise many questions of procedure?

I would ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will tell us now, whether this interim arrangement will extend to loans against the total cost of production or whether only 75 per cent. is to be financed. I would like also to ask him to assure us that the arrangements by which this finance is extended only to distributors, and from them to producers, is only an interim measure, and I would further ask him to give an assurance that Parliamentary time will be made available for us to discuss this very new measure.

I have already told the House a number of times that I should have hoped that this essential industry—essential for our balance of payments—could have been financed through the normal channels but, in spite of the most intense efforts on the part of the industry and of the Government, we have not been able to obtain from the City the necessary financial assistance to enable the national film production business to go on. Therefore, an emergency has arisen. There is a grave danger of production, at least on the part of all of the independent producers, coming to a stop; in some areas it has already come to a stop. Therefore, it was essential for the Government to step in and do what the City could not or would not do. The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was the intention of the Film Finance Corporation to advance 100 per cent. of the cost of individual projects? The answer to that is that the finance of individual projects will be a matter for the existing distribution and finance companies in the industry, who will be given the working capital necessary to operate such a scheme from the Finance Corporation and on terms to be settled by the Finance Corporation.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that that is the reason, of course, why we feel doubt about this procedure? Here is a situation in which private capital thinks these advances are too hazardous, and in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to hazard public money. What we feel concern about is that that should be done without any opportunity for Parliamentary discussion. The excuse that this situation has only just arisen is, I think, very slender in foundation. Everybody connected with the film industry has known that this finance has not been forthcoming during the last 14 or 15 weeks. I must again protest at this lack of Parliamentary decision on so important a subject.

I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the degree of hazardousness of this industry. This industry is now producing for a safe and assured home market with a high quota, and no one in this House will deny the enormous contribution this industry is capable of making to the balance of payments. The inability of the normal channels to advance money for an industry which is very much in the public interest, an industry whose future position has been assured by various Governmental measures, is the thing which has driven the Government into taking what, I agree, are quite abnormal and emergency measures. We should have been failing in our duty to the House and the country if we had allowed film production to come to a full stop because the City of London and various people concerned were so mindful of their unfortunate pre-war experience of the film industry as to be regardless of the national interest at the present time.

Why is it that what the right hon. Gentleman calls "the City" will not subscribe the money? Is it some wicked scheme of theirs, or is it because they think that public demand will not be sufficient to sustain the profitable exercise of this industry? What is the reason why the City will not provide the money?

My answer to that is quite simple. The channels that normally provide the money were badly bitten before the war through lending money to certain individual undertakings on terms on which the finance corporation would not consider advancing money.

Are not the Government going to step in, without regard to any question of profit-making, and to invest national money, national funds, in what is, on the face of it, a losing adventure? Is this not a great departure in respect of what is not a necessity of life at all?

I do not accept for one moment the proposition that this is likely to be a loss of public money. This is an industry which, as I have said, as a result of various measures recently taken, can look forward to a long period of prosperity in this country. It is an industry whose development is absolutely essential if we are to solve our long-term balance of payments problem. Therefore, it does seem reasonable that the Government should exercise power already given to them by this House in order to make interim financial arrangements against the time when we can come to the House for full approval of the measures, which will, of course, at that time, be fully discussed by the House.

Why has the right hon. Gentleman delayed so long when the matter has been evident for several weeks—14 or 15 weeks have been mentioned—without giving us an opportunity of debating an entirely new departure, namely, the provision of money to keep particular enterprises going—[ Interruption. ] Hon. Gentlemen opposite had better let their own Minister answer and keep their mouths shut. There is no discipline. They want more discipline on the Front Bench. Why has this announcement been delayed until there is no time to discuss such a very unusual departure?

The House has already, on two or three occasions recently, discussed various aspects of film production, including finance. If the right hon. Gentleman had been present at those Debates he would have known the very full amount of time given to them. This is not an abnormal departure. Section 2 of the Act of 1946 was fully debated by this House before it was put on the Statute Book. As I have already made plain, this is not a provision which will allow public money to be put forward directly for individual film production. In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's question about the long delay of about 14 or 15 weeks, I would make plain that at various times during those 14 or 15 weeks—if that is the right period—it appeared likely that various financial institutions with whom we were in close touch were going to finance the industry. It is no use for the right hon. Gentleman to shake his head. It appeared likely. They finally decided at the last minute that the film industry was not one with which they would wish to be associated.

Is it not a fact that unless these arrangements were made we should not be able to fulfil in this country the new quota of films? Is it not also a fact that, unless we are able to fulfil the new quota by virtue of these arrangements, at the end of the agreement with America we should not be able to use our own film industry as the valuable dollar saver it can be? The reason why private enterprise has failed to put money into this industry is, that it has lost its old dash, verve and vigour, and has ceased to be enterprising, and refuses to take this perfectly safe step in an industry guaranteed by the Government, so that the Government have had to take the place of private enterprise.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to the question: When is the House of Commons to have an opportunity of discussing this very abnormal step?

I understand that; but when is the Second Reading to take place? May we have an assurance it will be in the September Session?

I have said that the Bill will be introduced at the earliest possible opportunity. The exact time when it will be introduced is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

While welcoming this necessary measure of first-aid which has been frequently discussed in Debates on the film industry, may I ask my right hon. Friend two questions about it? The first is: What steps are being taken to ensure that the finance provided through distribution companies will be advanced by them only to genuinely independent producers? The second is: What assurance will be exacted that the distributors will not only advance the money to producers, but, what is more important, also guarantee exhibition—and proper exhibition—of the films produced? That is really the first condition of that profit making which has been questioned by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill).

The matter of the terms on which distribution companies will advance money for individual production projects will be dealt with in the terms under which the Central Film Finance Corporation will advance money to the distribution companies. Clearly, those distribution companies, which exist for the purpose of providing finance as well as of giving distribution guarantees, would be unlikely to advance finance unless they were satisfied there would be full distribution of the films for which there were advances.

Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that now that the Government are definitely entering the film business with the taxpayers' money there will be no attempt at exercising political control, as, of course, is done in Soviet Russia, over the character of the films produced, in the interests of one particular party or point of view?

It was because I thought that such unworthy thoughts might occur on the opposite side of the House that, for a time, we used every possible endeavour to see that the finance was provided from private sources. I can certainly give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance he asks for, and I think that when he sees the names of the members of the Finance Corporation, which I hope to announce in the near future, he will be completely satisfied on the point he has raised. [HON. MEMBERS: "Jobs for Tory boys."] There is no question whatever of the Film Finance Corporation, much less the Government, attempting to interfere in the choice of subjects for films, and the matter of financial provision will be related purely to the entertainment value of the films which are to be shown.

In view of my right hon. Friend's last statement, may I ask whether Members on these Benches will feel equally satisfied? Will he make sure that the terms on which this money is available to distributors will ensure that it is passed on to the independent producers, and that adequate steps will be taken to see that they get a fair chance of exhibiting the films which they make?

I am sure that all sections of the House will be equally satisfied when they see the list of names. The whole scheme exists for the purpose of enabling independent producers to resume and expand production, so I can give the hon. Member the assurance which he wants. In terms of general consideration of distribution, we are shortly setting up a Commission of Inquiry into the distribution and exhibition of films.

Are we to understand that the distributors are to have the dis- pensing of this public money to the independent producers without at the same time giving a guarantee of exhibition?

No, Sir, I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misheard me, or that I did not make myself quite clear. Certain distributing agencies which exist for the purpose of providing financial advances to independent producers will be brought into this scheme, and it is very unlikely that any such organisation will advance money without at the same time advancing a distribution guarantee.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear a point of some importance. He has referred several times to the film industry in general and to the City declining to support the film industry. When he says that the purpose of the new Corporation is to support the film industry, does he not mean that it is only some companies in the film industry that the City would not support, and which he now proposes to support? Were these minor companies or large companies? I think that the House ought to know precisely the object of this endeavour.

I was referring—and I thought that I made it clear—to the whole group of independent producers outside the Rank organisation, which so far has been able to finance its full programme of production. Pretty well the whole of the rest of the industry is now facing a stoppage, unless financial provision is made available. The terms of the answer, I think, will leave it equally open to the Finance Corporation to finance those companies to which I have referred, or, indeed, the Rank organisation, if they so thought fit, and if they applied for such assistance.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of the total industry these independent companies represent?

I cannot give that answer without notice, but it is certainly a pretty high proportion.

Business of the House (Supply)

Ordered:

"That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock; and that if the first Three Resolutions proposed shall have been agreed to by the Committee of Supply before half-past Nine o'clock, the Chairman shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at half-past Nine o'clock by paragraph (6) of Standing Order No. 14."

Ordered:

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[ Mr. H. Morrison. ]

Orders of the Day

Supply

[25TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

Civil Estimates and Estimates for Revenue Departments and Supplementary Estimate, 1948–49; Ministry of Defence Estimate, 1948–49; Navy Estimates, 1948–49; Army Estimates, 1948–49; and Air Estimates, 1948–49, Progress

Rural Water Supplies

Resolved:

"That a sum, not exceeding £104,497,903, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Rural Water Supplies for the year ending on the 31st March, 1949, namely:

Civil Aviation

Resolved:

"That a sum, not exceeding £68,189,793, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services connected with Civil Aviation for the year ending on the 31st March, 1949, namely:

Class VI, Vote 16, Ministry of Civil Aviation

£17,189,783

Class X, Vote 1, Ministry of Supply

£51,000,010

£68,189,793"

Colonial Affairs

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £185,615,010, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services relating to Colonial Affairs with particular reference to Economic Development for the year ending on the 31st March, 1949, namely:

Class II, Vote 10, Colonial Office

£519,591

Class II, Vote 11, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

£1,987,896

Class II, Vote 12, West African Produce Control Board

£6,510

Class II, Vote 13, Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)

£3,060,000

Class X, Vote 2, Ministry of Food

£180,041,013

£185,615,010

Colonial Empire (Economic Development)

4.6 p.m.

I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be very grateful to those responsible in the Opposition and, above all, to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), for giving us this second opportunity to debate the affairs of the Colonial Empire. There is all too little time available to us, and, out of the few precious days in the gift of the Opposition, we have taken a second day this year on this subject. I think that both sides of the Committee hope that next year—if not next Session the one after that—His Majesty's Government may find time out of their innumerable days, to give us one day at least on Colonial affairs.

The great majority of us on this side and, I think, an increasing number of hon. Members on the other side, believe that on the proper and rapid development of the Dominions and the Colonial Empire depends our ability to keep the 45 million people in the United Kingdom, particularly after the end of Marshall Aid. We have within the Empire vast resources and equally tremendous problems, but I believe that if we go into this task in a proper manner, with good will on all sides, there is no reason why we should not overcome those problems and develop those resources at the same time.

Three years have already gone since the end of the war. The American Loan has gone, and we are now faced with some four years at the most in which Marshall Aid will be available to this country. Unfortunately, it is not possible, within the limits of this Debate, to include a discussion on the Dominions, but many of the principles to which I am about to refer do, I believe, apply to Dominion development as well as to the development of the Colonial Empire which comes under the Secretary of State for the Colonies. So far as I can see, the Government have at the moment no really great economic development policy for the Empire—a policy which, I believe, should always keep marching ahead of any Western Union development, however necessary and desirable the latter may be. It is absolutely vital that we should have a development policy to take care of those areas which are under our direct control and for which we can take decisions on our own.

This Debate is to be primarily economic, but I will start by pointing out and making clear some of the political premises which I believe are essential to rapid and proper economic development. As the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) said, when winding up his speech two weeks ago: "Today the British Empire is the only league of nations which has ever worked." I believe that is one of the great truths which we should always stress. With all its faults, I believe that the Empire has been in the past the greatest instrument for good that the world has ever seen. We assure three of the four freedoms of the Atlantic Charter, and as for the fourth—freedom from want—I think that we have done at least as well as any other country in developing backward areas. One criticism may be that we have done too well, and that the rise in population, owing to effective health and other measures, has increased the problem of raising the already low standards of living. I am sure that the attainment of this fourth freedom is only possible by the fullest co-operation between the British and the peoples overseas. I am convinced that further fragmentation of the Empire must be ruled out. We have seen enough of this breaking up, and we must face the future, as the right hon. Member for West Bristol has so often said, on the basis of "self-government within the Empire" for strategic as well as economic reasons.

Our political and economic aim, if not attainable immediately or even at an early date, should be the formation of the Dominions and the Colonial Empire into a great free trading area. That must always remain our aim. In the meantime, we may move towards it by such means as are at our disposal, which I will come to later on. Most economists whom I have had time to study in the last few years seem to agree that the economic strength of the United States on the one side, and of the Soviet Union on the other, is due to the fact that they have a capacity for producing all the raw materials they need virtually within their own economic frontiers; at the same time, they have populations of some 150 to 170 million to whom they can sell freely within one tariff wall. We must work towards such an ideal in the scattered territories of the British Empire and Commonwealth overseas; and I believe we can work toward this by a proper use of Imperial Preference, meanwhile keeping our sights on this ideal economic union, however unattainable it may seem at this particular moment.

On this political premise, I would point out that the United Kingdom, as the chief source—as it must remain for a long while, of capital goods for this area—cannot possibly afford to pour in either capital goods or capital, and as the years go on, we shall find that we have economic difficulties such as are arising in Burma, and even in Ceylon with the export tax on tea. We must make certain that the scarce capital goods which we are capable of producing in this country at the moment are made full use of, and that we do not put them in a place whence in a number of years we may find them taken away from us.

Based on this political premise I would put to the Government one or two suggestions for what I might call politico-economic action. At the very top level it is essential that the Government should keep the Geneva and Havana Agreements under the closest consideration as time goes on, to see what action to take when we are free once more to decide what we shall do. As things are developing, I must regretfully believe that we should not go the full length in signing those agreements; but I have not fully made up my mind at this stage; events move so rapidly now that we cannot see quite how things will shape. I, myself, support the ideals at which those agreements aim. At the same time, I think that at this moment it is premature to try to establish them and so tie ourselves up in difficulties of which we have not quite realised the full import.

I would point out in that connection that the Congo Basin Agreement affects a very large area of our overseas Empire, and in due course I hope and believe that the Government will bring this up with others interested to see if we cannot reach a settlement more favourable to this country which, in my experience, in the past has been the only country fully to observe this Agreement. In approaching our economic top level problems of this type, the United States will be only too willing to help. There again, there has been quite a considerable change of opinion in the last two years, and they now realise that we must have every possible assistance in order to re-establish our economic position.

The second suggestion I put to the Secretary of State for the Colonies is that he should consider regionalisation. Everybody realises that the day of the small unit, the small nation State, or whatever it may happen to be, is passing. We must aim at bigger units, particularly on economic matters. My personal view is that we should consider developing the system of having Governors-General or High Commissioners charged with certain administrative duties overseas. There is a very good working example of that at the moment in Mr. Malcolm MacDonald in the Far East. This could be developed in other areas: in East and Central Africa together, in West Africa—where a resident Minister did a very good job of work during the war—and also in the West Indies.

In some respects there may be difficulties, because it may be that territories out there come under different offices and different ministerial responsibilities in this country. But there again, there is the precedent of Lord Milner's holding of office as the first High Commissioner in South Africa after the South African war. By taking responsibility for more than one Ministry here in London, he did work which ultimately laid the foundations for the Union of South Africa. We could do a tremendous amount on these lines.

These Governors-General or High Commissioners, whichever they be called, should be charged with administration, and the legislative means to support them might follow afterwards as their work developed. Defence, external affairs, currency and certain economic developments—for example, communications— could be put initially within their terms of reference. These individuals would not be so very far away from us; at the farthest they might be some three days by air now, for there has been a very great speed-up since the years before the war, and so they could keep in constant touch.

I, myself, was taught that the first principle of administration ought always to be centralisation of policy and decentralisation of executive action. My personal view is that it would be better to carry this out by having these individuals overseas dealing with these problems from day to day at first-hand, rather than following the suggestion of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas), who advocates a Secretary of State for the African Colonies. I believe we need to get responsible individuals overseas, rather than extra people here in Whitehall. These Governors-General should be men of wide political and economic background of the type of those who went out to govern the Provinces in India.

I suggest to the Secretary of State that there should be held in London, to a greater extent than at the moment, regular meetings of Trade Commissioners in the United Kingdom, in order constantly to keep under review matters affecting inter-Imperial trade; not only for the specific projects of development, but also with a view to increasing preferences wherever possible and working towards our objective of a freer trade area. At the moment we may be precluded from increasing certain preferences, and I believe we should have a whole-time organisation charged with reviewing these preferences and working out adjustments for the benefit of all concerned.

Quite a lot could be done in improving the conditions of service in the Colonial Services overseas by bringing back to this country, after say 10 years' service, selected individuals for a year or two to inquire into modern, up-to-date conditions here in Britain, and to study at first-hand the best examples of industrial relations, trade union organisation, economics and so on, here in the United Kingdom. As the problems of the future overseas become more and more economic, it is essential that we should have there a group of individuals experienced in the best working conditions here in Britain. Incidentally, they might help in looking after the welfare of Colonial students, an increasing number of whom are at the moment coming over to the United Kingdom universities.

I must now turn to some of the more immediate aspects of development. Contrary to what we sometimes hear, the economic development of the Colonies did not start in 1948, or even in 1945. Hundreds of millions of pounds at 1948 values were spent in the Colonial Empire overseas in the last century or more, by many ventures of all types, and a great deal of their capital has been lost. I know, as director of a primary producing company, that a lot of our original expenditure 50 years or so ago was not only on experimental work on crops, and so on—much of which is now done by Government research stations—but also on roads, bridges and railways before the Government took over. A tremendous amount of work has been done in that way, and I do not think it is generally appreciated that all these overseas territories have been brought into the Pax Britannica by the enterprise of individuals. From now on, the task is one for co-operation between all: the British and the Colonial peoples, Government, Corporations and private companies, co-operatives and individual producers.

At school one was often asked, "What would happen if an irresistible force met an immovable object?" In these days the irresistible force is that of world economic needs, and the immovable object is indicated by the Fabian cry of "The Colonies for the Colonials." To those who advocate this theory and who advocate making it difficult for somebody, because his skin is a slightly different colour, to live in one of these overseas territories, I would point out that freedom of movement of people between these countries—including freedom of people to come to this country—has been one of the great strengths of the British way of life. There are territories overseas in which this cry is sometimes raised. Now that there has been a second, third or fourth generation born in these territories overseas, I would point out to some of these members of the Fabian Society that possibly they might not have enjoyed their present political and economic position and benefits in this country had that cry been raised by us here in the United Kingdom.

To come back to the irresistible force and the immovable object, I think the result is to be seen in the sometimes rather unhappy figure of the present Secretary of State who is now dealing more realistically with the problems we have to face from day to day. Many of us appreciate how he is grappling with these problems, and doing his best, with good results for the British and for the people overseas now that he is dealing with these problems first-hand.

I come now to the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates. Paragraph 30 states: Based on these quotations, I recommend an immediate survey of capital requirements, not only of the Government and of Government Corporations but also of private enterprise, for the next five years. I am not proposing to go into the details of the Report, because there are Members on both sides who know far more about this than myself, and who will have their specific recommendations to make. I give only two examples which have come to my notice, namely, heavy tractors and rolling stock.

So far as heavy tractors are concerned, I do not believe that private enterprise has been given its fair allocation for use overseas. I believe that if five or 10 or 20 per cent. of those 500 heavy tractors used on the Groundnuts Scheme had been spread more evenly over our Colonial Empire there might have been a greater return. I believe that this is one of the cases in which diffusion would bring more economic results. There are military gentlemen around who quote Clausewitz and talk about the necessity for concentrating our efforts, but by over-concentration we tend to get to those conditions which have existed in the port of Dar-es-Salaam in the last few months.

On the question of rolling stock, as pointed out in the Report, the Nigerian groundnut production has been up against the prestige of the Minister of Food. If there has been no diversion for political ends there has, at least, been proof that the system does not work properly. In the case of rolling stock I understand that the Government chief planner only heard about the Nigerian shortage a few weeks ago. In Rhodesia, I believe that if proper investigation had been made, it would have been possible to obtain supplies from across the Atlantic, from America or from Canada, which would have cost dollars, for delivery from 12 to 15 months earlier than those obtained in the United Kingdom, but in the intervening period this rolling stock could have brought out enough copper and chrome to have paid for itself several times over.

These are examples which have come to my knowledge of the sort of difficulties which have arisen through the lack of proper allocation of scarce capital goods. We must follow up what has been said in the Report, and divide our exports overseas into two groups, those to be used for immediate return, as it were, that is, consumption by territories overseas, also those to be used for capital investment for a greater return at a later date—consumer goods as well as capital goods. I shall refer in a minute or two to these territories overseas needing a higher proportion of consumer goods than we do in Britain.

I come now to American help. I believe it is generally agreed that it is a task beyond the industrial capacity of this country and of the Dominions to produce the capital goods required not only for rehabilitation in this country but also for carrying out development in the colonial territories and Dominions. The Government must encourage American participation. Indeed, they are bound to do so under the Marshall Aid Agreement. As was found during the war, I am certain the Government will find this co-operation most profitable to both sides. But the Government must realise that the United States will work through private enterprise companies, and equality must be given to British companies to carry on on the same basis. Government monopoly corporations must not be given an unfair advantage, as was the case in regard to the provision of transport in Tanganyika.

The second point I should like to refer to is a matter on which I spoke at some length in the Debate on Marshall Aid. It is that the Government should see to it that scarce Marshall Aid goods are made available to private enterprises as well as to Government monopolies. It is vital to the proper development of the countries overseas that private companies should also have access to these goods.

I wish now to put one or two questions of a specific kind to the Government. My first question is in regard to the Government Corporations. I believe that the function of the Colonial Development Corporation is to create conditions for the economy to operate properly and not to entangle themselves in the details of production. I believe that their primary responsibility is in developing communications—ports, railways, and so on. An example of that is the railway which is to run one day from Rhodesia to Kenya, that network of railways which must be developed for strategic as well as economic reasons. The Corporation should concentrate also on water for hydro- electricity, domestic and irrigation purposes. I believe that in certain projects which are of vital importance, such as the provision of fertilisers, where the installation is not an immediate economic proposition, the Government should come in and assist the enterprises which are carrying out such projects.

My next suggestion is that the Government should pay more attention to the research side by studying, for example, the Tennessee Valley Scheme and the plans of the Nile Projects Commission, and the work that has been done in studying these problems in the past 50 years or so. The overseas development which we are now contemplating will be based largely, I believe, on river drainage areas. These will be the economic development units, as it were. These are the two main examples—the Nile Projects Commission and the Tennessee Valley scheme—in which a tremendous amount of research has been done in connection with soil conservation, water power, irrigation, navigation and flood control. I believe that great use could be made of the experience gained by these experiments. Further, I suggest to the Government that they might find it worth while to investigate some aspects of Italian development in East Africa. One thing which the Italians did, which I do not think has ever been done elsewhere, was to get together automobile and civil engineers and build a road system and vehicles which would be mutually suitable That is the sort of co-operation which we must envisage in the future.

I would also ask the Government to concentrate on certain educational action. We must, for example, encourage the peoples of the Colonial territories to breed livestock for sale and for consumption, and not only for prestige and bride-buying purposes. There is a tremendous potential of cattle in Central Africa, Southern Sudan and Kenya, which might be developed by breeding to provide foodstuffs not only for this country but for the people of those territories. It needs, however, a major educational effort.

I wish I had time to say something about health and diet and the economic understanding which is essential as a proper basis for production, but I must turn to some actual production problems which exist in the overseas territories. They concern not only the production of food, but various primary products from the soil, and also minerals. Having been for some years a civil servant, and now being in commerce, I am convinced that the best type of private enterprise management can do the best production job, always, of course, operating under proper Government control. The problem in the '20's and '30's was one of over-production. I am convinced that, if given a fair chance and encouraged by proper Government action, private enterprise can do the job again.

I would like to put forward some of the problems that face private enterprise, and ask the Government to consider, here and possibly overseas, action which will make it easier for private enterprise to do its job. One of the problems which companies have to face is the familiar one of taxation. There is Colonial Income Tax and then they often have to pay United Kingdom tax up to 9s. in the £, and they also have to pay on distributed and undistributed profits. They have received few capital goods, little from the American Loan, and may receive nothing from Marshall Aid, and are not to be allowed to use any dollar earnings to buy the equipment which could make a tremendous difference to their own production.

There is also a feeling in certain areas about the insecurity of land tenure. If it is the Government's intention to take land away from certain companies to solve immediate political difficulties, I suggest that a solution of the soil erosion problem will not be assured. It is sometimes suggested that there is something disgraceful about having close European supervision, by Agricultural Departments of company overseers, but I do not think so. It is difficult enough for land to erode here, compared with land in Africa and other tropical territories, yet here we have accepted a National Agricultural Service and an increasing degree of Government supervision over our farming. If we are to tackle the problem of soil erosion and conservation with success, we must use every agency, not only through Government, but private agencies, to ensure that the land is properly cared for.

Another difficulty which faces companies are doubts over Imperial Preference. This is the best guarantee for assured markets and good competitive prices. My own view is that we may one day have to extend certain provisions of the Agriculture Act to cover certain primary products. The world food situation may grow as serious as all that. In the meantime, we must maintain and increase, wherever possible, Imperial Preference. For instance, it is difficult to expect increased production of tobacco if people overseas see His Majesty's Government "selling out" on Imperial Preference on tobacco, as they did in the recent agreement at Geneva. There are also some difficulties which face individual producers, European and Colonial. The European requires certain security of land which, at present, he is not quite sure about, and he also requires political certainty as to his future.

In one territory it was suggested that Death Duties should be levied at the same rate as in the United Kingdom. This means that a future settler will say "No, I will settle in a nearer Dominion, where there are not such heavy Death Duties." I think everybody is agreed that in the new overseas countries we need considerable capital formations. How can these be built up if Death Duties are levied at the same rate as in the United Kingdom? I feel that this may be a backdoor method of certain people to frighten away settlers from their territories in pursuance of the policy of "the Colonies for Colonial peoples only." Colonial peoples need many more consumer goods, relatively, than we at home. They have no successful savings movements, such as we had—at least until the introduction of the Capital Levy. Overseas, there is not the same wish to save, and unless the people there can get something immediately with the money they earn, they will not help to do the production job.

I ask the Government to study the working of the Sudan Plantation Syndicate. Nothing has been published about it since 1926, but I understand that a member of the Middle East Supply Centre did write a treatise on this subject, and I ask the Minister to place a copy in the Library, if it is not possible to make it available to individual Members of the House. I believe there is nothing confidential in it, and that when Members have studied it, they will agree about the working of this great experiment in mechanised agriculture and re-settlement. It embodies Government over-all control, private enterprise management, co-partnership and the private ownership of land, all on a profit-sharing basis. The principle of good husbandry was accepted there some 10 years before it was accepted here, during the war—when a farmer was dispossessed of his land if he did not farm it successfully. I believe that the final development of such schemes as this will turn into producer co-operatives, as the Colonial peoples are trained in management. It is an outstandingly good form of organisation where large-scale capital is required for irrigation, bush clearing or mechanisation, in cases when the speed factor is all-important.

The Government's task is therefore to give over-all encouragement to those who are trying to do the production job, by taxation and the other methods I have outlined, and to use the Colonial Development Corporation as an instrument with which to help create good conditions for production. If this is done, I believe that private enterprise can do the job, not only through private companies but also through private and co-operative producers, and semi-public corporations, on the lines of the Sudan Plantation Syndicate. A combination of all, given proper encouragement and inducement by the Government, would restore the flow of raw materials to this country in return for our manufactured goods.

I have stressed general principles, instead of offering criticism of specific projects, because the Government must make it clear, first of all, that on these issues, those engaged in doing a development job can feel that the Government in the United Kingdom supports them. If some confirmation can be given to them in this Debate it will result in a great surge forward of confidence and production in the territories overseas.

I wanted to talk about points such as marketing and over-production, but I am not proposing to take more than a moment on that. I believe we must assume that one day we will return to a policy of full production. I believe, however, that the era of cheap primary production is over, at any rate for the rest of our lifetime. The era of cheap primary production was in the later '20's and in the '30's, when we skimmed the soil and extracted the easiest of the minerals which were there to be taken. I believe that we shall have to pay higher prices for these products, which in time will be available in full production. But we are watching very closely what is to happen if, in conditions of full production, for example, the cost of production of oil seeds is going to be higher under a Government monopoly corporation, such as the Overseas Food Corporation, than it would be under a private company. Are those corporations going to be allowed to become bankrupt with the taxpayers' money, or are further sums going to be given to them as concealed subsidies? That is a point of interest and importance to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who wish to see these corporations made effective and efficient.

On the question of priorities, I ask the Government to follow up the suggestion made in the Select Committee's Report as to an investigation of Imperial priorities overseas. I believe that Jinja has a tremendous future. Whether its future is in the next five or ten years, or later, it is not for me to say because I have not got all the facts. I hope, however, that the Colonial Secretary will not allow some local enthusiasm to run away with a project such as this, if it is not in the immediate interest of the Empire as a whole.

So I should like to end by echoing some of the words used by the great Empire statesman, Mr. Menzies, when he spoke earlier this week. He said:

4.43 p.m.

We are glad that the Opposition have enabled us to have another day's Debate on Colonial problems, and we hope that many hon. Members who were not able to catch your eye, Major Milner, on the last occasion will be able to do so today. In order to enable as many as possible to take advantage of the Debate, I, for my part do not intend to speak at any great length. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) spoke of the vast resources of the Colonial Empire and of the tremendous problems which are ever present within it. I think that should be the key- note of the Debate and if we look at the whole matter objectively we shall have a really useful discussion this afternoon.

For our part we must immediately join issue with the hon. Gentleman. I personally do not believe that private enterprise was ever able to do the job of developing the Colonial Empire, and we do not believe that private enterprise would be able to do the job. That is the whole bedrock of our policy. The very examples which the hon. Member gave, such as the Gezira scheme, or the Sudan scheme, involved a very great deal of Government control, and Government resources and enterprise went into the development of those areas.

Yes, T.V.A. If the hon. Member would read a book written many years ago by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) when he occupied the post I now occupy and made a visit to Uganda, he will see some very interesting suggestions by the right hon. Gentleman. In that book called "My African Journey," I think in chapter six—it is a long time since I read it but I believe that is the chapter—he will find that the right hon. Gentleman said that the only way to develop areas such as these is by Socialism and that capitalism can never do it. Since then he has changed his party and possibly his views, but it is interesting to read what as a young, enterprising, vigorous, and imaginative man he thought of these matters.

Before we can get this Debate into perspective we must realise—I know many hon. Members do realise—the structure of the territories with which we are concerned. Some of these territories are vast and some very small, some are part of the great African continent and others are little islands in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean or the Caribbean Sea. Some are relatively fully developed like Malta or Cyprus and some are entirely undeveloped. Some have the worst pestilences and diseases known to mankind as well as some which seem to be very little known to mankind as well. Then there are differing social systems in this Empire, and we have a great variety of forms of organisation. Some of the peoples are in a very primitive state, such as those of Borneo, but whether they are any less happy for that is perhaps another matter. However, compared with the Western world as we know it, they are comparatively uncivilised, using that term in its common meaning. We have plural societies living at different levels, but in the same area. We have many political teething troubles in some of these territories which are only just appearing.

One of our great problems, which comes through the fact that private enterprise had too much to do with the Empire in the past and the State too little, is that we do not know what the resources in the Colonial Empire are. That, of course, is a matter which private enterprise was never able and never tried to investigate fully. Certainly trading facilities were developed. They were obviously certain known resources and the minerals were developed where they were pushing out of the ground, but where they were not obvious and where great capital equipment was needed, as well as a large amount of money which offered no immediate return, private enterprise was unable to do the job so that to this day we do not know what we have got in the Empire.

To remedy that lack of knowledge we are undertaking a large topographical survey by aircraft, with the co-operation of the Royal Air Force. We are having the whole of the Colonial Empire surveyed. We are also having geological surveys as well as tracings for railways and roads. All this has to be done to prepare for the blue-print stage. In the development of Central Africa practically nothing was done in the past so that now we have, for example, got to survey the course of the Katonga River, which will be a main artery for trade to the Belgian Congo and will open up the great lakes in the heart of Africa. We have a former colonel of commandos on the job and he took some other commandos out with him. The most extraordinary feature of the Katonga River system is that it flows two ways at once. It empties into Lake George and into Lake Victoria while at the centre of the river the level—I am not talking about depth now—the level is one foot higher than the level at the sides. This represents the sort of un- usual phenomenon we are up against. It gave the commandos something to think about, when they got to a river where the level at the centre was higher than at the sides. However, with their usual dexterity and resource the commandos are solving the problem and they have a good idea how to deal with it.

When was the idea of the development of the Katonga river first broached?

Like all these things, the idea is a very old one. The idea has been in the air for perhaps 50 years, but we are carrying out the idea.

When was the survey carried out? Will the hon. Gentleman answer that question?

I am sure of my facts that the Katonga river is now being surveyed. If there has been a survey before I am surprised that it should be necessary to have another, and all I can say is that it must have been very badly done. Now I should like to say something about the necessity for experiment. Ideas that work well at home here do not necessarily work well in Africa.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. We are in agreement for the first time. In Africa and elsewhere it is as well to have all our plans, and also the risks of failure, worked out before we start on a big scheme. That is what we are now doing throughout the Colonial Empire. We have a rice scheme in Borneo, and I hope we shall have similar schemes in places like Sarawak and West Africa whence a Commission of inquiry has just returned. In most cases we must have pilot schemes to try things out on a small scale, then when we can show the sound- ness of the schemes we can go ahead and work them out on a bigger scale. We have to remember that there is an unceasing war, not a cold war but a hot war, against pests, diseases, inertia, ignorance and malice going on all the time. I have already told the Committee something about the pests and diseases. [An HON. MEMBER: "Vermin."] That is a subject I will not go into now. One of the matters I mentioned was locusts, which are now practically cleared out of Africa. Then there are certain viruses also.

I should like to say a few words about inertia, ignorance and malice. I did not deal with this aspect of the matter on the last occasion, but those things are as difficult to overcome in Africa as they are in this country, if not more so. They are ever-present. Some time ago we started a very fine agricultural scheme in one Colony, on which a great deal of time and money was spent. The agricultural officer and the district officer spent six months on it and got it into a very fine state indeed. The people were very pleased with it. It was a help against soil erosion and assisted the fertility of the soil. In one afternoon, and in one sentence, a certain man who came along stopped the whole of that scheme, and six months' work was destroyed, through sheer malice and sheer mischievousness—in one afternoon.

In another place, we spent £121,000 upon a factory for the dehydration of vegetables. A promise was given that the factory, or the land, should be returned to the people, or that they should have the option of running the factory themselves. Just lately that factory has had to be pulled down, in spite of the fact that it was benefiting the whole neighbourhood and the whole of the people round about.

Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Karatina factory? If so, I think he is some way from the facts. The case is not exactly as the hon. Gentleman has put it. Is he aware that I met 6,000 of the natives there?

I have the full facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Let us hear them."] The full facts are what I am giving.

As the hon. Gentleman has made a series of specific charges, would it not narrow the field of suspicion if he would name the people and the factories in each case?

Yes, certainly. I will name them. The first was the Fort Hall scheme, and this one is the factory which which has just been named. In the opinion of the Chief Native Commissioner, the Provincial Commissioner, the Governor and the Colonial Office, it has been a most unfortunate fact that the people would not allow this factory to be used in some way.

I do, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will give the fact that it was the Kikuyu tribe, the Africans themselves, on whose property this factory was, who had it pulled down.

If the hon. and gallant Member will allow me to proceed with my speech, that is the very fact to which I am coming. [ Interruption. ] I did not interrupt the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to finish, I will give him the information. At the beginning, the people appreciated it and they wanted it to continue, but some other people with, I think, ulterior motives, got at those simple people and the factory had to be pulled down.

I cannot give way again. I am giving this as an instance of the way that ignorance and malice have operated and of how one is up against them, even when one is trying to do one's best for the people and trying to help them in every way possible. I do not want to spend the whole afternoon on the Karatina Factory which is only one example of what I have in mind.

If the hon. Gentleman is able to catch the Chairman's eye I have no doubt that he will be able to make his point later. I mentioned this matter as an example and I do not want to spend the whole afternoon on it. I wanted to show what we are up against, and one of the difficulties which hon. Gentlemen, particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite, do not always realise.

For many years past it has been the policy of successive Governments to hand over political responsibility to the peoples of the territories and there has been a steady march to self-government. That principle has been enunciated time after time by Ministers standing at this Box speaking for successive Governments. It is very difficult to pursue that policy and, at the same time, to have the tight and rigid control from Whitehall, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Banbury this afternoon and which, to some extent, is suggested by the Select Committee's Report. In other words, you can hitch your wagon to a star or to a steamroller, but you cannot hitch it to both.

We have to recognise the fact that the Colonial Office are very often not in a position to insist upon many things. We can suggest to many of the Colonial Governments, advise them and help them, but in many instances they have the final word and if they do not take our help and advice, there is very little further that we can do. Once it is realised, that it is not really possible to have a tight, Whitehall control and, at the same time, have an ever-increasing devolution in the Colonies, then we can see exactly where we stand.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is need for a balance between the economic and the social factors. He mentioned that in some instances we have, as a result of our health services, seen an increase of the population. That is perfectly true, and like him we recognise the need for a proper balance between economic and social welfare. In other words, it is no good giving a man the best possible hospital treatment for a broken arm if he starves when he goes outside. Not only must we have the medical services—I am all for hospitals—but we must have a proper economic plan as well, and that has never happened in the past. That is what we are trying to achieve and that is our whole purpose. We want to raise the standard of living and in order to do so, we must increase the productivity of the soil, bring new areas into cultivation and develop all the resources, and we must also get the full co-operation of the people by letting them understand exactly what we are doing.

All the time there is the difficulty of achieving a balance between self-government and tight control. We have taken steps to get a system in Whitehall which will ensure as far as possible that we can give the necessary assistance and guidance to the Colonial territories. I do not agree with Paragraph 31, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Banbury, which says that there is no coherent strategy of economic planning. We have a very definite strategy and we have also a general staff. We have an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the Chief Planning Officer which sits constantly and considers all the economic problems of the Colonial territories in the light of the problems and in conjunction with the efforts of this country. The committee has been considering many things. It has considered steel, finance, and technicians, and the whole range of colonial products and the necessities of the Colonies comes under its review. On the question of steel, in the October-December quarter, the Colonial territories will get roughly 100 per cent. more steel—that is unfinished and semi-finished steel—than they have been getting.

When my hon. Friend talks about the Committee being under the chairmanship of the Chief Planning Officer, does he mean the Chief Planning Officer of the Planning Board of this country or the Chief Planning Officer of the Colonial Office?

My hon. Friend said that the allocation of steel is to be doubled. Is there a specific allocation of steel for the Colonial territories generally?

Yes, there is a specific allocation, and the allocation is to be nearly double what it was before.

For some considerable time. All the time there has been a certain allocation. We have now doubled the allocation.

There is an increase of 18,000 tons a quarter. On the question of steel, the root of the whole Colonial problem, is that before the war the Colonies used to get roughly 50 per cent. of their steel from the United Kingdom and the remainder from other sources, including Germany and the like, and the trouble is that nowadays they cannot get that 50 per cent. or so from Germany and other countries. That is why they have been so extraordinarily short. The new allocation is a very substantial contribution by His Majesty's Government. It has had to come out of some projects here, and the Colonial Office feel very grateful to the other Departments for meeting them in this matter. It will be of the very greatest value to the Colonial territories.

We have a very much greater amount of consumer goods than we had in the past. There have been set aside 100 million yards of unprinted cloth from Japan, most of which will go to the Colonial territories. The Colonies have been asked to budget and to let us know how much of that they want, and several have done so. About 50 per cent. of it will be printed in Lancashire and about 50 per cent. will go to them as unfinished cloth. The difficulty today with regard to consumer goods is not so much quantity as type and price.

There is also the problem of technicians. We have done everything we possibly can, and the Ministry of Labour have been extraordinarily good. We are in constant touch with them and they are helping us in every way to get the technicians which the Colonies want. Lately we have circularised the Governors asking them to let us know exactly what they want and instead of going through other channels, and we shall probably get what they want from the Ministry of Labour.

The hon. Member for Banbury asked me about various supplies, including tractors. We are doing something, about which he did not know and which he accused us of not doing, in relation to the need for tractors. We have found out the total colonial requirements of tractors, amounting to 4,500 wheeled tractors and 3,000 crawler tractors. There is not much difficulty about wheeled tractors and we can get them all right, but there is a difficulty over the crawler tractors because in the past the heavy ones have not been made in this country. However, we will do everything we can to help the Colonies obtain the tractors and they will be able to obtain them from the United States for dollars where that is absolutely essential.

We have a scheme of priorities. Paragraph 23 of the Report seems to suggest that we have not got a scheme of priorities, but we have. There were some different views as to whether or not we should have a tight and close allocation of steel, but we thought that it would be creating a horde of civil servants and we also thought that the steel industry is such a very complicated one that it would be better to do it in a rather different way. Therefore, although we have fairly closely allocated structural steel, we are not doing that in the case of semi-finished steel. Instead we give guidance to the manufacturers, and they generally observe the guidance and co-operate very well. With regard to raw materials and finished products, if any one in the Colonies asks for help over a really urgent problem, we help them to get the raw materials. We have certain projects in mind and priorities are being given to them. Without prejudice to such schemes as the development of Jinga, in which we are very much interested, our object at present is as far as possible to build up existing projects, particularly existing railways, before embarking on vast new schemes.

As to marketing policy, in Africa we have set up and are setting up boards to cushion the inevitable slumps and booms which fall upon the primary producer with such tremendous weight in the capitalist world. These include the West African Produce Control Board and the Cocoa Board, and they have been set up with the object of establishing funds so that they can relieve the primary producer of his liability to be swamped should prices turn against him. The Cocoa Board in particular has very substantial funds. It uses some money for research and some is used—or will I hope be used—to compensate those who have to cut out trees because of swollen shoot disease.

The Under-Secretary referred to some of the surplus of the Cocoa Board being used to compensate those whose trees had to be cut down. Is there not also available another fund of £8 million?

We are probably talking about the same fund. The £8 million was part of the accounts of the Cocoa Board. As far as I know that is the fund out of which it is proposed to compensate owners of cocoa trees for the loss of their trees. I do not know of any other fund out of which they can be paid. There is a further problem here—and it is another reason for a marketing policy and the mopping up of some of the surplus from the very big prices now being paid for primary products such as ground nuts, palm oil and cocoa—that is the effect of high prices on the inflationary tendency. If too much money is put into the country without goods also being put in, there is a tremendous inflationary tendency, and we have found that in West Africa already.

There is yet another problem connected with this. Although it may be desirable to have high prices for consumer goods to mop up a surplus, low prices are an incentive to production, so that we are between the devil and the deep blue sea. I think, however, that the best way of dealing with the inflationary possibilities is the one we have adopted, namely, to take the surplus and put it into a fund which is run by a board set up by the Government and which is retained and used for the benefit of the primary producers. I think that is about as good an approach to that difficult question as one can make.

In the Colonial Office we are always trying to meet the difficult circumstances of the day, and to effect the necessary reorganisation. Recently we have reorganised the office to a considerable extent. We have enlarged the Economic Departments, the organisation of which was published in today's HANSARD in reply to a question put to my right hon. Friend yesterday, and we have a tie-in, as it were, through this office to the machinery of the Central Economic Planning Staff. So the Committee can be quite assured that the planning of His Majesty's Government is in line with, takes full account of, and is aware the whole time of the needs and requirements of the Colonial territories.

We realise that we are living in a changing era when there are difficulties and problems such as probably no country has ever had to face before, and we realise the necessity for planning ahead and thinking ahead. We must have clear planning and clear thinking. We also realise that it may be necessary to make further changes in the structure of the office to meet the conditions of the post-war world, to meet the threats that are ever present in the post-war world, and to carry out the task which is imposed upon us. We are always conscious of our task, we are often made conscious of our defects, but we do our best to carry out the duty imposed upon us, not only by the people of this country, but by the 60 million fellow citizens of the Commonwealth in the Empire abroad whom we represent.

Before my hon. Friend sits down, I wonder if he will say a word on the part that air transport is playing in the Colonies in the movement of personnel, spares, vehicles and food?

I understand that my right hon. Friend will say something about civil aviation, and I shall ask him if he will deal with that point.

Before calling upon the next speaker, in view of the large number of hon. Members who have indicated their desire to take part in the Debate, may I express the hope that those who are fortunate enough to be called will be as concise and as short as possible.

I am fortunate, Mr. Beaumont, to catch your eye so early today, having tried in vain during the whole of the previous Colonial Debate. I am rather sorry that the Under-Secretary in his most interesting discourse on this question dealt with it at the beginning very much from a political point of view. I think we all realise that this is a great national problem. We have our responsibilities as a nation, and it is most unfortunate when the subject is dealt with from a partisan point of view.

But may I tell the hon. Baronet that I did so only because the hon. Member who opened started off in that vein.

In spite of what the Under-Secretary says, it is to be presumed that, as he is the Minister, the example should be set by him.

It has been my good fortune this year to visit two important Colonies, East Africa and Malaya. I propose to devote the few minutes at my disposal largely to Malaya because I knew that country well in pre-war days, and I arrived home only last month after a most interesting visit. As the Committee will know, Malaya has been developed largely by private enterprise, and now it is one of the most important dollar producing countries forming part of the Empire. The rubber production of Malaya last year was higher than immediately pre-war. The dollar value of the rubber produced in Malaya amounted to some £60 million, which the Committee will realise is a very important contribution.

During my visit I motored the length of the country, staying at isolated estates, right up through Central Johore and North Kedah Perah, right up to Penang, through some of the most unsettled places. There was very little in the Press of this country during my visit about the possible lawlessness which we might expect in the near future, but it was quite evident to anyone on the spot that we were on the brink of a volcano. There was grave intimidation and fear on the part of all sections of the community, and it was only a question of when the top would blow off the bubble. Although during my short visit I met only a limited number of people, of those whom I visited, four have been attacked since my return. In two cases men were absent, fortunately, from their bungalows when bandits arrived with Sten guns prepared to shoot them up. Another man was not so fortunate and was wounded, and the fourth man I visited has been murdered.

There was every indication when I left that that type of life was to be expected in the near future, so it has been no great surprise to me to see what has happened in the last month. There was every indication that the civil population, the Chinese in particular and to a lesser extent the Malays, were terrorised and intimidated in many ways. They were so frightened that in most cases they would not give evidence in court because they knew by the experience of others that, if they gave any evidence, it probably meant death for them, and a very unpleasant death at that. I was told of Chinese rubber estates which had been occupied by bandits in different parts of the country. The authorities took no steps to restore them to the proper owners and in most cases the Chinese owners were so intimidated that they dare not give evidence themselves or take up their own cases.

Now that in a British Colony is a pretty bad state of things. About a year ago there were a large number of pirates up and down the Malayan coast. For a long time it was most difficult to ship the most important copra crop from the Bernham River to Penang because no insurance company would cover the risk. They knew the chances of the copra getting through to Penang were so small that they considered it a bad risk from their point of view. They were quite right. It is amazing that that could happen two years after the end of the war. Conditions have improved since then, but it still goes on to a limited extent. Where murders have been committed by bandits and the culprits have been caught, in all too many cases a short term of imprisonment was imposed and little or no further action taken. The sentences were all too light. The Chinese bandits recognise only force, and since the occupation, force has not been shown to them. It is for that reason that we are faced with a very ugly situation today.

There is a question I should like to put to the Under-Secretary. The police authorities of the Malayan Federation and Singapore Island are two different bodies. It is easy for bandits to flee from the Federation, across either the Causeway or the small stretch of water between Malaya and Singapore, and so evade the authorities. With two police authorities in control it is very difficult to secure justice easily. It would be infinitely preferable to have one police authority over both Singapore and the Malayan Federation.

There is every indication that the Minister either did not know the seriousness of impending events or shut his eyes to them, but to those on the spot it was clear that something serious was about to happen very quickly. It was not a question of small gangs of bandits out for a bit of fun, loot and shooting; it was definitely something which was very well organised. As the Committee probably knows, towards the end of the war arms and ammunition were dropped to irregulars in Malaya to help our troops when they arrived. The bandits of today are the irregulars of yesterday. They were never required, but still have their arms and ammunition. In some places they have taken the law into their own hands and are shooting for loot, for gain and, I suspect, in some cases for fun. Advantage was taken of that position by Communists from outside and there are indications that the two forces united and worked very well together. The brains and organisation come from outside and local toughs are provided, unfortunately, with munitions and weapons from originally Allied sources.

I feel that the Colonial Secretary must bear a great responsibility. He must have known what was going on; if he did not he was very badly informed. He should have taken far more adequate action at a much earlier date. Everybody I spoke to in Malaya predicted what was coming and it seems only the Minister was taken by surprise. One suggestion which I should like to make is the possibility of getting the help and co-operation of the Malays. The Committee will remember that the feelings of the Malays were very hurt after the war, largely owing to the unfortunate visit of the MacMichael Commission. That Commission has been neither forgiven nor forgotten in their eyes. A large majority of Malays are undoubtedly very pro-British; they are most anxious to help and the Colonial Secretary could make far greater use of them by securing their co-operation than he is doing at present.

I cannot allow this attack by the hon. Baronet on either my right hon. Friend or the Malays. At present the Malays are bearing a great part of the brunt. They form the Malay Regiment, comprise the greatest proportion of the police and have been recruited as special constables. They are doing everything they possibly can to assist us and, as far as I am aware, we have their full confidence. It is quite unjust of the hon. Baronet to make this attack upon my right hon. Friend.

I am casting no aspersions whatever on the Malays, who are anxious to help much more than the Minister will give them an opportunity to do. I am suggesting that the Minister has not taken as full advantage as he might of their co-operation, which is very willingly offered.

I should like to turn now from the political to the economic side. We have seen the tremendous shortage of world fats, the beginning of the large groundnuts scheme and the necessity for encouraging the growing of fats in all parts of the world. I suggest it would be much more appropriate to grow alternate vegetable oils to groundnuts, and in other parts of the world. It is known that the expected output of groundnuts will be about 800 lb. per acre in the East African scheme and that 45 per cent. of that weight can be expressed as oil; so that the net amount of oil per acre, if the scheme is successful, is perhaps 3½ cwt. for two consecutive years, when the land has to be left for a year under an alternate crop.

Copra, however, would yield probably 10 cwt. of oil to the acre and oil palm probably one ton of oil to the acre. Obviously, crops vary in different parts of the world, different climates and different circumstances, but I think that those comparisons of 3½ cwt. of groundnuts oil, 10 cwt. from copra or one ton from oil palm are fair, general comparisons. The Colonial Office should encourage the growing of copra and oil palms rather than the groundnuts schemes. The only drawback is that these tree oils take longer to come into production than do groundnuts, but there is every indication that private enterprise in many parts of the world—West Africa, Malaya and the East for example—would be anxious to take advantage of any help they might receive to increase the supply of oils.

I happen to know something about this because I have interests in Malaya, and, having travelled there for many years, have come into intimate contact with these matters. In speaking of copra in Malaya I am reminded of something rather in- teresting which is now happening. There is a free market for copra in Singapore, where the price is about £90 a ton. The price in the Malayan Federation—onjy a few miles away—is about £70 per ton; that is the internal price. About 50 per cent. of the copra which is exported has to be sold to the Ministry of Food and 50 per cent. can be sold in the open market. The result is that most of the copra is bought by Chinese dealers in the Federation. They get a permit to export 50 per cent., then smuggle out the remainder and sell it at the world price, to make a very handsome profit.

The methods now in force encourage smuggling, which is not good for the dealers or the Ministry of Food. It is certainly not good for this country because we are not getting the copra which we are entitled to expect. The output of Malaya amounts to some 15,000 tons a month, a large part of which used to come to this country in pre-war days. As the Ministry of Food give approximately half the world price for copra, a large proportion is smuggled out and sent to Sandinavian countries at the full world market price. If this country were willing to pay the world price for copra, undoubtedly we could get much more from there and it would encourage the growth of further supplies in the future.

I have some knowledge of merchanting in Singapore as I was there as an interested party, and I will give some examples which came to my attention but with which I am not commercially interested at all. There seemed to be unlimited dollars for the purchase of goods in Singapore. In answer to a Question yesterday I was told that 960 new American cars were imported into Singapore in 1947. It is largely unnecessary to have American cars in that market because the roads are some of the finest in the world and British cars could be used satisfactorily. One can go into a shop and buy a car almost at a moment's notice and I was tempted to buy one to bring home. It seems to me unnecessary to give such a large allocation of dollars for the purchase of only partially necessary cars.

It is the same with the importation of textiles. Before the war most of them were supplied from Lancashire or Japan. Naturally there has been a shortage in Singapore since the war and they have bought large quantities from the United States of America for dollars. The result is in many cases a surplus of textiles in Singapore and many American goods are sold at a loss. That is the result of a temporary shortage of textiles and over-ordering from too many different sources. If there had been adequate foresight and planning such a situation would have been avoided. I believe that while I was there the authorities in Singapore were asked what proportion of Marshall Aid they would like and the indication was that they would be treated very liberally. I suggest that although Malaya is a great dollar producing country and should be dealt with generously and liberally there is a reasonable limit beyond which Malaya and Singapore have been allowed to go.

I wish to ask a question about the new Colonial Development Corporation. I should like to know whether it has been allotted a certain amount of money and asked to get on with development as quickly as possible, or whether before each project is sanctioned, it is necessary to come to the Colonial Office, the Treasury or some other authority for sanction. One of the great drawbacks of Government corporations is usually the slowness with which they work. I should like to know how this Corporation is working.

The Colonial Secretary has a very great opportunity in colonial development at present. There is a great shortage of agricultural produce, especially tropical produce, which coincides with an increasing population and an increased standard of living demanded by most people. Those things are all happening at present and I believe they have never happened before. That throws a great responsibility on the Minister and on this nation to develop our Colonies properly. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take advantage of the opportunity which offers and will spend wisely, efficiently and well.

5.35 p.m.

I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Eddisbury (Sir J. Barlow) that it was true until recently that there was inadequate control of dollar expenditure in certain of the colonial areas, but I believe that a great deal has now been done to put that right. I am sorry that British car manufacturers do not find it possible to develop a model suitable to the needs of the colonial territories. If that were done it would be much easier for saving of dollars to take place.

Malayan conditions and roads are so good that many British models are admirably and perfectly suited to that particular market.

Yes, but that is not true, for example, of West Africa. The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), who opened the Debate, and who I am sorry to see is not in his place, gave me the impression that the Conservative view of the Colonial Empire has not changed very much from the bad old days. The whole of his speech was devoted to a plea that the ring should be kept open for private enterprise, but we on this side of the Committee strongly agree with the Under-Secretary of State that in the past private enterprise failed to do the job and certainly cannot tackle it on an adequate scale today. The Under-Secretary of State made some remarks about the question of central economic planning. He referred to the recent reorganisation in the Colonial Department, the tie-up with the Central Economic Planning Committee, the allocation for steel—which, I understand, is a very new system—and the tightening up of priorities for the colonial territories. We all welcome those steps, which are very much in the right direction.

Hon. Members on this side of the Committee who sat on the Select Committee on Estimates recognise that great steps have been taken in the Colonial Office in recent months to get this machinery of economic planning right, but we were convinced at that time that there was still a great deal of re-organisation needed, and I am glad to hear from the Under-Secretary of State that steps are being taken in the direction we proposed.

The situation of colonial development is not a happy one at present. For the first two years of operations under the 1945 Act, out of an estimated expenditure of more than £16 million, only £8 million have in fact been spent and gradually year by year the estimates of expenditure have fallen. Even so, the expenditure has not kept up with the estimates and at the present rate of progress only a little over one-third of the £120 million of the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund will be expended at the end of the 10-year period. That is a serious situation in view of the tremendous need for this type of development in the Colonial Empire.

My hon. Friend is making an interesting point but the fact is that one-third only will be spent if conditions are as they are now. If it so happens that materials become easier and supplies much greater than now, a much greater percentage may be spent.

I appreciate that and we very much hope that such a development will take place, but as a set off against that I would remind my hon. Friend of something else; that is, that the original costed development plans are now out of date because costs have been rising considerably. Take Nigeria, for example; the original 10-year plan was estimated to cost £54 million but now, in the opinion of the Economic Secretary of that Colony, it will cost £65 million to complete. The recurrent costs on the Nigerian Budget have risen from the original estimate of £3,500,000 to £6 million, so that although we are hoping that there will be an increasing momentum there are also other serious financial points arising.

The second main feeling I have about the development plans is that, so far, they have failed to capture the imagination of the Colonial peoples, and that is a very serious handicap indeed. When we visited Nigeria and spoke to representatives of African opinion, time and again we were asked "What is happening to these development plans?" It is true that they are laid before the Legislative Councils and Houses of Assembly and that the local politicians have some chance of being informed of what is taking place. But there is inadequate consultation with the main economic groupings in the colonial territories. I would like to see, for example, for more done to bring the trade union movements, co-operatives, African merchants and other economic groupings into active participation in the planning of economic development. I believe it can be done, and if it is done it will do something to disperse the suspicion which now exists in large sections of African opinion.

Having said so much in criticism of the present system, I would add that it is a vast improvement on anything that went before. Until four or five years ago there was no planning machinery for colonial economic development of any kind. The rôle of colonial government in this country in the past was to preserve order and allow private enterprise to get on with the job of the economic exploitation of the territories. In the 'thirties the revenues of our Colonies, largely dependent as they were upon customs and excise duties, fell disastrously. In Nigeria, for example, the whole revenue of that Colony of 20 million people was less than £6 million a year. The Government service was reduced, the statistical department was wound up as an economy measure, there was no help whatever from this country. The result was that any hopes we had of developing our colonial territories went completely by the board for a whole decade and we are now far behind. There is still widespread illiteracy, poverty and disease in West Africa and our other colonial territories.

The Under-Secretary asked whether it was possible to reconcile central economic planning of the type indicated in the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates with the development of political freedom and self-government in the Colonies. I believe it is possible to reconcile these two. I believe that the nationalist movements which are arising in our Colonies are themselves most desirous of seeing economic development go forward, of getting greater industrial expansion and making it possible to raise the standard of living of their people. After all, we in this country are at present getting into close economic planning relations with other independent countries in Western Europe.

My complaint is that there is not, or at least until recently was not, any machinery for economic planning between this country and the Colonial Governments comparable with the kind of machinery now set up, for example, in the continuing organisation for European economic co-operation. If we can have mutual economic planning between independent Governments in Europe, it should be possible to have mutual planning between this country and the colonial Governments.

A plan is required which will make it possible to raise the level of agricultural productivity in the Colonies and, there- fore, to release the surplus labour which is necessary if secondary industries are to develop. In Northern Nigeria, for example, we need the establishment of a groundnuts crushing mill, which would make it possible for by-products, such as cake, to go towards the feeding of cattle and stock which can be developed in that area. All that kind of planning has to be done and can make possible great steps forward.

There are, broadly speaking, three types of colonial development which are at present required. The first is the large-scale type of development which is envisaged by the Overseas Food Corporation and the Colonial Corporation, working with the African populations, using cooperative and communal farming methods to improve production there. The second need in the colonial territories at present is mass training of the colonial peoples themselves at all levels—the artisan level and the technological level—and also higher technical training. The third need is for a vast expansion of what has become known as communal development.

I have already discussed the question of tightening up the central planning of large-scale development. Let me turn to the question of training colonial manpower. There are, at present, fewer than 3,000 colonial students in this country and nearly 500 of these are reading law. What the colonial territories need is not more lawyers but more technicians, more doctors, more engineers, more agriculturists, etc. The Nigerian Government are giving only 40 scholarships this year. In the whole of West Africa, so far as I am aware, there is only one medical school which is turning out fewer than 10 doctors a year. Those are the problems which have to be tackled.

The Under-Secretary talked about inertia. We have to tackle the problem of raising the productivity of the African. Not enough work has yet been done to find out what lies at the base of that inertia, how far it is due to malnutrition, to the lack of basic education which makes it impossible for the African to absorb the technical training we wish to give him, or how far it is due to poor technical methods being handed on from one African to another, and deteriorating as they are passed on. We desperately need a skilled manpower survey of the whole field. A great imaginative step has been taken in Nigeria. A committee has been set up with an African majority to review all the scholarship and training schemes in order to estimate what can be done to train Africans to take part in the senior service. A similar plan is also needed at a lower level for artisans, technicians, commercial staff, etc. We need a vast number of medical assistants, sanitary workers, midwives, agricultural assistants, etc., and these are not being trained at present.

In a situation of mass illiteracy, it is, in my view, better to educate thousands of Africans under trees than to train a few hundreds in elaborate and expensive buildings. Our colonial development scheme has got stuck because our standards have been too high. In this situation we have to be prepared to improvise. Seventeen per cent. of the development plan in Nigeria is going on building and a high proportion of it is devoted to roads. Buildings and roads are excellent in their way, but they are not the Select Committee on Estimates there where at least a higher standard of living has been built up than in West Africa, roads are far inferior to those in Nigeria. We could slacken off a little on high-class roads and get on with the more basic tasks.

The third type of development concerns the question of mass education or communal development. In the Report of the Select Committee on Estimates there is a short description by the district officer of Udi of what can be achieved without over-elaborate materials and with very little money indeed. If we can get the enthusiastic co-operation of the people behind us, what can be done in one district can be done on a vast scale in many districts, if we are prepared to bring Africans in on the ground floor.

One final point on the question of private enterprise: I believe that we have to face a very difficult psychological and political period in Africa in relation to private enterprise, which has done, and is doing, a big job there. There is no doubt that the first thing that strikes one on a visit to West Africa is the tremendous bitterness existing among the local population, and among many Europeans as well, against the big European monopolies which dominate the whole economy of that territory. The United Africa Company is blamed for many sins which it commits and some that it does not, but it is a problem which is holding back the building up of good relations between the Africans and ourselves in that territory. It is natural, when there is a monopoly controlling about 60 per cent. of the buying and nearly half of the merchandising in the Colony that there are bound to be pointed questions asked about it. I would advise the United Africa Company, in its own interests, to take certain steps which would allay the bitterness felt towards it at the present time.

There is the question of the mineral royalties. The United Africa Company is entitled to receive 50 per cent. of the mineral royalties in Northern Nigeria under an agreement dating back to 1899. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, defending in the House the agreement with the Royal Niger Company, used these words:

5.53 p.m.

The hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) called in question the Conservative point of view of the Empire, but I would remind him that if it had not been for various Conservative-minded individuals from Drake to Rhodes, working on principles of most extreme private enterprise, there would have been no Empire at all. I also suggest to him that when he thinks back over the years he might remember with some sense of shame, the disparaging speeches which have been made by him, and by so many of his colleagues, regarding the Empire. It has always been the custom of his party to run down the Empire, and it is very refreshing to us on this side of the Committee to hear really good Empire speeches coming from the other side of the Committee.

I believe that the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend now at last have the interests of the Empire at heart and that they are doing their best. Not that they are always able to be successful. I was very tempted the other night to vote against E.R.P. I felt that it was just one more milestone on the road from Bretton Woods through the Havana and Geneva Agreements to multilateral trade and the destruction of Empire Preference. It is an astonishing thing that our friends the Americans should still so dislike our Empire and want us to do away with our Empire Preference, but we have to face the fact that they do. They certainly do not want to take over the Empire, and it is obviously in their interests to see a strong British Empire in the world as it is today. I think that it must be some sort of hang-over, like the hang-over that some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite experience when they refer to children who go to school without boots and shoes—

to brutal employers and child labour and to other scandals of mid-Victorian days—

We have to face that fact and it is all the more necessary that in these days we should do the best we can to bring our Empire together in 90 per cent. economic co-operation. The Russian Empire is compactly organised and forced into united effort by political and physical sanctions of the most extreme kind. The United States of America are compactly organised and commercially inspired into united -effort by all the great incentives £ private enterprise. We on our part, with our widely dispersed Colonies have to get them together, both with ourselves and with the Dominions, by using the material of the Commonwealth in the best possible way, and particularly by trying in every way to increase Imperial good will.

With this end in view, I would add five suggestions to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) when he opened the Debate this afternoon. They may not be new but they were discussed by me with various colonial and Union friends on a recent trip to Africa. I suggest to the Under-Secretary that the Dominions be encouraged to take more interest in the Colonial Empire and more responsibility. It was suggested to me at a dinner in Johannesburg that it would be a very good thing if each Dominion were allowed to subscribe one civil servant to the civil establishment of each Colony, and that the Governors of the Colonies should more often be appointed from the Dominions. It was also suggested that it would pay the Colonies, and indeed the whole Empire, if Dominion politicians, when they travelled in the Colonies, were allowed free travel. I think the whole idea behind those suggestions is a good one, and I ask that they may be put forward to the proper authorities. There is no doubt that the fact that the Colonial Empire is there as common property amongst all the nations of the British Commonwealth constitutes a very important part of that cement which holds the whole show together.

My second suggestion is that we should keep the Empire better informed of what is going on here. I suggest one matter to the hon. Gentleman about which he might do something straight away. The cost of sending the ordinary weekly newspaper to most parts of the Empire is from 3s. to 4s. To send "The Weekly Times" from London to Nairobi for instance, costs 3s. That is much too expensive and it means that a great many people do not have these periodicals when they might and ought to have them. It is absurd when one considers that the air freight rate is 6s. a lb. and that the postage rate at 1s. per half ounce works out at 32s. per lb. I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should get together with the Postmaster-General and see whether something can be done about it.

In passing, and while I am talking about the Press, I would refer to an omission on Wednesday morning which might be classed as inertia and ignorance, though probably not malice. We had in the Caxton Hall on Tuesday night a big Empire meeting with Mr. Amery, a great Empire figure in the chair, and Mr. Menzies, another great Empire figure, giving the main speech. There was a long row of reporters but one opened one's "Times" and one's "Telegraph" and one's "Daily Herald" on Wednesday morning and found not a word of report. That happens nearly every time and is typical of what goes on in this country and of the lack of interest taken in the Empire. I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman can do anything about it in the absence of newsprint, but I think that it should be remarked upon in this Committee.

Thirdly, following what the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said this afternoon about the new Film Finance Corporation, I suggest that something might be done about Empire films. Even in these days, the Government might manage to subsidise Empire films. America has put over her history and the lives of her great men and the development of her industries in feature films—not documentary films—in the most amazing way. We have never taken any trouble about that. We could produce the most wonderful films which would have excellent educational value not only in our own Empire but in America.

At a Communist meeting the other day I listened to a gentleman running down the Empire in the usual way and referring to the luck which the Burmese have had in throwing off our yoke and pushing out the British intruders. A film would put right that sort of impression in no time by showing the sort of intruders that we really are—intruders who have died in their laboratories while endeavouring to save millions from death and disease; intruders who have built dams and irrigated deserts in order to feed millions of people over vast areas—by showing that our sort of yoke has given far more than it has received. If we would only put money into films of that sort, it is probable that we would reap such dividends that everybody would consider that the money had been well spent.

My fourth suggestion is that the Minister should try to encourage civic ententes between the different parts of the Empire—between Salisbury, in Southern Rhodesia, and Salisbury in England, between Johannesburg, if I might go out into the Commonwealth, and Montreal, and so on. There could be special hours given to them on the Imperial radio for serious discussions and messages such as we had during the war. There could be civic visits and a general bracketing of interest between different places in the Empire, in the Commonwealth and in the home country. All these suggestions were made to me by various people in the Empire during my recent visit.

Finally, I ask the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend to get busy and begin to organise another Empire exhibition in this country, a really first-class exhibition on the lines of the Wembley Exhibition after the first world war. The Wembley Exhibition got the Empire together so well and improved Empire relations so much, that we were able to get through the difficult years that followed. We should stage such an exhibition now and perhaps also have an Empire business conference—not a political conference—with business men, farmers, newspaper men and advertising men from different parts of the Empire meeting in the Albert Hall for two or three days.

If we could combine a conference and an exhibition of that sort, we might be able to revive Empire interest in this country and mutual interest between parts of the Commonwealth in the most amazing way. I can assure the Under-Secretary that if he and the Secretary of State put in a lot of work on this suggestion and we come into power before they have actually completed the arrangements," we will go forward and make a success of it for them. I hope that my suggestions, which are all from overseas, will be considered, and perhaps answered to some extent, by the Secretary of State when he winds up the Debate.

6.5 p.m.

I do not think that we on this side of the Committee ought to leave any doubt in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Totnes (Brigadier Rayner) that we have not changed our views with regard to the Empire, and that our enthusiasm for our own policy does not alter our opinion of the policy of the party opposite. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has assured us that if he is given an opportunity, he will carry on the policy of the present Government with great enthusiasm, but I must point out that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), when he opened the Debate, outlined a very different policy impelled by very different motives.

I am glad that we have had this Debate today because I hope that it has brought out the fact that there is not unanimity of opinion in this Committee on Colonial policy. The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) last week gave an eloquent, moving and statesmanlike speech in which he urged that Colonial policy should be above party. I hope that he will carry on the work among his own party of inducing them to accept the views which he so eloquently expounded. I was very disappointed to find that evidently he had wasted his time as far as the hon. Member for Banbury was concerned. It is deplorable that the policy of the Government at this difficult time should be put in jeopardy by an hon. Gentleman who gives a series of very wrong reasons for supporting it.

The hon. Member for Banbury started off most unfortunately, I thought, by de claring that the purpose of the Colonial Empire was to feed the 45 million people of this country after Marshall Aid had come to an end. That is a most disastrous thing to say. After all, there are a lot of other people in the Commonwealth who eat a great deal less than we eat. Their first aim is to raise their own standard of life, and we have declared that we intend to do that. That we should be undermined by suggestions from the opposite side of the Committee is most unfortunate. Next he went on—more or less as an aside, but I took it down—to say that perhaps we had done badly—

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), I suggest that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Parkin) has misinterpreted what he said. He said that in return we would send them things they required for consumption in the Colonies.

That may well be so, but we are discussing the sort of policy which will enable us to keep in contact with these Colonial peoples and enable us to develop trade with them. I am anxious to point out certain defects in the policy of the party opposite which have been shown in the past and which have brought about disaster and will bring further disaster if they are allowed to develop.

Does the hon. Member forget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech in Hull in 1936 suggested that the British Empire should be liquidated? Has the hon. Gentleman entirely forgotten that?

I remember very well indeed the conditions which led to the making of that speech and to the formulation of the policy of this party to combat the influence of the party opposite which has been disrupting the Empire. Wherever we go we find traces of the disruptive influence of the policy of the party opposite which we have now to combat. It was the chief speaker for the Opposition in opening this Debate who made the declaration which will do so much harm. He said that we had done too well in introducing health measures. Those were his words. He went on to say that we cannot afford to pour out capital goods without some guarantee that we shall get our money's worth. He wanted fair shares for private enterprise of any aid which might come from America. He wanted Colonial Development Corporations to do all the preliminary work and then to stand back while private firms made a profit.

Then he said that he wished to deal with production problems. I listened and I hoped that we should hear something about the Colonial people. But no, his whole stress was on the chances to be given to private European firms. The first thing for which he asked was that they should not be taxed. There was not a mention of the Colonial people or of bringing them in. It was the European private firms who were to be helped by having taxes lifted. The next thing he wanted was security of land tenure for private enterprise firms working in different parts of the Empire.

The hon. Member threatened that the soil would be eroded unless there was security of land tenure. We have seen the soil erosion which is the result of primitive methods of cultivation by primitive people. We have also had soil erosion in this country and in the Empire, as a legacy left behind from the grasping, short-term methods of capitalist exploitation. The hon. Member further asked that Death Duties should be lessened and he declared that private enterprise should do the whole job. There was no reference to the populations of the Colonies, except in the form of a sneer at the policy of the Fabian Society, and the remark that we might have done too much for the health services.

I want to draw out and make finally clear the difference between this side of the Committee and the other, in our approach to development planning in the Colonial Empire. The underlying fault of the other side, their weakness and the reason why they have not got near to a solution of the problem, either abroad or at home, is that they have never considered the people as the chief resources of a country, either in this country or abroad. That is why their first stage is economic development every time, followed by a phase of pity and charity and benevolent squirearchy. They start doing some slumming. We get a few visits abroad, but unfortunately the same people do not also make visits at home.

Then we get a phase such as we had after the report of the Royal Commission on the condition of the West Indies. Everybody was moved with horror at the conditions, and started a series of schemes in a benevolent, paternalistic way. The first thing that happens to those who make these discoveries is that they think it is impossible for any profound improvement to be made in a generation. They are apparently quite ignorant of the sort of progress that has been made in this country in a generation, with exactly the same problems. I was amazed again and again in Nigeria to find that devoted and hardworking officials seemed to think that the problem they had got in Nigeria could never exist in Great Britain. It is said: "How could people who have been born in mud huts emerge in a generation?" Well, a lot of people were born in Cardiganshire in mud huts in our time and were brought up to speak a language which was not taught in the schools.

We have had the same problem of detribalisation of working and agricultural people, through the economic influences that were at work. We have witnessed tuberculosis sweeping through the people of Wales as it is sweeping through the peoples of Africa. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is still there."] As my hon. Friend says, it is still there. Some experts tell us that we cannot get people back on the land, but we have gone through that problem also. Farmer's sons have wanted to leave the land and go into professions. That is one of the problems in the Colonies. The nicest of all those who spoke to me, was, I think, the gentleman who said to me: "You have no idea of the difficulty of carrying out a coherent and constructive policy of development when most of the Press is against you." So much for the conception of Colonial development, based on an attitude of pity and paternalistic planning.

The swing over is to highly scientific economic planning. The Under-Secretary pointed out—and my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) has replied to him—the difficulty of reconciling plans for Colonial independence with plans for integrated economic development. There again, the difficulty is that some people regard close, scientific economic planning as a rather improved form of exploitation, or as the Tory Government's whips replaced by the Labour Party's scorpions. There is a great deal in that criticism but, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, there is not the slightest reason why free and equal discussion and integrated economic planning, which can be carried out among the countries of Europe, cannot also be carried out among the countries of the Colonial Empire.

After all, we are a nation of shopkeepers. I do not claim any novelty for this point of view; it is not even the Fabian Society who thought this one out. We based our policy, before the most rapacious period of capitalism, on the principle that we wanted to keep the other fellow in business because our prosperity was dependent upon the prosperity of the customer. Our own mercantile law has been much more tolerant and human than some of the criminal law in its endeavour to rehabilitate a man when he has gone wrong and to keep him in production and in business. Let us not be afraid of going to this discussion with our fellow citizens of the Empire on equal terms, after examination and inquiry in the first place.

In this report there is a very interesting document on the mineral resources of Nigeria. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] Yes, but the question is whether that document would ever have seen the light of day if the Select Committee had not asked for it. What is to prevent a similar document being issued, frankly laying before each of the Colonial peoples the possibilities of industrialisation in their own country? A scientific report on mineral resources gives us the straight answer: "Certain things are possible in the short term, others in the long run and certain things can be done right away, for the following reasons." What prevents us from expounding those facts? Is it a guilty conscience about royalties? Perhaps we do not want to talk about mineral resources because of the sad story that my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton has already unfolded.

If we can convince our fellow citizens that we are sharing the knowledge and the "know-how" with them to develop their own resources, we shall see a decline of the number of those law students. There are 44 practising barristers in Lagos. Why should people all be quarrelling about the ownership of their filthy slums? Might it not be better to encourage the students to devote their intelligence to agriculture, to get back on to the land, which is the first requirement, and after that to develop secondary industries which we can show them how to do? That is the fundamental changed outlook which is required in the approach to development planning, and which is hinted at in the Report. It is not yet understood by the party opposite, but I hope it will form a part of our bi-partisan policy, which the right hon. Member for West Bristol expounded last week.

6.15 p.m.

I am very sorry that the last speaker thought it necessary to bring party politics into the Debate. I listened very carefully to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) in his opening speech and I could not see anything of a party nature in it. I entirely agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) the other day, that we should develop the Empire properly in the future side by side with each other, leaving a right for either side to criticise the other if it thinks the other lacks firmness or decision or manages badly.

I could say a great deal more on that aspect of the matter, and a little more about what the hon. Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) said about private enterprise, but the time is short. I would only say to both those hon. Gentlemen opposite that if they knew the history of the development of Africa a little more they would know that the development was not hampered by private enterprise but by three causes. The first of those causes was the demand for raw materials; in other words, private enterprise, or whoever it was, only developed the raw materials for which there was a demand. Before the war, nobody would ever have thought of a huge scheme like the groundnut scheme, because in those days the supply of vegetable oils was ample. It would have been lunacy for anybody, whether the Government or a private firm, to go into a scheme of that sort.

Another reason, perhaps, why we did not go so fast as we might was because the policy was "Africa for the Africans," and, possibly, "by the Africans." There was a great deal of feeling and a great deal of agitation in those days over what was called the exploitation of the African. This agitation, to a certain extent, may have hampered development. In my opinion, however, the delays in development were largely due to the Treasury at this end. Every Colony was treated as a separate entity, and everything depended on whether a particular Colony balanced its budget. If it did, I am afraid that complacency was the result, and nothing was done; it was left to the Colony to get on as best it could. An example of that was to be found in several of the Colonies in the West Indies. The other result was stagnation.

It so happens that a short while ago I was able to travel through Southern Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland and Tanganyika, and the difference between them was extraordinary. In Southern Rhodesia there were good roads, good bridges, and even a reasonably good telephone service. But when one travelled in the Colonies under the Colonial Office, one found awful communications and a feeling of inertia, quite different from the energy, initiative and inspiration displayed in Southern Rhodesia. The reason for that was not due to the people on the spot. I met a large number of officials who were all trying to do their best. I would say that the fault lay in the system at this end; that the red tape held by the dead hand of Whitehall was largely responsible for the completely different feeling which one experienced in our Colonies as compared with Southern Rhodesia.

Would the hon. and gallant Member say who was in charge of the dead hand of Whitehall at this period?

I am not discussing the past at all; I am discussing the present, and trying to look into the future. That is the position at the present moment. I should like the Colonial Secretary to appoint some quite independent people to look into the present system to see whether the control and centralisation in Whitehall is for the good of these Colonies.

I do not agree with what the Under-Secretary inferred—perhaps I got it wrong—when he said that the Colonial Office left much to the decision and action of the people on the spot. I got the idea, all the time, that questions, even of minute detail, were being sent back for decision in Whitehall, and that the people on the spot wanted to be free. Therefore, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury that there should be some way by which these far-away places can be relieved of a great deal of the control from London.

If I correctly understood the hon. Member for Banbury he wanted more control from here; he wanted a representative of the Secretary of State in each of these regions which would mean, in fact, much more control from here.

I think that what he meant was that if there was a kind of Governor-General for the various groups of Colonies, he would be able to decide on a great many matters of detail put to him on the spot by individual Governments.

I now want to touch on a matter of rather local interest although it is of some importance—the matter of boundaries. I could say a great deal about the boundaries between the different Colonies, but I am only going to discuss, for a moment, the question of amalgamation between Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. What I am about to say has nothing whatever to do with the discussions in the Press about the fusion with Southern Rhodesia, or a federation between Southern and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Nyasaland is the Cinderella of Africa. It is a most lovely country, and a breeding ground for the best labour in Central Africa. That may sound the wrong way to put it, but hon. Members will know what I mean. From Nyasaland, hundreds of Africans go down to the Union and to Southern Rhodesia. Nyasaland is a backwater; it is a small country and has a population of only two million Africans, and about 2,000 Europeans. Up to now it has been completely isolated, access being possible only by railway from Beira.

It has exactly the same problems as Northern Rhodesia, the same agriculture, and, in fact, everything which entitles it to be linked with Northern Rhodesia. If this were done, the result would be a sizeable territory inhabited by 24,000 Europeans and about 3,500,000 Africans. Politically, economically and ethnologically amalgamation is justified. Nyasaland would not be wiped off the map because obviously Northern Rhodesia would have three provinces—Western, Eastern and Nyasaland Provinces. What would Whitehall say to that? Would they say, "Oh, no, we cannot have that; we want to keep Nyasaland as a Central African Liberia," or would they say "We cannot do that because we have physical assets at Zomba, the capital?"

Zomba is a beautiful place, a very sleepy hollow, and would make an ideal health resort in lovely surroundings with trout fishing on the mountain, big game hunting, and so on, just what the people of Johannesburg would like as a rest cure. Moreover it would be very good for them. It would not be impossible to make Zomba into a tourist centre. An official residence could be provided for the Governor of Northern Rhodesia when he came from Lusaka, only two hours away. It could be near to the aerodrome and near to the chief towns of Blaatyre and Limba. Amalgamation would mean the gradual elimination of the Governor, the Chief Secretary, the Minister of Agriculture and the Attorney-General, a large number of senior people, who, I am sure, hon. Member would consider to be quite unnecessary for such a small country. All I would ask is that the Secretary of State should appoint a committee of three completely independent people to discuss whether there is any just cause or impediment why these two countries should not be joined together in a sensible amalgamation.

I turn from a particular Case to the large problem which is before us. I am dealing only with Central and East Africa because I know it best. The problem is, how are we to develop East and Central Africa? The hon. Member for Banbury spoke about American capital. Ever since 1882 it has been possible for nationals of any country to come into the Congo Basin area and develop it. Few have done so. However, if one wishes to develop the country there must be some inducement. What inducement is there for American capital to go into Africa at the moment? When I was in Victoria, Australia, I found a wonderful scheme of irrigation at a place called Mildura. There, in 1890, a grant was made to two brothers of 200,000 acres with the option of another 100,000 acres on condition that they spent about £250,000 on an irrigation scheme. That was their inducement for spending this large sum of money.

If we could think of some such scheme by which outside capitalists of all sorts could go to Africa to develop it, that would be quite satisfactory. However, I would point out that all this is quite different from the development of the raw lands of Canada or Australia, because in Africa, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Parkin), there is the African population to consider, and I would at once disabuse hon. Members of the idea that we on this side of the Committee have a different view about the African population from the view of hon. Members opposite. We must all appreciate that the African population have a long way to go, and we must help them as best we can to travel along that long road to what we call civilisation. Obviously, as they are partners with us they must help and work.

That brings me to the most difficult problem which we face at the moment, and that is the development of Africa for the purpose of growing food. I was horrified the other day, when I put a Question to the Secretary of State, to learn that in 1946 Northern Rhodesia spent £21,000 buying maize from the Belgian Congo and £142,000 in 1947. They also spent—and this sounds absolutely ridiculous—£50,000 buying maize from the Argentine. I am sure that the absurdity of that state of affairs will be apparent to every hon. Member. Here is this colossal country, with great potentialities as a food-producing country, and it is not able to support itself. When one deals with East and Central Africa, one is dealing with a million square miles of country, with a population of about 16 million Africans and 50,000 Europeans, but it is the 16 million Africans of whom I am thinking principally. How are we to bring them out of their primitive agriculture so that they can grow food not only for themselves but for the rest of the world as well?

The hon. Member for Stroud spoke about making the masses understand. That is exceedingly difficult. How can they understand the urgency of this food growing problem? When I was in Northern Rhodesia I discussed the possibility of growing food on a large scale, and I have an idea that something of this sort is being considered by the very active and go-ahead Government there. The proposition that I discussed was that we should erect large granaries in the middle of the native area. At the moment, there is no inducement for the African to grow food 300 miles from a railway and bring it in to sell it. It usually has to be carried on the heads of women, and naturally they do not carry it farther than they can help. Therefore, it is essential that we should try to introduce to the people the means of growing food and selling it. Naturally, this involves the building of roads and great grain stores, but when all that is being done we shall have to see how we can persuade these people to develop the production of food in the best possible way, so that the supply of food will be increased. I am afraid it will take us a very long time.

The hon. Member for Banbury referred to a scheme like the Sudan plantations—an excellent scheme which might easily work, but it would take years to put that idea across. Or one might have the collective farm scheme which I have seen in Central Asia. It seems to work, and certainly produces a great deal. Here again, we have to persuade these very primitive people—because very few are educated— that these schemes are to their own advantage. Failing that, it might be advisable to introduce some large scheme of mechanisation such as has been started at Kongwa. Anyhow, I put forward the suggestion for what it is worth.

Whatever we do we must realise that it will be necessary to have some form of direction and control. A Bill is being introduced in Southern Rhodesia to promote good husbandry. Obviously, we should have to do the same and we should have to be very strict about the use of land; I do not see why we should object because, after all, it was only last Monday when we passed a Bill affecting ourselves in the same way. We might have to direct labour. We might even have to move populations, and we might gradually impinge on indirect rule, which is the method of government employed in so many of these places. I only mention this matter because I want hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to appreciate that there will be protests from people in that country even if the case is put to them in the most tactful way, and we must be prepared not only to be able to answer these protests but to support the right hon. Gentleman when he tells the local administrations to be firm.

Lastly, I would say, as I have mentioned before, that what we must work for is a great partnership. But the Africans must also realise that in a partnership everybody must work. We must gradually teach them to work and do everything we can to help them. I would simply say, in conclusion, that there must be many alterations in the methods which have been practised in the past, and if we are to have a new deal we must be prepared to alter our policy.

6.41 p.m.

There is something rather melancholy in the fact that, not having spoken for some time, one finds oneself engaged in a Debate where it is necessary to limit oneself to a speech of very short duration. I will try my best to keep within the confines of a constricted period—with great regret on my part, though no doubt with great satisfaction to others.

There seems to be a great desire on the part of some hon. Members opposite that we on this side should confess ourselves to be completely at one with the rest of the hon. Members of the Committee. I am indeed grateful that one of my hon. colleagues has made it quite clear that there is a gulf between us on this side of the Committee and those on the other side. That is not to say that the gulf cannot be bridged. In fact, this very book itself, the Report from the Select Committee, is one of those bridges, and we know on both sides of the Committee, with all our grades and shades of opinion, that it will perhaps enable us to find some common meeting place.

Perhaps one may best sum up the attitude of at least some hon. Members opposite in a phrase which I heard in this House of Commons two or three years ago, when a Conservative Member referred to the Colonies as "Our Imperial Estate." I think that is symbolic of a certain attitude of mind. It implies that we own these colonial areas and own them for our own benefit; and indeed, I must say, the first speaker from the other side this afternoon seemed at times to stress the advantage of the Colonies to this country rather than to recognise the intrinsic need of the peoples in those Colonies themselves.

For my part, I believe the Socialist attitude to the Colonies is not that they are "Our Imperial Estate," but that they are the homeland of the people who live there. It is, of course, our obligation, seeing that we have politically inherited these various territories by various means—some questionable, some otherwise—to do our best for those who are in those areas to make their homeland all it should be. That does not mean, however, that we are content to assume that for all time these peoples must be our subordinates, existing for our purpose and for our needs. Apparently, there are some hon. Members on the other side who feel that the alleged statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago, to the effect that he wished to liquidate the Empire, was something derogatory or something from which he has now departed. On the contrary, I think I am right in saying that many hon. Members on this side do want to liquidate the Empire as an Empire, in so far as it means domination over other people. We want to see the emergence of a Commonwealth; we want to see a steady rise of the peoples in Africa and elsewhere until they can be fully and completely free partners with ourselves.

In that connection, it is certainly encouraging to recognise that this Report, produced as it is by hon. Members on both sides, accepts the fact that we must look upon our colonial brethren not as inferiors but as partners, and that on more than one occasion the Report emphasises that point. That means that Conservatives as well as Socialists, who have signed this Report, endorse the principle that the Colonies belong not to us but to the peoples in the Colonies themselves, and that the task of bringing those Colonies up to a higher level of economic and political development is a task which devolves upon the inhabitants on the one hand and ourselves on the other hand in free and equal co-operation.

I am glad that this afternoon we are stressing, in particular, the economic development of the colonial areas. The few words I have to say will be directed in particular to West Africa. I say that because it is significant that practically half of the population of our colonial areas live in the West Coast of Africa. Over one-third of the colonial population live in Nigeria alone. Therefore, although other parts are of importance, I feel, more and more, that very special regard should be paid to those West African areas, not only because of their size, their potentialities and their population, but because here we have—as we have nowhere else in the world—an indigenous population still largely untouched, and if we can help to build a community of free and prosperous peoples in those areas, then I believe we shall be setting an example to the world similar to that which we set some few months ago when freedom was won for all the peoples of India with our good will and our understanding.

Secondly, I would emphasise that those of us who are anxious to see political development know full well that political development divorced from sound economic development, can, indeed, lead to a very sorry state of affairs. It might easily make those who become free question very much the value of such freedom and consider whether, after all, it is not better to be un-free and better fed than to have themselves set free only to endure hard times and dire distress.

We therefore have to unite the two developments. It is true that we find ourselves sometimes in a vicious circle, for unless we have a certain measure of political and educational development we cannot secure from the peoples of those Colonial areas themselves the adequate knowledge and the ability necessary effectually to build up their economic life. Equally, on the other hand, unless the economic life is developed on a sound co-operative basis there cannot be the resources to develop worthy political and educational institutions. But it is the task of us all to break through such a vicious circle and I am sure it can be done with wisdom, courage and vision.

It is, therefore, all the more regrettable that, according to this Report, published by hon. Members from all sides, in spite of our excellent intentions, we seem to have fallen very far short of those intentions. I noticed that the "Manchester Guardian," for instance, used these words yesterday in a very telling leading article:

I believe this Report is not entirely fair and accurate in what it states in that direction, for a certain amount of development has taken place, although very much remains to be done. We have only just begun this great task. I believe we shall fall into a profound error if we imagine that we can hope to build the economic life of Nigeria or the West African Colonies without the hearty cooperation and social responsibility of the Colonial peoples themselves. Although it may be difficult to destroy the suspicion and, sometimes, the hostility which exists, unless and until it is done we shall find ourselves frustrated and obstructed again and again. I think some witness of that is apparent in this Report, which I have had the pleasure to study and which we have all studied in the last few days.

When I referred to a vicious circle I was reminded that there are in this country today something like 2,800 students from our various Colonies. That is a very small number compared with the total that might be available. But, unfortunately, of these students only some 250 are engaged in engineering courses and only some 37 in the study of agriculture. That is lamentable. There are far too many being trained as lawyers, for instance, than for more economically productive work. One wonders why this is. I have asked some students why they have not elected to go in for agricultural and engineering courses rather than for law. I do not know how far their answer is a valid one, but they have maintained on many occasions in conversation that the reason is that better inducements are given to take legal courses rather than agricultural and engineering courses. It may be that that is an exaggeration, and not entirely true; but I am quite sure that there is a measure of truth in it.

I therefore suggest to the Colonial Secretary that very special inducements should be offered to our African friends to come over here to train for agricultural and technical work, or, on the other hand, that special facilities should be immediately provided in Africa itself in order, as an emergency measure, that as many Africans as possible may be trained for more productive and fundamental work. If we can establish a number of emergency training colleges out there as we have done here, we shall thus translate some sense of vital urgency and adaptability in regard to the training of West African students in techniques and in agriculture.

The next point I should like briefly to make is this. I am very glad, indeed, that a sum of £60 million is being made available for economic development in West Africa, but I should like to see some attempt made to raise capital on the spot. After all, during the war sums of money were raised for war purposes in the West African Colonies. I looked up the figures, and I notice that Post Office Savings Bank deposits alone, in the last two or three years of the war, rose to something like £1,200,000. I believe that, even though the amount was small, it would be possible to raise a certain amount of capital locally, under their own control, and that the Africans themselves would then have a sense of responsibility and, indeed, of pride that would, at least, in some measure, counter-balance whatever dangers there may be in raising money outside those areas. I should like to see more attention paid to the possibility of raising revenue by way of taxation. I am hopeful that the report we anticipate on royalties and taxation will be issued before long, and that it will make drastic recommendations.

A further point I would make is that it is imperative to try to supply West Africa with as much machinery as possible. We all know how Nigeria had not enough locomotives to convey the groundnut production, and we know that, according to the Report, if there had been more locomotives to carry those groundnuts it would have meant for the people of this country an extra ounce of magarine per week. Certainly, great piles of groundnuts were left lying because locomotives were not available for their transportation. This reminds us of the urgent need of extra locomotives in West Africa and, indeed, of the need of extra machinery as well.

There is another potentially vast industry in West Africa, of which, I think, nothing has been said today and little at other times. I refer to the palm oil industry. Here again, I submit, there is a great deal to be done to develop the economic life and the wealth of West Africa in general and of Nigeria in particular. When we realise, for instance, that, according to a Belgian estimate quoted by Professor Forde and Dr. Scott in a book edited by Miss Marjory Perham some time ago, 6,300 men with modern machinery could produce as much as 50,000 men could by using old native methods, we can, surely, appreciate that if there could be set up on the spot a larger number of mills to extract oil by modern means that would certainly very materially add to the real wealth of the West African Colonies. It can be done.

In the Congo, not so very far away, a very remarkable development has taken place in the last 30 years, and over in the Dutch East Indies I found that whilst there was no production of palm oil in 1913, by 1936, something like 176,000 tons was being produced because they had modern machinery on the spot. I do suggest that if something like only £200,000 could be spent in securing some 100 or more publicly owned modern mills for Nigeria there would be most beneficial development of the palm oil industry, beneficial both to Nigeria, on the one hand, and to the world as a whole, on the other.

I entirely agree with one or two suggestions that have been made today that more must be done in the way of providing inducements to the people of West Africa to change over from their old methods of cultivation and production to new ones. However, this must not be done too rapidly, and it must be done with full understanding of the reluctance on the part of the peoples themselves. Mr. A. R. Prest, in a book called, "War Economics of Primary Producing Countries," states, when referring to the reluctance on the part of many Africans during the war to work harder:

But I must add this. I believe also that we must make it clear that the benefit of export development from West Africa is not going to be confined to Britain or to other British countries. In 1936, £6,500,000 worth of goods was exported from Nigeria to British countries. In 1945 that had grown to £13,700,000 worth. Exports to other countries dropped remarkably. In 1936 £8,115,000 worth was exported from Nigeria to non-British countries, and the quantity had dropped in 1945 to £3,377,000. We must visualise the time when Nigeria and other Colonies are exporting an increasing amount of goods not merely to Britain but to foreign countries as well.

I do not endorse the assumption many people make, that this country will suffer if other countries become more prosperous. Germany before the war was able to import great quantities of cotton from Nigeria. Nigerian cotton is not very popular, I believe, in this country. There is no reason, however, why it should not be used elsewhere. I want to see a greater trade taking place in the world, because no country prospers by another country's downfall or poverty. If, therefore, Nigeria can increase its wealth by exporting to countries other than our own I am sure that in the long run that will be beneficial to Nigeria and to ourselves by increasing the world's economic wealth.

I would merely add that all this depends on one thing which I have mentioned before. Unless we can secure the hearty co-operation of the colonial peoples themselves, all our plans for the future are foredoomed to failure. It is a lamentable and tragic fact, that with the best motives in the world on the part of the Government now, many of the colonial peoples are filled with suspicion, hostility, and resentment. I believe that this can be broken down. It can only be broken down, however, if a really fresh effort is made to make them realise that we are not out ingeniously to exploit them, but that, on the contrary, we want their country to develop primarily in their own interest even though this may be in our interests as well. We want them to be real partners—not subordinates but equal partners—in the task of making the Colonies, as a whole and West Africa, in particular, a model of what the new Africa really should be.

7.0 p.m.

This Debate, which has produced many interesting and constructive speeches, has been, in one sense, conducted under a great disadvantage. The Report of the Select Committee with the minutes of evidence taken was only in our hands at 11.30 this morning. I am not complaining about that. It is true that we had the actual Select Committee's Report a few days ago, but it is to the evidence that we have to go to find out a little more accurately exactly what is happening; and, in particular, in the questions of priority that arose it is to the evidence of Sir Edwin Plowden and Sir Frank Stockdale that we must first turn.

It is naturally very difficult, in the short period which has elapsed since mid-day this morning and now, to master that part of the evidence with any accuracy; but this, I think, emerges from a cursory reading of the evidence: When the Parliamentary Secretary said that there was a system of allocation of steel, and he inferred that it was a moderately satisfactory system, that does not appear to be borne out by the facts, and it was certainly not the opinion that was formed by the Select Committee. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that of the Select Committee some 18 of the 28 members are drawn from his own side. We shall have to come back to this later on, and have a further discussion on this most illuminating Report during the next Session.

I hope that the Colonial Secretary will amplify those figures in his own speech. I hold to my point that the system of allocation is extremely difficult to discover, and, in the view of the Select Committee, there was no system of allocation at all. This Debate has been held under these difficulties, and it is also being held in the shadow of very great and formidable dangers. Although our minds tonight are turned primarily to our Colonial Empire, there can be no hon. Member on either side of the Committee who, at the back of his mind, has not the darkening situation in Europe worrying him all the time.

It would be quite unreal not to say, very briefly, how essential it is that the defence of our Empire and its economic policy should be closely integrated. What is the good of an ambitious programme of expenditure and development, over a period of years, of vast natural resources, if this country, on whom Africa so largely depends, and those other European Powers, who share with us responsibility in Africa, are to find themselves once more plunged into world war. There is need to integrate our defence policy with our economic policy, and our defence and economic policy with that of the other great Colonial Powers in Africa. In particular, this is necessary in North Africa, West Africa and Madagascar with France, and in Central Africa with Portugal and Belgium.

It must be the profound hope of all of us that the Government, who proudly announced themselves as a Government of planners, are in fact carrying out this most supremely important plan of all. In the area over which most of this Debate has ranged, in this great continent of Africa, we have at the moment three military commands: the Eastern Mediterranean Command, controlling all the land forces from Malta, Greece and Cyprus to the Sudan; the East Africa Command, controlling the land forces from Uganda and Somaliland to the Zambesi; and the West Africa Command which, alone of the three, is directly under the British War Office.

The East Africa Command has to have contact with no fewer than seven governors in East Africa, each of whom is in theory also a commander-in-chief. Great problems, like the need for oil-from-coal plants in Southern Rhodesia which could supply the Commonwealth Air Training Scheme, on which we may once more have to depend—all must be faced. If we turn more particularly to the problem of peaceful development in Africa, it is not because we do not most anxiously hope that His Majesty's Government are watching carefully the defence position and are doing their best to integrate our economic and defence policy.

With this need for a strong defence policy comes also the need to maintain authority and the rule of law in the Colonial territories themselves. Tonight, I am sure, from both sides of the Committee, a message of good will will go out to our fellow country men, to the officers and wives in Malaya and to the many planters and workers in Malaya who are living through such terribly anxious times. It has been said a number of times in this Debate that this is not a party issue. I hope that I may be forgiven for saying that the Parliamentary Secretary has tried to make it one on many different occasions. That it is not a party issue is clearly shown by the speeches of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That it is not a party issue would also, I think, be recognised by the right hon. Gentleman when students, armed with old Fabian leaflets, raid him at public meetings. This is not a party issue. Both sides recognise the immense contribution made by private enterprise in the earlier days. Many people—and the Secretary of State is one of them—also recognise the immense contribution that private enterprise must make in the future if State enterprise is to succeed, and all, I think, realise that the Corporations, on whose activities we are going to a certain extent to depend, are themselves the natural successors of the Acts passed in 1940 and 1945.

I may perhaps be forgiven for reminding the Committee that the Act of 1940 was the first Act passed by the Coalition Government. On the Sunday previous to its introduction, the Leader of the Opposition the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) made his first broadcast as Prime Minister. Three days before that Bill was introduced, France had fallen, and we were faced with an imminent fear of invasion; and yet, at that time, it appeared to the Coalition Government—and quite rightly—that one of the most important things for them to do was to lay the broad outline for Colonial development in the future. This is no party issue. Again, on both sides of the Committee, there will be agreement that nothing but harm can come to Colonial development if we try over-ambitiously to indulge in grandiose schemes to get us out of our temporary difficulties.

The transference from subsistence economy to money economy in Africa will bring with it huge social problems which may haunt us in the future, and which may outweigh in their importance any temporary gain in foodstuffs that Europe and ourselves may enjoy. Nor, again, ought we to raise our own people's hopes too high, because they have been disappointed enough in a great many directions of late. Now, the same old business is starting again. Half the trouble with regard to the groundnut scheme has been the over-exaggerated optimism of the Minister of Food, and the speeches made about the great development which can be expected immediately at Kongwa, which led people to think that they were going to find an immediate improvement in their rations at home.

They do not talk about Kongwa in that way now; they talk about Jinja in that way. I, like many Members of the House, know Jinja and have been to the Owen Falls, and I was disappointed to read in the "Daily Herald" an article by an hon. Member dealing with the great Jinja project. It recalled, first of all, the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition when, in 1907, he was at Owen Falls and dreamed of the turbine generators which might one day be there to give electricity to Africa. After recalling this dream the hon. Gentleman said:

I would refer those hon. Gentlemen who feel that more and more planning of their own kind may solve these dilemmas to the references to that particular situation in the Select Committee's Report, and the tragic story of the locomotives which never arrived—possibly, it is rumoured, because the papers got lost in the Crown Agents' office—and their devastating report of the results. They say that the present accumulation of groundnuts in Northern Nigeria is due, not to the shortage of engine building capacity, as we have always been told, but to a complete breakdown of the organisation in London for arranging priorities.

This leads us to the whole question of the need for a plan. This Committee is entitled to have before it, on an occasion of this kind, concrete proposals by the Government for giving the nation the plan: an estimate, for example, of the capital equipment and the consumer goods that will be needed in our Colonial Empire; a comparison of these figures with our own home needs; and also the allocation of important capital goods to existing foreign markets. In addition, we ought to have in the report provisions for mutual long-term planning to settle priorities between the Colonies and the mother country, and between the different enterprises in the Colonies. Then we should have proposals by the Government to show how the money, when it has been allocated, can be spent and the tragedy of under-spending eliminated, and how the machinery and capital goods can be best used. Above all, we want to find a definite policy of Imperial Preference in all its aspects: tariff, capital, consumer goods, shipping, aviation, and every other field of Imperial development. Such a policy must be formed by the Government and speedily implemented.

The first need is capital provision. In the old days, which it is now the habit to discredit, capital came out of savings. People earned more money than they spent, and out of what was saved we invested all over the Empire, as a result of which many millions of people in successive generations have enjoyed a far higher standard of life than they would otherwise have done. In West Africa, for example, the capital invested in groundnuts was three times what it will be in East Africa at the original figure given us. In Northern Rhodesia, copper investments were worth at least £40 million, tin £30 million, and rubber some £250 million. And all this came out of savings. It was real money, not borrowed money; it did not come from other nations on loan. Where are we to look now, at a time of dwindling savings, for money with which to replenish our Colonial Empire? Must we get it by starving the United Kingdom? Or must the Colonies be starved in order that the United Kingdom can indulge in capital projects?

The figures this year are really alarming. At least £675 million of last year's capital expenditure—Government and private—was financed, not by savings but by borrowing from overseas, and there is no sign of improvement. The estimate this year is that savings, in real terms, will be under one-half what they were in 1938. Of course, it is the view of the Conservative Party that much of this falling off in national savings is our own fault; the fault of the country; the fault of the party now in power. But whichever party was in power, something would have to be done to supplement our capital resources in order properly to develop our Empire. I welcome the prospect of American investment in the British Colonial Empire: no strings need be attached to that. That no strings were attached to our investments overseas has been shown by the history of certain South American countries' actions in recent years.

In the Empire we have a great deal of America's needs: rubber, cocoa, tin, coffee, bauxite, asbestos, chrome—a great quantity of primary minerals. America takes far more raw materials and foodstuffs from the outside world than she takes of manufactured goods. A 5 per cent. increase in our exports of food and raw materials to America would give us as many dollars as doubling our exports of manufactured goods.

Having got the capital, and having started great enterprises, we have to see that the people who produce these goods are able to sell them. We must have no shackles of any kind on our right to buy at preferential rates from our own Colonial territories, and if there are any restrictions in any undertakings into which we have entered we ought to get out of those restrictions at the earliest possible date. In addition, despite anything that may have been said or signed at Havana, if, in order to encourage production, we want to pay more for Empire goods than we need pay if they were bought from somewhere else, we should be allowed to do so.

Another aspect of this problem which must be faced is that this Report shows up, in stark fashion, the need for a reconsideration of the rôle that the Government ought to play in all these Colonial enterprises. I know that the Under-Secretary said that private enterprise can no longer discharge its functions. He hinted broadly that it never really had; but he said that it could do so no longer. I think the Secretary of State would agree that private enterprise is necessary if the Government are to discharge their responsibility, and if the trading Corporations set up by the Government are to be effective. We all agree that the Corporations ought to be kept free of over-detailed bureaucratic Government control, and I was rather disturbed by a speech made at Liverpool a few days ago by the Chairman of the Corporation, Lord Trefgarne, who posed to himself this question:

But then, having done that, the Government should not attempt to manage a great enterprise of three million acres, but should break it up into manageable units and let it out on long-term, long leases, either to European individuals or companies, or in the long run, better still, to co-operative societies of Africans. In this way the fear of the African that he is going to become a wage slave for the first time, as a result of projects put forward by a Socialist Government, may well be allayed. This fear was only last week exploited by the Russians at the Trustee Council. In this way also can peasant proprietorship be preserved. I do not think many people realise that, except for sisal and tea, peasant cultivation is of immense importance throughout the Empire with all the crops with which the Government now have to deal. The aim must be to try and give the African cultivator a future other than that of being merely a worker on a large plantation.

I should like to say how much I agre with what was said by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) in the concluding part of his speech. Although I disagree with a great deal of what he says, he certainly has a passionate desire to help the Colonial Empire.

It was very interesting to hear the hon. Member stressing the need for peasant proprietorship, but does he know that in British Guiana co-operative societies were immediately closed by big firms which endured losses in order to prevent these societies from taking away their private profits?

I cannot accept that summary of what has happened, but everyone learns by experience. I doubt whether there is any great corporation or company that does not think there is a lot to be said for peasant proprietorship.

I was just saying how much I agree with the hon. Member for West Leyton in stressing the need for more and more consumer goods. It is an ironical fact, as brought out by the Report of the Select Committee, that the Economic Survey does not show where the exports of goods go, whether to the Empire or to foreign countries. If the urgent need for consumer goods in Africa and elsewhere can be met, that alone will stop inflation, make people work harder and give a higher reward to the people who do work better and harder. With all these difficulties and the divergent views which exist, we are all united on our broad intentions of bringing to the Colonies the blessings of the British way of life, as we have known it. We can always give the Government full support in any steps genuinely designed to achieve this end.

We want all those in the Empire who are working to this end to know that they have the good will of both sides of this Committee. They can remember with pride the words of the late Lord Curzon, on the eve of his departure from India as Viceroy, when speaking to the Indian civil servants whom he was leaving behind, words which are just as applicable today to the Colonial Empire:

7.25 p.m.

Members on both sides listened to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) with very great interest. We respect him for his fluency and the way he marshals his facts, although with his deductions we are not always in agreement. In this instance we can agree with one point he made, and that was the need for a large, effective and comprehensive overall plan for the British Commonwealth. It is interesting to hear the advocacy of planning from Members opposite, because in most instances, whenever the Government attempt any planning, they adversely criticise it.

We certainly propose to learn from our past experience in connection with cooperative schemes. Only recently I had reported to me an attempt by native people to form a co-operative movement in West Africa, which was encouraged by a colonial officer who was interested in such schemes, only for them to find that a big commercial undertaking seemed to be doing its best to prevent the venture from being successful. I hope that this concern will learn its lesson also from the comments that have been made by the hon. Gentleman.

Like many others who were in the Services during the war, I had the opportunity of visiting some of our Colonies in West and East Africa. The thing that struck many of us was that the development in these Colonies was not a credit to this country. It seemed that under past Governments the Colonies had been neglected or-had been left to exploitation by certain large commercial undertakings. I think, therefore, the Government are to be congratulated for their comprehensive plan, which is as comprehensive as can be in view of the difficulties facing the world and the shortage of capital goods, to carry out extensive development schemes. But if the plan is not so comprehensive as some of us would like, this start is an indication that the intentions of the Government are soundly based.

The scheme which has been announced for the Colonies involves the expenditure of some £180 million spread over 10 years. I think it is worth analysing this sum to see if it is sufficient to enable comprehensive schemes to be carried through. When we break it down, we find that it is equivalent to no more than would be spent on seven schemes the size of Heathrow Aerodrome. The amount that is to be spent in one year, according to the Return of Schemes under the Colonial Development (Welfare) Act, is £14 million, which is little more than the loss sustained by our civil aviation corporations in one year. Yet these sums are to be extended to benefit 77 million people throughout the British Empire covering an area of nearly 2 million square miles.

I suggest that whatever sums it is decided to spend on Colonial development, they should not be regarded as amounts to be broken up into various schemes which are to be carried through. They should be looked upon as the nucleus of greater schemes, such as cooperative ventures which encourage the native populations to put forward their efforts and perhaps contribute funds in carrying them out.

I should like to refer to one experiment that was a great success which I saw in West Africa. It was carried out by a colonial civil servant who wished to use his own initiative. He adopted five native villages. He introduced medical services, and showed the natives how they themselves might dig clean wells for water and improve the sanitation of their villages. He did it by example, by carrying out one scheme which they copied. One of the most successful parts of the scheme was the native village school, the buildings for which were erected, as a combined effort, by the chiefs of the five villages. The only expense involved to this civil servant was the £26 which he paid as the native teacher's first year's salary.

That sort of co-operative venture, encouraged by leadership from colonial civil servants, is admirable. Yet that scheme did not meet with the encouragement that it might have had from the Nigerian Government. This civil servant was frowned upon for taking too great an interest in the welfare of the native peoples; it was thought that he was spending too much time on this scheme when he ought to have been attending more to his own work. This kind of discouragement is unfortunate in view of the immense tasks which must be undertaken, and the moral shown by that scheme is that it required so little money to launch it.

There are complaints coming from district officers whom I have met from time to time while they have been on leave in this country, that they do not get sufficient encouragement from the Colonial Government to use their own initiative. Suggestions have been put forward by them to the Colonial Government for what are regarded by these men as sound schemes from the point of view of local requirements, but either they have had no reply at all to their proposals or there has been a great deal of delay before the Colonial Government has signified any intention of carrying out the scheme. The former Director of Agriculture in Nigeria put forward a scheme before the war, when he saw that there would be a difficult period ahead, for increasing the food production of Nigeria. It was two years after he put forward the scheme, and the war had been in progress some 18 months, before any attempt was made to carry it out. It must have been a sensible scheme, otherwise it would not have been adopted by the Colonial Government in due time, so why the delay?

This is not an isolated case, because other suggestions have been put forward in various reports to the Colonial Government. One was that to help in mass education of the native peoples basic English should be taught; another was that interchanges should take place between the people in one part of Nigeria with those of another, so that excellent schemes which were being carried out could be examined. The idea was that it would reassure people when they saw that really practical projects were being implemented. This would eliminate the possibility, which is now arising, as was mentioned by the Pariamentary Under-Secretary, of certain malicious individuals carrying out their intentions by trying to upset the authority and prestige of Colonial Governments and His Majesty's Government. If the native peoples saw for themselves how practical schemes were being carried out, they would be convinced that the Colonial development policy was sound.

Yet another suggestion put forward was that more local autonomy should be given to district officers to carry out schemes, instead of having to put them forward to the Central Government, involving unnecessary delays. It was said that this would assist the rapid development of schemes started by the sort of initiative I have mentioned in the case of the five native villages.

From West Africa I should like to turn to the West Indies, where trouble has arisen through unemployment and the feeling by the local people that the development of local schemes was not being implemented. I refer to reports I have had from Belize, in British Honduras. In these reports very complimentary remarks were passed about the excellence of the Governor as an individual but, unfortunately, when he was appointed he was a sick man, although it was obvious that terrific tasks were ahead of him. He has now had to be retired, to give way to someone who can tackle these problems vigorously. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to take into account the tremendous tasks which will be imposed on Colonial Governors, when he is making new appointments. In these reports it is asked that my right hon. Friend should appoint a man who has not only an excellent previous record, but will be able to carry through his tasks with vigour and determination.

One of the criticisms I received was in connection with a colonial civil servant who held a number of appointments. He was given four jobs and, I suppose, is still trying to fulfil them, of controlling imports and exports for British Honduras, and also as development officer, co-operative officer and social welfare officer. It is unfair to the individual, and to the native peoples whom he is looking after, to repose such a terrific responsibility in the hands of one man. He cannot possibly do credit to the development schemes which my right hon. Friend is sponsoring.

I realise that my right hon. Friend has no direct responsibility, but I suggest that in making appointments he should see that this sort of thing is avoided. In these reports it is suggested that one person cannot efficiently perform these multifarious duties. The Government were asked whether they knew of the great dissatisfaction which had long existed among the mercantile community with the working of this officer as controller of imports and supplies. Replies to these questions were eventually forthcoming but, I suggest, were completely inadequate. When it was asked how many co-operative societies had been registered since the operation of the co-operative ordinance, the answer was "None." When it was asked how many youth organisations had been formed the answer was "None." It may be that my right hon. Friend would be able to give a reason for perhaps even only temporarily putting these onerous duties into the hands of one man, but I suggest that he should look into this matter as one of, urgency.

What opportunity does my right hon. Friend's office take to tap the vast and very valuable source of information which is continuously available here from some 200 Colonial civil servants who are at any one time on leave in this country? If there were some means of regularly tapping this up-to-date information, I do not believe that it would undermine the authority of the Colonial Governments, but it would provide information which it is impossible for my right hon. Friend to obtain in any other way, such as from the official reports he receives from Colonial Governments. If his very excellent information department could be supplemented in some way by a fact-finding department it would, I suggest, be a sound proposal, which could easily be carried out. It would give great satisfaction to the colonial officials if they were able to speak to someone in regard to sound and reasonable schemes as well as in regard to the bottlenecks in carrying out these schemes. In this way it might be possible for my right hon. Friend to focus attention on these problems from this end.

I was very interested to hear the Under-Secretary say that the Chief Planning Officer was coming into the picture when dealing with colonial matters, and before I conclude I should like to touch on a couple of points to which he might devote a certain amount of attention. In the years 1946 to 1947 we sent to Russia and the Russian satellite States some £26 million worth more goods than we received from those countries. Those exports necessarily included a large proportion of capital goods. It may well be that that difference in trade between our country and Russia and the Russian satellite States will, in fact, become a bad debt. If we look at the Caribbean situation, it is almost the reverse, namely, the Caribbean Colonies sent to this country £26 million worth of food and raw material more than we sent to them in return.

We should get a better return for our money, but even more important we should encourage the development of our own colonies, and we should help to dig our own garden instead of other people's, if we diverted the export of capital goods to our own Colonies in some increased measure, in preference to sending them to other parts of the world. Obviously, diplomatic considerations have to be borne in mind, but that point might be looked at with a view to seeing that such surplus supplies of capital goods as we have will go to those Colonies which aid us most and at the same time be of the greatest benefit to the colonial people.

In the trade arrangements that were made recently with Poland it was agreed that we should let her have two ships. By contrast we see in the Caribbean an extreme shortage of shipping. The actual amount of shipping in the Caribbean from this country is only some 10 per cent. of what it was pre-war, and judged by the development with other parts of the Dominions and the Colonies, communications are a prime concern. If there are not adequate communications, development will be slow or will be held up, as is the case with the groundnuts scheme. The Caribbean is very badly off for good communications. Recently there was up to 10 weeks' delay before letters from certain parts of the Caribbean got to this country. For example, I have a letter here posted in April in British Honduras. It left there on 3rd May and did not arrive here until 21st July. Even in 1880, communication between the Caribbean and England took an average of 18 days and the progress which has been made since with the air transport of today, is not as great as it should be. The Dutch and French with fewer colonies in the Caribbean are providing better transport for their colonies than do we from England.

My last point is in connection with the expenditure of large quantities of dollars for the purchase of sugar from San Domingo and from Cuba. San Domingo supplies us each year with £10 million worth of sugar and only takes back from us £250,000 of goods. In Cuba they exported £40 million worth and take back £1,750,000 worth of goods. Recently, we heard Mr. Bustamente at the Empire Parliamentary Association say that Jamaica was capable of exporting a great deal more sugar to this country if only it were given encouragement to do so. As far back as 1924, in the British Empire Exhibition Handbook it was shown that British Guiana was capable of sending us two million tons of sugar, and yet in 1944 we only took 132,000 tons.

Finally, one wonders if the hold-up in some of our colonial development schemes is due to the fact that the system of administration in the Colonial Office and in the Colonial Governments is not all that it should be. I was much encouraged to hear from the Under-Secretary that a reorganisation has taken place in the Colonial Office. Might I suggest to my right hon. Friend that efforts should be made to encourage the Colonial Government Offices to follow the example which has been admirably set by his Department, so that the Colonial Governments in due course will reorganise their administration and so be able to cope more adequately with the great and urgent tasks which lie ahead.

7.48 p.m.

There are one or two points to which I should like to refer which arise from what the Under-Secretary said earlier. First of all, I was deeply concerned about his very strong criticism of private enterprise in the Colonies. I am ready to accept that one is today hearing a tremendous amount of criticism in this country of private enterprise—it has become a constant attack—but so far as our Colonies are concerned, I was sincerely hoping that such an attack would not enter into this Debate, because I feel that it will do a great deal of harm in our Colonies. There is bound to be a reaction amongst those who work extremely hard for private enterprise in the Colonies when they hear what has been said in this Debate.

I am also sorry that I have to deal with another specific issue which was raised by the Under-Secretary. He spoke of the difficulty with regard to the Karitina factory in East Africa. I should like to explain to the Committee that his statement was most extraordinary, following his visit to East Africa, because some time back I had the privilege of trying to do something with this Karitina factory. As many people know, it was, I believe, the largest dehydrating vegetable factory in the world and it helped to feed great sections of our forces in North Africa during the war.

It seemed tragic beyond measure that this factory could not be utilised in a very considerable way for food production, especially for our own country. I put up many propositions to make that possible and I discussed the matter with the Colonial Office. When I went out there the trouble was with the Kokuyu tribe. I eventually met 6,000 of them and persuaded the chiefs to come back to Nairobi to meet the authorities there and see what could be done to get that factory into operation again for food production for other countries. In desperation, in the end one got to the stage of proposing a scheme which met with the support of the authorities, in which we could form an organisation of equal proportions between my own organisation and the tribe.

I am talking about the private enterprise concern which I represented, linked with the tribe itself, and with the balance of control held by the Government. The idea was to see if we could get this factory into operation, and I submit that that was private enterprise at its best, aiming to get increased production. It failed, because they took the line that, in a time of emergency during the war, the erection of the factory was against their own feelings in the matter. Therefore, they definitely were not prepared to help unless they owned it entirely and dealt with the whole of its production, which, of course, was impossible from the commercial point of view, as the Colonial Secretary will appreciate. So we could not utilise that factory. Therefore, I cannot see any reason why the Under-Secretary should make reference to malicious activities having brought this factory to the ground. It is distressing, but those are the circumstances. As representing private enterprise, we did our utmost to get that factory back into production, but we had no support in that effort.

Surely my hon. Friend was making the point in order to illustrate how the fight against ignorance was going on, and that was the general object of his remarks?

As I understood it, he made the point that, through some malicious activities, the factory could not come back into operation and is today dismantled. That is exactly what I understood, and I asked the hon. Gentleman when he was speaking if he could confirm that point of view, but he could not. Therefore, I feel that the Committee are entitled to have an explanation of what took place.

I have tried to the maximum to develop additional private enterprise in colonial spheres, and I must say that I have a great leaning towards the development of East Africa in particular, because I feel that it is a Colony which can be developed much further than it has been developed so far, and that such development would open up great possibilities in materially helping us in our food difficulties in this country. I find, in getting around the Colonies, that the tragedy in many respects is brought about by a considerable amount of ignorance existing between the British and Colonial peoples concerning each other's problems. One hon. Member has already touched upon the point about the interchange of newspapers and the great cost involved at present. There is not enough knowledge among the peoples of the Colonies of our troubles here and vice versa, and I feel that a greater degree of interchange of information would be very helpful to colonial development in future. I feel that there is a very great need to impart as much information about each other as we possibly can.

I think it is particularly desirable to obtain, if we can, a closer link between our industrial side here and in the Colonies. There is at present very little link between them, and I hope that a better way may be found of bringing together industries in both spheres, thereby assisting both this country and the Colonies. There is a vast potential trade, but much of it has been frustrated and prevented by dollar shortages, which have undoubtedly held up important Colonial developments. I stress this because of the question of agricultural machinery. Much has been said about the shortage of agricultural machinery, and I know that, in an area like East Africa, we can- not develop land in many places without heavy tractors, like the D.2. Yet permits are constantly refused in this country for sending these machines to East Africa, where they could be employed on very important food production. At the same time—and I can confirm this—there are D.2 tractors lying idle and ready for such exportation, and I have raised this matter in correspondence with the Colonial Office. It seems to me a tragedy that we cannot get that type of heavy tractor over to East Africa to enable us to make a real contribution to the foodstuffs resources in that part of the world.

There is a crying need for such tractors, and I want to ask why valuable dollars are allowed to be expended on the importation of American cars? Surely, there are British cars waiting to go out to East Africa? Yet we cannot get dollars expended on D.2 tractors. It is quite beyond me to understand why such a real chance to increase production, if only we had the tractors, is being lost. I know that today in this country we are just starting a certain amount of crawler tractor production, which, if successful—and we all hope it will be—will make a vital contribution to meeting our needs in the Colonies, but this is taking a long time, and I hope there may be an opportunity for the Colonial Secretary to ease the situation in this direction.

On the question of general machinery for East Africa, I maintain that the sisal producers could greatly increase their output if a few dollars were made available to them to purchase certain American machinery, because we in this country cannot produce this machinery quickly enough to obtain the production which is essential. That is unfortunate, but it is the actual fact, and this is a matter worthy of further consideration. There is also the question of shipping space difficulties, which is constantly hindering the development of our Colonial Empire, and I hope that we may also see a slight easing of that unfortunate situation. Quite unnecessary, too, are many of the trivial regulations which hamper considerably the linking up of industrial needs between the Colonies and ourselves.

To illustrate that, I would point out that, on my last visit there, I found that a British shoe manufacturer who had landed at the airport at Nairobi with suitable samples, with which he was expecting to obtain a development of his manufactures, discovered that the authorities would not allow him to take these samples out of the Nairobi airport, although he could not possibly do any harm with them, as he had only one shoe of every kind. The people whom he had intended to visit had to go to the aerodrome and see his samples there. I think that is a case on which the Colonial Secretary might check himself. It is an example of the type of trivial regulation which is hampering the trade link-up between the Colonies and ourselves. I submit that here is a great opportunity to wipe away some of these controls and allow us to get on with the real tasks.

Might I also suggest that there is an urgent need in East Africa and other Colonies for the development of secondary industries. There is a growing need for such development, particularly in the African Colonies, and I feel sure that there will be much support on both sides of the Committee for developments of that kind. There is a similar urgent need for qualified technicians. We are very badly off for qualified technicians in the Colonies today and, if possible, more help should be given to get those technicians for overseas to enable them to build up something which will be very useful for all of us. Let us also take the West Indies, where they are desperately anxious to develop secondary industries from their local raw materials, but delivery of British machines takes far too long and the machinery is also much too high in price compared with similar machinery which they can obtain from the dollar areas; and that causes further difficulties and hardship.

The time has come when we must ask ourselves if our position is really so desperate that we must grab the immediate shilling for the sale of machinery to the hard currency countries instead of making more equipment available to the Colonies which, having gone into production, would bring us a far greater return in much larger quantities of raw materials and manufactured products. There is a real case to be made out for permitting more of our machinery to be diverted from hard currency countries—although it brings in important currency—and letting it go to the Colonies so that we can get on with the task of Colonial production. There must be no complacency on this important subject of Colonial develop- ment. I understand that £120 million is available to the Corporation and I believe that a further £100 million can be called upon, but that will only permit a mere fragment of the most urgent development needed in the Colonies.

I stress the great need for helping transport in the Colonies by doing much more work on the essential roads. All will admit that it was a marvellous road which was made by the Italians running from about 20 miles the other side of Nairobi to Nakuru. Transport travels very fast there, but the remainder of the roads require much greater development. Goods are brought into Mombasa and they have to be brought up on shocking roads so that the goods are knocked about, and tremendous losses are incurred. When the goods get to their destination, there is also a reflection on the English manufacturers which in many cases is unfair and unwarranted. I hope that the transport question in the Colonies will be tackled more effectively. There is also the problem of the railways and the ports and docks. Much more development must be carried out, and I know that the Colonial Secretary appreciates that.

I do not consider it desirable to use vast sums of public money to bring about for all practical purposes the socialisation of colonial industry by weight of Government financial control. I would prefer to see more private capital, which is so suspect and unpopular in this country today, used in the interests of the Colonial countries and providing a reasonable return to the investors.

I would not say that. I would say to the hon. Member: "Your people were the first to recognise the benefits of private enterprise when you started. Otherwise why did you take the United Africa Company as the managing agents of the groundnuts scheme?"

It is convenient for some hon. Members to put on one side what private enterprise has done. You can go into the cemeteries in Africa and see enough tombstones there, representing the people who pioneered out there and were mauled by lions while developing the Colonies, into which we can step today and say, "Here we are." Let us be fair about it. We cannot deny that our Colonies have been built up by individual private enterprise spirit and effort. It is a pity that there is not more of it today.

We are also taking a far too sectional view of the problem. We cannot regard it, country by country or area by area, any longer. There should be an overriding economic pattern by which the needs of one country and the potentialities of another can be related. Mutual assistance should be given towards the intelligent development of the whole. We cannot treat it sectionally. The leading people of our Colonies, and particularly the industrial heads, should come together for the benefit of the Colonies as a whole and our great country as well, and not to London every time. We have a habit of beckoning everybody to London and expecting them to come here.

To get the maximum benefit from everyone, let us go into the Colonies and bring the heads of the Colonies together there in order to make our schemes possible and practicable. We must look upon the British Isles and the Colonies in modern conditions as one large colonial entity, the separate parts interwoven and helping one another, and so utilise to the maximum advantage of our peoples, the greatest democratic development the world has ever known, namely our great Colonial Empire.

8.7 p.m.

I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for North Croydon (Mr. Frederic Harris) further than to say that the theme of his speech had been repudiated time and time again from these Benches during the Debate. Private enterprise did not build up the Colonies. As has been shown time and time again, private enterprise exploited the Colonies for personal benefit. The Colonies have been built up, expanded and defended by the blood of the ordinary individual citizen of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Member wants to read a word or two about that, he should study Felicia Heman's poem "England's Dead" where he will find expressed in poetic language the story which has been told often from this side of the Committee.

Earlier in the proceedings I raised the question of the function of air transport in the Colonies. From time to time we hear accusations that supplies of food and other goods in which the Colonial peoples are deficient, cannot be cleared at certain places because of the inadequacy of the transport facilities. If we take the railway from Kongwa to Dar-es-Salaam, which is a single track 250 miles long consuming three days in the transport of goods between those two points, we realise the inadequacy of the rail service.

The roads are not roads as we know them but simply tracks, which cannot carry transport as it is carried here. Those difficulties prompt me to ask my right hon. Friend what use is being made of air transport as a short-term policy in helping to relieve the railway and the roads of the pressure which is exerted on them today. I emphasise that it is a short-term policy because obviously the country must be opened up by means of the railway and the road, but when we consider that to build a railway in Africa today the inclusive cost—stations, signal boxes, and so on—is £40,000 per mile of rail, we realise that to face that programme over great distances at this moment is almost impossible. Therefore, air transport which at the very most, I should imagine, would not cost more than £45 per hour in that type of work, is a most important accessory in the disposal of goods, personnel, vehicles and food within the Colonies, thereby relieving the railways and the roads in order that they may carry the products of the neighbourhood to the ports.

Another example of the importance of aircraft is shown in the case of British Guiana where, in the savannah lands, we have magnificent beef being raised, and yet, because of the inadequacy of transport facilities between these lands and Caracas, that beef does not reach the market in British Guiana easily, and consequently we have to spend days in bringing food from the Argentine to feed people who are only half an hour in an aircraft from a magnificent source of food. In addition, that food could be used to supplement the meagre food rations of the West Indies, and thereby help to relieve, directly and indirectly, the strain that is being placed on the economy of this country at the present moment.

So I suggest that we should try to view the colonial problem in transport as a whole, and I submit that my right hon. Friend should consider the formation of a tactical civil air force in this country which might be disposed throughout the Empire as need demanded at a given time.

Does the hon. Member suggest that this air force should be under free enterprise or nationalised?

In view of what I have already said to the hon. Member for North Croydon the answer is obvious—it would be under public control.

Surely the hon. Gentleman, who is well versed in air matters, will not follow what happened in B.O.A.C. and lose £22 million in two years?

I have not the slightest objection to giving way to interruptions, but we are pressed for time and I shall not be able to give way any more. The hon. and gallant Member mentioned what had happened in B.O.A.C; yes, but what is happening in Skyways and Airwork today? I do not want to develop this point, but it is a mystery to me how B.O.A.C. should be losing, or needing to use the subsidy of £8 million, when Airwork and Skyways, carrying out charter work for B.O.A.C, can declare profits. I submit that if we undertook a great deal of the work we are giving to the charter companies today, we might be showing a better result in our public corporations.

I really must refuse to give way, because many other hon. Members want to speak and I have been very kind to the hon. and gallant Member. I want to look more closely at a matter which has been touched on from time to time by various hon. Members on both sides but has not been developed as I propose to develop it, the need for African cooperation in the schemes that we propose to undertake. I am fortified in what I propose to say by the statement in the Report of the Select Committee which says first that the co-operation of the Africans themselves must be actively encouraged, and secondly: I want to hang what I propose to say round those two points. In the course of the Debate, references have been made to the policy of the Labour Party, at least in days gone by, which is adequately summed up under three heads: Africa for the Africans, no land alienation, and no forced labour. That is the declared policy of the Labour Party. From various remarks I have heard, I am beginning to wonder whether there is a feeling that this policy has to be modified, that because of the pressure of world economic events, we have to look at things a little differently now from the way in which we looked at them before.

That leads me to put certain questions, and it is important that they should be the right questions, because if they are not the right questions, then obviously the wrong answers will follow. My first question is: how can we, who realise the need for the development of African resources, persuade the African to adopt our point of view? I put that question because it has been put to me, and because I think it is an example of the wrong type of question, since it presupposes that the African has no point of view of his own or, alternatively, that his point of view is wrong and must be replaced by another. It reveals that in dealing with this problem we have to overcome not only the psychological peculiarities of the African but the psychological peculiarities of ourselves. I suggest that the approach is not to ask how can we convert the African but how can we and the African arrive at a solution of his and our economic problems. It is not enough for us to take the operative decisions and then ask the African to fall into line and carry them out. We should aim at co-operation and not at converting him to our point of view.

It might be worth examining some of the difficulties in our position before examining those in the African position. Three points seem to merit comment. I can imagine an hon. Member opposite saying to me that the world food situation is so serious that it may be justifiable to compel the African to work harder and adopt other and newer methods than those with which he is familiar. I want to reply by offering this comment: Is there any reason why the African should be under an obligation to feed Europe and China, where hunger has been caused largely by the inability of both the Europeans and the Chinese to solve their own problems without resorting to large-scale and prolonged destruction? If all peoples are to regard the shortage as an evil which they are morally bound to try to alleviate without any reference to its cause—I believe that that is the proper attitude of mind in which to approach the problem and would be the most desirable solution—then we as a nation must start within the field of our own responsibility.

We might agree, first, to cut down our own standard of living until those who are more hungry than we, are satisfied. Secondly, we might try to pay our debts to India and Pakistan, where people are obviously more needy than we are and have, moreover a direct claim on our resources. If we were to do something along these lines we might expect the Africans to make efforts towards the same end. But compulsion cannot be justified, for three reasons. We do not compel the Kenya settler to raise the colour bar; we do not compel the people in East Africa to open the White Highlands to the indigenous inhabitants; and we do not compel the mining companies to take only a reasonable return on their capital because, in most cases, compulsion would be considered politically undesirable and likely to cause a deadlock. We cannot, then, apply compulsion to a people merely because they are too weak to create difficulties when we apply the compulsion.

The second point I would like to examine—one which might well be put to me—is that if the Africans will not make the necessary effort they should not come to us for contributions for better social services. I would like to make four comments on that type of argument. First, what is the actual contribution made by Africa to Britain in the shape of investment returns? I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can indicate any answer to that when he replies. Secondly, what contribution is made by the taxation in Britain of companies operating in Africa? Thirdly, what contribution comes from pensions of civil servants spent outside Africa? Finally what contribution comes from cheap labour on projects of value to Britain as well as to Africa? That contribution in the past has been considerable and perhaps it is still much larger than the very small sums expended so far from the Colonial and Development Welfare Fund.

I come to my third point. There appears to be a general assumption, voiced from the Benches opposite, that the Africans have little to lose by accepting standards foreign to their way of thought. My only comment is that, in the light of experience during the last 50 years, I should have thought that that belief in Europeanisation was something that would have passed altogether with the 19th century.

I want to look briefly at the African side. We see, first, wide support for small-scale development and, secondly, a lack of enthusiasm for large-scale projects, especially the groundnut scheme. We see, thirdly, that the most successful scheme is not the groundnut scheme—it is, perhaps, early to pass judgment on that—but the Udi scheme. The measure of success in Udi is to be judged not so much by the number of new roads, cooperative societies or school clinics which have been started, but by the amount of voluntary labour which has been given by the Africans to the creation of these schemes. The Udi method allowed them to stay in their homes with their families—their own people—with whose ways and language they are familiar. Development in the Udi sense has enriched their individual lives without in any way destroying the central code. It has been conducted at a pace within their comprehension and without the introduction of a superior standard of achievement at present beyond their grasp.

The large-scale scheme does none of these things. I know it is true that the African goes voluntarily to work in many of these large-scale schemes but the way in which he goes is reminiscent of the way in which the working people came south from the distressed areas in 1931, or of the way in which the Scottish lassies from Lanarkshire came to the Midlands of England last year. Time and again, the desire to go home to their families and land outweighs the material advantages resulting from higher wages.

I want to make it clear that I am not suggesting that large-scale schemes should not be attempted. There is growing up in East Africa a body of landless Africans who must be absorbed in schemes of this nature. In addition to that there is uninhabited land which cannot be developed in any other way and we have no reason to suppose that the African is not just as able to pioneer as any other race. As these large-scale schemes become established there will grow up a social life as the population stabilises itself.

These conclusions seem to emerge from what I have been saying. First, development in Africa should proceed on Udi lines wherever possible, both in East and West Africa. Secondly, large mechanised schemes should be confined to areas where land rights are not in question. Thirdly, the advice of Africans and anthropologists should be obtained at the planning stage, and fourthly, mechanisation should be encouraged not only so far as large-scale schemes are concerned, but also where the smaller type of schemes are concerned. Those are conclusions—I realise I must come to a conclusion—

I do not intend to develop those points any more, but I suggest that they are conclusions which are necessary if we are to get that co-operation from the Africans which will lead to the successful development of the schemes we are seeking to create at present.

8.32 p.m.

At this late hour I am scrapping everything I had on my notes and will speak only for a few minutes in order to try to bring a little perspective into the Debate. Hon. Members will have seen a copy of "The Colonial Empire, 1947–8," and will I hope, have read at least a part of it. This book reminds me of a brochure I saw the other day produced by a small gas company. There were 32 pages of art paper describing the activities of that company and at the end, I found that they turned out only two or three million therms. That is what I feel about this blue book of good works. There has not been much development of our Colonies; we have only touched the fringe and developed the areas round the ports or capital towns. To substantiate that, I see that under the 1945 Act the Minister was allowed £12 million for the development of our Colonies, but in the budget for 1949 the amount estimated is just over £4 million, about the same amount of money as we get from Purchase Tax on alarm clocks and things of that sort. What a puny miserable sum. It is an indictment of the Minister if I may say so, for, after all, he is responsible for this poor development.

Will the hon. Member explain where my right hon. Friend can get all the steel, cement, fertilisers and the rest which he would buy with the additional money he is to make available?

Yes, I can. Earlier in the Debate the Under-Secretary stated that a separate allocation of steel is to be made to the Colonies, whereas until now the steel allocation for the Colonies was included in the amount allocated to all other countries. I think that is the answer which the Under-Secretary requires. Only £4 million is given for development of this kind. Is it not time the Government had a plan? I do not mean the sort of planning to which the Under-Secretary has referred—of the Chief Planning Officer now having some responsibility in relation to the development of our Colonies. I should like to see the Government themselves having a plan for the integration of the whole Commonwealth with this country. That is what we need.

Have the Government any policy, for instance, towards the two major problems that face this country? One of these is food, the other is security. How do they link up those problems with the Colonies and Commonwealth? With regard to food, is it part of our policy that we should depend entirely for three-fifths of our food upon the export of goods in order to pay for those imports of food? Is it not a better plan to redistribute our population through the Colonies and Commonwealth?

Let us be quite clear upon the question, To whom do the Colonies belong? We hear a lot of sentimental nonsense about the Colonies merely being for the natives of the Colonies. But the Colonies belong to the people who wrest the wealth out of the Colonies, whether they be Scotsmen, Englishmen, Welshmen, Yorkshire-men or Irishmen. Surely we should not over-value the standing of the natives of the Colonies to the extent of not allowing people to emigrate to help to increase the standard of wealth of those Colonies?

How does that link up with the policy of planning for the security of the Commonwealth? There is centred within 30 miles of this House one-quarter of the population of the British Isles, where one single atom bomb well placed, could wreak terrible economic disaster to the whole country. Should not that point of view interest the Government in forming their Commonwealth policy, where one important factor is the redistribution of the people? Surely in these very grave days that is urgent and vital. Is it not time the Government called together an Empire conference to discuss all these points of view so that we could have in the future real development of the Commonwealth along the lines suggested in a recent speech by a great statesman from Australia, Mr. Menzies. He said:

8.39 p.m.

I propose to follow the example of the hon. Member for Buckrose (Mr. Wadsworth) and I shall not follow my notes as I had originally intended to do. This Debate has been extremely interesting but throughout I have felt that there has been rather a lack of consideration of the position of the people in the Colonies. We have had a defence of private enterprise, business, etc., but I think that the Debate has been a little divorced from the actual unfortunate condition in which these people in the Colonies have to live.

This Report for which the Select Committee is responsible is one which I trust this House will have an opportunity of examining in greater detail. I would say to the Under-Secretary, who rather resented the implication in the Report that there was not a coherent policy of planning, that I hope he will examine it very carefully. If he does so he will find that the evidence submitted shows, without the slightest doubt, the need of a thorough examination by the Government of the national policy. When we were in West Africa we had many examples of private enterprise being able to obtain the necessary materials where the Government could not obtain them. That showed quite clearly that there is a need for examining the system of priorities. In Lagos I saw some wonderful houses built by the United Africa Company. The Government had never been able to obtain such materials as was to be seen in those houses. We had many examples of this faulty method of the planning of supplies of materials and equipment.

The hon. Member who opened this Debate made an interesting speech, but said he had not the time in which to talk about health and diet. I should like to say a few words about that so far as West Africa is concerned. In the Report which we have submitted we say that there are 20 million people of a very low order. When I saw some of the examples of poverty and malnutrition in that country it made me feel somewhat ashamed that we had not been able to bring about a better state of affairs. It is not only a question of wages of the workers, that they are able to obtain in the tin mines 1s. 3d. a day or that they are employed on rubber plantations for 1s. 3d. or 1s. 4d. a day. There are thousands of workers who have to exist on a standard which is not a civilised standard. Thus a tremendous problem is created. The dilemma seems to me to be whether money should be spent in trying to improve health services and welfare, or whether it should be spent in development. There is a serious conflict of opinion.

I would refer to one paragraph of evidence of this Report which is most illuminating. In reply to a question Dr. W. S. Ormiston, the regional deputy director of medical services, at paragraph 3260 on page 273 says: Council put forward the view of private enterprise. He said:

There must be a development of the health services of West Africa. We have a great responsibility, and we must find further opportunity to discuss all the implications contained in this vast Report. There are 200 doctors for 25 million people, as compared with the 40,000 doctors here; there are 10 dentists for the whole of Nigeria. Tuberculosis takes more lives in West Africa than malaria. That is a serious state of affairs for which we have direct responsibility.

Our economic development must proceed, but it must proceed side by side with the development of health and educational services. I say to the Government that they should not be satisfied with the situation as it is at the moment. Much has been done, for which we are grateful. Much more remains to be done and certainly for that we need a plan. We must plan for the people, their employment and their industries in an endeavour to provide them with a better standard of life. If we ask them to offer their co-operation in providing food for the world, they are entitled to call upon us to see that they shall have their fair share. They are entitled to live equally side by side with us.

8.48 p.m.

I intervene not to make a speech, but to ask one or two questions. Like the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates), I observed rather with regret a note of complacency in the speech of the Under-Secretary at the start of this Debate. He took exception to certain criticisms made in the Report of the Select Committee of the organisation at the Colonial Office. Anyone who reads that Report will be amazed at our moderation when they consider the evidence which we received, before we went to Africa and after our return, on the very question of planning, about which the hon. Gentleman feels so satisfied.

I said that we are always conscious of our deficiencies and, even if we were not, they are repeatedly pointed out to us. There is planning. There is an organisation—quite a new one—and in my view the part of the Report which related to that was incorrect. That is what I said.

The evidence is there. We took evidence from the Chief Planning Officer of the Cabinet as well as from officers representing the Colonial Office. Something may have been done since then to put the machinery in order, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman—and I am sure that my colleagues on the other side of the Committee will back me up, as they have done in this Report—that we saw no really cohesive plan for Colonial development and welfare as a whole.

I have never believed in over-planning, but it is absolutely essential, when we have a certain amount of money to spend on capital goods which are in short supply and everybody is clamouring for them, and when we have to deal with the export market, the home market and the Colonial market, that we should have some organisation at the fountain head to see that the Colonies get their fair share. There was no such organisation, and if such a thing exists today I shall be very pleased, but I am very alarmed to read that Sir Sidney Caine has been taken away from his position in the Colonial Office, where he was responsible for the economic side, and has been moved to the Treasury. Why is the Colonial Office always the Cinderella of Government Departments? Why, when they have got a good man in a good position and doing a good job, is he taken from them by the Treasury?

He was just getting into the job, an excellent civil servant, and yet, almost the next day, one read that he had gone to the Treasury. I want to know whether anyone has taken his place, and who it is. That is one aspect of this organisation at the fountain head. But I am profoundly disappointed with the organisation in other respects. For instance, in the recruiting and supply department of the Colonial Office, I am astonished at the way in which the Colonial Office today, just as 100 years ago, relies upon the Crown Agents for the Colonies for the production of all the technical personnel and materials urgently required for the carrying out of the development schemes. Whatever that machine may have been able to do, I never had a high opinion of it, and it is not up to its job today.

The whole organisation needs a complete overhaul, and we need a different setup altogether today to deal with this awful pressure which is engaging everybody's mind concerning the urgent need of supplies of steel and other equipment, raw materials and technical personnel, to carry out our welfare and development schemes. Unless urgent steps are taken in that direction, we might vote £120 million, or even double that amount, but, so far as the effect which it will have on Colonial development is concerned, it will be utterly and completely useless, unless we provide the technical experts, the equipment and the machinery to apply their skill to their task. Unless we do that, in six years' time, when this scheme is expected to be completed, there will be very little to show for it. As is the case today, if we go to Africa and ask the people there what they think of the development schemes, they laugh and say that there is no tangible thing to show for them.

I am not satisfied either on the recruitment side and as to whether full use is being made of the excellent material which is at the disposal of the Government today in the numbers of people dispossessed of their jobs in Palestine, India, Burma, Ceylon and all those places which we have given up. I have a sheaf of letters here from people who were in the Civil Service in Palestine and in different parts of the Empire, but who, today, are tramping the streets and cannot find a job. There are men of high technical and administrative ability, and I am not satisfied that the office at No. 15, Victoria Street is doing its job at all, or that the Crown Agents for the Colonies, when advertising for technical people, make any effort whatsoever to see people already available from former Colonial Service appointments and who are now out of a job. I am convinced that there is excellent material there if we look for it. So much for the fountain head.

With reference to the organisation in the Colonies themselves, for many years I have been very dissatisfied about the bottlenecks which one found in the local administration when travelling about the Colonial Empire, whereby everything had to go through the Chief Secretary to the Governor or to the Legislative Assembly. There have been very bad hold-ups, and three or four years ago I put forward proposals to alter that state of affairs. I suggested that certain groups of subjects or departments should be put under departmental chiefs who should be responsible for them and should have the status of a Minister.

That has been done in one or two Colonies, and I want to know if it has been a success. If so, will it be followed up in other Colonies? If not, we shall not get very far, because it is quite impossible in a large Colony like Nigeria, for instance, for one man to handle the whole of the correspondence relating to all the development schemes and so forth. The whole thing ought to be decentralised. Certain people ought to share the responsibility and should be responsible for a group of departments or subjects. I would like to know whether this plan, which has been put into operation in East Africa, has been a success, and whether it is the policy of the Government to extend it.

There is one more point I wish to raise, and it relates to technical experts. There is a very serious shortage of highly skilled technicians in the Colonial Empire. Either they are not available or else they are not going to West Africa. Even if they were available I am not sure that any of the smaller Colonies would be able to pay them the high salaries which they would expect in view of their qualifications, or would be able to employ them full time. Therefore, I suggest there should be an experiment similar to that which was tried out in the West Indies when I was there some years ago and which is still going on. I refer to the setting up of a development committee on the lines of Stockdale Committee for the development of the West Indies, which has done a magnificent job. I suggest the same kind of committee for West Africa—a committee of real technical experts whose activities would cover not only Nigeria—and goodness knows that has been enough to cover, being four times the size of Britain—but the Gold Coast, Gambia, Sierra Leone and the Cameroons. There will be enough work in these Colonies and Protectorates to employ the greatest experts in engineering, mining and other technical subjects for many years to come.

I am convinced that Africa is almost virgin soil so far as minerals are concerned. There is tremendous mineral and other wealth in that country, but we must have technical and other experts to develop it. I have exceeded my time, and I will conclude by expressing the hope that when the Minister replies he will answer the points which I have raised.

8.59 p.m.

When I left the Colonial Office a very wise official said to me, "Remember that what we like to hear in the House of Commons is constructive criticism." I was very impressed by that statement. He did not ask for an easy time and did not object to criticism, provided it was constructive. I hope it is in that sense that the Colonial Office will regard this Report of the Select Committee. It strikes me as being full of the most valuable constructive criticism, and I hope it has not given rise to any resentment. I have certainly found much that is of value in it.

In Colonial Debates it used to be expected that hon. Members who took part would make certain noises appropriate to the Benches upon which they sat. Hon. Members on this side were expected to say that more had been accomplished in three years of Labour rule than in generations of Tory misrule; and on the other side the appropriate noise was perhaps that the Minister of Food had issued a false prospectus about the groundnuts scheme, for which, if he were chairman of a private company, we should today be visiting him in gaol. I should not say that that note has been entirely absent from our Debate today; but it has been widely deprecated, even by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who likes a party scrap as much as anyone.

I should like to join with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford in one sentiment which I think is very important, and upon which I hope I shall be able to get a categorical answer from my right hon. Friend tonight. He referred to a speech made by Lord Trefgarne in Liverpool, in which Lord Trefgarne, using very careful words, said that the Corporation—that is the Colonial Development Corporation—was designed by Parliament to have a wide measure of independence, that

Treasury control was designed for an entirely different purpose. It was designed by Mr. Gladstone specifically to prevent and limit the expenditure of public money. It was not designed for this other purpose at all, and if this Corporation is to be the success that we all want to make it, then it must be given day-to-day commercial freedom. The Government must be prepared to take risks where they are stepping, as I believe is right, into the place formerly occupied by private enterprise.

It is absolutely essential that these public Corporations should be able to take just the same risks as private capital takes. In the case of private enterprise, when sums are raised by subscription, the shareholders trust the directors of the company, and are willing to take risks; once a year, at the annual shareholders' meeting, they have an opportunity of making their protest if things go wrong. It would be quite intolerable to have a detailed shareholders' examination of every proposal that is made, and I hope we can hear from the Secretary of State—not in six months' time, or in a year's time, as Lord Trefgarne suggested, but tonight—that the Corporations will have the same commercial freedom as private enterprise has. If not, these Corporations will assuredly become bankrupt in a very short time.

The apparatus of the Civil Service is not made for work of this kind. There is an occupational disease in the Civil Service which I shall call "Whitehall itch." We must really free the Corporations from such day-to-day interference in their commercial management. That is one of the main reasons why the Corporations have been set up. In the case of the Colonial Development Fund, great as are the benefits that accrue from it, one of the main disadvantages is the necessity for close Treasury scrutiny over the expenditure of the money. One of the reasons for setting up the Colonial Development Corporation was to be free of this detailed scrutiny. Parliament has certainly expressed itself in that sense, and I hope that we may hear tonight that the Corporation will have this commercial freedom.

I have rather departed from the lines on which I meant to speak, as so many other hon. Members have done, and I must telescope my remarks about what I had intended to be the main burden of my speech—that is to say, the methods by which we can maximise the dollar-earning potentialities of the Colonies at the present time. A great deal of excellent work is being done on the long-term development of the Colonies, and there are many frightful long-term problems, such as those of over-population and erosion, calling for solution. But we are now in the midst of a very serious economic problem, and I am not certain that the utmost is being done at the present time to maximise here and now the dollar-earning potentialities of the Commonwealth.

There are five commodities in particular of which I am thinking—rubber, cocoa, tobacco, cotton, and lead. In the case of rubber, what has happened about the agreement that was negotiated last autumn by the President of the Board of Trade, and which, owing to the unfortunate failure to remember that there was such a commodity as reclaimed rubber, had to be re-negotiated, thanks to the generosity of the United States? I have heard no more about it. Rubber is a great dollar-earner at the present time. But its earnings of dollars could be very much greater if the United States would agree, as it ought to do in accordance with all its philosophy of trade, to lower its requirement of the synthetic material in rubber used in the United States.

Cocoa is another great dollar-earner. I have never been one of those who objected to our paying high prices for cocoa in this country, because I think that our prime object in this economic crisis must be to obtain the maximum dollars we can. At present we have a sweet ration that really makes nonsense of rationing. It is, in fact, so large at the present time that it probably encourages people to spend more money on sweets than they would otherwise do, because they feel obliged to buy all their rations. I feel there is a strong case for cutting down the chocolate consumption in this country at the present time in order to sell cocoa for dollars.

I turn now to the question of tobacco and cotton. There has been an increase in the amount of tobacco grown in the Empire, but not nearly enough. There could, I am sure, be a far greater increase. It is only a matter of a taste which can be cultivated. I am no smoker myself, but I am told that up to 1914 if one offered a person a Virginian cigarette one apologised. Since then hardly any but Virginian cigarettes have been smoked. The earlier public taste can be developed again, and we can get people accustomed to smoking Empire tobacco. In the case of cotton there is a similar problem. Manufacturers have become used to staples of a certain length which mainly come from the United States, but Empire cotton is superior to other cottons. I ask the Government to tackle energetically this question of promoting the use of Empire cotton.

9.10 p.m.

I think that we have had a most interesting Debate, and numerous questions have been asked and many suggestions made in regard to colonial development. I can only assure the Committee that the greatest attention will be paid to all the suggestions made, and that we shall profit in our work as a result of the ideas put forward in the Debate today.

I cannot reply tonight to all the questions which have been put to me. I shall cover some of the points now, and I shall, in the case of the other questions asked, try to supply hon. Members with replies by correspondence later. Some reference has been made to the Report of the Select Committee and, while I disagree with some of the recommendations, I hope that I may be able for the information of the Committee, to issue a paper dealing with certain of the recommendations and describing the action which the Colonial Office will take in respect of them.

The Committee has revealed not only a considerable interest in the problems of colonial development, but also a very deep sense of urgency as to the manner in which these problems can be solved and the spirit which should be put into colonial administration. Today, the economic difficulties of Britain and of Europe have emphasised the importance of colonial development, but I should like, at the outset, to underline, what is conveyed in the Select Committee's Report, that we cannot hope to proceed very far in the development of our Colonies unless we carry the colonial peoples with us. It is of fundamental importance that we should have their co-operation and good will, and that they should not interpret our approach to development as if we were coming again into the field for the purposes of economic exploitation.

It is of the greatest importance that they should realise that they have themselves to fortify their own economies if their own standards of living, which they are demanding at the present time, are to be satisfied. If hunger is to be driven out of their territories, it is important that there should be an expansion in production. For a greater variety of life and food, there must be new industries and a new drive in development, and these things can only be brought about in so far as the colonial peoples are prepared to co-operate with us in the finding of capital, technicians, capital goods and all those things which are essential for laying the foundations of a sound economic system in these territories.

I should like to emphasise again that, in the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts of 1940 and 1945, we were concerned primarily with getting a move on in the development of social services and in laying the normal foundations in public works and utilities on which a successful country rests. We were not, in 1940 or 1945, planning in the most comprehensive terms the development of these territories. What we were trying to do was to get a move on, to get a start and to prime the pump in order that educational services, health services and public works of various kinds could be started in these territories. The Committee should appreciate that in 1940 the war was on and that in 1945 it was still on.

In all these discussions we were conscious that in the territories, many of which had only been under our control for a period of 40 to 50 years, there had been a terrific slump following the Great War of 1914–18 and that there was a tremendous set back as a result of the Second World War. These were difficulties which created an enormous strain on the part of the staff concerned and did not make for very ample development in those territories. That background of the territories should always be kept in mind because at that time we had left a great deal of social and economic development to the full control and direction of the territories themselves. It was inevitable that their services were scrappy. They had not the means.

Take a territory as large as Nigeria. What could be expected of a vast country like that with 20 million-odd people and a revenue in the neighbourhood of £12 million to £14 million and at the same time probably 20 to 30 per cent. of that revenue having to be diverted for certain colonial and capital charges? It was impossible for the territories in their extreme poverty to meet the demands which were gradually being made on them, and the purpose of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts was to give assistance to the territories in order that at least some progress should be made with some of these services—that more roads should be made, new ports should be made, power stations established, and attention given to agriculture, soil erosion and irrigation—all these works which were of vital importance if these territories were to advance at all.

I would remind the Committee that we may approach our territories with the utmost good will but we are not in a position to direct precisely what they are to do. We have been building up a system of devolution of a great deal of the responsibility for those territories. The man on the spot has to be consulted, and the Governors must carry with them the legislative councils and their executives in all they attempt to do. The co-operation of the people must be secured. Therefore, we are never in the position to do more than persuade and advise the local governments and offer them financial and technical aid, and hope that they will adopt broad lines of policy. In the planning under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, we have tried to help them get a start in many of the services where previously nothing could be done because of the intense poverty of the territories.

Complaint has been made that too little of this development has taken place in consultation with the peoples of the territories. I can assure the Committee that it always was our endeavour—right from 1940 and in 1945—to secure the fullest consultation and the co-operation of the various committees which we set up in many territories—a whole network of development committees. Not only did we get technicians placed on those committees, but, in the case of Africa, also representatives of African organisations, in order that the schemes as conceived should satisfy local public opinion. When it is complained that the results of the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts are few, the Committee should remember that often we were starting at scratch in a number of services and public works, but the effect of the Acts and the administration has already been considerable in a number of territories. An enormous start has been made in educational development, the extention of public health services, housing schemes, various irrigation works, the establishment of power stations, agricultural experimental stations, surveys in order that we should know the possibilities of these territories, and research in order that we should have the answer to some of the baffling problems of our Colonies.

I would ask the Committee, therefore, not to accept the view that planning has failed, or that the results of these two Acts so far are negligible. They have made an enormous difference in many of the territories. True, we have been handicapped. We have not been able to make the progress we would have liked owing to the absence of raw materials that we needed, the absence of technicians, the absence of certain capital goods. Nevertheless, in a range of social services and a range of public works, the most excellent work has already been done, and it is doing no service to this House, or to any one else, for us to suggest that these Acts have been of little consequence in the territories.

However, there is a mountain of work still to be done, everybody is desperately conscious of the magnitude of the task, and we shall press on with it. If, however, we are to go forward, we must do much more than we have already done in the limited field provided by the 1940 and 1945 Acts. That was one of the reasons why the Development Corporation Bill was passed by this House—we are all conscious that there must be a great deal of new enterprise, a great deal of new effort and new industries established in the territories if satisfactory standards are to be possible and the economic needs of the people met.

We have to get not only a great deal of new public and private enterprise operating in the territories, but we have also to see that the raw materials and the foodstuffs that are produced for the markets can be absorbed by the markets, and good price levels operating in respect to that production. That, roughly, is what we are doing, coupled with a great deal of survey work, a great deal of research work and, I am glad to say, the beginning of a great deal of technical education, trade instruction, and other educational work.

During the past year this country has been made increasingly aware of its own economic difficulties, and as we have looked at the possibilities of the territories overseas to meet some of our own requirements, so we have been conscious not only of the limited work so far done in the territories, but also of the inadequacy of the machine which has been created in the Colonial Office and in the Colonial territories for the purpose of integrating this development with rigid economy in this country. As has been pointed out in the blue report of the year's work of the Colonial Office, we have been trying to reorganise our Economic Department in the Colonial Office so that it can serve the situation which has been created, not merely bequeathed, largely as a result of the economic problems which confront the nation at the present time.

In a word, therefore, we are trying to meet the recommendations of the Select Committee for the improvement of this machine, how to get a proper survey of the private and public works in all the territories, how to relate their capital needs with the capital possibilities in this country, how to secure a fair and proper allocation of steel and capital goods and, generally, how to get a proper priority for this development, treating our territories overseas, for this purpose, as if they were provinces of our own country, looking at the economic problem as a whole in terms of production and of need. I can assure the Committee that the work is going on fast of reconstructing our organisation so that we shall meet our problems in a more satisfactory way.

Several hon. Members have asked how the Colonial Development Corporation is permitted to work. I want to emphasise what I said when the Bill was going through the House of Commons, that the maximum of freedom would be given to the Corporation in regard to the projects in which it was engaged; that it would not be hamstrung by regulations from Whitehall, but that, as the Secretary of State for the Colonies has a responsibility to Parliament regarding the policy which the Corporation pursues, there must be an elementary requirement that the Corporation works within the general policy laid down by the Government and that the Colonial Office is fully acquainted with all the activities and projects which the Cor- poration has in mind. The apprehensions of hon. Members about the working of the Corporation can be dismissed. We are determined that it shall succeed.

9.27 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman, with great courtesy, has given me a minute before the Vote is put—not, alas, to continue the Debate, which I should very much like to have done. All I should like to say about that is that it has been of an extremely high standard and of considerable practical value and certainly, as far as a great many of the speeches were concerned, has emphasised that common desire which all of us have for the best possible development of the Colonies.

I rose only because, as hon. Members know, at half past nine the outstanding Votes will be put. This used to be a great occasion in the old days. There were many—not many, perhaps, but some—hon. Members for whom it was one of the two great evenings of the year, but of late years that custom has fallen into desuetude. All of us have now such good Division lists that we do not need any fortuitous aid. On this occasion, as on the last, we do not propose to divide the Committee against any of these Votes. That does not mean that there are not certain subjects on which we disagree with the Government handling, or proposals which we criticise and on which we should like to express our criticisms by a vote, but it happens that in every Class, there are not only those Votes to which we object. There are others with which we agree; and a vote given in opposition to one, could equally be represented as being given in opposition to another. [ Laughter. ] I see that hon. Gentlemen realise the opportunity of which they are going to be deprived. It is for that reason, therefore, that we do not propose to divide against these proposals.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

"That a sum, not exceeding £185,615,010, be granted to His Majesty to complete the sums necessary to defray the charges for the following services relating to Colonial Affairs with particular reference to Economic Development for the year ending on the 31st March, 1949, namely:

£

Class II, Vote 10, Colonial Office

519,591

Class II, Vote 11, Colonial and Middle Eastern Services

1,987,896

Class II, Vote 12, West African Produce Control Board

6,510

Class II, Vote 13, Development and Welfare (Colonies, etc.)

3,060,000

Class X, Vote 2, Ministry of Food

180,041,013

£185,615,010"

It being Half-past Nine o'Clock The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14, forthwith to put severally the Questions,

"That the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the several Classes of the Civil Estimates, including Supplementary Estimates, and the total amounts of the Votes outstanding in the Revenue Departments and Defence Departments Estimates, and in the Navy, Army and Air Estimates, be granted for the Services defined in those Estimates."

Civil Estimates and Supplementary Estimates, 1948–49

Class I

"That a sum, not exceeding £7,492,567, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class I of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£

1. House of Lords

55,646

2. House of Commons (including a Supplementary sum of £334)

583,267

3. Registration of Electors

155,000

4. Treasury and Subordinate Departments

1,898,195

5. Privy Council Office

20,939

6. Privy Seal Office

6,640

7. Charity Commission

42,813

8. Civil Service Commission

366,450

9. Exchequer and Audit Department

243,940

10. Government Actuary

20,404

11. Government Chemist

114,228

12. Government Hospitality

15,000

13. The Mint

90

14. National Debt Office

90

15. National Savings Committee

734,090

16. Overlapping Income Tax Payments

170,000

17. Public Record Office

45,089

18. Public Works Loan Commission

90

19. Repayments to the Local Loans Fund

29,269

£

20. Royal Commissions, etc.

105,000

21. Secret Service

1,500,000

22. Tithe Redemption Commission

90

23. Miscellaneous Expenses

744,196

23A. Repayments to the Civil Contingencies Fund

42,401

24. Scottish Home Department (including a Supplementary sum of £10)

599,640

£7,492,567"

Question put, and agreed to.

Class II

"That a sum, not exceeding £19,276,534, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class, II of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£

1. Foreign Office

2,171,221

2. Diplomatic and Consular Establishments, etc. (including a Supplementary sum of £350,000)

8,962,247

3. British Council

1,770,000

4. United Nations

15,500

5. International Refugee Organisation

3,777,125

6. Commonwealth Relations Office

121,460

7. Commonwealth Services

514,785

8. Commonwealth (India and Pakistan) Services (including a Supplementary sum of £401,600)

975,558

9. Overseas Settlement

188,960

14. Development and Welfare (South African High Commission Territories)

189,000

15. Imperial War Graves Commission

590,678

£19,276,534"

Question put, and agreed to.

Class III

"That a sum, not exceeding £24,538,823 be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class III of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£

1. Home Office

2,046,090

2. Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

99,200

3. Police, England and Wales

10,584,725

4. Prisons, England and Wales

2,671,225

5. Child Care, England and Wales

3,067,900

6. Fire Services, England and Wales

1,748,950

7. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc.

169,742

£

8. County Courts, etc.

272,944

9. Land Registry

90

10. Public Trustee

90

11. Law Charges

322,380

12. Miscellaneous Legal Expenses

21,672

Scotland

13. Police

2,174,170

14. Prisons

290,472

15. Approved Schools

133,600

16. Fire Services

240,908

17. Scottish Land Court

7,894

18. Law Charges and Courts of Law

86,244

19. Register House, Edinburgh

90

Ireland

20. Supreme Court of Judicature, etc., Northern Ireland

8,027

21. Irish Land Purchase Services

592,410

£24,538,823"

Question put, and agreed to.

Class IV

"That a sum, not exceeding £140,319,978, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IV of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£

1. Ministry of Education

108,550,667

2. British Museum

173,927

3. British Museum (Natural History)

137,649

4. Imperial War Museum

18,904

5. London Museum

8,305

6. National Gallery

38,676

7. National Maritime Museum

15,406

8. National Portrait Gallery

11,876

9. Wallace Collection

15,230

10. Grants for Science and the Arts

1,249,164

11. Universities and Colleges, &c, Great Britain

6,494,000

12. Broadcasting

9,425,000

Scotland

13. Public Education

14,155,310

14. National Galleries

18,467

15. National Library

7,397

£140,319,978"

Question put, and agreed to.

Class V

"That a sum, not exceeding £309,369,162, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class V of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£

2. National Health Service, England and Wales

107,425,000

3. Registrar-General's Office

298,500

4. Ministry of Labour and National Service

16,692,000

5. Grants in respect of Employment Schemes

650,000

6. Ministry of National Insurance

123,152,000

7. National Assistance Board

44,780,000

8. National Insurance Audit Department

102,310

9. Friendly Societies Registry

36,320

10. Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions

885,000

11. Ministry of Town and Country Planning

823,950

12. Central Land Board

230,000

Scotland

14. National Health Service

14,250,000

15. Registrar-General's Office

44,082

£309,369,162"

Question put, and agreed to.

Class VV

"That a sum, not exceeding £59,176,346, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VI of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£

1. Board of Trade (including a Supplementary sum of £12,500)

7,044,230

2. Services in Development Areas

6,126,000

3. Financial Assistance in Development Areas

101,260

4. Export Credits

90

5. Export Credits (Special Guarantees)

18,500

6. Ministry of Fuel and Power

4,486,000

7. Office of Commissioners of Crown Lands

41,749

8. Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

6,281,599

10. Surveys of Great Britain, etc.

1,376,170

11. Forestry Commission

3,500,000

12. Development Fund

694,000

13. Ministry of Transport

1,511,600

14. Roads, etc.

17,219,000

15. Mercantile Marine Services

750,020

17. Development Grants

35,290

19. State Management Districts

90

20. Clearing Offices

4,791

Scotland

21. Department of Agriculture

2,062,481

22. Department of Agriculture (Food Production Services)

6,869,250

23. Fisheries (including a Supplementary sum of £3,000)

473,426

£

24. Herring Industry (including a Supplementary sum of £60,000)

580,800

£59,176,346"

Question put, and agreed to.

Class VII

"That a sum, not exceeding £51,269,862, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£

1. Ministry of Works

6,177,555

2. Art and Science Buildings, Great Britain

579,905

3. Houses of Parliament Buildings

480,010

4. Miscellaneous Legal Buildings, Great Britain

107,625

5. Osborne

26,535

6. Public Buildings, Great Britain

24,199,550

6A. Jellicoe and Beatty Memorials

18,500

7. Public Buildings Overseas

1,022,465

8. Royal Palaces

252,075

9. Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens

354,530

10. Miscellaneous Works Services

2,870,555

11. Rates on Government Property

6,878,945

12. Stationery and Printing

5,899,537

13. Central Office of Information

2,248,200

14. Peterhead Harbour

36,000

15. Works and Buildings in Ireland

117,875

£51,269,862"

Question put, and agreed to.

Class VIII

"That a sum, not exceeding £60,845,400, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class VIII of the Civil Estimates, namely:

£

1. Merchant Seamen's War Pensions

157,900

2. Ministry of Pensions

56,345,000

3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.

755,000

4. Superannuation and Retired Allowances (including a Supplementary sum of £7,500)

3,587,500

£60,845,400"

Question put, and agreed to.

Class IX

"That a sum, not exceeding £36,274,837, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class IX of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

£

1. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, England and Wales

31,014,000

2. Exchequer Contributions to Local Revenues, Scotland

5,260,837

£36,274,837"

Question put, and agreed to.

Class X

"That a sum, not exceeding £68,860,517, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in Class X of the Civil Estimates, viz.:

£

3. Ministry of Transport (War Services)

22,030,700

4. Ministry of Fuel and Power (War Services)

1,375,000

5. Home Office (War Services)

4,375,200

6. Foreign Office (German Section)

19,795,617

7. Advances to Allies, etc.

20,300,000

8. War Damage Commission

984,000

£68,860,517"

Question put, and agreed to.

Revenue Departments Estimates, 1948–49

"That a sum, not exceeding £127,134,390, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Services included in the Estimates for Revenue Departments, namely:

£

1. Customs and Excise

5,540,300

2. Inland Revenue

14,017,090

3. Post Office

107,577,000

£127,134,390."

Question put, and agreed to.

Ministry of Defence Estimate, 1948–49

"That a sum, not exceeding £421,654, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Defence."

Question put, and agreed to.

Navy Estimates, 1948–49

"That a sum, not exceeding £78,524,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Navy Services, namely:

£

3. Medical Establishments and Services

1,463,000

5. Educational Services

621,000

6. Scientific Services

6,892,000

7. Royal Naval Reserves

646,000

8. Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, &c.:—

Section I.—Personnel

22,784,000

Section II.—Matériel

13,063,000

Section III.—Contract Work

20,484,000

9. Naval Armaments

7,683,000

12. Admiralty Office

4,624,000

14. Merchant Shipbuilding, &c.

264,000

£78,524,000

Question put, and agreed to.

Army Estimates, 1948–49

"That a sum, not exceeding £145,226,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Army Services, namely:

£

3. War Office

2,350,000

4. Civilians

39,146,000

5. Movements

29,000,000

6. Supplies, etc.

33,970,000

7. Store

40,760,000

£145,226,000"

Question put, and agreed to.

Air Estimates, 1948–49

"That a sum, not exceeding £47,650,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1949, for Expenditure in respect of the Air Services, namely:

£

2. Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (to a number not exceeding 21,500, all ranks, for the Air Force Reserve and 14,500, all ranks, for the Royal Auxiliary Air Force)

725,000

3. Air Ministry

3,010,000

4. Civilians at Outstations

17,869,000

5. Movements

6,817,000

6. Supplies

17,650,000

9. Miscellaneous Effective Services

1,579,000

£47,650,000

Questions put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Ways and Means

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair ]

Resolved:

"That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on 31st day of March, 1949, the sum of £1,534,682,776 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—[ Mr. Glenvil Hall. ]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow; Committee to sit again Tomorrow.

Criminal Justice Bill

Lords Reason for insisting on certain of their Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed, and for disagreeing to the Amendments made by the Commons in lieu thereof, considered.

Lords Reason:

"The Lords insist on their Amendments in the Title, line 1, in page 1, line 9, in page 53, line 36, and in page 66, line 15, to which the Commons have disagreed and disagree to the Amendments made by the Commons in lieu thereof for the following Reason:

Because they consider that Clause 1 as amended by the Commons would be unworkable since the list of capital murders is illogical and incomplete, and because it is not in the public interest at the present time to suspend the death penalty for murder generally."

9.37 p.m.

I beg to move "That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to certain of their Amendments on which the Lords have insisted and doth not insist on its Amendments in lieu thereof to which the Lords have disagreed."

Last week, on 15th July, this House by a substantial majority disagreed with the Lords on their Amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill omitting Clause 1 of the Bill, and passed an Amendment to Clause 1, substituting for the proposal to suspend the death penalty in all cases of murder a proposal to retain the death penalty for certain types of murder, while suspending it in all other cases of murder. This Amendment, as explained in the Debate, was proposed by the Government in order to minimise the special risks, to which I drew attention in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, involved in the suspension of the capital penalty at this particular time, and took account of the fact that some sections of public opinion had shown themselves to be disturbed at the proposal to suspend the death penalty for all offences of murder.

This Amendment has now been debated and rejected by a large majority in another place. There are no doubt many respects in which any compromise proposal of this kind is open to criticism both on legal and other grounds. I feel though that some at least of those criticisms would have been made against any Clause which attempted to find a middle way between a complete suspension of the death penalty and the retention of the present law, and that they were prompted as much by objection to any compromise at all as by objection to the terms of the compromise proposed by the Government.

The matters in dispute in regard to this Bill between this House and another place have now been narrowed down to this single, but very controversial, issue of the death penalty. It is clear, from the decision of another place upon the amended Clause, that the Bill as it now stands containing that amended Clause cannot be passed in this Session, and that if this House insists upon the retention of the amended Clause the Bill will be lost. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I should have thought that not even one hon. Member of this House would desire that the Bill as a whole should be lost.

The machinery of the Parliamentary Act cannot be used to pass the compromise Clause into law because the amended form of the Clause was not in the Bill when it left this House. Thus the only means by which a Criminal Justice Bill containing the compromise Clause could be put upon the Statute Book would be by the introduction in another Session of another Bill. This Bill is a Measure which is not only long overdue, but which has met with general approval from all parties in both Houses, and from the general public.

Our proceedings at every stage were non-partisan, and while argument was keen and well informed, it was inspired by a single purpose, to improve the Measure and make it workable. I am quite sure that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House who served on the Standing Committee will agree that that is a fair description of the way in which the discussions on the Bill took place. At no time did I or other Members of the Government appeal to any party spirit in order to secure our point of view. We endeavoured to listen to all the arguments, and I think one can say even on considering the Lords Amendments last week, after we had finished with the arguments on the death penalty Clause, that right up to the last we showed a desire to meet the arguments that were adduced in the House, and did in fact accept, first from one side and then from the other, arguments which enabled a reasonably, satisfactory conclusion to be reached on those matters.

There is general agreement that the Bill will effect most valuable reforms in the treatment of offenders and the law relating to the proceedings of criminal courts, and that it marks a great step forward in our system of administration of criminal justice. The main lines of these reforms were put before this House as long ago as 1938 and 1939, when many days of close consideration in Committee were devoted to the detailed provisions of the Bill then introduced. But for the war, the Bill would long since have been upon the statute book. Since its introduction in a revised and improved form last November, all its provisions have been subjected to close and careful scrutiny. The proceedings in Committee upstairs occupied 16 days, and a great variety of useful Amendments have been made subsequently, both on Report stage in this House, and in the course of its passage through another place.

The Bill has now, in fact, but for the disagreement on the question of the death penalty, passed through all its stages in both Houses. I feel that it would be a calamity if this Measure, which does not raise any party issue, which effects very desirable and long urged reforms over the whole field of the administration of criminal justice, and to which so many hon. Members on all sides of this House and in another place have devoted so much of their energy, good will and special knowledge, should now suffer the same fate as the Measure which was introduced in 1938. I recognise to the full that the issue over which dispute has arisen between the two Houses is one upon which strong views are conscien- tiously held, and that this House has declared in an unmistakable fashion that it is in favour of a change in the law.

It is now, however, quite clear that this change in the law cannot be accomplished in the present Session, and that the insistence by those who feel strongly that such a change should be made on the inclusion in this Bill of the Amendment to which the House agreed last week, will merely kill the Bill without securing the end which they have in view. In this situation there seems to me to be no doubt where our duty as a responsibe legislative assembly lies. However we may disagree with the attitude which another place has adopted to the proposal which was embodied in this Amendment, we cannot hope to persuade them to change their view before this Session runs its course. I submit to the House that we should not be acting in the public interest, nor I believe in accordance with public opinion in this matter, if we were to lose this long-awaited Measure merely to give further expression to our disagreement with another place on this particular Amendment.

The dropping of this Clause from the Bill does not mean the abandonment of the issues which it has raised. The long discussion in both Houses of the question of the death penalty has brought this question into the full forefront of public consciousness. I do not myself believe that public opinion, although sections of it may be opposed to the complete suspension of the capital penalty at this time, is irreconcilably opposed to some change in the present law under which this is the only penalty for all offences of, murder. I believe that the searching Debates on this subject have prepared the way for further consideration of the direction in which the law should be amended.

In both Houses there has been revealed in all parties a considerable body of opinion which desires that some steps should be taken which will mark a definite amelioration of the law relating to the death penalty. The Government welcome this attitude and propose to explore without delay the practical means there are of limiting the death penalty to certain crimes of murder in a manner which would not be open to the objections taken against the recent effort to reach a compromise. I hope that it may then be possible for Parliament to give further consideration to this question as a separate issue. In the meantime, I suggest to all those who have at heart the placing of this important Measure upon the Statute Book without further delay that they should take the necessary steps to do so by agreeing with the Lords in their Amendment to delete Clause 1 of the Bill.

9.49 p.m.

I was not aware of the course the Government were going to advise the House to take in this matter and, as I had concerned myself with various stages of this Bill and the controversy to which the Home Secretary referred, I thought it my duty to come. I would say at the outset of the very few remarks I shall venture to make that my principal task is to congratulate the Home Secretary on the manner in which he has carried out the original purpose with which he was guided when he introduced this Bill.

The task has been a lengthy and a long one. The tactics of the right hon. Gentleman, pursued through both Houses and over so many months, have at last brought him back exactly to where he started and exactly where his heart lay—surely a great Parliamentary achievement. In the course of it he may have stooped to conquer, but in the end the Bill will go through subject to Amendments which did not affect this principle and without any attempt to bring a change in the law relating to the death penalty into its compass. That was what the right hon. Gentleman advised us at the beginning, and that is what he now advises us at the end.

I feel that we must not let the occasion pass without complimenting the right hon. Gentleman upon his Parliamentary strategy, so persevering, so undaunted by trouble and reverses, which in the end has led him to this victorious conclusion—actually where he began. There is also another gain by the lengthy process adopted, and that is that no doubt the Attorney-General will have received some improvements in his education on legal matters, especially on matters affecting the common law, and will be able, in the short holiday which we are to have, to put himself into closer relation with the higher authorities of his own profession.

While I make my own acknowledgments to the right hon. Gentleman, I feel it would be very wrong if we did not also pay our tribute of thanks, on his behalf as well as our own, to the Second Chamber, which has thoroughly expressed the general wishes of the great mass of the people of this country, which has corrected a casual and irresponsible vote by the House of Commons which did not correspond to the will or the feelings of the people, which has shown the importance of a Chamber of review, and which has enabled the House of Commons to profit greatly from the decisions which have been taken in another place. I feel that we all owe a great debt to those who, by their strength, aided our Parliamentary discussions, for there are two Houses of Parliament. We owe a great debt to them, and, on behalf of the right hon. Gentleman as well as those who sit on this side of this House, I will express our obligations in suitable terms.

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman and the Government did not act in pique and spite because this Clause was cut out of the Bill, and that they did not, in pique and spite, throw the whole of this Bill away. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that it contains many valuable provisions to which a great deal of thought has been given. There are also some refinements which we all must welcome in an age when so much brutality is rife and in which the value of human life has sunk with the advance of the century. It will be of some comfort to criminal lunatics to know that their status has been altered by this Measure, and that they will be called Broadmoor patients, and not be subjected to the slur which naturally attaches to men who are described as criminal lunatics.

But there are other provisions of very great value in this Bill, and we have taken no part to resist it. On the contrary, we have given our assistance to it, and it would have been very wrong for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to have come down with a view to working up some quarrel with another place and to cast aside all that has hitherto been achieved. I acknowledge, I hope in suitable terms, the good sense of the decision to which the Government have come. I recommended to them even before the last Debate not to press this Clause. The only outstanding impression which I cannot fail to record on this occasion is that the Clause which they forced through the House by the use of their majority constitutes the most remarkable example of silliness and incompetence to which this House has ever been asked to agree.

9 56 p.m.

When I hear the Leader of the Opposition invite this House to turn its back upon the result of a free vote of only a few weeks ago, I begin to suspect that something is wrong. If I am invited to go into the same Lobby as the right hon. Gentleman, then before I do so, I should like to recall in short review the events which have led up to this invitation. As I say, it was only a few weeks ago that, after one of the best Debates that I have ever heard, although my experience is short in this House, the House decided by a majority of 20 or so to suspend the death penalty for five years. It is no use saying that it was only a majority of 20. If there had been a truly free vote it would have been a majority of 70 or more, and if the vote had not been postponed to enable certain persons to come back from a banquet and vote upon an issue about which they had heard no argument, then the majority would have been greater.

What has happened since then to justify us in running away from what we decided that night? Two things have happened. First there has been a Press campaign, and secondly there has been an adverse vote in the other place. Each of those expressions of view has claimed the support of overwhelming public opinion. All of us, I fear, are too apt to invoke all too glibly the support of public opinion for the views in which we believe. How do we know what informed public opinion thinks? I do not know. I am not prepared to stand up in this House and say that informed public opinion is overwhelmingly on one side or the other, but what I can do is to give my own personal experience, which is this: I have had two letters about the vote on the death penalty, one in favour and one against, and I have received no others. I was questioned about it at a public meeting; I gave the full reasons for my vote and there was no dissentient voice heard afterwards. If that experience were unique I should begin to distrust it, but I understand it is widely shared.

Then there has been an adverse vote in the other place. The other place in turn said, first "This is the best deterrent, and secondly it is not in the public interest to suspend the death penalty at the present time." Whether it is the best deterrent or not, we shall not know until we try the experiment. We shall merely go on arguing. As to whether this is the best time or not—what would be the best time? The time when all crimes of violence had ceased? What would be the argument then if it were said "Well, now you may abolish the death penalty?" "Oh no," would say those who believed in hanging; "Why, it is the death penalty which is responsible for this freedom from crimes of violence, and if you suspend it now you are merely inviting a resumption of those selfsame crimes."

What I feel, trying to view this matter not in any partisan or emotional light, is this: I cannot help confessing to a sense of deep disappointment that no speaker, either in this House on the Benches opposite or in the other place, faced the difficulty which has always oppressed me as a difficulty in retaining the death penalty—that in every other country where it has been abolished murders have decreased, except in New Zealand where the number remained static.

How did the other place deal with that difficulty? They dealt with it by running away from it, because no single speaker—and I have read all the speeches—dealt with that difficulty at all. They ran away from it in another sense, too, for although the other House was crowded for the speech of Lord Goddard in favour of the death penalty, when Lord Pethick-Lawrence rose and delivered what I thought was a most cogent, sincere and convincing speech in favour of suspension, the House practically emptied. Now, those noble Lords who went out were quite entitled to prefer tea to argument; but they are not entitled, in those circumstances, to say to me that the other House came to their decision after full, mature and impartial consideration of all the arguments for and against.

That is where we are at the moment, and we are now asked to decide that this whole question shall be shelved, and, I suppose, that some committee shall be set up to see whether any compromise is possible or not. I must confess, quite honestly, that I do not believe there is any half-way house between abolition or suspension and the status quo. That being so, to set up another committee will, in my opinion, be a complete waste of time, and I cannot bring myself honestly to vote in favour of it. I feel that we should vindicate the supremacy of this House; that as soon as we can, we should get back to the position in which we were in April, and that legislation should be introduced to implement the free vote taken in this House. Unless some assurance can be given that next Session a Bill to that effect will be introduced, I cannot bring myself to vote in the Lobby in favour of this expedient.

10.3 p.m.

I cannot pretend to feel any regret whatsoever at hearing the Home Secretary recommend the House to agree with the Lords' Reason: first, because we all want to save the Criminal Justice Bill; and secondly, because the more I studied it, the more convinced I became that the proposed new Clause was utterly unworkable. The last thing I want to do now is to make a controversial speech, and particularly not to join issue with the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan); but I must say that I was rather surprised to hear his firm declaration that he did not think it possible that there could be any half-way house in this matter when I recollected that the Motion to which he was at the moment speaking was one of regret that the course of the half-way house had not been adopted by the Government.

I am myself an abolitionist, and an unrepentant abolitionist, and I do not unsay the speech I made on that topic. Hon. Members will no doubt be relieved to hear that I also do not propose to repeat it. The other night I went into the Lobby in support of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Heywood and Radcliffe (Mr. Anthony Greenwood). I would have gone into that Lobby had that Lobby been simply filled with those who supported his Amendment on its intrinsic merits. However, I want to make a practical suggestion. I do not want to make a controversial speech, and I see no purpose in doing so. I want to make a practical contribution, if I can, on a very serious subject.

As the Home Secretary has said, and as, indeed, is the truth, we cannot have heard the last of this subject. This is a subject on which it is vitally necessary that we should reach a settlement, and also on which it is appallingly difficult to reach a settlement. It is not necessary to reach a settlement merely because we are all anxious to get rid of a tiresome subject, but for a much deeper reason than that, and it is this. Anyone who is anxious to reduce the rate of murders must ask himself two questions. He must ask what course of action is likely to be the most effective deterrent to the potential murderer, and also what course of action is likely to ensure that there are as few potential murderers in society as possible.

It is the second of those questions which, though less frequently asked, is really the much more important. In a controversy in which many things are uncertain, one of the few things that is certain is that murders increase where there is a morbid and excited public opinion that is hysterically interested in the subject of murder. Therefore, for that reason, if it be not too impertinent of me to say so, I do hope that hon. Members will take every step they possibly can to prevent this from becoming the subject of long drawn out and passionate controversy.

Secondly, although a settlement is vitally necessary, it is also appallingly difficult, and it is appallingly difficult for a reason that is entirely to the honour of people on both sides of the controversy. Here I need not delay the House by stating my argument at length, because it is exactly the same as the argument that was cogently developed the other day by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), who takes the diametrically opposite position from that which I take in the controversy. It is that the difficulty arises from the fact that people on both sides of the controversy have the highest regard for the sanctity of human life. If that standpoint is also perfectly honestly developed on the question of whether the death penalty is or is not a deterrent, one is led inevitably—or almost inevitably—to one of two diametrically opposite conclusions.

If it is a deterrent, it is greatly against a man's conscience to advocate the abolition of the death penalty; and if it is not, it is much more difficult, obviously, to ask a person who does not believe it to be a deterrent to vote for some compromise solution, when he does not think the death penalty is necessary at all. What has struck me as most interesting—if "interesting" be the word—about this whole controversy in this House, and in another place, and in the country at large, is that the best chance of having a settlement lies in our scientifically investigating the question whether the death penalty is or is not a deterrent. Very little indeed has been said on that topic. A few people now and again have given some personal experiences of some criminals they have met, and that is valuable as far as it goes; but others have simply stated their prejudices as to whether the death penalty is or is not a deterrent.

The fact that there has not been an attempt to approach the question really scientifically is the more remarkable in that, since the Royal Commission sat in 1930; and during the last 18 years, there has been a vast amount of scientific work, tested out in practice, on this question in Sweden and in Switzerland, and, doubtless, in other countries. There has been very little sign that many people are acquainted with that, which is the most important data on the question at all. To a large extent it is not possible for people in this country to be acquainted with it, because the information is simply not available, and I think the Government have been very remiss in not putting that information before the public and so enabling the public to judge on it. Their reply to Lord Templewood's request was a miserably inadequate little paper that does not get us any further at all.

I would appeal to the Home Secretary to consider this practical suggestion. We have a breathing space, and the day will come when we shall have to consider this question again. Let us use this breathing space profitably. Let the Home Secretary appoint some gentleman or three gentlemen, responsible people, to inquire into the facts of the present state of the treatment of murder. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) that it gets us very little further to give us mere proved statistics of the number of murders in this or that country, without telling us any of the circumstances. Let the inquirers tell us the facts of the murders, the methods of treatment, the arguments that weighed with the people at the time the treatment was changed, and the psychological principles on which that treatment is based in those countries.

Let them cast their eye a bit further afield and tell us whether there are any marked differences between the general habits of the people towards murder in this and other countries, whether larger space is given to murder questions in the Press; whether sadistic films are not popular in one country or another, and so on. Let us examine that important saying of Professor Jung, the greatest of psychologists, that fear is a more common cause of violence than grief or wrath. Let us get the exact evidence on which he made that statement, which is obviously fundamental to the whole consideration of the case.

Let the inquirers not recommend anything. Let them carry out the inquiry, report and lay the facts before the people of this country, so that when this question comes to be judged again, having failed to solve it on a political plane, we may hope to take it on a much more proper plane, the medical plane, on which alone, I believe, a solution can be reached—a solution which is so vitally necessary and so earnestly desired, I am sure by people of every sort in this House and throughout the country.

10.12 p.m.

I do not propose to detain the House long because I have already, on two previous occasions, expressed my point of view on this issue very fully. I have put before the House, as best I could, the arguments which I believe support the point of view for which I stand. I think that I have seldom listened to any statement by a responsible Minister from any party with more deepening disquiet, and finally, I am afraid, with more simple despair, than I have listened to the statement made here tonight.

I can appreciate, as I am sure do all my fellow Members on this side of the House who take my point of view in support of abolition, the very strong practical reasons on which the Home Secretary tonight has advanced his case for putting the Criminal Justice Bill forward at this point of time in this Session. I can appreciate the strong practical reason why the Home Secretary on behalf of the Government should ask us now, at this stage of the Session, not to imperil the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill itself by insisting on the inclusion once more of the abolition proposal, or even of the compromise which we reluctantly accepted, and which another place has rejected.

We understand those reasons, and we should have been prepared to accept them, but what we are surely not to be asked to accept is this further statement which we have had tonight, that not only should we ensure the safe passage of this most valuable Measure, the Criminal Justice Bill, by acceding to this-proposal that we should drop our abolition Clause, or our compromise Clause even, but that we should, apparently, be asked to accept the abandonment of the struggle for the proposal which had been carried in this House. What importance can anybody in his senses attach to the vague ambiguous proposal which was trotted out at the end of that statement, that some people, representative of the two Houses, are to be assembled to explore the situation for the avowed purpose of trying to reach some common accommodation? That is, to try, apparently, to compromise a compromise.

We have already been informed in the plainest possible terms by the members of another place that they are not prepared to compromise on this issue. No one who has read those speeches or listened to them, can possibly be under the slightest possible misapprehension as to what their Lordships meant when they threw out both our proposals in succession. They made it abundantly plain. What is the good of the Home Secretary stating in one part of his speech that another place did not throw out the compromise because it did not like the terms of the compromise, but because it objected to any kind of compromise and wanted to retain the operation of the hangman in his complete and unfettered position as we have known it up till now—what is the good of recognising that, and then suggesting that by any kind of committee operation, it is possible to get their Lordships to change their point of view?

This proposal is not a proposal for exploring a situation with some hope of reaching a solution of the problem. It is merely an evasion of the issue. It is merely an attempt to persuade us to allow ourselves to be deceived as to the realities of the situation. I, for one, am not for one moment deceived. I believe that in this instance the Government are running away from the free vote of this House. They are not only letting down, and letting down very badly, their own Members who supported the original proposal, but they are letting down this House in face of the opposition of the other place.

I do not believe that. I have had more experience in testing public opinion on this issue than any other hon. Member. I can claim to have been for 12 years the spearhead of the agitation in this country for the abolition of capital punishment. I have addressed meetings on this subject in every part of the country from end to end of it, meetings of bodies of people of every kind in our community, meetings thoroughly representative of the entire community. I would tell the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) that my general experience in speaking at thousands of meetings on this subject during those 12 years was that in probably 99 per cent. of them I started with a hostile audience but by the end, after I had made a carefully reasoned statement of the very powerful case for the abolition of the death penalty, I had at least effected a change in the overwhelming number of those audiences so that instead of being hostile, the majority were convinced that our case was a sound one.

I entirely accept what the hon. Member says, but if he says that 90 per cent. of the audiences were against him, does not that mean that, in general, public opinion in this country is 90 per cent. against him? If they all had the chance of being addressed by the hon. Member they might be changed, but without that, surely it shows that they are against it?

What I was about to point out was that where one gets an audience which has a reasonable opportunity of being informed upon the subject, in my own experience I have found, as I have already told the House, that their decision is in favour of abolition, I re- fuse to agree to the idea that hon. Members of this House in the discharge of their public duties should allow their actions in the House to be determined by an uninformed opinion upon particular subjects.

To get back to the points with which I was dealing, I believe that this proposal is one which does less than justice to the Government's own supporters in this fight that we have been making in the House and, in fact, does a great disservice to the House of Commons itself in its relations with the other place. I hope, therefore, tonight that this House, having heard the statement of the Home Secretary, will make up its mind now that on this issue we must make a stand. I am perfectly certain that the Home Secretary himself and the other Members of the Government will agree that I would be the last hon. Member of this party to attempt to lead any revolt against the Government if there was any kind of reasonable ground for supporting them, but I am bound to say tonight, after what has happened, that I find myself in the position in which I can do no other than challenge this decision that has been conveyed to us in this manner, and I hope I shall get the support of hon. Members on my own side of the House at least in that attitude.

10.22 p.m.

I have not intervened previously on this issue, and in doing so tonight I shall certainly not minimise the importance of the issue which has been debated on two occasions and which is being debated again tonight. I commend the decision reached by the Home Secretary to accept the Lords Amendment, which I am certain is the right one.

Let me make my own view clear at the outset. I am not today in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, even for an experimental period, but I have always thought that those who advocated that suspension for an experimental period were putting forward a worthy case worthy of serious consideration. There are few hon. Members of this House for whose opinion I have a greater respect than my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), who made a remarkable speech when this matter first came before the House, and if I may say so, I also appreciate what was said on that first occasion by the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan). My only astonishment tonight was that, while he put forward many statements with which I found myself in agreement, he should not have mentioned that what he was saying entirely torpedoed the argument that prevailed on the last occasion when the House adopted this fantastic, so-called compromise Clause.

The chief matter I wish to put before the House is that while both the view in favour of the suspension of capital punishment and the view in favour of the retention of capital punishment deserve respect, this compromise Clause was wholly contemptible. It was designed and calculated to achieve one object only—to bring the law into hatred, ridicule and contempt. It was in no sense an honourable compromise and I am quite certain that this view would have been accepted in all quarters of the House if lay Members had appreciated what, I think, was obvious to any lawyer who took the trouble to study this Clause.

It is, after all, the compromise Clause which has now been deleted by the House of Lords and about which we are to vote, if a vote is taken, in order to approve its deletion. That compromise Clause would have meant that in every murder trial in which the ingredients of the more serious kind of murder were alleged in the indictment, the judge and jury would have had to determine two things; whether the prisoner was guilty of murder under the old law of murder, and secondly, whether the additional requirements were satisfied that would bring it within the more serious kind of murder defined by the Clause. The fact that both those things would have been in issue entirely negatives one of the chief arguments put forward by the Attorney-General and the Home Secretary on the last occasion.

The Attorney-General and the Home Secretary then spoke as if the question of constructive malice, to which they objected for reasons which we can respect, would be abolished under the new Clause, but of course, that is not so. All the evils—if they be evils—and refinements of the law of constructive malice would have had to be put to the jury exactly as before, in order that they might determine whether there was murder under the old law. This would have involved a hopelessly difficult summing-up, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was describing what is truly the common law when, on the last occasion, he spoke of the difficult questions which would have had to be put to the jury. But I do not wish to weary the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—If hon Members think that, by refusing to allow me to speak they will shorten my observations, they are making a foolish error.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. So that we shall know how long the Debate may continue, may I ask whether we are entitled to go into the whole of the case we debated the other day and discuss the merits and demerits of the Clause?

Further to that point of Order; as the Motion before the House is not to insist on disagreeing with the Lords, who have rejected this Clause, I submit that the merits of the Clause are absolutely in order.

Yes, but as the Government do not insist on resisting the Lords Amendments, I think those observations can be reasonably concentrated.

The compromise Clause, from which the Lords have fortunately delivered this House, would have had the most fantastic results, apart altogether from the unworkability of the Clause on account of the difficulty of summing up to the jury. I find, both inside and outside the House, that hon. Members are wholly unacquainted with the effect this Clause would in fact have.

For instance, they believe that in the case of thieving, if thieving is accompanied by murder, that would fall within the more serious class of murder. That is not so in every case. If a person enters a dwelling house by day without forcing any door and puts the householder in bodily fear and then commits a theft and kills the householder, that murder does not come within the more serious class of murder. Let me put this to any hon. Member in any quarter of the House—and here I find myself in agreement with the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester on the impossibility of compromise on this point. If there are to be two classes of murder—

These matters have been argued in this House; they have been argued in another place; and it is really redundant to go over the whole of the arguments again. It seems to me quite unnecessary talk in this House.

I apologise if I am going over an argument which has been put before, but, if I may with great respect, I would point out some of the absurdities of the Clause it is now proposed to reject which have not been pointed out before. Let me take the case of a second murder. There is a widespread opinion that a second murder would be put in the more serious class of murder. I put this to the House, and I think it is relevant to one of the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary when he suggested there might be a further inquiry to see whether there should be any improvement in the law on these lines.

I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester that this is doomed to failure, for this simple reason—if there are to be two classes of murder, which is the essence of the proposal in the speech of the Home Secretary, it would lead to absurd results unless the capital class of murder included the most shocking cases. In the case of a second murder, I do not know whether any hon. Member realises that under the Clause it is absolutely essential, if the crime is to be brought into the capital class, that the trials for the two cases should take place in the same order in which the murders were committed. That really is a fantastic result.

There are two other classes which are of great importance, and which are generally described as sexual murders. In the first class, the case of rape, there is a widespread opinion that under the Government's Clause a murder committed in connection with rape would certainly be a capital crime. But that is entirely untrue if there were no intention either to kill or maim.

It is not a question of whether the hon. and learned Member agrees with the law on this matter. We are going over and over again the Debate we had not long ago.

I apologise, Sir. I am agreeing with the proposal of the Home Secretary that we accept the Lords' deletion of this Clause. I thought there was a suggestion, at any rate in some of the remarks, that the Lords had taken an action which was in some respects questionable. It was suggested that in some respects this was a reputable Clause. I thought I was in Order in pointing out that it was a disreputable Clause.

Regarding the other class of crimes which I ask the House to consider, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester in assuming that those who drafted this Clause must have directed some effort to drawing a distinction if a distinction had been possible. Nevertheless, in this whole class of sex acts which are followed by murder, there would be nothing to bring the matter within the more serious class of murder at all unless the original sex act had been without the consent of the woman. Now, in the most loathsome of recent cases, namely, the Heath case, in the indictment for the first murder as outlined in the police court proceedings, it was made clear that that would not have come within the more serious class of murder under this Clause. I do beg hon. Members to consider that.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes that this matter will certainly be further considered. No one will suggest that the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton) and others will abandon a cause in which they sincerely believe. No one will suggest, on the other hand, that those who believe that this compromise Clause is utterly wrong and indeed that the original proposed suspension was wrong, will abandon their view either. But there is, I suggest, one matter on which we might all agree; that is, the importance of our criminal law remaining certain, comprehensible and respected. That is possible both under the retention of the death penalty and if it were abolished. I believe it to be wholly impossible under such a compromise as the Clause suggested. The ultimate solution must be one or other of the opposing views. There cannot be an attempted compromise which is not honourable in itself and which brings the law into hatred, ridicule and contempt.

I wonder whether I might quote one paragraph of a learned author known to all lawyers in the House, who was once a Member of this honourable House when years ago he sat for the constituency of Barnsley. I am referring to the late Professor Kenny, and these are the words with which he concludes his great work on criminal law, and I commend them to the House: Les Misérables:

10.42 p.m.

The course which the Government have taken is the only course open to them at this stage. I say that as an abolitionist and as one who voted for the abolition of the death penalty. I have followed the Debates in another place and I have followed the arguments in this House, and I remain an unrepentant abolitionist. In the circumstances, as an abolitionist I could not bring myself to vote for the compromise Clause, which is worse than the existing law. To restore the existing law, as the compromise Clause has been rejected, is the only possible course now if the Bill is to be saved. The Bill is too important to be lost.

However, there remains the decision of this House to abolish hanging. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) that a compromise between the two views is not possible. There cannot be any compromise about the Ten Commandments. They are accepted, rejected or broken, but there cannot be a compromise about them. To save this Bill the Government have taken the right course. During; the Second Reading Debate the Home Secretary said that the Government were in favour of capital punishment and that was their considered view. They had given months of thought to it and that was their decision. However, they now seem to have changed their ground, and no longer do they uphold that view. That being so, it is their duty, and an obligation is laid upon them to bring in a new Bill to give this House the opportunity of discussing this issue and this issue only.

There is no doubt that this is one of the major issues. One of the most important issues that this House could discuss is what is to happen to a criminal charged with the serious offence of murder. Therefore, as this is a serious offence, it cannot be discussed at the tail end of a long day, when an important Bill like this is in the balance. But the House should have an opportunity to consider a Bill—not a rushed Clause like this one but a Bill which has been considered calmly by the country and the House, a Bill which is the considered opinion of the Government; and I hope that next Session such a Bill will be brought before the House.

10.45 p.m.

I should first like to congratulate the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) on producing a magnificent and conclusive argument for the abolition of university representation. I would like further to join the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) in urging upon the Government that they should give a firm undertaking to this House tonight that they will introduce a Bill in the next Session to reform the law relating to the death penalty. I would remind the House, and this party in particular, of the facts with which we are faced. It was part of our platform at the General Election. A series of resolutions were passed by this party in party conference stating that we were opposed to the death penalty.

We were entitled to expect that the abolition of the death penalty would be included in the Criminal Justice Bill. The proposal was, however, that it should be left to a free vote, a proposal welcomed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who agreed to co-operate in it. It was also agreed that the Conservative Whips would not be on. That was a decision which we thought had been taken. But that decision was departed from. It was not to be a free vote as far as the members of the Government were concerned. In spite of that, we carried that Clause.

Then it was rejected in another place, and the Government asked us to consent to a compromise. What was said was, "People are afraid; they are afraid that if capital punishment is abolished altogether, policemen will be murdered and you will not be able to get recruits for the police forces." That was an argument which I think cast an unjust slur on the courage of our citizens. It was also said that people would be frightened in their houses if it were known that burglars and criminals were able to bear arms. All these arguments, and the argument about the necessity for a deterrent, were advanced. It was further said, "If this House will accept this compromise, then the Government will see it through." It was on the basis of that undertaking by the Government to see the thing through that I and my hon. Friends supported the Government in the Lobby.

I do not like this compromise. Of course, I do not. I believe it to be wrong to kill helpless people who are within your power—wrong for the murderer and not less wrong for his executioner. In spite of that, the compromise did answer all those who required a deterrent. The remedy was provided by this Clause for every case where a deterrent was sought. It was, therefore, left to those who wished to retain hanging to retain it for the real emotional reason that they wanted vengeance, the same sort of reason that incites the lynching mob. It was still a matter of vengeance, because vengeance was to be retained with the compromise that was thrown out.

Of course, the compromise was illogical because capital punishment itself is illogical. We have degrees of felonious killing today. We do not confine hanging to the worst of crimes. I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back and consider what has been the most horrible felonious killing of this century. I would say without hesitation that it was that perpetrated by the Welsh farmer Gough who took two helpless orphans on to his farm, tortured and starved them for a solid year and finally killed one of them. I think that was the cruellest, most inexcusable, most systematic killing we have seen this century. But it was not murder. It was only manslaughter. Let us remember Titus Oates who, swore to death scores of innocent and respectable people. But his offence was not murder and he could not be hanged for it. Any division of crime which brings in capital punishment is, of course, illogical. The system which excused Titus Oates and Gough is not more or less illogical than the system proposed by this Clause. None the less this Clause has been rejected.

What are we offered in exchange? A committee will consider this. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) says that we should look at this scientifically. Does not the hon. Member for Devizes yet realise that the opponents of the Clause are not interested in the scientific aspects of it? In what I, personally, thought was the best speech in the whole of the Debates in either House, he brought out scientific and pyschological reasons why, in fact, the death penalty acts not as a deterrent, but as an incitement to prospective murderers. That is the view of psychologists and scientists who have studied this from a scientific point of view and their scientific opinion has been tested in a number of countries. In every single instance what the scientists expected has been proved to be the fact. Does that interest the people who are opposed to this? Not in the least. Has anyone in either House attempted to answer the hon. Member's arguments? They have simply ignored them. Is any scientific committee—we have already had a Royal Commission which made a report—going to affect this blind prejudice we are up against? Not a bit. It is not going to make the smallest difference.

What we say to the Government is this: we have backed this compromise, much as we hated it and difficult as it was to persuade many people who came with us, on the undertaking that the Government would see it through. In another place the Lord Chancellor made no effort to see this through—no effort at all. We consider that this is not an honourable thing; it is not an honourable way to treat this party, and I say that deliberately.

The hon. Member is talking of what an individual did in another place. That is quite wrong; we cannot discuss the motives of individuals of another place.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I am out of Order, but I have perhaps allowed my remarks to become heated. It is a subject on which I feel very deeply. We ask the Government to give an undertaking to introduce a Bill in the next Session. If they will not do that, I shall ask my hon. Friends to reject the Motion and to vote against the Government tonight. That may lose the Criminal Justice Bill for this Session; but, remember this fact—this Bill, including Clause 1, can, in large extent, be operated by executive action. The Bill cannot come into operation for two years because the machinery will not be in existence for two years. That could be done, or the Bill could be delayed and put through under the Parliament Act. The Government could do it that way; or they could introduce a new Bill. If they will do neither of these things, I hope that my hon. Friends will go into the Lobby against them, and I believe that, if we do, we shall win, as we did last time.

10.57 p.m.

I hope the House will forgive me if I try not to strike too controversial a note tonight; in my previous two speeches on this subject, I have tried to be objective, and this evening I shall try to persuade those who do not think as I think on this subject not to take the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I will express my reasons for trying to persuade them in this way. The hon. and learned Member based his argument On the opinion that it did not matter much whether we got the Criminal Justice Bill this Session or not, and also that it would be legitimate, and even desirable, to force the Measure through under the Parliament Act.

I beg hon. Members on the opposite side of this controversy to reflect most carefully before they accept that argument. Those who have been in the House with me since 1938 will agree that we have tried very hard to get this Measure through Parliament for 10 years. I think none will deny that it was overdue when introduced by Lord Templewood, as Sir Samuel Hoare. It is overdue now, but I cannot agree that in trying to put the Measure through for 10 years we have been more or less wasting our time trying to do something about which there is no urgency.

With the exception of those hon. Members who agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, we are all in complete agreement that this is a desirable Measure, and if there is one certain proposition it is that we cannot get it this Session if we insist on the view expressed by this House against the Lords Amendment. I have heard no one who has endeavoured to controvert that. Let hon. Members who do not agree with me about the main topic of controversy face this: if they vote against the Government tonight, what in effect they will be voting against is the passing of the Criminal Justice Bill this Session. I must add that, viewing the matter as a member of the Opposition, I cannot be certain that if it is not got through this Session, it will ever get through this Parliament at all.

May I interrupt for one moment? What the hon. Member is saying is that if we defeat the Government, we shall, in effect, defeat the Criminal Justice Bill. Does he assume, therefore, that if the House of Commons decides, as it decided last Thursday, the other House will defeat that decision? If he does, will not the responsibility for defeating the Criminal Justice Bill be fairly and squarely with another place?

I am making no assumption. I am stating an opinion, I do not have to give reasons for that opinion, which happens to coincide with that of the Home Secretary. Hon. Members opposite must face the facts honestly. I believe they would not be honest with themselves if they did not frankly admit that the effect of this Motion of the Government being rejected tonight would be to prevent the Criminal Justice Bill from going through this Session. There is, at any rate, a substantial measure of doubt even if it would get through in this Parliament, clogged as the Government programme appears to be. Of course, from the point of view of the Opposition it would be advantageous if it were more clogged than it is. I am sure that the state of the Government programme is not such that the Government can assure us that this Bill would get through at any time in the course of this Parliament if it were rejected this Session.

The next question which arises on this Motion is the proposal of the Government to inquire into this matter. I cannot complain of that, because hon. Members will remember that I pressed the Government last time that, rather than lose this Bill, they should divorce the issue of capital punishment from the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill in this House. I have always thought that that was the only way in which we should ever get that Bill. But now those who are speaking from the other side tonight are trying to demand a promise from the Government for a Bill, in a particular form, next Session between 14th and 22nd September. I beg them to consider whether they really mean that, or anything like it; or whether they really suppose that by trying to bludgeon the Government tonight, they will be any nearer to that than they would be if they behaved with more restraint in the matter?

I am not complaining if the Government think it right that they should bring in a Measure which really embodies a more considered opinion, but we cannot in fact decide that tonight. All we car decide tonight is the fate of the Criminal Justice Bill this Session. We cannot dictate to the Government tonight what they shall put into some hypothetical Bill they may introduce. We cannot say whether it should be a Bill to introduce a reformed death penalty in some form other than the Clause we were discussing the other night, or whether the Bill should be in the form of a reiteration of the Motion of 14th April. Some hon. Members are trying to force the Government to adopt views they are not altogether willing to adopt. It is not really fair for hon. Members to attempt to bludgeon the Government by saying that unless the Government give a full-bodied assurance in a definite form, they will wreck the Bill tonight.

My final point is upon the constitutional issue. Here I venture with respect, but still firmly—as I believe in the real tradition of English constitutionalism which is something apart and above party—to differ from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton), the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, in both the content and implications of what they were seeking to say. The hon. and learned Member for East Leicester spoke of the supremacy of this House, the hon. Member for Norwich talked about letting this House die, and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton in his speech tonight when he referred to the use of the Parliament Act in this connection, and out of doors when he spoke in less measured language, talked very much on the same lines.

I venture to point out to hon. Members just where their doctrine leads. We in this House are not, and never have been, an unfettered assembly of elected dictators, and if we should seek to become such an assembly, the reign of law and freedom and democracy in this country will be ended. I must refer to the terms in which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton was reported as having spoken out of doors on this issue. When it is alleged against him that public opinion is not on his side in this matter, he takes a view rather different from the other two hon. Members who spoke from below the Gangway tonight, and says, "What does it matter?" When the House of Lords differ from the rest on this issue, other hon. Gentlemen say, "What does it matter; we are supreme." When the judges express a view unfavourable to them, they say, "What does it matter, they are always wrong." And when the Press ventures to express an opinion they say, "What does it matter; it is the most prostituted Press in the world."

I beg hon. Members opposite to consider that they themselves could be wrong. Even if they are right they have not the right to force their opinions on a reluctant country or public opinion. I beg them to consider that this House has never been, and I pray to God never will be, an unlimited power in this realm, that there are other estates and interests to be taken into consideration, and although we are admittedly given the right of elected representatives of the people to determine matters of policy, we still have not the right to constitute ourselves elected dictators.

Nothing could be more deplorable than that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton should attempt to quote Burke and the constitutional doctrine of Burke in answer to his constituents who sought to make him prefer a private interest to that of the nation in support of a proposition which would have made this House an assembly of elected dictators. The hon. and learned Member will not forget that the whole of that man's great life was dedicated to opposition to the usurpation of the elected Chamber of precisely that prerogative, and we should be departing far away from the tradition of legality and constitutionalism in this country if we sought to take that point of view. I beg hon. Members, whatever their politics and opinions not to press that view.

I did not say anything on this matter to my constituents, because they asked for no explanation, being in entire agreement. I agree that the statement to which the hon. Gentleman referred was a statement made to a Press reporter. Burke's words which I quoted were:

"Your representative owes to you his judgement, and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices his judgement to your opinion."

What I would say upon this issue is that I will consider whether it be a deterrent or not, whether it be right or wrong, but I will not consider the argument that we should hang people to please the crowd. That is the argument which appealed to Pontius Pilate, but I hope not to us.

I hope that what the hon. and learned Member has said is not less carefully considered that what he says to his constituents, but he has forgotten, both on the occasion that he spoke to the Press reporter and tonight, the complete quotation from Burke which makes very plain what I was attempting to put forward, the true doctrine of Burke. I do beg hon. Members, whatever their views may be about the death penalty and about the present constitution or the powers of another place, before they give way to reckless doctrine and counsels, to consider whether it is not possible that the Government which they, and not I, have been elected to support in this Parliament may not be right on this particular issue.

11.13 p.m.

The House of Commons is considering tonight a very grave matter indeed. I do not think that the gravest aspect of it has been mentioned tonight, and that is the conflict between the two Houses of Parliament. This, in my opinion, is a matter upon which every Englishman, and the whole of the British people who believe in democracy, must take careful notice. This is a challenge that has come from another place to the authority of the elected representatives of the people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I hope that that aspect of this situation will be considered very carefully by everyone who loves this country and who believes in democracy.

Is the hon. Member prepared to fight a by-election on it?

I am asked if I am prepared to fight a by-election on it. I hope that the Government will be prepared to fight the General Election on the issue whether this House is to be supreme in this country. That is the issue thrown down to us. It may be that we can deal with this situation, as the Government suggest, but this is a clear warning that in regard to some vital matter on which the life of the nation and not the life of a criminal may be at stake, the opinion of this House, elected by the people, may not prevail. We shall have to give careful consideration to the constitution under which we are operating. If further justification were needed of the wisdom of the Government in deciding to limit the power of another place in another Bill, this gives us that justification.

I was not here when the Vote was taken on this issue: I was out of the country. I do not mind stating that if I had been here, I should have voted for abolition. The House of Commons made a very noble and a very humane decision upon this matter. I say that the discussion has not been kept at that high level.

What has happened is that the Leader of the Opposition in the main has used this as a party issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I say that there has never been a more despicable political action than that. The right hon. Gentleman made a very clever speech tonight, and he made a very clever speech the other day on the matter; and I enjoy his speeches as much as any Member of the House: he is one of the great actors as well as one of the great statesmen of the age. He said tonight that my right hon. Friend had stooped to conquer. I thought when he used those words, "I do not know to what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition would stoop in this business."

I want to remind him of how he addressed this House on two occasions somewhat similar to this. I shall never forget the scene in this House when my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) raised the issue of the dark-skinned ritual murderers who were going to the scaffold. I shall never forget the right hon. Gentleman's intervention from the other side. I shall never forget the magnificent and humane words he then used. For what did he use them? To prevent the African ritual murderers from going to the scaffold. He has now made a brilliant speech to send white killers to the scaffold. We have to consider what his motive was. On both occasions he embarrassed the Government. I do not like to think he was not speaking honestly from his heart when he spoke on that former great occasion to which I have referred, but I am bound to wonder tonight whether he used that occasion to embarrass the Government, and whether he uses this occasion to embarrass the Government. Is he more concerned with embarrassing the Government than with whether men live or die? That is the issue I pose to the House.

Much has been said about the compromise Clause that the Government brought in. I have a great admiration for the legal gentlemen. It has been lessened, I admit, tonight—though I shall not say in what manner. However, I would defy them, even if they were all to get together in a committee and to remain in it for ever, to draft a satisfactory compromise Clause. It is an utterly impossible thing to do. When we were dealing with the question of whether the Africans should be hanged or not, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition laid down the proposition: Joyce to live. That was his compromise. If that compromise were adopted in English law, I say that no man or woman would ever be executed again, because the lawyers would find a way, by waiting until the execution day was fixed, and then finding some excuse for putting it off, and, on the formula of the right hon. Gentleman, capital punishment would be abolished—for all those who could afford a good lawyer. That is the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman has stooped in this matter. I submit that the Opposition have dealt with this matter on the basis of thinking they can snatch a few votes by embarrassing the Government.

I ask my hon. Friends on this side of the House to consider what is the actual position with which we are faced tonight. We have to consider whether or not we will follow the advice of the Government and not insist upon the view of the House of Commons prevailing at this stage. I suggest to my hon. Friends that the wisest thing we can do is to support the Government. [ Interruption. ] That is where the cleverness of the right hon. Gentleman comes in—if he can divide the Government supporters tonight no one will be more pleased than he. The wise and proper course for the Labour Party is to let the Criminal Justice Bill go on the Statute Book and then deal with the other matter. Nothing we do in going into the Lobby in support of the Government tonight can in any way bind this party as to its future course. This is the proper course for us to take to deal with this present situation. Then, after we have dealt with this matter and the Criminal Justice Bill is passed, the House itself can Seal with the two issues I have raised—the question of capital punishment, and the other grave and important issue, the constitutional issue.

11.25 p.m.

I shall be very brief and confine myself strictly to the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary has moved. Of the many speeches to which we have listened, I was particularly interested in those of the hon. and learned Member for East Leicester (Mr. Donovan) and the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. J. Paton). Both were impressive in different ways; but I do not feel the same difficulties as those hon. Members did in determining my attitude to this Motion tonight. I voted for the original Clause passed by this House. I have not the slightest remorse or repentance about my action then. I would vote exactly the same way another time. I voted, with some hesitation, for the compromise Clause because I agreed with the learned Attorney-General that half a loaf in this case was better than no bread. Now, of course, we are faced with the question of whether this immensely valuable Criminal Justice Bill is to be sacrificed so that we may preserve this compromise which nobody likes, whose demise no one mourns, and the working of which would be extremely difficult.

I think there is this fact to be emphasised, that the other place did not like this Bill as it left this House. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) said, the Bill comes back in its original condition, and we are asked whether we are going to pass it or not. If it had been the case of another place tearing the heart out of a Bill, as happened so often during the Parliament of 1906, there would have been a strong case for taking up the challenge. If it had been a question of our voting tonight on the original Clause carried by this House, I would have voted for that; but if we were to reject the Home Secretary's Motion tonight, all we would be voting for is this compromise, for which no one cares very much.

Although the right hon. Member for Woodford said that the Bill had come back in its original form, the problem is by no means in the same condition. Discussions which have taken place in this House, the vote given in this House on the Clause, and even the discussions in another place, have made an immense difference. They have changed the view of large numbers of people throughout the country. The Home Secretary has pointed to a very proper and reasonable method of advance. I do not find the Home Secretary's statement inadequate. As I understand it, he has come to admit that the law in its present form is not satisfactory. The principle has emerged from these discussions—it has been voiced in the other place as well as here—that there are certain classes of murder which ought not to be punished with the capital penalty. If we can establish that, it seems to me to be a half-way house, a compromise measure which is well worth while.

If the Home Secretary means that he is going to appoint a Committee to go into this matter with a view to abolishing capital punishment over a considerable field to which it now applies, I am content with that as a first step, but not as a final step; but we have to proceed by such steps as we can take one at a time. I think the Home Secretary has made a reasonable proposal, though one which I hope he will amplify before the night is over. I have no hesitation in supporting the Motion.

11.29 p.m.

Whatever may be the outcome of tonight's Debate, I think every hon. Member will realise that something, at any rate, has been achieved. There is, I think, no hon. Member of this House—and I would venture to suggest, few members of another place—who believes that it is now possible to maintain as part of the criminal law of this country the death penalty as it existed on 13th April this year. I am not allowed to quote speeches made in another place, but perhaps I shall not be out of Order if I remind hon. Members that almost everyone who spoke there admitted that, whether it was done by a wide extension of the prerogative, a more liberal use of the prerogative, or whether it was done in this Bill or a separate Bill, we could not go back to the barbarous law to which the Leader of the Opposition alone in the House would like to go back.

The question is how best we can effect what has become the common desire of both Houses to do something. What the Government are asking us to do is nothing. I listened, as I always listen, with great respect to the arguments of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg). He claimed he had always spoken on these matters objectively, and I will grant at once that he has always spoken upon them without passion, without party rancour and with an honest desire to face the issues that are raised. He will forgive me if I add that that does not amount to objectivity, because his own view, though no doubt reached with perfect objectivity, is quite clear and decided now. He does not want any change in the Statute Book. He may want other changes, but he wants the position in law to remain.

I did make it quite clear that I was prepared to keep an open mind about improvements in the law, provided those improvements can be justified on some rational principle.

I have not been unfair to the hon. Member. He says that he keeps an open mind, that he has not decided anything, that he is prepared to listen to argument and that so far he has heard no argument which will induce him to vote for any change now. That is a rather longer, perhaps a more lucid way of saying what I have already said. He added that what we would be doing tonight if we rejected the Government's proposal was to defeat the Criminal Justice Bill. With all respect to him, I say that that was not a very objective remark. I know it was intended to be, but in my opinion it was not. It was an unfair remark and it was, in fact, wrong. We shall not be defeating the Criminal Justice Bill. We shall send it back to the House of Lords as we want it. We shall be sending it back with some authority—not quite the authority I should like—to do what the Government now wish to do, to ameliorate the law with regard to the death penalty.

If another place were then to persist in their objections it would be most unfair to saddle that responsibility on to the House of Commons. It would be the House of Lords who would be defeating the whole of the Criminal Justice Bill, with nineteen-twentieths of which they agree, in order to persist in retaining the gallows unaltered. We are free agents in this matter, and I do not speak for anyone but myself, but I hope that my hon. Friends on this side of the House will not be influenced by that argument. The responsibility for defeating the Criminal Justice Bill will lie with those who reject it and not with those who stand by it as they sent it to the House of Lords.

I would like to say one word about the speech made from the Liberal Benches. I notice that the hon. Member is not here at the moment, and I am sorry he is not. He said he was going to support the Government because, although he was in favour of abolition, he was not in favour of the compromise. If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will say: "I am proposing to agree with the Lords in order to secure, and only in order to secure, the smooth passage of the Criminal Justice Bill undelayed, and will introduce a one-Clause Bill to give effect to the House of Commons decision on this matter," if he will do it in that way, so that the two issues shall not compromise each other and the nineteen-twentieths of the Bill with which the two Houses are in agreement shall not be prejudiced by the one issue on which they disagree, and give such a pledge, I would be prepared to vote for their proposal tonight.

I would say yes, on the compromise. I should prefer the Clause as the House of Commons originally passed it. If the Government said, "We are prepared to back the compromise Clause that the House of Commons agreed to," I would stand by the opinion I expressed and the vote I cast after the Debate last week. If the Government would do this, I would advise my hon. Friends to support them. But we are being asked to agree with the Lords to delete from the Bill any amelioration of the law, and we are offered a committee. It is a committee to consider what? It is a committee to consider a compromise between the two Houses. I would be in favour of a compromise between the two Houses. But we have done our best to get such a compromise and have made many sacrifices of principle in order to get it. [ Interruption. ] Certainly, we have made sacrifices. There is no hon. Member of this House who has never made a sacrifice of principle to get some advance in reform. It is inevitable in politics; politics is often a choice between second bests.

I want to say a word about the compromise Clause. It may be a little indiscreet, but it is said in view of what the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has said about my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General. Whose compromise Clause is it, after all? Certainly, it is not mine. I think it is fair to say, and I take the responsibility for saying it, that it is not the Attorney-General's Clause either, whoever may have thought it was. This is the House of Lords' compromise Clause. I am not saying this without some reason for so doing. How was the compromise reached? When the original Clause which this House adopted went to the House of Lords, they said: "We cannot have this, because, in the main, it goes too far in advance of public opinion." They went on to give reasons and instances of the respects in which it was in advance of public opinion.

They picked out, a series of categories of crime and they said: "You must not abolish or suspend the death penalty in these cases because if you do the public will not tolerate it and you will bring the law into disrepute." If, Sir, you look at the compromise Clause, you will see it is made up, and solely made up, of those categories advanced in the other place. I am not arguing the logicality or the rationality of it, but am dealing with the question of what hope there is of reaching a compromise with the other place. When you have a situation in which you have offered them a compromise which deals with every single issue they raised and gives them full satisfaction in every case they raised, and they then reject it, then I ask what hope is there of an agreed compromise at any stage? That is the origin of this compromise Clause. Everyone knows it, and it is most unfair to go about pretending what everyone knows to be untrue, that it is in some way the child or baby of the Attorney-General or those who supported the abolition Clause originally drafted.

The Leader of the Opposition said the other day, in dealing with an argument of the Attorney-General, that he was in conflict with some of the judges and that their legal experience as compared with his was as a pyramid to a molehill. We were told of old what happened when the mountains were in labour. Reading the debates in other place, it looks as if the pyramids in labour created nothing less ridiculous. This Clause is perfectly workable. If I had thought it was unworkable, I would not have voted for it on Thursday. It introduces no new principle and no new difficult question of any kind. All the elements of capital murder will have to be specifically set out in the indictment and juries will know exactly what they have to find. The judges will know on what they have to direct them—( a ) Was the person charged guilty of the act alleged?—and all the usual defences are open, ( b ) Was it done with intent to kill or maim? ( c ) Did it fall within one of the categories in the Schedule? These are all plain questions of fact. The only one that is difficult—and I agree it is very difficult—is to decide what is a man's intention. To get inside and judge the state of his mind is a very difficult thing to do, but it has to be done in many branches of the criminal law.

We discussed this at some length the other day and the House came to a decision on the merits or demerits of the case and passed it. It seems to be rather redundant, as I said, when I pulled up the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), to discuss again the merits of the Clause, which the House has decided upon.

I hope not to be very long about it, but I think I am perhaps entitled to remind you, Sir, that we are discussing the reasons offered by another place to this House and in their reasons they rely very largely on the alleged un-workability of the Clause. I do not want to be too long, but I submit, with respect, that there is nothing redundant in endeavouring to suggest that their reasons are wrong.

I am only saying that the chief difficulty put forward as to unworkability is the question of intention. I say that difficulty has to he faced wherever a man is charged with receiving stolen goods, wherever a man is charged with fraud, wherever a man is charged with false pretences. There is nothing new in it and often it has to be done in dealing with much more difficult questions than any raised by the Clause, such as the difference between murder and manslaughter which may often depend on the state of a man's mind at the time the act was committed. I am not saying the compromise is logical. There is only one logical compromise and that was the original Clause, which was itself a compromise. It was not a Clause for abolition. It attempted to make some accommodation between those who thought the death penalty was a greater deterrent in murder than other penalties and those who thought it was not. The compromise was, "Let us see whether the experience of this country is, or is likely to be, different from the experience of others." If the Government are prepared to divorce the two issues, and let the question of the death penalty, either in the original Clause or in the compromise Clause, be decided in this Parliament independently of the Bill, I will support them in their Motion; but if not, I will oppose their Motion because it seems to me that the choice with which I am confronted tonight, is the same choice as I had to face last Thursday.

I am in substantial agreement with the hon. Member but I think that the Home Secretary was tending the way he suggests.

If the Government intend that, I am with them, but if that is their intention, they have not stated it yet. The choice last Thursday was one of more hangings or less hangings, and, confronted with that choice, I made the decision which I made last Thursday. Confronted with the same question tonight, I make the same choice.

Something has been said about public opinion. There is a difference between rule of the people and rule of the mob. It is democracy that we believe in; not "mobocracy." Here is the forum of public opinion; here is where decisions have to be made and taken, and the right way to take them is the way in which we took a decision on 14th April; each hon. Member relying on his own conscience in the end in making the choice he has to make, giving effect to the argument both ways. And I would give even greater attention to the arguments against that side or which my sympathies lie. But, having given the fullest weight to all the opinions—and especially the hostile opinions—and being clear in one's mind that this barbarity ought to end, then I say to my hon. Friends: "Go boldly and wholeheartedly into the Division Lobby to support your view. Never fear that the people of this country will resent your doing so. They will thank you more sincerely for leading them than for following them in a matter of this kind." Let us tonight stand by our honest judgment and reach an honest decision as our consciences demand.

11.49 p.m.

I rise to support the advice which has been given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I do so for reasons which I venture to advance to the House as a whole. The House is always liable to be in some difficulty—and I make no complaint about that at all—when it is dealing with a matter on which no clear-cut party political issue is involved, and it must be confessed by everybody that this is a matter on which there are shades of opinion in all quarters of the House.

There are differences of judgment on the merits of the issue, and, therefore, it is possible that the arguments and points of view, and often the voting on the matter before the House, are liable to cut across party lines as, indeed, they did on the historical occasion of 14th April when, by a free vote of the House, a decision was registered in favour of a five years' experimental suspension of capital punishment. But if I may say so with great respect, the occasions on which an issue arises when there are liable to be differences of opinion within political parties—and let me say perfectly sincere differences of opinion—make it more than ever necessary that each one of us should try to exercise the best judgment and the best considerations that we can upon the issue. It is a time when cool thinking and cool conclusions are perhaps more necessary than when we are divided on what we may call straight party lines, when the battle is on, when excitement is increasing quite legitimately and when a full Division records the result.

These occasions when the House of Commons is liable to be divided irrespective of party to some extent, make it all the more important that we should be as thoughtful and as calm as we can in coming to the conclusion which we believe to be right. That is an occasion when the Whips are off, but tonight the Whips are on. The Government have an opinion and by that opinion the Government must stand. Therefore, we have put the merits of the case before the House. We also have an issue upon which the Government are actively taking a stand and are giving their firm advice to the House of Commons.

What is the issue upon which we are voting? It is, of course, an issue which involves the question of the continuance or the modification of the death penalty. Literally speaking, I presume it is an issue between the continuation of the death penalty according to the legal basis upon which it existed before this Bill was introduced and, on the other hand, the compromise Clause to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has referred. In the course of the Debate some of my hon. Friends have reverted to the earlier decision of the House on the free vote in favour of complete abolition of the death penalty for a period of five years.

The House has first to consider what is the wisest course in relation to the future of this great Measure which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced in all good faith in the earlier part of the Session. Of course, it was the case that the Government did not include in the Criminal Justice Bill which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced any provision as regards the death penalty; and our view as a Government was then, as it was on 14th April, that it was better that we should not precipitate this issue on the Criminal Justice Bill. We thought that the public mind and the circumstances of the time were such that on the whole we had better refrain from getting into that field. It was nevertheless the case that we recognised that this was a matter on which deep conscientious convictions existed in various parts of the House, perhaps strongest among my hon. Friends, but they also existed in the Conservative Party, and hon. Members of the Liberal Party also had very strong opinions. In fact, although I am not sure because I am speaking from memory, they recorded the most solid party vote on the free vote on 14th April.

The Government, taking into account these shades of opinion and that strong conscientious view that existed on the subject, agreed that there should be a free vote of the House, and to do the Conservative Opposition credit they also accorded a free vote to their members, and the Whips were not on any of the political parties of the House of Commons. We thought, in all the circumstances of the case, that that was right, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary did, nevertheless, advise the House that it was best to leave the matter alone at this stage in view of the particular circumstances of the time.

We went to a Division and the House in its wisdom—as to which we have certainly no right to make any complaint, and we make no complaint—by a majority decided in favour of putting a Clause in to suspend the death penalty for five years, and the Government having conceded that the House of Commons should have a free vote, which decision was concurred in by the official Opposition on their side, then said: "Very well. That is the decision of the House of Commons, and that is the decision which will determine the course we recommend to another place when the Bill reaches the Upper Chamber." The Government did so recommend, and the Government spokesmen in that place did urge that the Clause inserted on a free vote in the House of Commons should be retained in the Bill and should stand. Well, another place did not agree, and by a substantial majority struck the Clause out, so that the Bill in that respect came back to this House in the form in which it was originally introduced.

It was at that point we as a Government picked up the arguments which had ensued, and among the arguments of various of the parties, and both Parliamentary institutions, there was a substantial degree of opinion in favour of some middle course if it could be found. There was for example, the argument that, having regard to recent attacks on policemen, possible attacks on prison warders, attacks on children, rape, and so on, it might be possible to find terms upon which certain cases of murders could be within the category which prima facie attracted the capital sentence, and others outside that category which would not attract the capital sentence.

I would not charge any political party or another place with urging that case, but there were arguments which were rather directed towards a possible modification of the death penalty if we could find a middle course or compromise that would stand up to arguments and to the legalistic examination which was inevitable and which should properly take place on the draft of any such Clause. There was no question of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—and I am perfectly sure all members of the House, irrespective of Party, will join me in paying my tribute to his sincerity and integrity in dealing with this matter—doing smart things or playing fast and loose tricks with the House in this matter. He has been perfectly straightforward and genuine throughout the proceedings.

My right hon. Friend sought, with all the export advice he could get— [ Laughter ]—I am sorry if I have re- verted to my earlier economic functions—with all the expert advice he could get, to find the middle way, a compromise Clause which would take the House as far as the House as a whole was likely to be willing to go, and he had in mind also how far public opinion was likely to go. It is sometimes argued, and it is a long argument which has taken place over many years, how far the House of Commons should take public opinion into account. I entirely agree in rejecting the theory of the Member of Parliament as an automatic delegate of public opinion. I also have my philosophic doubts about polls of various kinds that take place through various newspaper organisations. They are all right as far as they go, so long as one does not take them too seriously. It is quite interesting reading about them, but we had better have our own firm judgment about them.

It would be wrong that the House of Commons should on every issue try to find the mathematical and precise balance of public opinion and say, "That is the way we are going." The House must take its responsibility, and must be ready to answer for its decisions when elections come. That is when the public judge. Conscience is involved—involved in more ways than one. It would not be right to assume that the abolitionists are the only people with consciences, genuine as they are; and I accept that they are genuine. Others who have other views have conscientious objections, too, and that is true also about public opinion outside.

Therefore, I would not say that on these matters of controversy, where it is important to carry the assent of the public with us if we can, for the respect of law and order is involved, that it would be right to be contemptuously indifferent to public opinion. We have a duty to take it into account, and it is a factor which ought to influence us in our judgment. That is a fair balance of considerations for the House of Commons to consider in connection with this matter.

My right hon. Friend was perfectly genuine in trying to get a compromise Clause which would take into account the Parliamentary arguments in both Houses, and which would also take into account some estimation, as near as we could get it—but we could be wrong about it—of the general state of the public mind outside. He produced it. It ob- tained the assent of a definite House of Commons majority. It was attacked—I am not complaining about that, any compromise is bound to be attacked—and defended. When we come to define murders which attract the capital sentence, and murders which do not, there is room for argument and discussion. It is bound to be so, and there was argument in this House about whether the Clause was tidy and stood up. There was argument in another place, and strong views were expressed about it. We thought that on the whole it was a workable Clause. Other people took the view that it was not. The net result was that it was rejected. The situation is tonight, therefore, that the Bill has now come back to us from another place in a form in which there is no provision for any change in the law as regards capital punishment.

The first issue that the House must consider is: What are we to do about it in these circumstances? My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne had some doubt in his mind, at least, I think he had—he will correct me if I am wrong—whether, if the compromise Clause went back to another place, another place would, even at this late hour, accept it. If that were the case it would be a fair argument for sending the compromise Clause back again to another place. However, we have not much time for further argument before the time when the House will rise for the Summer Recess, which is the effective end of this Session. We must take that into account. With respect, I would say that I do not think that there is any prospect—as far as I know: one man's judgment may be as good as another's—of another place accepting that compromise Clause, much less the suspension of capital punishment altogether for five years.

It may be so, but I am trying to assess the hard facts of the situation. In that case, the issue tonight is whether we are going to save this great Bill or not. There is no question of putting this Bill through under the Parliament Act. I do not want to go into the argument whether we ought to or not; but, in fact, we should be in technical difficulties under the Parliament Act, 1911—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I assure hon. Members that that is so, because we are in this difficulty—that the Bill must be the same Bill as that which left this House on the Third Reading.

Yes, on the Third Reading. Owing to the processes through which it has gone, and to Government Amendments which have been made in another place, I am not sure whether we are in that situation. Anyway, it is a highly technical point, and I put it to the House only in the sense that I am doubtful whether the Bill would stand up under the provisions of the Parliament Act, 1911. In any case, the Parliament Act, 1911, would be a somewhat difficult instrument to use in connection with this great Bill, because the Bill must be the same Bill as that which left this House on the Third Reading; and there might be difficulties about that. I put the consideration before the House for what it is worth, and I think it is worth something; and it is directed to this point—whether tonight we have not to face the issue of whether we are going to save this great reforming Bill or not.

With respect to the House, I think that that issue is the first issue. I agree that there are subsequent arguments about it, but that is the first issue. It is the case that much of the argument about this Bill has been in relation to the death penalty. I am not complaining about that. The issue arose and had to be argued out. However, the House will realise that this is a very great and important reforming Bill in the criminal law, quite irrespective of any issue of the death penalty. It is a great Measure. It is a Measure for making a big landmark in the progressive administration of criminal justice and the criminal law. I want to say to the House that we think it would be most unwise to risk the loss of this Bill by insisting upon the element of policy in connection with it which would endanger—in our judgment, fatally endanger—the Bill's reaching the Statute Book. Therefore, I would ask the House, on the merits of that issue, on which, I think, I shall get general concurrence, to say that it would not be wise to insist upon this provision, if we are to save the Bill this Session.

Many of my hon. Friends have pressed the Government to give an undertaking on whether we would bring in an ad hoc Bill, a separate Bill, either for the com- promise solution or for the original provision, which the House approved on a free vote, of suspending the death penalty entirely for five years. Some of my hon. Friends would be happy if I gave that categorical assurance. I want to be perfectly frank and honest with the House. The Government really must have more time to consider that issue, if we are to reach a compromise solution. And I think that in the state of public opinion a compromise solution is a possible practical course. I do not think that the other course of complete abolition would get through.

But if we are to have a compromise solution, it is very important that we should have a chance of thinking about it, of considering all the arguments for and against, not only on the principles but also on the details of the compromise, so that we may reach a solution which is as watertight as we can make it, which stands up to legal argument as well as to moral argument, and which is generally acceptable.

I do not think anybody would like to cast a vote one way or the other under any misapprehension. Is my right hon. Friend saying that, while not committing himself to this particular compromise, he will pledge the Government to enact some amelioratory law in this Parliament?

No, I am not. I want to be perfectly frank with the House: I am not. I and the Government are averse to committing ourselves to any sort of action before we know what we are doing.

I listened with patience to my hon. and learned Friend and he had better listen to me. This compromise wants working out properly. We have to see how the argument proceeds. We have to take into account the course of the Debate as we go along. I do not think it would be right for a Minister at this Box, before the proposed investigation takes place and the results of it are known, to declare that there is going to be a Bill in this Parliament which is going to be put on the Statute Book during this Parliament. I am not saying that that is not going to be the case. We must see how we go along. That is the position the Government take up.

I must impress upon the House as a whole, including my hon. Friends, that the issue which is before us tonight is whether the Criminal Justice Bill is going to reach the Statute Book.

If this Lords Amendment were rejected tonight by this House and at a later stage a Bill were introduced by the Government dealing with the capital punishment proposals, would there be any difficulty then in getting the Criminal Justice Bill through without capital punishment?

I am not sure that I have understood my hon. and learned Friend accurately. But in my judgment if this House tonight proceeds to disagree with the Lords in the Amendment, then the Bill is dead. The question then is whether next Session we start all over again with the same Bill. I cannot promise that. We shall wreck the Government's timetable of legislation if we are going to start on this big Bill again next Session. I really cannot promise that.

Therefore, with respect, my hon. Friends, and the House as a whole, must face the fact that if a Division takes place it will determine whether this great reforming measure reaches the Statute Book or not. That is the central issue. That is the essential issue. It is the Government who are advising the House as a Government; and they must advise the House in all the circumstances of the case, much as we are sorry about it, to accept with regret the Lords Amendment, thereby ensuring the passage of this great Bill, which it would be a tragedy to lose after all the work which has been done upon it. Hereafter we can examine whether any ad hoc alteration of the law in relation to capital punishment should take place. I ask the House, with great earnestness, to support the Government in this matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman support a fact-finding commission into the systems of other countries?

In any discussions which take place upon this matter it would be quite relevant to take into account the practices of foreign Governments.

On two occasions the Government have accepted the view that there should be an amelioration in regard to capital punishment. On the first occasion, it accepted the view of the House; and on the second occasion, it recommended to the House its own view that there should be an amelioration. Are the Government prepared to stand by their view on this matter and give a definite assurance that they will put that view into effect in the course of this Parliament?

I thought I had indicated the proposed procedure of the Government. I thought it was perfectly clear. We are standing here on this issue and asking the House of Commons for its support. I thought that was quite clear. I ask the House, in all the circumstances of the case, to give us their support.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 34.

Division No. 268.]

AYES.

[12.20 a.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Moody, A. S.

Adams, W T. (Hammersmith, South)

Gage, C.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Galbraith, Cmdr T D

Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A V.

Gibson, C. W.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C R

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A

Moyle, A.

Awbery, S S.

Gordon-Walker, P. C

Nicholls, H. R (Stratford)

Baldwin, A. E.

Granville, E. (Eye)

Nicholson, G.

Barnes, Rt. Hon A J

Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P

Barstow, P G

Griffiths, Rt. Hon J. (Llanelly)

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)

Barton, C.

Grimston, R V

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J (Derby)

Beamish, Maj. T. V H

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Nutting, Anthony

Bechervaise, A. E.

Gunter, R. J.

O'Brien, T.

Beechman, N. A.

Guy, W. H.

Odey, G. W.

Bennett, Sir P.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Orr-Ewing, I. L

Benson, G.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Pargiter, G. A.

Berry, H.

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Peake, Rt. Hon O

Binns, J.

Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

Pearson, A.

Blenkinsop, A

Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

Perrins, W.

Bossom, A. C

Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ)

Pickthorn, K.

Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Ponsonby, Col C E

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

Popplewell, E.

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W

Hobson, C. R.

Price, M. Philips

Brook, O. (Halifax)

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hollis, M. C

Proctor, W. T.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.

Holman, P.

Pursey, Comdr. H

Burke, W. A.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Callaghan, James

Howard, Hon. A.

Rees-Williams, D. R

Carson, E

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Reeves, J.

Champion, A. J

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)

Channon, H

Hughes, H. D. (W'Iverh'pton, W.)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Chetwynd, G. R

Hurd, A.

Ronton, D.

Clarke, Col. R. S

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Robens, A.

Cobb, F. A.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A.

Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

Cocks, F. S

Janner, B.

Robinson, Roland

Comyns, Dr. L.

Jenkins, R H.

Sharp, Granville

Conant, Maj. R. J. E

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St Helens)

Corbet, Mrs F. K. (Camb'well, N. W)

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)

Corlett, Dr. J.

Keeling, E. H.

Shurmer, P.

Cove, W G.

King, E. M

Skeffington, A. M.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham. S)

Crowder, Capt John E

Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H

Smithers, Sir W

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Lancaster, Col. C. G

Snow, J. W.

Davidson, Viscountess

Law, Rt. Hon R. K

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Leslie, J. R

Sparks, J. A.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Lindgren, G. S

Spearman, A. C. M

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Linstead, H. N.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Steele, T.

Delargy, H J

Low, A. R. W

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Diamond, J

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Lambeth)

Debbie, W.

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon M S.

Strauss, Henry (English Universities)

Dedds-Parker, A D

Mackeson, Brig, H. R

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Drayson, G B

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Studholme, H. G.

Drewe, C.

McLeavy, F

Sylvester, G. O.

Duthie, W S

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Symonds, A. L.

Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne)

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Mann, Mrs J.

Taylor, R J. (Morpeth)

Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Taylor, Dr S (Barnet)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Manningham-Buller, R E

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Marlowe, A. A. H.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)

Marquand, H. A.

Thomas, John R. (Dover)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Fraser, T (Hamilton)

Molson, A. H. E.

Thurtle, Ernest

Titterington, M. F.

Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G

White, J. B. (Canterbury)

Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

Turton, R. H.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Woods, G. S.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B

York, C.

Walker, G. H.

Wilkes, L.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Wilkins, W. A.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Ward, Hon G. R.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Weitzman, D.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Willis, E.

NOES.

Acland, Sir Richard

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Pritt, D. N.

Attewell, H. C.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Randall, H E

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Longden, F.

Ranger, J.

Bing, G. H. C.

McGhee, H. G.

Richards, R.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Bramall, E. A.

Messer, F.

Sorensen, R. W.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Stokes, R. R.

Carmichael, James

Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N)

Warbey, W. N.

Daines, P.

Palmer, A. M. F.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Donovan, T.

Parker, J.

Yates, V. F.

Driberg, T. E N.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Mr. Mikardo and Mr. Paget

Resolved:

"That this House doth not insist on its disagreement to certain of their Amendments on which the Lords have insisted, and doth not insist on its Amendments in lieu thereof to which the Lords have disagreed:"

Health Service (Artificial Limbs)

12.28 a.m.

I beg to move:

May I make my own position quite clear, as I might be said to have a personal interest? I am my- self the proud possessor of two artificial limbs both paid for by the taxpayers, both supplied by the Ministry of Pensions and both fitted by the firm which does contract work for the Government. I am very grateful to the taxpayers for all the money they must have spent to put me on the road again, and I am extremely grateful to the Ministry of Pensions for the service, courtesy, care, and attention I have always received from all their officers and at their centres. I am grateful also to the firm which does contract work for the two very excellent and very comfortable limbs I have.

I should like completely to disassociate myself from any remarks made in the past or which might be made tonight to the effect that this firm which supplies the Ministry of Pensions make in any way shoddy, inferior, or mass-produced limbs. The very nature of their contract; to put it on the lowest possible terms, would make it unprofitable to produce shoddy work. They get so much per limb for repairs, and obviously, if they have a lot of repairs, their profit would soon be loss. As part of their contract is to replace a limb once every five years, it is to their advantage to make a limb which lasts more than five years because it is more profitable. It is physically impossible to produce anything in the way of a mass-produced limb. No two people have legs of the same size or feet of the same size or stumps of the same shape. Each one must be made to meet individual measurements and fit individual shapes and stumps.

I hope that I have said enough to show that I have no particular axe to grind; I have never been to a private firm, and I do not know any private firms, and, so far as I am prejudiced, it is in favour of the firm which works for the Ministry of Pensions and which has always given of its best to me. It would be unfortunate, however, if, in this industry, where much remains to be done by way of experiment and improvement, a monopoly came into being in spite of this order, and private firms were forced to close down. The problem of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Pensions is not an easy one. It is a very difficult problem to decide how to marry the State service to a lot of private firms engaged in the manufacture of artificial limbs.

This order will not solve the problem because, to the uninitiated, the statement by the Minister of Pensions on 1st July really did not do much, although one might have imagined that everything was fine and all that a man who lost a limb had to do was to get a list of the types of limbs available for his type of stump, and it was then up to him to choose which firm he went to so that he could be fitted up. One firm has as good a chance of getting his custom as another, because the difference in price is made up by the Ministry. But all that, in point of fact, is not so.

At the risk of wearying the House, may I explain some of the practical difficulties which are involved. A man has had his leg amputated and after about six weeks he goes along for the first fitting. One must understand the lay-out at Roehampton, where you have the limb fitting centre and the manufacturers all on the spot in a matter of a hundred yards or so. The man having gone to be measured, in due course the leg or other limb is ready for fitting, and after several fittings, all of which have to be passed by the limb fitting surgeon, the patient walks about and sees how he gets on. That is only a temporary limb; the stump is bound to shrink and goes on shrinking for up to two years. So, after 12 months, the man has to go back and get the socket altered. In fact, while one is wearing the limb one is in practice being fitted for the next. The double amputee—the man who has lost both legs—starts off by getting his balance and works up until he gets artificial limbs of the proper length. So far as I see it, nobody is going to pay extra cost for what is only a temporary limb.

From what I have said, the House will understand that these limbs are temporary because of the way in which the amputation alters until some time is past. Inevitably, everyone in the first case would probably go to the firm which is under contract to the Ministry. People may ask, "Why should a limb produced by a private firm cost more?" It is obvious that the firm supplying the Government with a through put of some 200 limbs a week can lower costs more than a private firm on a smaller scale of business. That is a great advantage which the Government contractors will have in the first place. There are other advantages which they enjoy which I think will tend to attract people to this particular firm. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) asked the Minister of Pensions on 1st July:

There is also the question of repairs, but the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead was quite right in so far as the limb-fitting surgeon is the key man in the whole of the problem because he has to pass every limb. It is quite right that he should do that, but it means that if a man decides to go to a private firm to get a limb, he has to go afterwards to a fitting centre to have it fitted. How much better it would be to have all this done on the same premises. There should be free railway warrants to enable the man to go both to the private firm and to the limb-fitting centre where he must get his limb passed. All this double work and double expenditure of time could be avoided by a single visit, for either repair work or limb-fitting. The only possible solution to the problem, if we want to keep the private firms in being, is for the Ministry of Pensions to train more limb-fitting surgeons and, if necessary, to post limb-fitting surgeons to private firms who are doing this work. If we cannot post them, we could see that they are available there on certain days of the week and so save every person having a double journey at double expense.

The second question I should like to put about the order is whether the term "artificial limbs" also includes stump socks. Ex-Service men get a free issue of six stump socks every year, and I imagine that the same consideration will also be given to insured persons under the National Insurance Act. At the moment, ex-Service men can draw their stump socks from the Government store at the limb-fitting centre. If ever there was a field where there should be competition it is here. The socks get worse and worse. They are of an inferior quality and very often not even available in the size required. I gather there are private firms still supplying socks of a very high quality, and many people are worrying lest they have to close down. Not only the question of the limb-fitting surgeon, but the amenities and conveniences of the firm situated at the limb-fitting centre, or the fact that stump socks, railway warrants, and certificates signed for loss of wages, can be obtained, must all tend to attract people always to the firm of Government contractors which are situated on the spot near the limb-fitting centre.

I apologise for detaining the House so long on this subject, but before we pass this order we do want some assurance that it is the Government's intention to keep other firms open and to give them the assistance they require to compete on any terms at all, and also to do everything in their power to encourage them.

12.47 a.m.

I beg to second the Motion.

The House is indebted to the noble Lord for having raised this question. It is a matter of regret that it should have to be brought forward at such a late hour because the subject is of great importance to many thousands of people. Although at so late an hour, it is only right and proper that this matter should be considered as fully as possible.

I have had a number of letters from surgeons in my constituency expressing concern at the present state of affairs. I have also a firm called Desoutter Bros, who are pioneers and manufacturers of a light metal limb who have written to me and given me the views of the Association of Surgical Instrument Manufacturers which expresses deep concern at the present situation. The Minister when he made his statement on July 1st said: This firm of leading manufacturers of these artificial limbs say quite definitely that the Minister's statement that satisfactory arrangements have been agreed is not strictly correct. They say:

It seems to me clear that unless some further and more satisfactory statement can be made by the Minister these private firms will not continue in production. That would be a disaster. It would affect our export trade, and would cause great inconvenience to many people. It would retard development. Progress can only come by continual research and development, and it is a fact that these private firms have lead in this research. It was Desoutter's patents that were taken over by the Government, without any reward to the firm. I fear that if this monopoly is set up there will not be the same competition to develop and improve artificial limbs as there has been in the past. This firm were not allowed to show their latest developments, for the simple reason that when a new and better limb had been produced everyone wanted it, and that cost money. There was opposition, not by this Government but by the pre-war National Government, to the continual improvement and development of these artificial limbs. The Minister shakes his head, but I am sure of my facts on this point. That is the case. It is a question of costs. People fear that if monopoly is set up, the development which is essential for progress will be retarded and frustrated, and it is important that that should not be the case.

Perhaps the hon. Member has not recognised the fact that since that time, very many years ago, we have set up a research unit on the basis of the advice of the expert committee appointed in 1944?

I am aware of that, but research organisations are kept on their toes by competition. If somebody else produces a better article, it keeps them on their toes. If there is no one competing with them I am afraid that you will not get the progress and activity that you would otherwise get.

Two suggestions with which the association disagrees are these. The first is that every patient must attend at a Ministry centre, to be dealt with by a Ministry doctor who will prescribe the type of limb required and at a subsequent visit approve the fitting. If this arrangement is persisted in, it will appear that the patient no longer will have freedom of choice regarding his doctor, or his surgeon's advice as to the prescription of his limb and his final approval. What the association takes objection to is this. Many patients who require artificial limbs have also an additional complication. It may be that they are suffering from diabetes or tuberculosis or some other ailment, and it is surely true to say that it is only the patient's own medical adviser, and the medical team in his own hospital, who have full knowledge of his condition. Surely it is wrong that these patients should be handed over to an outside authority for limb prescription.

The association is supported by the British Medical Association. I have here a copy of a letter which has been addressed within the last few days to the Ministry. In this letter it is made quite clear by the British Medical Association that it believes that the surgeon undertaking the amputation should have the responsibility for recommending the type of limb which he regards as suitable for his patient. The necessary steps having been taken to provide him with his artificial limb, the patient should be returned to the surgeon undertaking the amputation in order that he may satisfy himself that everything is satisfactory. The British Medical Association considers that the surgeon who decides that an amputation is necessary should be entirely free to undertake that amputation, no pressure being put upon him to transfer his case to a Ministry of Pensions hospital in order that that amputation should be undertaken by a Ministry of Pensions surgeon.

Those points are, I submit, of very considerable importance not only to the medical profession, but to the patients who are in the care of the medical profession. This association does not agree with the suggested arrangement that the Ministry should collect the difference in the cost of a better artificial limb or of extra fitting services. This suggestion would only become a statutory obligation under the Act if the Minister exercised his option to make regulations to this effect. It is submitted that there should be a regulation to permit this to be a personal matter between the patients and the limb maker at request. The members of this association consider it to be an urgent matter that a simple scheme should be worked out immediately for dealing with repairs.

I think it is only right that the Ministry should realise that there is a natural reluctance and resentment felt by the patients that they should be forced to attend other hospitals and clinics for this purpose. As the noble Lord said, it means journeys for them, it entails loss of time, and causes inconvenience and, perhaps, expense. Patients should surely be free to avail themselves either of the Ministry hospitals and services, or those of their own medical advisers for the certificate that is required. These firms are most anxious that the hospital scheme should meet with the greatest possible measure of success, and, as the Minister was informed by them, he can rely on their fullest possible co-operation. I do, therefore, hope that some arrangement and some agreement can be made that will be entirely satisfactory—satisfactory to the patients, satisfactory to the medical profession, and satisfactory also to these firms who have done so much to improve the equipment which has to be worn by those who have lost some limb.

1.0 a.m.

I wish to intervene only to make two points. First, I should like to declare some interest I have in this matter. I am a Governor of the Queen Mary Hospital, Roehampton, though I have no connection with the firms involved in the manufacture of artificial limbs. I think the seconder of the Motion is taking much too pessimistic a view of the situation. Had there been no change in the past month, he would have been right in expressing the views he did, but the statement of the former Minister made in the House on 1st July must be regarded by all fair-minded people as a genuine attempt to settle all difficulties.

All the statements I have made are following the statement made by the Minister and not before. I want to make that quite clear.

I understand that. Even so, I think the hon. Gentleman is taking too gloomy a view of what will happen. The position is that if a person wishes to choose a private manufacturer for his limb, he has perfect liberty to do so and every facility is given to him to do so. The only factor arising is that the difference in the cost between that limb and the limb made by the Government contractor must be paid by the patient. I do not see that we can legitimately quarrel with that. I think it would be expecting too much to expect the Government to finance the whole cost charged by the private manufacturers.

I think that there are one or two points of substance in the arguments put forward by the noble Lord about the inconvenience involved in the procedure. The Government scheme will work very well in regard to London and those places near Roehampton, but it will cause difficulties in the provinces. I should like the Minister to give us as much information as he can about how the scheme will work in provincial centres. What facilities exist for limb-fitting surgeons in these centres? Are they near enough to private manufacturers, for instance, to avoid any delay of any sort or the duplicate travelling to which the noble Lord referred? If we could get information on that point, it would be very welcome.

This controversy, which has gone on now for a few months, may have tended to bring the public to the belief that the Government limb is not a satisfactory article and may lead people to consider the private manufacturers' limb as a much superior product. I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that he was perfectly satisfied and, indeed more than satisfied with the service that had been provided by the Government contractor. I would draw the attention of the House to the letter in "The Times" of 29th June, from the managing director of Hanger's, the Government contractors, in which he gives some idea of that firm's achievements as official contractors to the Ministry of Pensions. He pointed out, as did the noble Lord, that there is no such thing as a standard limb. He said:

I think, from these facts, that the people who are anxious to use the Government service should not be discouraged. All the same, no one wishes to force any private limb-maker out of business. I cannot see that that will arise under this regulation. The private manufacturer, with a little modification of the regulations here and there, is amply safeguarded, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press this matter further.

1.6 a.m.

I feel that this is perhaps the only occasion on which I can claim to speak in this House as something of an expert because, like the noble Lord who so admirably moved this Prayer, I have had for a long time to wear an artificial leg. I have had to do so for, I think, about 10 times as long as the noble Lord, and I have had legs from a dozen or more makers. So perhaps I am unfortunate enough to be even more of an expert than my noble Friend.

When I read this order, following the announcement of the former Minister of Pensions on the eve of his departure from the House, I remembered the very different line he had taken in conversation with me earlier on his wish to establish a monopoly. I therefore feel that it would be churlish not to congratulate the Government on their broadness of view in going back on their original decision, and doing something better than they originally intended. In saying that, I feel rather like that distinguished Dominion Statesman who, after a long discussion, managed to get only a little of his own way. Asked if he was satisfied he replied, "No, not satisfied, but gratified." I am only gratified by this change, because I do not think that it is yet a complete one.

I agree with what has been said tonight on the objections to the procedure laid down in these regulations, which mean that the patient has to visit a limb centre to get approval from Ministry of Pensions officials before he is entitled to get his leg. I think that it is perhaps putting a considerable extra nuisance and burden upon the limbless man, that he should have to go to Roehampton, or elsewhere. I believe there are to be some 29 centres for England and Scotland, so that considerable distances will have to be covered, causing extra bother to the patient.

Perhaps more important, it seems to me rather an affront to the doctors, the orthopædic surgeons, appointed by the Minister of Health, who are thought to be good enough to undertake an operation, that they are not considered good enough to advise as they have admirably done in the past, about what type of limb should be taken. I would here express a slight disagreement with my noble Friend on what he said was the value of these limb-fitting doctors. I do not think that they are of great value in this matter. I was going to remark that I was glad to see that the hon. Lady, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Food had left the Chamber, because I feel difficulty in criticising doctors before one of their number; but I see there is now another doctor in front of me.

This question of leg-fitting is a very technical and specialised matter which no doctor, simply because he has had a few months of training in a leg centre, can follow. I have had the opportunity of being advised by those whom I believe to have been at the time, the leading specialists in this matter. Although they operated brilliantly upon me, and adequately advised about the type of limb I should get, they have been unable to help me at all in regard to the actual fitting. I went down to Roehampton the other day, and I was very kindly treated and attended to by the doctors there. They gave me advice as to what was wrong with my leg and recommended drastic alterations to it. Some of those alterations had been carried out and had proved very attractive in theory but in practice unacceptable. As one who has a considerable experience in these matters of limb-fitting I do not think that doctors in the ordinary way can help at all. I hasten to add that I do not include research in that, because I think that more money should be spent on research.

Those are two of the objections which I see to the regulations, but the real objection is that the leg makers are not apparently going to come into the scheme if these directions are insisted upon. Their reasoned view is that they believe that so much business will be diverted away from them that it will not be worth staying in business. It is probably true that if the average man or woman went down to the limb centre and asked the doctor there what type of leg he or she should have, the doctor, no doubt most honourably, would say that it would be invidious for him to make any choice, but he might add, "The people who work under the same roof as I do are well-known to me, and if there were anything wrong about them I should naturally be having complaints. If you choose to have your leg done now, it will save another journey."

There can be little doubt that a large number of patients would, in fact, get their legs from the Government contractors rather than from the independent manufacturers, not because they tried them both out, but because of the inducements put before them. The manufacturers have said that if this plan is carried out they will lose their patients and it will not be worth while carrying on. Perhaps I might here interject my disagreement with what has been said by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). It is not a question of the patient having to find the money to buy a leg himself. If this plan is carried out as now proposed, the great manufacturers will not be in being, so it will be quite impossible for people to have their choice even if they have the extra cash.

Because they have written, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, to the Ministry of Pensions stating that if these conditions laid down by the Ministry are maintained in their present form they will not come in. Since then I understand that one firm accepted the invitation to come in under a misunderstanding and has now withdrawn. Another firm said that they were going to come in, because the action of the Ministry in this matter has meant that their patients are not prepared to pay for the legs and had taken their custom away. The economic pressure exerted by the Ministry has meant such a loss of work that they have had to dismiss a lot of men and have been forced to give in. It is not a very admirable way for them to be forced in. The firm of which I have had direct experience—and it is perhaps the most efficient firm—is not a firm whose patients left it so easily. The firm I go to—and it is one which I have chosen after a large experience—would not go into the plan, although they make more than one quarter of the limbs made outside the Government contractors. We have to face the fact that, unless the Ministry can make some modification, most, if not all, of the limb makers are going out of business.

I believe competition is necessary. I am a great believer in competition in all things. It is only in this way that you can stimulate manufacturers to cut prices, make improvements and be as efficient as possible. In leg fitting the whole of the skill goes into the fitting. It is vital that there should be competition and the patient should have the psychological advantage of feeling that, if he does not like the leg, he can go round the corner to someone else. The firm which the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees mentioned, tells me that they supply only one fitting in every 100 cases. I think that is very likely, as already in ordinary cases where a man has got a damaged stump I do not think it is possible to get a satisfactory fitting in one go. I have suffered, and I have had many. I am not convinced that anyone, however good a fitter he might be, can get a really good fitting out of a case at one fitting.

I am sorry to worry the House with my fittings but it is the only way I can deal with the matter. Recently my leg had to go back to be relined. It was only a minor adjustment, but the new leather made some contraction of one kind or another and made it so uncomfortable that after two days I had the greatest difficulty in getting along the Division Lobby. I have been to the makers on three occasions with that leg. In no case could I say "This is wrong, I am going to complain." If they had chosen to say "You are making a fuss," I could not have proved them wrong. The fact that there was free competition and that I could have gone elsewhere heartened me.

I should like to quote from one of the many letters which I have received on this subject. In this letter the writer says:

My impression was it was four or five years ago. I may well be wrong. It was for that reason that I did not give my own experience of the same thing from that factory because it was so long ago. I withdraw any evidence of an unsatisfactory limb as far as I am concerned, because mine was too long a period to judge.

I should like to stress in conclusion that if the present plan is carried out and other manufacturers go out of business, then we are committed to this one firm and, so far as I am personally concerned, I am quite sure that is going to make a very great difference to those who have difficult cases. I have had legs from a dozen or more different manufacturers, but I was never able to walk several miles a day until I went to the present suppliers 12 months ago. I now walk 12 or 14 miles on the hills in Scotland and hon. Friends of mine have seen me. If this goes through it is not a question of paying extra and not being able to get it out of the grant, but people will not be there to make the legs.

I earnestly ask the Minister to look at the matter again. The Government have come a long way and it is only a matter of procedure. Cannot they de- vise a plan to keep in being these 20-odd private manufacturers and take some risks? It need not be for an indefinite time. If it does not work out, they can do this later on. Cannot they have an experiment? If they are going to commit those without limbs to wear legs that are not as comfortable as they can be, it is not a question of inconvenience but the giving of constant pain to these people. Constant pain means constant irritation, irritation means bad work. They will not only be giving limbless people a great deal of suffering but they will also be causing an adverse effect on work, and that would be bad for economy from the country's point of view.

1.24 a.m.

I want to say how much I agree with the noble Lord who opened this discussion on the necessity of attending limb-fitting centres. The people who work there do have the "know-how." It is not a question of a good or bad surgeon, but the know-how of the fitting. I hope the Minister will announce that he will make arrangements so that the smaller firms may continue because it is desirable to have a variety of apparatus to deal with unusual, exceptional or particularly difficult cases. The question of price must also be looked into. Some surgical instruments are charged at excessive and unjustified prices. This should not be allowed.

There should be a reasonable charge. If manufacturers are small people they may have to charge a relatively higher price in order to keep in business; but the practical experience of small firms and their experiments have given good pointers in the making of artificial limbs. The Government are conducting a great deal of research in these matters, and I hope they may be able to gear in these private manufacturers in this research work to help to keep them alive because competition in this matter will be an advantage to the man who has lost a limb fighting for his country, or in industrial accidents so that he can, in a real sense, get on his feet again.

1.26 a.m.

On the question of price, I understand that the Government will pay a quota to cover the cost of the "standard" limb, and the patient will pay the difference. Will there be any limitation on how much the outside manufacturer may charge? The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) says there should be some limitation, but I suggest seriously that there should not. The whole essence of having some competition is that a few people who have some strong reason want to go to a private firm or some outside manufacturer; or people—and there are only a few of them—who are well-to-do, and can afford to go to two or three different firms, should pay as much they like. If they do not, the little manufacturer will not be able to carry on, and the experiments in which that manufacturer indulges will be lost.

There is nothing which prevents anyone from paying what he likes, or in paying more if he makes a contract through us.

I understood from the Minister of Health when I had a private conversation with him in the Lobby a few days ago, that he was going to make a limit for some administrative or socialistic reason. The reason why we want as many firms as possible to remain in the business is not that we have any criticism of the services at Roehampton. Roehampton is infinitely better than it was three or four years ago; but if there is only one place the interest of those concerned in the business of making artificial limbs dies away, the interest of hon. Members of this House dies away and the interest in research dies away. We may get into the doldrums and then we shall get bad work in, say, ten years' time. I do hope that the Ministry will try to keep the small firms in existence.

1.29 a.m.

The hour is very late, but, much as hon. Members may dislike having to hear this subject discussed, it is a matter of importance to those people whom it directly affects. Although, unlike the noble Lord who raised the subject, I have the good fortune not to have any direct concern in this question, I have a close acquaintance with it; but I will not weary the House with details of that.

The scheme outlined by the former Minister of Pensions gives a compromise between the paying of any price out of public funds for limbs which are not in any way superior to those made at Roehampton, and the complete monopoly which, as other hon. Members have said, would be unfortunate because of the restriction which might well be imposed on research and experiment. It would be going much too far to ask that the State should make a great outlay in providing surgeons and facilities merely in order to keep these other firms in existence. Obviously they must keep themselves in existence because they provide services for people who want to have them. When the provincial centres are provided, they will provide the necessary facilities for people who attend firms as easily as they can at the moment.

There are two features of this order which seem to raise special problems in regard to the provision of limbs for children. I should like to ask the Minister for a categorical assurance there will be no reluctance in letting children have artificial limbs at the earliest possible age. The provision of limbs for children demands comparatively greater outlay of money than for adults. A limb for an adult may last five years but a limb for a child may last only six months, because all the time the child is growing out of it. It is scarcely practicable for the child to keep the limb in operation for more than about six months and therefore it does demand a considerable outlay. There are different schools of thought about this. There are many limb-fitting surgeons who will try, even in circumstances apart from the National Health Service, to prevent the child from having limbs until a comparatively late age. From such experience as I have gained I would say that that would be absolutely disastrous, particularly from the psychological point of view. I hope, therefore, that there will be no attempt on the grounds of economy to try to prevent the child from having an artificial limb from the earliest possible age at which he can make use of them.

There is a provision in this order which stipulates that if the Minister or his advisers are satisfied that the replacement of an appliance has become necessary owing to a fault of the wearer, he must pay for the replacements. Anyone will realise that the artificial limb of a child gets much harder treatment than that of an adult. It may quite possibly be the case that the limb will have been damaged through the fault of the child or that through normal play and hard wear-and-tear it will have become damaged. It would be extremely unfair and unjust it, owing to these special circumstances, the child's parents were made to pay for replacements. Anyone with a knowledge of cases of this type knows that there can be none in which the provision of artificial limbs is more important. With an adult all this business means inconvenience and the inability to earn his living, but for the child it means not only the physical, but the psychological wrecking of his whole life unless there is satisfactory provision for him. Therefore, I ask for an assurance from the Minister that everything will be done to see that children are provided with limbs.

1.34 a.m.

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I rather than my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health replied, as I think everyone knows that this particular job of work has been in the hands of the Ministry of Pensions as agents for the Ministry of Health. I am particularly glad that all hon. Members who have spoken have insisted that they are not trying to decry the value of the limb that has been issued by the advice of our Ministry, because it is an unfortunate fact that in the general campaign in the country as a whole on this matter, a lot of people have got a very mistaken impression about the value and quality of the limb which the Ministry issues through the present contractors.

It is only right that I should join in the praise that has been given in regard to the limbs issued by our contractor. Tributes have been paid by the noble Lord the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Lord Willoughby de Eresby) who moved this Prayer. In our belief and indeed in the belief of the expert committee which investigated this matter of limbs issued by the Ministry in the past, they are certainly among the best in the world. We do not decry the value of limbs made by other manufacturers.

Is the hon. Member referring to the manufacture of Ministry of Pension limbs?

I do not know whether the hon. Member would like to define what he means by "recent," but what I am anxious to say is that throughout the working of this Department of the Ministry of Pensions, we have ensured that the quality of the limb offered to the ex-Service men was certainly the best available in this country. I believe that to be true, and certainly there have been very real advances in the quality of limbs made by the Ministry in recent years.

It is unfortunately true that some people seem to have the idea that the limbs issued by the Ministry are old-fashioned "peg-legs." That is very far from being the truth. In fact, our manufacturers have the support of experts from all parts of the world who join in the praise of the work being done. Our contractor is the main manufacturer of artificial limbs in the world. They manufacture some 85 per cent, of all artificial limbs issued in this country, and a large part of that production is for civilian use as well as for the ex-Service men who are our particular responsibility.

Our anxiety in this whole matter has been to ensure that the service we can make available should be made available not only for the war disabled, but, under this scheme for everyone who is disabled in this way. We also recognise the value of the work that other firms have contributed, and we are I believe as anxious as hon. Members opposite to ensure that we should retain the skill and value of the work of those firms. Our endeavour has been to combine these two features. We wish to ensure that the special features of our service are available more generally throughout the country, and at the same time we want to ensure generally, as hon. Members do, that the skill of the other existing firms should be utilised. That is why the former Minister made his statement in this House and I still fail to understand why anyone should feel that that statement and the conditions outlined should in any way prevent any reputable firm from contracting with the Ministry of Pensions for the manufacture and supply of artificial limbs.

I seem to detect a noticeable difference between the attitude of the mover of the annulment of this order and the seconder. It seems to me that I am most in agreement with the remarks of the mover. I find myself in a good deal of disagreement with the remarks of the seconder, and if I am asked to decide to which I would pay more attention I would say that the advice of the noble Lord, with the personal experience he has, must be of more concern to us.

The first condition applied following the Minister's statement is that the amputee should visit a Ministry limb centre, and that he should be examined and the type of limb, but not the make, should be advised by the limb surgeon at that centre. We have not proposed this because we want to be awkward and difficult, or because we want to make an extra journey for the amputee, but because we believe—as I think the noble Lord believes—that we have a most valuable service that is not available elsewhere. This limb surgeon service that was started some 30 years ago, has been recognised, not only in this country but throughout the world, as something of very real and special value to the amputee. It is not a service that can be provided in any other way. I agree with the mover that we could not expect the surgeon who carries out the amputation to do this work. I agree equally that we could not ask the manufacturer of the limb to do it. We want someone in between who has the skill and knowledge of the doctor or surgeon, and who also has a detailed understanding of the actual technical work that goes on in the limb-fitting operation, to be put in charge of the treatment of amputees.

Surely the fact that these facilities are not insisted upon does not mean they need not be available? Surely it is not necessary to say that every patient has to undergo these facilities, but that it can be left to the patient to choose whether he does or not.

I have merely made the first point that we believe this is a service of special value, recognised as such in this country and abroad, and one that we do not desire to deny to the amputees in general. The second point is that we act for the Ministry of Health, and through them my own Ministry has a responsibility for these limbs, and we are answerable for the work that is done.

The hon. Gentleman said that the limb-fitting surgeon prescribed a certain type of limb. As he no doubt knows, one of the most controversial questions is that of wooden or aluminium limbs. It is now laid down by the Ministry that a person who has a stump of a certain size gets a wooden limb, and if it is of a smaller size he will get an aluminium limb. Would it be possible under this order for someone who wished to get an aluminium limb to do so, although his stump was not of the prescribed size?

A safeguard that would meet that point is that we are prepared to ensure that the limb surgeon at our centre will act in consultation with the surgeon who performed the amputation. That is common practice in our limb-fitting centres already, and the former Minister guaranteed that we would ensure that this consultation was carried out. I think that that would ensure that the sort of point that the noble Lord has raised is considered in the best possible way.

I agree that on these technical points on which views differ there are bound to be some differences of opinion. I accept that But I think that if we have the consultation with the surgeon who carried out the actual operation we shall do the very best we can. As I say, we are, in fact, responsible for this work, and we feel we cannot undertake that responsibility unless we have the view of the limb surgeon at our limb centre as to the suitable type of limb that should be used. Frankly, I do not think anyone could expect us to accept the responsibility, which is a large one, and the financial responsibility for public funds, unless we were satisfied that every possible effort is made, using all the advice that is available, to ensure that the best type of limb is guaranteed to the amputee.

We have some 20 limb centres already in operation, and, as the hon. Member mentioned, we are opening a further nine, to make 29 up and down the country—a far wider distribution than is available in any other service; there is no service that can give that amount of accommodation. Therefore, we shall do a great deal to limit the number of journeys that these people have to undertake. We have some 80 limb surgeons available now to undertake this work, which we believe can en- sure that everyone in future will have the advantage of their advice.

The hon. Gentleman says there are 80 limb surgeons. Does he mean for posting to the Ministry's centres? Or will they be posted to or able to work in private firms?

The present intention is that we should have them at our own limb centres. There are very many obvious advantages in that. However, this is not the final draft of the arrangement, and we are perfectly prepared to look at the matter again when we have gained a little experience of it. I think it would be foolish not to look at it further in 12 or 18 months' time. I would assure hon. Members that we are anxious to see that at the limb centres there shall be no pressure in favour of one limb as against another, but that there will be the fullest information available for the patients to enable them to choose for themselves from among the firms which are contracting with the Ministry the limbs they would be prepared to take. I feel that this does ensure that there is no real reason why private limb makers who have experience in this field, and who have a good reputation in it, should not enter into contract with us.

On this question of the payment of the extra charge, the proposal is that if a dearer limb than at present is supplied under contract to our Ministry is chosen by the amputee, then the Ministry shall charge the excess upon the patient. The question has been asked: "Why should not the patient merely settle up with the private limb maker?" There are many obvious objections to that. We want to ensure—it is our responsibility—that the patient knows what he is letting himself in for. Surely that is a reasonable thing to ask? We feel that the patient, in making his choice, must know the cost of the limb he chooses. I cannot think that is at all an unreasonable thing to ask. Finally, after he has been to the firm of his choice, if he does choose a firm not at present among our contractors, he will get his limb manufactured by the firm, and it will be passed out by our own limb surgeon. I do not think there is any objection to that.

The right hon. Gentleman has told us what he thinks is a reasonable thing to do and suggests the course he thinks the manufacturers ought to accept, but he has not told us that the leg manufacturers are going to accept them. If they are all or nearly all going out of business, however good it might be in theory, in practice it is going to be difficult. What can they do about that?

There has been much misunderstanding on the points I have been dealing with. If they really appreciate the fact that we are most anxious that they should join in with us, on the clear understanding that there is to be no prejudice against them in our limb centres and there is to be consultation with the surgeons who perform amputations—and these are matters on which there has been a great deal of dispute between the firms themselves—I see no further barrier to their accepting the proposals. Several firms are at present in negotiation with us and I see no reason why they should not complete their negotiations. That makes it clear that there will be competition in this industry, because it is already the case that certain other firms, highly reputable firms, are prepared to join in on these broad terms. I do not believe this is the last word in any scheme of this sort. In broadening the scheme we have had in operation so long, we have to see as we go along what changes, if any, are needed. But the prior consideration must always be, all the way through, the benefit of the patient, the securing of the very best possible service for him. We have worked out these proposals with that in mind.

The point of free warrants for travel was raised. I think that can be arranged. I do not see any real difficulty, provided the patients come to the nearest fitting centre. We know the troubles involved in the question of stump socks. We are very willing to consider entering into contracts with any firm that can meet our general specifications. We do not bar anybody. We are most anxious, as I think the noble Lord knows, to try to improve the actual issue of stump socks, about which I know there has been a good deal of difficulty.

Can people go to whatever firms continue to supply stump socks, if they can get these free of charge?

I think the noble Lord must know that the arrangements must continue. Socks will be issued through the Ministry limb centres, but contracts for the supply of them will be made with any firm prepared to enter into contract with us on the existing basis. We will consider the other points very carefully. I assure hon. Members that in this whole matter we are most anxious to secure a steady improvement in the service that we have already established. We are proud of the service we can already make available, which we believe is the best in the world, but we are perfectly conscious of the fact that it is by no means the ideal service. There is plenty of room for further improvement. With the co-operation of hon. Members, I am sure we can secure that improvement.

1.55 a.m.

I had not intended to intervene because I have no special knowledge of this question. What I know about it I have learned from friends of my own who happen to be handicapped in this way and who have had a great deal of experience in dealing with various firms. There is just one point about which I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman. He has told us, and I am sure that he means it, that he wants adequate competition from outside firms. He has not told us that many of these firms are going to join in the present arrangements, and I rather gathered from the hon. Gentleman that the terms which are held out to these firms are on a take-it-or-leave-it basis; that there is no latitude, and that he has now put before the House the final terms on which he is willing to accept the co-operation of these firms.

If it be the fact, as I believe it is, that a number at least of the larger firms say that they cannot co-operate on these terms, will the hon. Gentleman agree to go into the whole matter with them again? I see that there is a good deal to be said from his point of view. On the other band, I dare say that there is quite a good deal to be said from the point of view of these firms. The hon. Gentleman has told us that the scheme is not hard and fast. It would be curious if he stood fast to his scheme now, when he has told us that he would be ready to modify it after a period. Why not work the other way and modify the scheme now, and if during a period it is found that those modifications do not work, wash them out? I should have thought that that was the better way to approach the problem. If it be the fact that a large number of influential firms are not entering the scheme, will the hon. Gentleman go into the matter again, not on a hard and fast basis, but on the basis that he will try to reach some accommodation with them.

We have already made very considerable concessions, and have gone as far as we believe we can go without endangering the value of the service we are offering. Frankly, we are certainly not prepared to go any further, because we are confident that it would simply mean that, so far as the patient is concerned, the service we could offer him would not be so good. We are not prepared to do that. We are prepared to look at the matter after we have had some 12 months of running the scheme and we can see how it works out in practice. We are prepared to assure hon. Members on all sides of the House on that.

Question put, and negatived.

Agricultural Workers' Rations

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [ Mr. Joseph Henderson. ]

1.59 a.m.

Even at this late hour I wish to raise briefly the question of increasing food rations for agricultural workers. So far, the Minister of Food, in dealing with this departmentally, has been unable to meet our case. For my part, I refuse to accept the position of inferiority in which the farm worker is placed compared with the industrial worker, who can get hot meals in his canteen. I would like to deal with this matter on several grounds. The economic position, the international crisis, and the world food shortage are of such a character that we obviously need to grow every ounce of food, and to use every scrap of land. That is going to put a considerable strain on the manpower of the agricultural industry, and in this connection I believe that the nutrition of the farm worker engaged upon heavy work is today seriously deficient.

I have known the Suffolk agricultural worker for 20 years. I think he is the last person to complain for himself. His wife will tell you that he very often goes hungry, and that she herself often suffers because she gives him some of her rations. The country doctor will tell the hon. Lady that the farmworker is not getting enough, and that there is evidence of a sort of cottage anaemia. The employer will tell her the same, as will the Women's Institute, the W.V.S., the Mother's Union. In the view of all of them, the agricultural worker is not getting enough. His union will say the same. The last time we debated this subject the hon. Lady said she had referred this matter to the T.U.C. To show what the Agricultural Workers' Union thinks on this subject, I should like to quote Mr. John Stewart, who is the Suffolk county organiser of the Agricultural Workers' Union. When he addressed a meeting quite recently, according to a newspaper report he, rations, while a self-employed farmer is also not allowed to have these concessions. The hon. Lady said on the last occasion on which we had a similar Debate that she would have to consider steel workers and other ranges of workers. But that is the type of worker who has the opportunity of going to a canteen where hot meals are provided. Sooner or later the Government will have to choose between giving the farm worker an extra meat ration, establishing a system of mobile canteens which might be very costly and difficult, or reducing the meat ration in cafes, hotels, night clubs and so on, and giving more to rural areas.

The Prime Minister has appealed for a 10 per cent, increased output in the country. The speech of the President of the Board of Trade the other day was ominous. He spoke about the diminution in our export trade through inability to get licences in certain countries, and it is obvious we are going to have to switch to capital goods which means that more heavy workers will be needed We shall have to grow more food, and if you are going to speed the plough, you must feed the ploughman. I hope the hon. Lady will take this matter up with the Minister of Agriculture so that it can be taken to Cabinet level for reconsideration. If the hon. Lady has an opportunity during the Recess, I suggest that she goes to one of the East Anglian farms to see the bumper harvest being brought in by workers with the lowest absentee record in this country—that harvest without which the towns could not exist. At this late hour I do not propose to say any more, but I do ask the hon. Lady if she is able to give an answer to this question? I think the whole matter of heavy workers' rations will have to be gone into, and something will have to be done, as the farmer's wife suggested, to give the farmer a bit extra on his ration card.

2.6 a.m.

The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) has made some sweeping assertions. He has said that the agricultural worker is in a less advantageous position vis-à-vis the industrial worker. We have considered the position of the agricultural worker in the light of our limited food supply, and we have had to consider it in relation to the needs of other workers. I am quite certain that nutritionists, as well as lay members of the committee which is interested in this matter, are satisfied that the agricultural worker is having his nutritional needs met today. The other assertion made by the hon. Member was of such a sweeping character that he ought not to have come here and made it unless he was prepared to substantiate it. It was that the health of the agricultural worker was suffering. I would like him to give chapter and verse and to-tell me which medical publication has pointed this out, and whether he could show me in the latest report, published only two weeks ago, of the Chief Medical Officer of Health, who is responsible for examining every category of worker in this country, where the health of the agricultural worker is said to have suffered.

The hon. Member, who represents an agricultural constituency, and knowing that this Adjournment Debate will be well publicised in that constituency, was extremely irresponsible in coming here and alleging that the agricultural workers are suffering from malnutrition. I want to explain as briefly as possible the provisions which are being made for the agricultural worker. Normally most of them live at home, and they have the extra cheese ration of 12 ounces per week. Again, I must repeat that he enjoys certain facilities which are denied to urban workers. He can have a garden where he may grow vegetables and keep chickens. A very large number of them are members of pig clubs. I ask the hon. Member to take note of the number of agricultural workers who have had pigs killed since 1st September, 1947. Over 130,000 pigs have been killed for agricultural workers during that period. Of this number, 7,000 were killed under special arrangements made for agricultural workers. The worker can, if he pleases, have the pig kept and fed by the farmer who employs him. Such facilities are denied to urban workers, and I do not think that the hon. Member should dismiss the advantage which the agricultural worker has in such a light manner.

Now as to the question of canteens. We have recognised that the agricultural worker is denied the canteens the factory worker and many town workers enjoy, but the hon. Member must know that my Department is very sympathetically disposed towards any scheme Which any reputable group cares to offer to us to examine, such as a group of voluntary workers, W.V.S., agricultural workers' union, or the Transport and General Workers Union. If they submit a scheme to us, we are prepared to examine it and are willing in approved cases to give the food allocation which heavy workers now enjoy in industrial canteens. The hon. Member knows that a group of farmers may get together and find suitable premises in which they can conduct a canteen and we are prepared to give the rations if the farmers are willing to do that. I am glad to say that in many parts of the country many farmers are doing that.

As to seasonal allowances, I cannot understand the hon. Member. He represents an agricultural constituency, but apparently he is not fully informed on the subject when he says that the farm workers would not be able to get tea during certain seasonal operations, but that they would have to do on bread and jam.

The hon. Member should not quote statements from someone which he acknowledges are not statements of fact. That is not a fact and it is an irresponsible suggestion to say they have to do this on bread and jam. They get tea, preserves, margarine, sugar, cheese, points foods, and bread, during harvesting, haymaking, hoeing, singling, lambing, sheep shearing and threshing.

The hon. Member challenges me and says that I said we were going to obtain the advice of the T.U.C. Committee, and he says that the Agricultural Workers' Union say something which is not in accord with the T.U.C. Advisory Committee. I believe that was the purport of his remarks, but he must know that the Agricultural Workers' Union is represented on the Advisory Committee, and we have the pleasure of seeing Mr. Dann every time we meet at my Ministry. These matters are threshed out, and when it was decided that hoeing and singling should be added to the groups for which seasonal allowances were granted, this was in agreement with the Advisory Com- mittee on the understanding that no further operations should be added to the list. I have said that we are advised by this Committee which is representative of all trade unions in the country. The hon. Member cannot dismiss that Committee as though it had no standing because it is a Committee nominated by the T.U.C. and on which the Agricultural workers' trade union is represented. He dismissed the rural pie scheme as if it were nothing. He knows that something like one and three-quarter million pies are served not only to agricultural workers, but are also taken to their families to enjoy each week, and the workers have expressed then-great appreciation of this.

There was a point which I am very surprised he did not raise which would have been of great use when his speech is published in the local papers and which I am sure he hopes all his constituents will read. We have not been satisfied that farmers in the country are exercising the powers they have in distributing these seasonal foods to the workers. We therefore propose that workers should nominate an individual—if they like they can nominate someone in the village or an officer of their trade union—who will undertake the distribution of seasonal foods during seasonal operations in order that all agricultural workers, in whatever part of the country they live, shall enjoy them.

I do want to say that I think it is ungenerous—and it is perhaps an understatement to say that—of the hon. Member to challenge my department with ignoring the needs of the agricultural worker. It must be remembered that we have to deal with the needs of every group of worker, and we have to consider the repercussions which would result if we gave a differential ration to one group of workers ignoring, say, the heavy workers in another group. I assure the hon. Member that we have most sympathetically considered the needs of the agricultural worker, and we have been unable, in the present circumstances, to increase the ration.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Sixteen Minutes past Two o'Clock a.m.