Mr. Selwyn Lloyd.

11.4 a.m.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether you could give us some Ruling as to the scope of any Debate which may ensue with regard to India and Pakistan, in view of the fact that they are now self-governing Dominions, and how far any matter can properly be brought before this House?

Before you give your Ruling on this subject, Mr. Speaker, may I most respectfully be permitted to submit to you a few considerations upon this very important issue, which would govern so much our future affairs in this House?

I would like, first of all, to submit to you that it is very inconvenient that this attitude on the part of the Prime Minister should have been disclosed to me, for the Opposition—and, I dare say, elsewhere—at such very short notice. It is four days since I wrote to the Prime Minister on this subject, as a matter of courtesy and for his convenience, telling him that I proposed to raise this question, saying:

May I correct the right hon. Gentleman?

I have the letter here.

It is better to have these things quite accurate. I pointed out that, as we were members of the Security Council, the action of the Security Council in respect of Hyderabad and Kashmir was, obviously, one on which we should have to state what our actions had been. It was with regard to the other matters—and I made no suggestion that we could not discuss any questions of the pledges—that I thought their consideration was very important from the point of view of this House and its relations with the Dominions as to what can be said in Debate about the internal affairs of the Dominion countries.

The right hon. Gentleman, with great respect, sent you a letter, Mr. Speaker, on this subject, of which he sent me a copy. I do not know whether it would be convenient if I were to read it now or whether you, Sir, would wish to read it out. At any rate, this letter clearly seeks to obtain a Ruling to the effect that we must not discuss the affairs of Kashmir or of Hyderabad in this House. That would seem to raise the very largest issues in regard to the whole future of Parliamentary procedure. If, for instance, grave catastrophes arise there or in any other Dominion, or a clash occurs between two Dominions, is the House of Commons to be the only place in the whole world where this matter may not be discussed?

Further, I gather from the letter which the Prime Minister has written to you, and of which he sent me a copy, that he fully admits that the pledges given by His Majesty's Government may be fully discussed. Is it possible that pledges could be discussed without any permission being given to deal with their fulfilment? Surely, pledges and fulfilment are inseparably connected, and it would be an almost absurd position for us to get into where we are asked to give pledges by legislation and otherwise—and in the House—and then, whatever the consequences, no further reference must be made to those matters if they fall within the Dominions? I venture, most respectfully, to submit that point to you, Sir.

The other point I would venture to Submit is, of course, that of the United Nations' organisation. I am hoping that the matter will be referred to the United Nations' organisation; but surely it would be quite in Order for me or other speakers to question the Government upon the instructions they will give to their representatives on the United Nations' organisation; and, surely, it would be quite in Order for me to plead with them and to argue with them on the subject, and for that purpose to adduce the necessary facts which are relevant? I venture, most respectfully, to submit those points to you, Sir.

I find this a fairly difficult matter. I think that some misunderstanding has arisen in the first place. I was referred to the Rule on Questions, Rule 19, which prevents the putting down of Questions referring to the internal affairs of the Dominions. I must point out to the House that the Rules on Questions are far more strict than the Rules about Debate, and as long as there is any Ministerial responsibility, even if it is somewhat remote, it is very hard for the Chair to say this and that shall not be discussed. I find it hard to say there is any limit to Debate, on two' grounds. The first ground the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out: there are pledges, and I think the House is entitled to know the background of those pledges, and to decide whether or not it is satisfied they have been carried out. Then, of course, there is the approach to U.N.O., which I understand both these States are using, and I think we are entitled to explore the situation to see what instructions are to be given to our representative. Therefore, I find it very hard to say there is any limit to the Debate. T think the limit must be that of common sense and common prudence; one does not want unnecessarily to offend in any way a Dominion of the Commonwealth.

I submitted this matter to you, Sir, because it has been raised with regard to both these Dominions and other Dominions. I, of course, entirely accept what you say in your Ruling, but it is a matter which does require watching, because there has been a decision as to the limits to which matters respecting affairs in another Dominion can be raised where there is a Government of His Majesty different from the Government of the United Kingdom. That is my object in raising this question, to draw your attention to that matter in case anything should arise in the course of the Debate.

I think I might, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, say that I will, of course, look into this matter, and have it looked into most carefully. It might be as well to lay down some general guide for the future, but I could not go beyond that at the present time.

11.14 a.m.

I will endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to conform to the letter and the spirit of your Ruling, because I certainly have no desire to aggravate a delicate situation, or to revive old controversies, or to cause unnecessary difficulties. But I do feel that matters of such importance have arisen that it would be wrong for this House to adjourn for several weeks without a word being said about it.

May I remind the House of our discussions on the Indian Independence Act a year ago, in July of 1947? The Prime Minister, speaking on 10th July, did deal with the position of the Indian States, and said—I am abbreviating his words, but I hope giving the effect of them—he contemplated the States finding their appropriate new places within one or other of the new Dominions as "willing partners," to use his phrase; and he then went on to say that he hoped for the transition of each State, upon the lapse of paramountcy, into a free association with one or other of the new Dominions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan), who followed the Prime Minister, stated that by this expression he understood the Prime Minister was saying that the Indian States would be absolutely free in their choice. That statement by my right hon. Friend was not contradicted or disputed in any way. My right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), speaking later, said that it was our duty to do our utmost to see that not at any time were the Indian States exposed to any pressure, economic, political or physical. That, again, was not disputed.

Later, during the Committee stage, on 14th July the right hon. and learned Attorney-General dealt with the same matter and re-affirmed the general position expounded by the Prime Minister, and went on to add that Mr. Jinnah wished the States to make a free choice, and that Mr. Patel dismissed any idea of coercion. That, I submit, is the form in which the matter left this House. The States, as independent States, were to have a free choice as to whether or not they entered into a willing partnership, and there was to be no coercion. To that position, which I submit was sound in law, this House and the Government are in honour bound.

Would the hon. and learned Member permit me to ask a question?

There is a very limited time for this Debate, and I am endeavouring to speak to a very strict time limit; therefore, I do not think I can give way, though I mean no personal discourtesy.

What is the present situation? First I will look at the situation solely from the point of view of Hyderabad, to see whether or not one can say that those pledges have, in fact, been fulfilled by His Majesty's Government. At present, there is an almost complete blockade of Hyderabad. Rail traffic, so far as goods are concerned, has been completely stopped, and passengers very substantially restricted; with road traffic the same situation exists. There is a rigid postal censorship. Five million pounds worth of goods paid for by Hyderabad are not permitted to go through to them from Bombay, although some is agricultural and mining machinery which is very much wanted in Hyderabad. The traffic in medical stores, salt—which is so essential to life—and chlorine to work the chlorinating plants has been interfered with. So far as exports from Hyderabad are concerned, the linseed, castor and groundnuts crops are rotting because they are not permitted to be exported; all commodities of which the world is in very great need. Cotton and coal, two other important commodities which the State exports, also may not be sent out. With regard to finance, the Reserve Bank of India is not permitted to give to any Hyderabad citizen foreign currency of any kind. The pensions payable to widows of former State servants of Hyderabad, now living in the United Kingdom, cannot be paid. The very large sums subscribed during the war to war loans have been frozen. No debt can be paid to any Hyderabad citizen by an Indian except into a blocked account in an Indian bank.

From the military point of view, there are troops stationed at strategic points all round the frontiers of Hyderabad, and the Prime Minister of the Dominion of India is quoted in "The Times" one day this week as having said on 25th July that he will start military operations if and when he considers it necessary. Therefore, the position from Hyderabad's point of view is this. This State of 17 million people, which has been well administered in the past, which has been free from communal trouble—and that is not a bad test of good administration—which was a faithful ally of this country, and which gave much in men, material and money during two world wars, is, at the present time, upon the facts which I have recounted, being subjected to pressure, and being denied a free choice, and the pledges which His Majesty's Government gave are most certainly not being carried out. In regard to the Kashmir situation, there are four divisions of Indian troops holding one part of the country and the other half is held by irregular forces. I propose to say no more about that situation except that it also is obviously a serious one.

I have endeavoured to check the facts I have put before the House from more than one independent source, and I believe them to be correct. These being the facts, what reflections is it appropriate for this House to make upon them? The first reflection is, I think, that this situation will cause acute embarrassment to the many well-wishers of India in this country who believe that the people of India have a great contribution to make and hoped, whatever the glories or failures of the past, that this new chapter which was opened last year would be a creditable one. I think one is entitled to ask whether this position is compatible with the lofty ideals and high moral purposes which have been professed so often by the leaders of the movement for Indian independence. We can ask with absolute sincerity whether this state of affairs is compatible with the tradition of Mr. Gandhi, who, after all, lost his life because of the very great efforts he made to abate communal trouble.

Whatever the merits of the detailed matters in dispute, can it possibly be said that the pledges to Hyderabad have been fulfilled? Just think what the impression would have been in the Anglo-Saxon world had the Dominion of Canada at the time of confederation, or even now, attempted to apply the same sort of methods to Newfoundland? Obviously there would be a feeling of the deepest uneasiness and of the very greatest reprobation. To say that this is a domestic problem is wrong in law, but more important than that, it is wrong in fact, because if, through any mischance, there is fighting in Hyderabad, it will mean that an area in South India which has been free from communal infection will become the scene of bitter communal strife. The Nizam is the head of a respected Muslim ruling house, and his son the Prince of Berar is allied to a member of another venerated Muslim royal house. What will be the effect upon Muslim opinion if he is overthrown? Hyderabad contains a great Muslim university which is a great cultural centre for the educated Muslims. What is going to happen to Muslim opinion if that university passes into the hands of another creed or sect?

I believe that if this situation is permitted to continue the result may be that Muslims throughout India will join in this trouble, and that there will be a revival of disastrous communal strife. It will be very difficult for the Dominion of Pakistan to keep aloof, and if something is not done we may have a blood-bath infinitely worse than that of last Autumn. We all pray that that will not be the result, and we all hope that wiser and better counsels will prevail.

What we are entitled to know is what the Government are doing about it. Are the Government washing their hand's of the situation and passing by on the other side and letting matters drift? What action is the Government taking to support their position of a year ago and to sustain their moral obligation? Have the Government offered to mediate? Have they formed any view on the proposed submission of this matter to the United Nations? What is their policy and what steps are being take to carrying it out? It is a matter in which the honour of this House is at stake; the peace and survival of many millions of people may well be at stake, and there is the possibility of catastrophe of very wide dimensions. I ask the Government to give a clear and unequivocal statement of what they propose to do in the matter.

11.25 a.m.

I had intended, in the normal course, to await the statement of the Government before taking part in this Debate, but as I understand the Prime Minister would rather follow me, I defer to his wishes as a matter of courtesy. I will say a few words to emphasise the points which have been so clearly brought out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I feel that they have, by their reasonableness, commended themselves to the House, and, as a matter of fact, the solution I am going to urge on the Government is extremely reasonable and in harmony with modern democratic sentiments and principles.

Let me begin first with the pledges— and I am very glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place. The relations between Hyderabad and the British Crown have been governed by treaties which have been renewed in authority by statements as late as 1943 and 1942, and the Viceroy, during the late Parliament, declared that these treaties were inviolate and inviolable. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer went out in March, 1942, under the late Government, he told the Hyderabad relegation: went out again under this Government, it is important that the House should notice the great change in principle introduced by the present Government. We had always insisted that obligations and pledges to the Princes and to the scheduled classes and others must be fully and faithfully carried out as an essential part of any process of transfer of ruling power, but under the present Government this was cast away and the pledges were abandoned. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is reported to have said to Hyderabad representatives in April, 1946, that what he said in 1942 no longer applied about the position of the States—

We are told that Hyderabad is surrounded by Indian territories, that it is completely land-locked, that it has no access to the sea. But such considerations have nothing to do with the right of independence. Switzerland is completely land-locked, and has no access to the sea, but has maintained its independence for hundreds of years. Austria and Czechoslovakia, also, are States which have no access to the sea, but their independence has never been treated lightly by the British House of Commons. Since when are the rights of States to independence to be impugned or compromised by the fact that they are land-locked?

I say that Hyderabad has an absolutely indefeasible status of independence, and that it is fully entitled to membership of the United Nations organisation if accepted by that body and, still more, is entitled to lay its case before that body and appeal for its support and mediation, especially when a breach of the peace may he involved. The first question I wish to have answered by the Government is—will they assist Hyderabad in bringing its case before U.N.O., and will they instruct our representative there to see that the case of both States is fully and fairly heard and discussed?

What has happened? My hon. and learned Friend has told us a good deal of what has happened, and I do not wish to add much to it, except to say that a very harsh blockade has been imposed on Hyderabad by the Central Government of India, a blockade which, in many aspects, is similar to that which the Soviet Union are now throwing around Berlin, except that the numbers of helpless people are far greater—17 million compared with 2½ million—and also because several very harsh features have been introduced into it, such as the prevention of the supply of medicines, drugs and hospital equipment. The Prime Minister, as I happen to know from interchanges we have had, contradicts this, but I would suggest that he should search more fully for his facts.

A letter appeared in yesterday's "Manchester Guardian," which I should be glad to place at his disposal. It shows completely how the stoppage of these drugs has been enforced, particularly chlorine. The process is this, and, here again, it has a Soviet flavour. Supplies of drugs are cut off by the Provinces, by Bombay and Madras. The firms that have medicines there are prevented from delivering them. The railways are used in the Provinces to prevent delivery. Before the Prime Minister commits himself to denying this statement on which, as I understand it, he has been misinformed, he had better look into this question. I am prepared to submit to him a number of cases of correspondence which show clearly how medicines and drugs are being blocked by the Provincial Governments, which are also Congress-dominated. Nothing is getting through. It is three months since any chlorine arrived in Hyderabad. The right hon. Gentleman will have a lot to do no doubt, but I was surprised to find that he seemed so confident on this matter. I am sure it will be possible to give him overwhelming evidence on which he can readjust his position.

This letter in the "Manchester Guardian" yesterday, which is confirmed by evidence I have in my possession, was written by Mr. Zoha, an Indian no doubt, but resident in this country, who gives a full account, with extraordinary elaboration and skill, of how the stoppage has been effected from many points. That is not a very gratifying feature of the present blockade of Hyderabad, because the chlorination of water and chlorine in hospitals are really essential in India to the prevention of very serious pestilences. As I say, I will furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the correspondence. Unless my facts can be contradicted and overthrown, it is an odious incident.

There is another point which I will mention, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend, and that is that during the war the people and Government of Hyderabad made large contributions to British war loans. The securities for those were deposited in the Bank of India. They have all been frozen. Money was subscribed to help us to win the war and now, in their hour of distress, is frozen by the Government of India, and this at the very moment—and this is what I want the Chancellor to pay attention to—when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making arrangements for releasing large sums from the sterling balances, sustaining and supporting, in fact, the Indian Government by the active diversion of goods from this country. It is impossible for the Government to take that kind of step, and not have some responsibility for the actions which they are taking, in the financial sphere at any rate.

All this, however, is the "cold" war, but it may be the prelude to actual violence. There was a speech delivered by Mr. Nehru since I wrote my letter to the Prime Minister, or at any rate on the same day, and I must read an extract from it, one sentence of which was quoted by my hon. and learned Friend. I am taking it from "The Times." If it is an incorrect report, it ought to be denied at once. This is what he said, according to "The Times" of 27th July: against another by Indians. I thought we took the principle of the broad equality of the human race, irrespective of colour or creed. If that be so, there is no reason why Indian Ministers and rulers should not be subjected to the same forms of criticism and assigned the same moral responsibility as Europeans or Americans.

That speech does cause the gravest anxiety, because if an act of aggression were committed by India, or by the Nehru Government of India, upon the independent State of Hyderabad, the British Crown and even the person of His Majesty would be involved, owing to the arrangements which have been made. To say that such a situation should be allowed to arise, and that this House should be unable to discuss it, to say that we should drift on while a hideous deadlock of that character arose in the Far East of the Empire, would indeed be an absurd and a wrong contention.

I do not propose to go at any length into the question of Kashmir, except in so far as it is relevant to the Hyderabad situation. Kashmir is, I understand, already engaging the attention of U.N.O. and a commission from U.N.O. is now at work in Kashmir, though not meeting with any great success. Still, there is the fact that U.N.O. is there working in Kashmir. Hyderabad has a far more numerous population than Kashmir, three times, or twice anyhow. If one may have the good offices of U.N.O., why may not the other? I cannot understand that.

Nor can I understand what principle underlies the attitude of the India Government towards these two States. In Kashmir, four-fifths of the people are Muslim and the ruler is a Hindu. His accession to the Dominion of India is accepted without any reference to the vast majority of his people. In regard to Hyderabad, the case, as a communal problem, is the other way round. The ruler is a Muslim and the bulk of the people are non-Muslims. The India Government—the Nehru Government—take the line that in one case it is the will of the people and in the other case it is the decision of the ruler. In either case, however we work it, they get them both. I must say that we ought to notice this very curious way of deciding these grave matters.

I would propose that the Government—I mentioned it in my letter, and this is what I hope to obtain from the Government—try to apply the same rules and principles to the settlement of difficulties in both Hyderabad and Kashmir, namely, that both those States should be given access to U.N.O. and that our Government should actively aim at getting them access there. Then, we should set up and formulate again the principle for which we have made immense sacrifices in our Colonial Empire, that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed and that, in difficult and doubtful cases where the fate of communities is to be decided, the United Nations organisation should be the supreme tribunal to which we should endeavour to appeal, in order to avert war or violence.

I am informed that the people of Hyderabad, naturally, like those of Kashmir, would be quite willing to have the fate of their State determined by a plebiscite, provided—and I hope that the democrats opposite will take this in—that it is fairly conducted under the auspices and through the organisation of U.N.O. I should have thought that was a very good way of dealing with the matter. That was what we had in Greece at the beginning of the present Government.

Would the right hon. Gentleman—

No, I would not. I wish to unfold my argument. The hon. Member may have a chance later to unfold what he has to say. I have practically finished my argument, and I do not see why the hon. Gentleman cannot await his turn when he may catch the eye of Mr. Speaker. I am trying to say what I think the Government would be well advised to do. I am saying that both these States are willing to have their case decided by a plebiscite provided that it is under the auspices of U.N.O., and—I must make this clear—provided that there is no property qualification. To that, I understand, the Hyderabad Government attach great importance. They want adult suffrage. That does not seem to me to be a ground on which any objection could be entertained by the party opposite. They want a free plebiscite with adult suffrage, under the auspices of U.N.O., the result to be accepted by both sides.

That is the question I am putting. I must admit that the reason they want adult suffrage in Hyderabad and not a property qualification is because there are nearly five million Untouchables who, it is believed, would have very little property at all, as in other parts of India. I think it is believed that they would get far better treatment on communal grounds, in the State of Hyderabad than they would receive under the Government of India as a whole. We cannot look behind it. Any man has a right to say: "I ask for no more than a plebiscite, on adult suffrage, conducted freely under the auspices of the supreme world instrument for the prevention of war." I ask the Prime Minister, who is I believe to reply, to deal with that point. I hope earnestly that he will say that he will favour the application to U.N.O., and that he will consider that a plebiscite of this character so conducted, would be a good way of dealing with this problem.

I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman did not want all this matter to be discussed. If I had his background of pledges in the matter, I should have felt a great deal of compunction in hearing the whole matter put before Parliament and the country. However, we are not yet at the end of this tragic story, and I warn Ministers that, although while they possess a majority in this Parliament they may be totally indifferent to public opinion and to world judgments in many ways, yet they have a personal obligation which affects their honour and good faith not to allow a State which they have assured has a declared and sovereign independent status to be strangled, stifled, starved out or actually overborne by violence. To sit by after all they have said and to allow that to happen, to shrug their shoulders and say, "It is not a matter for us; it is a matter for the India Dominion," would be to commit an act of shame with which their names would be burdened for generations which otherwise might not have paid attention to them.

11.51 a.m.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) raised this subject in a most temperate and well-balanced speech. I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had followed his example.

Let me deal with the points that are made. First of all, I will deal with the point about the pledges. The right hon. Gentleman quoted what occured on the Cripps Mission. Proposals were then made. Those proposals came to nothing. They were rejected by the parties in India and a new start had to be made, There were discussions with the Princes in India, and one of the questions was naturally that with regard to paramountcy. Suggestions were made that paramountcy should be handed over to any new Dominions in India. That was always refused because paramountcy is not a thing which could be transferred, and it was realised by everybody, including the Princes, that with the setting up of Dominions in India, paramountcy must come to an end. This matter was specifically dealt with in a statement which was made on 22nd May, 1946, by the Cabinet Mission. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to these words:

I am not basing my argument on the maintenance of paramountcy at all but on maintaining ordinary, decent fair play and good faith.

I will deal with the right hon. Gentleman's points. He was hinting all the time that there had been a breach—[ Interruption. ] Excuse me, the right hon. Gentleman used the words "unilateral repudiation of treaty obligations." It was not unilateral because the right hon. Gentleman omitted to notice that this matter was very fully discussed with the States' representatives, including a representative of the State of Hyderabad when my right hon. Friends were in India. So that is the first point on which the right hon. Gentleman falls down. Secondly, it was made abundantly plain and accepted—

It is quite incorrect about the Nizam.

The right hon. Gentleman was not there and my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was there, and I generally find that the right hon. Gentleman's facts are seldom in accordance with what is really happening in any of these matters. I will demonstrate that in a few minutes if the right hon. Gentleman will have a little patience.

There is no need to falsify it.

The matter came before this House. The right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to quote the statement which I made, which I entirely agree was perfectly clear. It was perfectly obvious to everybody that after we had ceased to rule in India, our obligations and treaties with the States must go, and had the right hon. Gentleman studied the Indian Independence Act he would have seen that it is made perfectly plain that:

"His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have no responsibility as respects the government of any of the territories which, immediately before that day, were included in British India; the suzerainty of His Majesty over the Indian States lapses, and with it, all treaties and agreements in force at the date of the passing of this Act between His Majesty and the rulers of Indian States, all functions exercisable by His Majesty at that date with respect to Indian States, all obligations of His Majesty existing at that date towards Indian States or the rulers thereof, and all powers, rights, authority or jurisdiction exercisable by His Majesty at that date in or in relation to Indian States by treaty, usage, sufferance or otherwise."

They were unilaterally repudiated. That is what I said.

The right hon. Gentleman is now trying to get behind an Act of Parliament which was debated in full in this House. I have yet to learn that at that time an objection was made, or any suggestion was made, that we should retain paramountcy by the ruler of Hyderabad. That is the first point. Then there came the question of the accession of these States to the new Dominions. That was a matter for them and it was a matter for negotiation, and the bulk of the States negotiated and opted to one or other of the new Dominions. As a matter of fact, there was an accession by the ruler of Kashmir. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentle man now stands for the rights of the rulers of India—

I stand for the rights of the people.

I am quite sure everybody will be extremely glad, especially the Indians, at this very be lated conversion at last to views which the right hon. Gentleman has withstood so strongly in the House over and over again in regard to the rights of the Indian people to self-government, but I am glad to have it. Juridically there was this accession, but the Government of the Union of India put forward their proposals and said, "But we do propose that there should be a prebiscite." The dispute which arose was not between the State of Kashmir and the Union of India, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested; it was a complaint brought to the United Nations that the Government of Pakistan were interfering with the internal affairs of the Union of India, to which the State of Kashmir had adhered. There was a great discussion there, and His Majesty's Government did everything they could, and a great deal —

To which the ruler of Kashmir adhered.

I quite agree—in order to get a fair plebiscite, and the Commission is now out there. The right hon. Gentleman never seems to wish much well of anything; he seems to take satisfaction in that they are not doing very much.

I hope they will.

I hope they will. I would like to hear it said with more fervour. I hope this Commission will be able to deal with the matter and get exactly what the right hon. Gentleman wants—a fair plebiscite.

Hear, hear.

So much for Kashmir. Then we come to the question of Hyderabad. There again we have a ruler of a State, which the right hon. Gentleman must have regretted over many years, because the people have had no say in the Government. We had to recognise the juridical right of the rulers of that State. There was an important point which missed the attention of the right hon. Gentleman, and that was that a standstill agreement was made between the Union of India and the Nizam of Hyderabad, which has still a number of months to run, in which he expressly handed over his external relations to the Union of India.

Had not that agreement been broken by the blockade and the fighting? [HON. MEMBERS: "Get up."] Do not bully because you have a majority.

The right hon Gentleman in these matters—if I may have his attention—

You have done harm enough.

—always takes what he calls his facts from one side. In my position I have to hear both sides, and get information from both sides, and I do not start with the right hon. Gentleman's preconceived opinion that everything the Hindus do is wrong.

The right hon. Gentleman has no right to say that at all.

I have observed it every time, and that, unfortunately, is the view which is generally accepted in India.

I will not allow it to pass unchallenged that I start with a preconceived opinion that everything that the Hindus do is wrong. I think it is a shameful statement for the right hon. Gentleman to have made, to try to throw that upon me, in the hope that he may make antagonisms with vast millions of people.

I am trying to separate the statements that are made by the right hon. Gentleman, and his use of facts which are invariably selected from only one side, from the large, broader, and wiser view that is taken by right hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, because it does serious harm and I do not believe that in this matter the right hon. Gentleman is speaking for the whole of his party in the line he takes on this.

Take the question of blockade. It is difficult dealing with these matters because it is not for me to deal with the policy of other Dominion Governments, but, as a matter of fact, there are two sides to every question in India, and for one letter one can get on one side, one can always get a letter on another, and it is not so awfully easy to judge exactly what is happening. I have much information. I have had on one side complaints of the blockade and I have had definite repudiations on the other.

There is a blockade.

What the right hon. Gentleman calls a blockade. I said, with regard to the blockade the right hon. Gentleman mentions, that there are some things that have been stopped, there may be reasons for it, and other things may not have been stopped, but it is easy to get up and make a string of quotations taken all from one side. I do not propose to deal with those in detail, nor would I like to deal in this House with the conditions inside the State of Hyderabad. There again, there is much to be said on both sides, but what I come back to is this: what have the Union of India been trying to do in this matter? They have been trying to do exactly what the right hon. Gentleman has been suggesting. Let me quote from the proposed Firman which it was suggested by the Union of India, in the course of negotiations, should be issued by the Nizam:

"After protracted discussions between my Government and the Government of India, I am now in a position to announce the lines of my policy. I am most anxious to put an end to the uncertainties which prevail as to the nature of the relationship between Hyderabad and the Dominion of India.

The views of the Dominion of India have been made clear to me and mine are well known to them. I have now decided to consult the will of my people upon the question whether Hyderabad should accede to India. I shall, therefore, take a plebiscite in Hyderabad on the basis of adult franchise."—

adult franchise—no attempt to rig it, the House will notice—

"In order to ensure that the plebiscite is fairly conducted, I shall arrange for it to be held under the supervision of some impartial and independent body. I shall accept the result of the plebiscite whatever it may be."

That is what it was suggested by the Union of India should be put out by the Nizam as regards the plebiscite.

Is that the case today?

; That was very good, was it not?

If that had been today.

But it was very good; it was just what the right hon. Gentleman wanted, was it not?

It would be good if it were in the present circumstances.

I was not sure that that had not escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice. He brings to us all kinds of facts. He never mentioned the standstill agreement. He studies this closely, he must have seen it. The right hon. Gentleman implied that the Indians would not have a plebiscite. He implied that if they did, they would cut out the depressed classes. There is no basis whatever for that, except prejudice.

Let us see what is the position of His Majesty's Government in this matter. It is a matter to be decided by His Majesty's Government in every case whether it is wise or not to offer mediation. I have answered questions about that. It is not always wise (for His Majesty's Government to offer mediation. One cannot but consider how far it will be acceptable to the parties. But we are hoping for a settlement of this matter and, of course, we have constantly urged on all parties in India— and that does not apply only to Hyderabad, it applies to other parts of India too—that on neither side should there be pressure. I could also quote speeches from the Prime Minister of the Union of India showing the utmost desire to try to get accommodation.

To intervene at any particular moment, then try to put all the blame on one side, is an extremely stupid thing to do in Indian matters. It is an extremely dangerous thing to do unless one is in pretty close contact with all kinds of people because one can easily take a letter from an Indian in some paper and suggest that that is the will of India. There is nothing easier. I could produce thousands on either side.

What we should desire to see is exactly what was proposed by the Union of India, and suggested that the Nizam should accept, namely, that there should be a full and fair plebiscite under independent control. As to whether it should be done under U.N.O. or not, that is a matter for the Indian Government, but the right hon. Gentleman seems to be reiterating that Hyderabad is an entirely independent State. I agree it is an independent State, but the right hon. Gentleman should really look at the terms of the standstill agreement which, at the present time, regulates the relations of Hyderabad with the outside world. The right hon. Gentlemen may say, "Ah, but then the standstill agreement has been infringed." Very often there are infringments on either side. At the present moment that standstill agreement stands.

The right hon. Gentleman asked a hypothetical question—what should we do if this matter came to U.N.O.? What did we do when the question of Kashmir came to U.N.O.? We did our utmost to obtain the fullest and fairest methods for holding a plebiscite for the people to decide, and that is now going forward. I do not know what more the right hon. Gentleman would expect than that. What I do say is that in these very difficult circumstances one wants to be very careful what one says. One wants to be very careful not to judge things by past prejudices instead of by present events, and it is unfortunate that on the occasions when the right hon. Gentleman speaks on this matter, he does not seem to me to do anything either to reconcile conflicting parties in India or to draw closer the bonds between India and Pakistan and the rest of the Commonwealth. Indeed, I know that this is expressed by people, not the least the people who are sitting on this side of the House; but I know the feelings of many people—administrators, business men, all kinds of people—who are Conservatives, with a lifelong knowledge of India, and who are unanimous on one thing—they deplore the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman in the Indian problem.

I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me an opportunity of raising the matter of London Transport on the Floor of the House. I want to deal with one special aspect of this problem, the supply of omnibuses in the Greater London area. About one-third of our trade and commerce is located in and around London and therefore millions of workers are travelling to their work day by day. In my opinion there is great need that we should keep up production at the highest possible level at the present time, and anything that impedes the smooth running of our trade and commerce, is indeed a matter of the greatest urgency. I feel certain that in speaking to the Minister of Transport on this subject of adequate transport facilities for greater London I am talking to the converted. I am sure that he is fully alive to the grave situation that prevails in the supply—should I say the totally inadequate supply—of omnibuses for the London area. I hope that the interest and the anxiety that will be expressed from both sides of the House will help the Minister in his representations to the Cabinet in this matter, so that it will receive the urgent attention that it merits.

In June, 1938, the total number of buses, coaches, trolley buses and trams in the London area was 9,080. In June, 1948, that number was 9,785. However, the vehicles that were actually in service on those approximate and respective dates were 7,973 and 8,104 vehicles, an increase of only 2.63 per cent. Yet the Chairman of the London Passenger Executive tells us that owing to the shifting of the population from the centre of London to the outskirts there has been an increase of at least 12 per cent, in the number of passengers using one or other form of London Transport. Where the actual distances are taken into consideration we find that the travelling is increased by at least 30 per cent.

In mentioning these statistics I want to point out that the London buses play a very important part in London transport. The picture is even worse because of the actual 5,840 buses and coaches that are in service today, 3,500 are over 12 years of age and 1,800 are over 16 years of age. They are being retained in service long after what has previously been regarded as their normal working life, and according to the Executive they must come off the road within the next few months. Between 1940 and 1947, 3,800 would normally have been replaced. In fact, less than one-tenth of that number—320 to be exact—were replaced during that period. The figure for the number of buses that are unable to leave the garages each day owing to not being in running order is—

I was referring to the figures of the number of buses which are unable to leave the various garages each day. These buses are unable to leave as they are not in running order. The figures are alarming, something like 300 every day, and this is mainly due to the lack of spares. I understand that in some instances it takes months to obtain these spares and the improvisation of the clever, but tired and over-worked, engineers cannot be of a lasting character because of the terrific strain which is placed on the buses and their drivers. There is a continuing and growing demand for public passenger transport, particularly in the outer areas. Many new housing estates are being built and more people have more money to spend on pleasure trips while more children are travelling to school either because of the centralisation of schools or because the new housing estates have not sufficient schools. On top of all this there is the greater concentration of travelling due to the shortening of the working hours. Added to that, extra circumstances have to be coped with, such as the sunny Whitsuntide we had—possibly we shall have a sunny August Bank Holiday—the departmental stores sales, and now the Olympic Games. All these things impose upon our services demands which are extremely difficult to meet.

The situation is desperate enough now in the summer time, when many people are away on holiday and many more are using bicycles, but what will it be like in the Winter? Already it is quite commonplace for people to wait half an hour and an hour in the bus queues. How they will stand that when the bad weather comes, I do not know. This half hour or hour of waiting, tired and weary, in rain, snow or biting winds will certainly take a toll of our people's health and it will mean a certain amount of lost time. Even if we have a National Health Service we do not want to overload it, and I am sure that the Government do not want to cause unnecessary suffering to our people, apart from the resulting diminution of productive effort.

The busmen are greatly perturbed at the situation. They are disturbed at the irritation and inconvenience caused to passengers and at the wastage of manpower among drivers and conductors due to the strain of handling inadequately maintained vehicles. They have themselves offered certain short-term remedies. First, they suggest that buses that are in holiday centres should not be laid up for half the year in garages but should be brought to the London area during the Autumn and Winter months, Secondly, they suggest that the supply of luxury coaches should be examined to see whether it cannot be reduced and the chassis so liberated, fitted with bus bodies. Thirdly, they suggest that the supply of spares, the shortage of which means that a bus is kept off the road—one ounce of steel can keep a bus off the road—should be increased and, if necessary, the allocation of steel for this purpose should be increased.

Above all the crying need is for new buses in the London area, and many of them. I understand that following representations from the Transport and General Workers' Union a promise has been given that for 1948 the total output of new vehicles in the home market will be 4,000 double-deck and 5,000 single-deck buses. This represents an increase of 3,000 on the figure which was given in February last. The Minister will probably point out to me that all these new buses are coming along. I want to know what proportion of these buses are coming into the London area, because unless the 1,800 over-age buses and in addition the 728 trams which are in service but long overdue for replacement by fuel driven buses, making a total of 2,500, are replaced, the situation in London will be out of control and our export markets will suffer accordingly.

Therefore, I appeal through the Minister to the Government that this subject of London passenger transport services, upon which so much is dependent, should not be left until it is too late, and that the Cabinet will reconsider the allocation of steel to this industry, because so much depends upon it. The steel and raw materials which we want to get into our various factories will not be of much use if we cannot take the workers to the factories. Therefore, I appeal that urgent consideration should be given to this matter, and that the allocation of steel and the quota of buses should be greatly increased in the near future.

12.36 p.m.

Londoners generally should thank the hon. Lady the Member for North Ilford (Mrs. Ridealgh) for raising this matter today. There is no more important matter in home affairs due for consideration than the inadequacy of London transport because if London transport breaks down one-third of the industry of the whole country is affected. That the gravity of the situation is realised, is, I think, substantiated by the fact that the Minister of Transport is here himself to reply to this Debate, accompanied by his Parliamentary Secretary. We are glad to know that he feels this matter to be of such importance that he should attend this Debate and reply to it. We are deeply grateful for that.

I know that the London Passenger Transport Executive are gravely and deeply concerned about the present position. As we all know, they have made the strongest possible representations to the Ministry of Transport, and I believe it is true to say that the Minister of Transport also has made strong representations to the Cabinet. I hope that as a result of this Debate and the information which has been and will be given to him he will feel that it is his duty once again to approach the Cabinet and ask for reconsideration of the allocation of steel for future new buses for London transport. I have a double interest in this matter. I am the Member of Parliament for St. Marylebone, a Central London constituency, and, therefore, I know from my correspondence book the urgent needs of residents in Central London. I also happen to be chairman of the largest company in the country producing double deck buses, much of our output being supplied to London, so I also know the production end as well.

I do not propose to cover the ground which the hon. Lady has so adequately covered but it is quite clear that London Transport is badly undermanned at the present time. It has increasing needs to meet and there are grave human problems to be faced. Unless people are transported more quickly and more efficiently during the next year or two there will be a real breakdown in industrial efficiency in this City, the heart of the Empire. That ought not to be allowed to take place. What, then, is the position? There is a programme which was laid down in 1947 to replace the London buses with new buses of the most modern design. These buses are now coming off the production line. They are easily maintained and are able to be made in mass quantity and quality for the first time in the history of bus production because of the new technique adopted as a result of collaboration between the London Transport authority and the manufacturers concerned. There would, therefore, be no anxiety at all about the replacement of London's overhead road transport system were it not for one disquieting factor, and that is the supply of chassis which has been cut down, due to the shortage of steel.

The programme laid down in 1947 provided for 1,040 double-deck buses for delivery during 1948 and 1,688 buses for delivery in 1949, a total for the two years of 2,728. That was regarded as the minimum programme based on forecasts which still hold good of the number of old buses which would inevitably have to be withdrawn during this two-year period as unfit for further operation. That number was 2,200, as referred to by the hon. Member for North Ilford. In the White Paper on Capital Investment for 1948, published in 1947, a reduction was aimed at in the number of public service vehicles for the home market of 6,000 in 1948 and 4,000 in 1949, of which only a proportion would be double-deck buses. The effect of the cut on London transport is that the number of buses which it was hoped would be available in 1948 will be reduced from 1,040, which was considered to be the absolute minimum, to 812. The effect of the further cut envisaged for 1949 will result in a reduction even below this figure of 812, that is, compared with the original programme of 1,688.

The result of these drastic cuts simply means that, by the end of 1949 London will be short of 1,000 buses. That is enough completely to break down the London transport system. Therefore, what is needed to enable the programme laid down in 1947 to be completed this year and next year? It is merely a matter of some 7,000 tons of steel. Each bus takes approximately seven tons of steel, so that what is wanted is 7,000 tons of steel to enable these thousand buses to be made available. I would beg of the Minister of Transport to go to his Cabinet colleagues and beseech them to give this extra allocation of steel. Unless this is done the trams, to which reference has been made, will not be replaced. The programme for modernising London transport includes the provision of buses instead of trams. The tram tracks at the present time are being maintained, but very soon the rails will need to be relaid. Maintenance cannot go on, and if this state of affairs arises, and it is coming near to it now, then more steel will be required for that than for the buses which are needed. I would therefore suggest to the Minister that if this White Paper capital cut programme is carried out, there will not be a saving of steel, but actually more will have to be used for the replacing of tramlines which would not have needed replacement if the bus replacement programme could be carried out. I make this point strongly in the hope that it will strengthen the Minister in the decision which I hope will be made to give more steel to increase the number of chassis and enable the original double-deck body production programme for London to be maintained.

I now come to what I hope will be considered to be helpful and constructive suggestions as to ways in which steel can be found to enable these buses for London to be obtained. I suggest to the Minister that if he takes a careful look at the British all-steel mineral wagon, at present being produced in large numbers from the mild steel of this country, he will see that if it was redesigned, and high tensile low alloy steel used, then there could be a saving of approximately one to 1¼ tons per truck. I will not go into all the technicalities but the information is available. If proper orders were placed with the manufacturers of low alloy steel to enable these trucks to be made of this low alloy steel then there would be this saving, quite apart, of course, from the saving from hauling less dead weight, a saving of coal and less maintenance corrosion and various other advantages. Here within the Minister's own Department is a method of saving steel which could be re-allocated for bus production. I further suggest that if this were done, then, for every six wagons turned out, there would be a saving of steel sufficient to enable one new bus to be put on the road in London. Here I suggest is an avenue which the Minister's Department could profitably and usefully explore and in that way perhaps prevent the breakdown of London transport.

There is another direction in which I hope he will make representation to his Cabinet colleagues and that is in regard to the saving which could be achieved on structural steel by modernising building regulations. At the present time steel buildings are erected in accordance with obsolete and out-of-date bylaws and much steel could be saved by revising them. In the last 20 years there have been very considerable developments in the use and production of new types of steel, and if these new types were used, which means, of course, new designs, very great savings could be effected. I am advised by the highest scientific and technical authorities in the country that in the new House of Commons now being built there is some 7,000 tons of structural steel being used, and if reinforced concrete was used there would have been a saving of about 3,000 tons of steel. That is the equivalent of 500 buses for London, and, surely, that example can be magnified many times all over the country.

In view of the very dangerous position which will arise next Winter, next year, and the year after, unless new buses are forthcoming as originally planned, I ask the Minister to explore every avenue in his own Department to find steel and allocate it for London buses. He should use his influence with all his colleagues in their various Departments to discover in what directions a saving of steel can be made, so that this most urgent problem of the transport of the population of London to and from their work can be solved satisfactorily. Unless people are carried quickly and conveniently from their homes to their places of work, there will be absenteeism, loss of production and loss of efficiency. The vital export drive will suffer. It is right that this matter should have been raised on this last day of the Session and I hope that as a result of this Debate it will be possible for the Minister, if not now, at any rate, in the near future, to make an announcement which will give the greatest possible satisfaction to the London travelling public.

12.52 p.m.

I hope that the Minister will not think that this Debate has been raised in any way in criticism of his Department. Further, I hope that the London Transport Board, of which we have every reason to be proud, will not feel that we as Members of this House are attempting in any way to criticise their excellent work. In the London Transport Board we have a service of which we can indeed be proud. If what has been said can be called criticism—and I hope that it will not be described in that way—I suggest that it has only been made in order to assist the London Transport Board and the Minister.

Everyone who has given any consideration to this problem can appreciate the difficulties with which the Government are confronted. Undoubtedly, there is a grave shortage of steel. It must be a difficult problem for the Government to make up their minds what shall be the order of priorities. We who are responsible to our electors in the Greater London area cannot overlook the fact that repeatedly we are compelled to receive deputations who are apprehensive about what will happen next winter.

The hon. Lady the Member for North Ilford (Mrs. Ridealgh) has given figures which outline the main problem. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) has made some reasonably practical proposals for the introduction of certain economies in the use of steel. I am informed that so far this year, the London Transport Board has carried nine million more passengers than were carried in the same time last year. That increase is simply phenomenal. If the increase continues at that rate, the problem will become most serious.

I have had deputations from the drivers of these vehicles. They are becoming exceedingly apprehensive. I hope that nothing will be said that will cause anything in the nature of alarm among prospective passengers. There is no need for alarm. We are blessed with a number of employees of the Board who are prepared to look ahead and to give the greatest measure of co-operation. But they are rightly apprehensive especially in regard to the vehicles at present in use. A number of them are rather concerned about the running condition of those vehicles. I am informed that if more spare parts could be made available that would remove a good deal of their apprehension. I hope that the Minister will give consideration to that matter.

I know that there are circumstances in which repairs have to be effected when it can truthfully be said that it is uneconomic to carry them out. In the existing circumstances, the Board are compelled to embark upon that policy. Conditions are such that they are unable to obtain new vehicles. I hope that the Minister will be able to give special consideration to the supply of more spare parts. I know full well that that is a short-term policy. The short-term policy must be effective whilst the long-term policy is being executed. Sufficient statistics have been given. I hope that the Minister will be able to make an exceedingly strong case to the Cabinet for reconsideration of the present policy, and I wish him success in his efforts.

12.57 P.m.

I am glad to be present this morning to reinforce the Minister of Transport against the demands which are being made by London Members. Like him, I am concerned about the possible breakdown of transport in London, but I am also very properly concerned about the larger aspect which affects the transport of the whole country. It would be deplorable if, because of the concentrated pressure this morning by London Members, the quota of buses which are required in other areas even more desperately than in London—some places have no buses at all—were to be restricted and limited. In this part of the country there are something like 7½ million people. This difficulty will be a recurrent one year by year until a larger approach is made to the whole problem.

Between the wars the population of the London area rose from five million to 7½ million. This recurring problem of transport will be with us until some larger authority than the Minister decides how far London is to extend. Is London to continue to drain from the rest of this Island not only its wealth and population but also all its other capital resources? These are matters which are felt most keenly by those representing other areas. I rose only to say that I shall watch with great care any weakness on the part of the Minister in surrendering to the eloquent appeals of the hon. Lady the Member for North Ilford (Mrs. Ridealgh) and the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield).

This Debate is extremely well timed because it is counted that Scottish and other provincial supporters of the Government will not be here today. I see that most of the Benches opposite are filled with distinguished representatives of London constituencies. I embrace this opportunity to press very strongly on the Minister that he should show no weakness. I hope that he will remember the roads upon which no buses run, and the bridges which remain unbuilt. I hope that in giving his answer he will bear in mind the promises he has given to provide buses in Scotland, Yorkshire, Wales and other places outside the great wen of London. If he does that, he will be discharging his duty. If he surrenders, as I fear he may, to the blandishments of this pleasant Summer morning, he may find what apparently is an immediate and somewhat simple solution of his difficulties; but he or his successors will be faced again with the question year after year until we decide exactly how large London is to be.

Is London, with all the strategic, transport and other economic problems connected with it, to be rebuilt and extended indefinitely? Is the Minister of Transport going to accelerate and aid that idea, or are we in this House of Commons to turn to a larger conception? In the place of one city with seven and a half million people, why should we not think of 10 cities of two million each and 10,000 towns of 50,000 each? That is the answer —not the immediate, but the ultimate answer—to the London problem. Until we decide not to rebuild, but to restrict London this recurring problem will occur year after year unsolved.

1.1 p.m.

The inferiority complex evinced by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) leads me to remind him that in this Debate we are dealing really not with London, but with a fifth of the population of this country; and that London's traffic problem is a problem not for the inhabitants of London and Greater London alone, but one for all the inhabitants of this country, who sooner or later come here, if only for a short stay, and thereby complicate the already difficult problem of transport for the Board.

I am very glad indeed that the hon. Baronet the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) related the problem of Greater London to the production drive. It is not so much the long routes from the outermost towns on the periphery to the centre, but the intercommunication between suburbs that is the difficulty, because that is where production is held up by late arrivals morning after morning. In the factories established within the last 20 years in the outer periphery of London there has been a remarkable contribution to the country's export drive and to our general production plans. For that reason the problem is not a local one. It is a national problem, and the Minister can quite fairly tell his colleagues in the Cabinet that he is making a vital contribution to their overall problem when he produces his arguments for the reallocation of steel.

Heretofore too much regard has not been paid to the long-term nature of the problem. It is not often that I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), but I have always held the view that if we pursue a policy of patching up we are tempted thereby to put off the day of reckoning for a final adjustment of any problem. Therefore, if we go all out now for spare parts, because of the pressing, immediate need, we may make the congestion far greater at a more awkward time two or three years ahead. For that reason I think the simple solution is the one which has been offered, that there should be a building programme related to the needs of this great area.

I do not believe that the Minister, in approaching this problem with the Cabinet, has disregarded the traffic problems of the rest of the country. All we are trying to do is to help him to place in perspective the problems of Greater London. As it is the place of residence and work of more than one-fifth of the population of these Islands, I think it can be justly said that we are not speaking as Members for Greater London or, like myself, as Provincial Members representing constituencies on its outskirts; we are thinking really of the country as a whole.

I would like to make one suggestion which is not on the general lines of the Debate. Is the best use being made by the London Transport Board of existing improvisations? The Board have done great work by borrowing, rather expensively, coaches to supplement the normal bus routes. They have endeavoured, wherever possible, to meet representations about rush hour travel to the centre of London. I have discovered, however, that some of the extra buses and crews are not employed on Saturday mornings, when there is an additional difficulty because of the adoption very largely of the five-day week. The problem is that of getting to the shopping centres by people who have no opportunity to shop during the week. I know that, on a long-term basis, that problem can be met only by the building and use of new buses; but, since there have been additional buses purely for the purposes of travelling to London from Mondays to Fridays, it might be possible, by a rearrangement of schedules, to give some little assistance to the many thousands of women in the Greater London area who have answered the call to go to work to help the production drive. Therefore, I reinforce most sincerely the arguments already adduced and I wish the Minister well in what I know is already his doughty fight to get this matter reconsidered.

1.6 p.m.

I want only to add a few words to what has already been said in this Debate, because I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister is already aware of the desperate situation facing public transport services in the London area. Probably one of the most valuable functions of this short discussion will be, I hope, to strengthen his hand in dealing with his colleagues in the Cabinet, and in pressing particularly for a greater allocation of steel for the building of new buses.

I make my short contribution to this Debate because I represent a constituency which is not only within the Greater London area—which, I think I can say, is particularly well served by the London Transport Executive—but which also contains one of the principal repair and maintenance shops belonging to the Executive at Chiswick. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary was recently able to visit those works and I feel sure that he was duly impressed by the way in which they were organised and by the spirit of the workers employed there.

I want to correct a small error which, I think, crept into the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), when he said that the rate at which journeys are now being made in the London area represents a yearly increase of 9 million passengers. I believe that the increase is one of 9 million passengers a week. I have figures which show that, for the 12 weeks ended 12th June, passenger journeys initiated in that area totalled 1,097 millions—the all-time record, I understand, for the London Passenger Transport area.

Those of us who have been in contact with some of the representatives of the workers of the London Transport Executive have been disturbed not only by the possible effect on the travelling public, particularly during, the autumn when the pressure on public service vehicles in London will become much greater than in the present sunmmer season, but about the effect on the workers themselves. I have heard some extremely alarming descriptions of the conditions under which drivers and conductors on London buses are now compelled to work; stories of buses not in a fit state to be put on the road, which subject the driver, for example, to very unpleasant conditions, with fumes coming up through the floor of his cab; and other conditions which put an intolerable strain upon these workers. They are facing up to their problems extremely well but it will be a great encouragement to them in tackling this tremendous problem if the Minister can give them hope of a really big increase in the number of new buses coming on to the roads.

I was very much alarmed by the figures, some of which have been given by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), of the probable increase in the bus fleet during the next two years. I understand that at the end of 1947 the new programme for 1948–49 was laid down, and at that time provided for 1,040 double deck buses for delivery during 1948, and 1,688 during 1949. But when one takes into account the number of London buses which will have to be withdrawn during that period, very largely for reasons of inefficiency, the increase in the total fleet would have been a very small one indeed; I understand it will have been in the neighbourhood of 528 buses only. That was how the programme stood before the capital cuts were introduced.

But as has already been said, the new buses reaching the London fleet during 1948 will be reduced from 1,040 to 812; in 1949 the figure will probably drop still further, which will mean that, in all probability, the supply of new buses will not catch up with the rate at which the old buses are being put out of commission. Therefore, I want to add to the pleas that have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and ask the Minister if he can give the House an assurance that this problem will be taken up very seriously at the highest possible level. It is not, of course, a purely local problem, and I regret the intervention of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), because we arc not making any attack upon the public transport services of any other area in the country.

Oh, yes.

Having regard to the size of the population and the concentration of industry in the Greater London area, we are extremely disturbed at the present difficulties, and we hope that the Minister will give an assurance which will not only set our minds and those of the travelling public at rest, but also the minds of the workers who are making such magnificent efforts under the London Transport Executive.

1.12 p.m.

This Adjournment Debate has now lasted quite a time, and I am sure we are all looking forward to the remarks to be made by the Minister. I should like heartily to congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for North Ilford (Mrs. Ridealgh) on raising this subject. It is particularly appropriate that it should be raised by a lady Member, to whom I think it does great credit, because I should imagine that many bus journeys are undertaken by ladies to provide for home comforts in these difficult times.

I, too, am alarmed at the state of London buses, which I have known for many years, being a Londoner by birth. Sitting for a Scottish constituency and being a Londoner by birth, I think I can fairly hold the balance on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). The growth of passengers has been truly impressive; but all around us we can see the rebuilding of London going on, and when the thousands of offices once more get under way, and when the homes that are being built under municipal schemes are completed, one can imagine the tremendous strain which will fall on the bus services of London. I am alarmed, too, lest the shortage of buses affect London's late services. No one can compare the present late services in London with those in operation before the war. In fact, to be out till 1 a.m. practically means now that one has no chance whatever of getting home. London was regarded as the centre of the world, but the present transport situation at night would be a discredit to Buenos Aires. In particular, we ourselves are affected by the shortage of buses, because hon. Members attending late Debates know how difficult it is to get home.

I wish the Minister every success in his fight for steel. I hope he will very carefully probe the excellent suggestions made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), because London, if it is to survive, must have transport, and this winter London will certainly face a very dangerous transport situation.

1.15 p.m.

I should like to take up the remarks made by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) and remind him, that when he suggests that London should be controlled and that we should consider how far it is to grow, he is going back to Elizabethan times. There have always been people who said we must decide that, but up to the present it has not been done. I do not propose to add to the labours of the present Government by suggesting they should now take up that particular problem, apart from the way they have already done so by town and country planning. I merely suggest to the hon. Member that if we did what he wants, and multiplied very largely the number of cities in different parts of the country, the transport needs would also be multiplied, and therefore the demands for steel would be multiplied. I am afraid his solution is not a very helpful one.

I speak from the standpoint of a Member of one of the inner suburbs of London, North Islington, where we do not suffer from some of the greater difficulties of those in the outer districts. I do wish to point out, however, how very closely the questions of transport and housing are integrated. As everyone who represents a London constituency knows—especially the inner area of London—there is tremendous overcrowding at present, and alternative accommodation cannot be provided except by new building, or by building outside the immediate area of London itself. In examining this problem it is no good looking at the area of the London County Council. The question is one of Greater London. Speaking broadly, it is a question of that large segment of England which goes right down to the South coast, because the future population will undoubtedly be distributed in that way; how and with what convenience they are distributed depends very largely on transport.

If we are to get relief from the dreadful housing conditions which are oppressing people, this problem must be solved. Every week I, like other London Members, have the most piteous cases brought to me by my constituents who are living in the most shocking conditions: five and six people crowded into one room; invalids whose health is being impaired by having to live in dilapidated, damp places which, under existing circumstances, cannot be repaired. If those people could be taken further out, the situation would very much improve. Therefore I appeal to the Minister, as other London Members have done, to emphasise as strongly as he is able the necessity of London's transport being improved. I understand that already some of the newer areas which are being developed and built round and about London are not adequately serviced with buses at the present time, so that people are not able to go out there. The provision of a more adequate bus system would be a very great help towards the solution of the housing problem.

I will not deal with the other problems which have been mentioned, except to say how much I agree with and personally appreciate the contribution made by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield), with his great technical and practical experience in this field. I am sure the House is grateful for his cooperation in that respect; I am certainly grateful myself; he added a good deal to my own knowledge, and I am always willing to learn. I do think that we ought to press on with the improvement of London transport, because the idea of restricting the area of London by some arbitrary decree promulgated from Edinburgh—even South Edinburgh—would really not be efficacious and would not solve the problem. If we are to solve the major London problems, not only of housing but of production, of the convenience of and the provision of proper living accommodation for the inhabitants of London, we must have a better transport system, and I hope the Minister will do his best to see that we get it.

1.20 p.m.

The number of Members who have spoken on this subject indicates the degree of seriousness to which the travelling public in London as well as the employees of the London Passenger Transport Executive attach to this matter. Like previous speakers, I do not intend in any remarks I make to be critical of the L.P.T.E. or the Minister of Transport. We know they have done their best and that the responsibility of steel allocation rests on a Cabinet decision. The object of this Debate is to urge that the Cabinet should reverse their decision, and should reverse it before it is too late. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) in one respect only, and that is when he said that there was no cause for alarm. I say there is cause for alarm and there is a widespread consciousness on both sides of the House of how desperate the situation is becoming.

Not merely the comfort but the productive efficiency of the people in London and its periphery depend on an adequate transport system. Delays, breakdowns, and interference produce not merely irritation, strain and worry, but a breakdown and interference with our productive effort. I have received evidence from bus drivers and conductors coming back after a day's work suffering from strain, exhaustion and worry, because they have to drive buses that ought not to be on the roads and have had to keep to their scheduled times with these defective and unsafe buses. The vital point is that unless the Cabinet decision about steel allocation is reversed, the position, which is already desperate, will get worse. Those who are best qualified to know estimate that of 6,000 or 7,000 buses now on the roads of London, a quarter will have to be taken off the roads during the coming Winter. This means that the position will become intolerable unless attention is given now to a better provision of spares, or, to a more adequate supply of steel for producing new buses at a greater rate than at the present time.

The only satisfactory answer to the problem is for the Cabinet to take a decision to allocate greater quantities of steel, which will enable London to be provided with buses to replace those which are rapidly becoming obsolete. I hope that this Debate will strengthen the Minister's hand sufficiently to enable him to go to the Cabinet before the Recess, and before the Cabinet Ministers break up for their holidays, to urge that a decision be taken now and before Winter comes to remedy a situation of which clear warning has now been given.

1.24 p.m.

Although I did not hear the whole of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant), I think that the criticisms which have been made of what he said in regard to a patchwork policy are hardly justified and helpful in the claim we are making on the Minister to take immediate action on this matter. We cannot possibly talk about making a fresh start, because, in the nature of things, whatever is done must be to some extent a patchwork policy. We shall not get the buses required unless we can have a bigger allocation of steel. In my district we are terribly under-supplied with buses, and we cannot get new buses on all the routes where they are needed until we can have steel to make new bridges. Another point is that I find my local education authority have to provide transport to carry children long distances to school which would not be the case if there was an adequate supply of steel to provide a secondary school where they live.

There are many complications regarding the supply of steel. I hope the Minister will tell the Cabinet that in a sense those of us in London constituencies are more qualified than the Cabinet to decide matters of priority. I am not forgetting houses, bridges, secondary schools and the requirements of industry and the export trade, but there is such explosiveness in my part of the London area regarding this lack of bus services, and there is so much dissatisfaction among drivers who are driving under poisonous conditions in defective buses which are becoming unsafe for public use, that the supply of steel is a matter of urgent priority. A patchwork policy cannot be helped whatever is the result of this Debate, but I hope that the Minister will convey to the Cabinet the seriousness we attach to this question of an adequate supply of steel.

1.28 p.m.

This subject is obviously a matter of the greatest importance to the constituency of every London Member, and as I am a London Member myself it is of equal importance to my constituency. It was my intention, quite apart from the intervention of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), to make it plain that the issue which has been raised today is general throughout the country. I do not want it to be thought that in emphasising the problems of London, I am in any way unmindful of the fact that there are similar problems arising throughout the country. I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind, when he talks about the needs of Scotland in particular, that he and his colleagues representing Scottish constituencies have many advantages over Members representing London constituencies. This is the appropriate constitutional occasion for London Members to raise such an issue, but Scottish Members have their Supply Days, and if for a moment I may speak from personal experience, without in any way casting any reflection on the process. I would say I have not lacked pressure from time to time from Scottish Members, particularly from the hon. Member for South Edinburgh. I do not think there is any fear of their interests not being properly considered.

The one theme which has run through this Debate has been this problem of the London buses. The tubes are responsible for approximately one-third of the miles of services that are run by the London Transport Executive but I recognise that a special problem has developed in connection with road services, and for the purpose of getting the greatest value out of this discussion perhaps I might confine myself to this matter in my reply.

I believe that no criticism has been directed against myself or the Department or, indeed, the Government as a whole, in this matter. It springs from the concern of London Members about the position of the London public in relation to future transport services. I would like to put a few figures to the House for its consideration. At present the London bus fleet, in round figures, numbers about 7,000, and, of these, 3,500 are over 12 years of age and 1,800 are over 16 years of age. Therefore, about half the present fleet is over age. In trying to appreciate our general economic problems it is well that people should recognise the conditions of their transport services. It is only by such an appreciation that we shall eventually get the increased effort and energy from the community that is so essential today.

Anyone who realises that half our buses are over age appreciates to the full that this is a serious matter. From 1940 to 1947 bus replacements numbered only 320, whereas if there had been no war the figure would have been 3,800. It is also essential to appreciate that during the war bodies like the London Passenger Transport Board, with their well-planned organisation of production, and repair and assembly facilities—such as those at Chiswick of which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. F. Noel-Baker) is so proud—had to swing over to war work. After the war, it was some time before they could get back to their normal job. The problem of maintenance was aggravated, and even today the maintenance and supply position is really grave.

Whatever we may think about transport services for the future that does not alter present day facts. Nine million more persons are being carried week by week on the London bus and underground ser- vices, and people are travelling longer distances as they move from the centre of London to outside areas. In the 12 weeks ending 12th June this year, 1,092 million passengers were carried on all services, or 9 million a week more, which is an increase of 10 per cent. I had to consider, in the early days of this Government, whether, in South London, we would renew the tramway tracks. I took the decision that they should not be renewed, as it would have tied us to trams in that part of London for another 20 to 30 years. It is very important to increase the general mobility of London traffic, and, therefore, a decision was made to change over to buses.

I feel it is only right that I should acknowledge the ungrudging efforts which are being made by the Executive and their staff to carry on, and to the patience and consideration of the London public who are suffering as a result of present day difficulties. Soon after the war there was a strong feeling among bus operators, particularly conductors, about the number of standing passengers. They were prepared to go to extreme lengths to reduce the number, and the fact that they have recently yielded, and have agreed that the number of standing passengers should be increased from five to eight, shows that they have been willing to ease the burden on the London public.

I cannot say at the moment the total number of buses that London Transport will receive during 1948. The figure 6,000 was given in the White Paper for public service vehicles, but it may be and almost certainly will, be exceeded. It is a case of coming to a decision and of not being able to stop the supply at a given moment. We cannot always gauge exactly the numbers that are in the various processes towards completion. There is no doubt that more than 6,000 vehicles will be realised during 1948 for the public services. I have already taken steps, as far as lies within my power, to influence the production of those 6,000 vehicles by increasing their carrying capacity. Of that number, 3,650 will be double-deckers, 1,000 will be single-deckers of the heavy type, 1,000 will be single-deckers of a light type, and 350 will be trolley buses. A good proportion of the quantity in excess of the 6,000 will be single-deck buses but they cannot all be secured for the London Transport Executive.

No doubt hon. Members are primarily interested in the 1949 position. I very much appreciate their desire to strengthen any views which I might put forward, but I would remind the House that in this problem of steel supplies we cannot consider any demand in isolation, however important it may be. Hon. Members themselves do not carry a single responsibility, because in their constituencies there are many requirements pressing for consideration. In the case of a shortage of a vital material like steel, neither Ministers nor hon. Members, nor anyone else can consider any particular claim in isolation however important it may be.

I do not interpret the discussion that has taken place here as representing any tendency to exert pressure upon me or to bring a kind of undesirable pressure upon a Minister within a Government to over-emphasise his own claims against other vital claims in the community. I interpret it as the proper opportunity of voicing on the Floor of the House of Commons the needs of eight million or nine million people in London, who are catered for by London Transport services. London is an important production item in British economy. After all, it is the capital city and because of that fact its citizens have to travel longer distances than citizens elsewhere in the country. The wear and tear upon them of uncomfortable or unnecessary travel conditions represents a burden that they ought not to carry. It is in that spirit that I interpret the pressure—if it is to be termed so— that has been put upon me today. Hon. Members may rest assured that I, as Minister, and the Government, too, recognise the importance of this problem. If any easement can be given in any way to the position, we shall do our best to provide it.

Before my right hon. Friend sits down, may I ask him a question? He has given some predictions about 1948 and 1949. Can he say that the supply of buses will at least catch up with the withdrawals of buses during the next two years?

No, Sir, I cannot say so.

So the fleet of buses will go on getting smaller?

It is appropriate that on such a hot sweltering afternoon, we should try to transport our minds to the real tropics, the Seychelles. It is not often that the affairs of that somewhat distant Colony come before this House, although of course we are responsible for it. A disturbing, and I think a potentially dangerous, situation has developed in the Island there, and we ought to have an opportunity of discussing it. I regret that it will be necessary for me to refer to a particular individual in making these remarks, but the Island is small, and there is no way to avoid doing so. Since the individual has been charged with contempt of court by the Chief Justice, I have less diffidence than I normally would have in speaking about him.

The man to whom I refer is Mr. Collet, who is acting Attorney-General. So far as I can gather, the course of action to which I object has arisen in the following way: Some time ago the Colonial Secretary took the somewhat unusual course of appointing as the Governor of the Seychelles a senior medical officer of the Colonial Medical Service, Dr. Selwyn-Clarke. I have nothing whatever to say against this very distinguished doctor, except perhaps his lack of general administrative experience which may have led to some of the events which subsequently occurred. One of the earlier acts of the new Governor was to appoint this Mr. Collet, who was born in the Seychelles, as acting Attorney-General.

Mr. Collet was called to the Bar in this country in November, 1943. He lived here for some time, during which he was the secretary of the League of Coloured Peoples in London. Before Mr. Collet was appointed acting Attorney-General he was in private practice in the Seychelles for some time, during which, I am told, he acted in a private capacity for people who were protesting against assessments of Income Tax, a fact which is very relevant to what subsequently happened. While he was acting in that capacity he obviously had access to the private affairs of certain people against whom he was subsequently appearing.

I would like to say a word about Income Tax in the Seychelles, because it appears to have been collected for some years in an extremely lax manner. I do not want to give the House the impression that I am in any way defending people who have tried to evade the payment of Income Tax, but so lax was the collection that all the accounts of one part of the Island were lost altogether, I am told, an event which many people in this country might like to see happen here. The method of assessment appears to have been that the parties assessed, more or less compounded with the Government on how much they should pay. A sort of argument went on, with the Government putting in a bill for so much and the Income Tax payer saying "I will pay you so much." Then they called it a day. If the system was lax, of course that was the fault of the Government and not of the Income Tax payers.

My first objection to the action of Mr. Collet was that, although he was acting Attorney-General, he appears to have constituted himself tax collector as well, and he adopted a very high-handed method, to say the least of it, in collecting Income Tax from the inhabitants of the Island, not only current Income Tax but the back Income Tax as well. Let me give one or two examples. A planter in the island received an arbitrary assessment from the Attorney-General to pay up 98,000 rupees. The following day before the man could either pay it or object, the Attorney-General entered a plaint in the supreme court to attach all the money which the planter owned anywhere, and the planter was told that unless he paid up in eight days, bankruptcy proceedings would be started against him. A few days later the man was actually arrested in the street by an usher of the court. Without any sort of warrant being produced, he was searched, and eight rupees were taken out of his pocket.

In order to make it clear, to the House, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the 98,000 rupees related to a claim for a long period of arrears?

It was a claim for quite a number of years. I am not saying whether the man owed it or not, but I suggest that if Income-Tax was collected in this arbitrary high-handed manner in this country a good few of us might be faced with bankruptcy and a good few might be arrested in the streets. To say the least of it, it is a very extraordinary way of collecting Income-Tax. I will give another example concerning a Government doctor. I would like the Under-Secretary to note that fact because when he was referring to this the other day he dragged in the story of landlords. I know that landlords rank high in Socialist demonology, but this man is a Government doctor. This poor chap was actually pulled off the boat within 15 minutes of sailing and told that he had to pay up.

The third example is one concerning a Mr. Wageon de Lestang, which is the worse case of all. He was prosecuted before the Supreme Court for failure to produce his account books. When he asked for postponement so that he could get legal assistance from Mauritius, he was told by Mr. Collet that he could not do that and that he must have one of the lawyers from the Island. As it happens there are only two lawyers in private practice in the island, one of whom is Mrs. Collet, and so the wretched man, who did not particularly want to have the other solicitor, raised quite natural objections to appointing the wife of the very man who had run him in and was conducting the case against him.

When he objected to this, apparently very harsh things were said. According to my information Mr. Collet lost his temper and threatened to "bash him in the face" for insulting his wife. We in this country are used to some odd remarks by the Attorney-General but we have not quite got to that stage. However, when the case finally came before the Supreme Court, the acting Chief Justice declared that the action of Mr. Collet was ultra vires, that he had exceeded his jurisdiction as Attorney-General, and he used the words which I quoted to the hon. Member two days ago. He criticised the irregularities by saying: Under-Secretary proceeded to wave it aside as something which did not matter very much and criticised me very strongly for what I said.

The main part of my criticism was that the hon. Gentleman had termed this man a "pocket Hitler" and I thought the term was one which should not be used.

What I have said up to now would fully justify that description, and when the hon. Gentleman has listened to what I have yet to say, perhaps I shall find him agreeing with me in that description, as he has agreed with me in the past on other matters. When I brought the matter up on 8th July, the hon. Gentleman treated it in an almost flippant manner and said that Mr. Collet was merely pressing landlords —the demonology again—to pay their Income Tax, when the truth is that, far from having exaggerated the position is he suggested, in the light of subsequent events I have under-estimated it.

Since 8th July, as the hon. Gentleman knows, since he replied to a Question by me two days ago, Mr. Collet has had an order for contempt of court made against him by the Chief Justice and he was compelled subsequently to apologise. He also addressed minutes to the Chief Justice which were officially expunged from the book after the apology, and the Chief Justice then wrote minutes to the Governor to which the Governor took exception and they were expunged from the record book—a fine state of affairs.

Here is a state of affairs in which British administration and British justice have been brought to the point of complete ridicule and where British subjects have been subjected to something of which it would be difficult to find other examples in our Colonial administration. Faced with that, what does the Colonial Secretary propose to do about it? The answer is, Nothing. He proposes to do nothing about it. If I may quote his own words in his airy flippant way to which we are getting rather accustomed in this House, he says: I suggest that the matter cannot be left there. This slap-happy attitude on the part of the hon. Gentleman is exactly the same as the attitude the Government took in the early days of the trouble in Malaya, when we on this side warned them of what was happening and when we were sneered at and derided as scaremongers. I do not want to pretend that the affairs in the Seychelles are anything as dangerous as those in Malaya—it is a much smaller country—but they are potentially dangerous. Perhaps I had better read to the hon. Gentleman an extract from a cable which I received a couple of days ago from the president of the Producers Association in the Seychelles.

This is what he said:

I want to make three specific suggestions to the hon. Gentleman. The first is that an independent committee of inquiry should be sent to this Island not only to deal with this but to deal with administration generally, and that committee should have as its chairman either some senior official of the Colonial Office or some eminent retired civil servant whose name is respected and whose report I hope would certainly be published.

The second specific suggestion I want to make is that the post of Chief Justice which has been vacant for some time, should now be filled. I put down a Question about this several months ago and was told that the matter was under either consideration or active consideration or whatever the present mumbo-jumbo is, but at any rate a Chief Justice has not been appointed. I will tell the hon. Gentleman what people are saying about this post locally. They are saying that it is being deliberately kept open for Mr. Collet but that he cannot hold it now because he has not been called to the Bar for the statutory period of five years. That period is up in November and locally it is believed that the job is being kept warm for Mr. Collet.

indicated dissent.

I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman wags his head and says "No." I am sure that reassurance will be welcomed in the Seychelles; but that is what they believe, whether it is right or wrong.

The last suggestion I want to make is this. From experience I know how difficult it is to get a really satisfactory staffing of the administration for small Colonies like the Seychelles. There are perhaps five or six senior posts which ought not to be filled by people from the Islands, and which people on the Islands do not want to be filled in that way. After all, there are only 35,000 people in the Seychelles, and it is far better that jobs like that of the Chief Justice, the Attorney-General, the Chief of Police, and the head of the Public Works Department should be held by people from outside. The difficulty is that these Islands cannot afford to pay very high salaries. It is a terribly dead end for a man who goes there at the beginning of his Colonial career and has to stay there till the end. It is impossible to get really good people under those conditions.

However, there is a way out, and that is to link the Seychelles to the nearest large British Colony or administration, purely for administrative purposes, and that would be Kenya. I hope it is clear that I am not suggesting that the Seychelles should become part of Kenya from a political point of view; all I am suggesting is that for these top posts the Seychelles should be able to call on Kenya for men to fill them. After all, it has been done already in places like Christmas Island, Labuan, and Brunei, which nave always called on the Civil Service of the Straits Settlements or Malaya for men to fill them. I cannot see why the same thing should not happen in the case of the Seychelles.

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that the difficulty is that it is never two-way traffic, that is to say, competent people from the smaller Dependency rarely have an opportunity of service in the larger Colony.

That is not quite true, because there is nothing whatever to prevent a British subject in the Seychelles who has the necessary qualifications from going into the Colonial Service. For these odd posts it is far better to have a regular service of men coming from the nearest large Colony, than to fill them in this haphazard way. It is good for a man who is in his middle thirties to spend some years in such work. I hope the hon. Gentleman will say something better than he said a few days ago, and that he will not deal with this matter with any air of flippancy. It is a storm in a teacup perhaps, but locally it is a big storm which not only threatens the good name of British administration and justice, but one which may destroy the peace and contentment of the Seychelles.

2.4 p.m.

I want to detain the House for a few moments to dot the "i's" and cross the "t's" of the statement made by my hon. Friend. I have had quite a number of letters and many interviews, and included in the letters has been one from my brother who at one time assisted in the Colonial administration of the Seychelles. It is quite obvious that all is not well with this beautiful, peaceful part of the Colonial Empire. The interview and the letters we have had confirm that, and so I hope the Minister will not take up the line that all is well. The other line he can take up is that things are not satisfactory.

If the Minister says all is well, it will confirm the opinions expressed by my hon. Friend that an inquiry should be held, because he obviously is relying on official statements rather than dealing with the facts of the case as put to us by residents in the Islands. If the Minister takes up the line that all is not well, it is obvious that some form of outside independent inquiry should be made. Therefore, when the hon. Gentleman replies, 1 hope he will give those of us who have some interest in this beautiful part of the world some hope that the present unhappy turmoil existing in the Islands will be resolved.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not say that the agitation taking place there is due entirely to the fact that the new Attorney-General is putting the screw on those Income Tax payers who have not paid their tax in the past. As my hon. Friend said none of us likes paying Income Tax, but, when we have done so, we feel that the matter is ended. Apparently, in the Seychelles that is not so. A certain amount of Income Tax has been paid by these people for many years and they thought the matter was ended, but the new Attorney-General is raking up arrears of Income Tax for as long as 26 years. It is obvious that no tax payer could be able to produce his books, if he kept any for such a long time. As brought out in the question of my hon. Friend the other day, there was an unhappy episode between the Governor, the acting Attorney-General, and the acting Chief Secretary, to which the Minister replied that since they had all apologised and the records had been expunged from the books, all was well, but surely if this quarrel has been going on, all cannot be well and something should be done.

In conclusion, I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend said about joining up this Colony for administrative purposes with some other larger unit. Kenya was mentioned, but an alternative is Mauritius, to which I believe the Seychelles were joined some years ago. Such a small, poor Colony cannot get the talented administration which is necessary for peace and good government and so I hope the Minister will agree that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend is a good one.

2.8 p.m.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) accused me of flippancy in this matter because, when he raised this on the Supply Debate, I took him to task for speaking with flippancy in accusing the acting Attorney-General of being a pocket Hitler. In spite of the cases he has given today, cases which may show that this officer is perhaps rigorous in his treatment of taxpayers or, rather, non-taxpayers, they do not show in any way that this man can properly be called a pocket Hitler—a term which on this side of the House at all events we regard as possibly the worst accusation that can be hurled against anyone. It may not be so regarded by the hon. Member for Hornsey, but that is our opinion.

Similarly, in my reply on Wednesday to the supplementary question of the hon. Member, I was referring to the incidents which took place between the acting Attorney-General and the acting Chief Justice, and the acting Chief Justice and the Governor. If hon. Members will read the Question and answer, that was obviously the context within which my answer should be regarded. I was not concerned with the whole situation in the Seychelles; I was merely challenging that particular aspect, namely, the charges which had been hurled by one against the other, and which have been resolved apparently to the satisfaction of all parties.

We must regard the events which have taken place in the Seychelles against the background of life in those Islands. It is no good picking this out like a plum from a plum pudding, because it is all part of the general life of the islands.

The Seychelles comprise no fewer than 92 islands which lie between the fourth and tenth parallel South, and the largest island Mahé has only an area of about 55 square miles. The climate—and here again this is important—is described by the annual report on the Seychelles as being pleasant on the whole and quite healthy, with no malaria, but the climate lacks bracing qualities. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornsey knows that a climate of that kind between the fourth and tenth parallel South—he and I lived for some years in an area between the first and fourth parallel North— which lacks a bracing quality, sometimes makes people exaggerate little differences of opinion, of which in a climate like ours—not at this particular moment but normally—we should not take any notice.

These islands, too, have a curious history. They were discovered in 1505 by the Portuguese and afterwards were for many years a nest of pirates. Finally, they were captured by the French in 1743, and named after one of the controller-generals of finance under Louis XV, an office of profit if there ever was one. They were captured for the British by Captain Newcombe in H.M.S. "Orpheus" in 1804. I mention these facts because they had an effect on the population of the Seychelles since the population is composed almost entirely of the descendants of the original French settlers, who came there from Mauritius, and of the slaves that they brought with them from Mauritius, or else Africans who were taken by His Majesty's ships, when they happened to have had a successful raid on a slaving convoy.

Therefore, one has in these small islands the curious situation that a very small group of people are descended from the old original planting families who were the slave-owning families, while the bulk of the population, amounting to 97 per cent., are the descendents mainly of the slaves. That is not entirely so, but it is mainly so. The judicial administration of the Seychelles is not a large one. The Chief Justice is not only a chief justice but is, in fact, a sole justice. He has many duties to perform which in this country would be performed by officers with a very much less distinguished title than that of Chief Justice. In fact, in a place like the Seychelles an officer may have to perform a large number of duties which in this country or in larger colonies are performed by distinct individuals. The judicial authorities there often have to perform administrative functions and administrative officers have to perform judicial functions. In one colony, St. Helena, the Governor is Chief Justice. The fact that Mr. Collet performs administrative functions is not at all unusual in this class of territory. It is, in fact, the custom that the Attorney-General performs not only legal, but administrative functions as well.

The hon. Member for Hornsey described the Income Tax system of this Colony as lax for many years. That is a perfectly true description. When the new Governor went there—he has been referred to as being a distinguished officer in the medical service—he decided in consultation with my right hon. Friend that this state of affairs could no longer be allowed to continue, and it was decided that the defaulters should be proceeded against and that the whole system of tax collection in the Seychelles should be overhauled. It has not come at a time of hardship. Never probably in their whole history have the Seychelles been more flourishing than in the last couple of years. Last year there was a record output of copra, the staple industry of the islands, and it was not at all unfair or unjust that the Income Tax laws of the Seychelles, should be enforced at a time when the population, particularly the mercantile and the planting community, was flourishing and that those who could pay their proper Income Tax, and had not done so in past years, should be proceeded against.

At this particular stage Mr. Collet comes into the picture. Mr. Collet was a native of one of the islands, but he was a member of the 97 per cent, and not of the 3 per cent. In spite of that, before he was appointed he had the confidence of the 3 per cent, as well as the 97 per cent. In fact, after he qualified at the Bar in this country, which he did perhaps somewhat later in life than people normally do, he returned to the Seychelles on the advice of one of the big planters, who said that with his undoubted ability he could make a good living there. He was actually appointed legal adviser to the Chamber of Commerce in the Seychelles, which shows in itself that as a lawyer he had the full confidence of the people, or at any rate of the mercantile and planting community.

The field of selection for a post like the Chief Justice or Attorney-General in the Seychelles is small because it is not at all easy to get people from the outside to go to small colonies like that to take over these positions. The Chief Justiceship fell vacant and the Attorney-General became acting Chief Justice. Then the Governor as a temporary measure put Mr. Collet in to take the place of the Attorney-General and to act as Attorney-General for the Seychelles. Those are the facts. At the present time the Attorney-General is acting Chief Justice pending the selection of a Chief Justice. There is no question of Mr. Collet being appointed to that post. He is not qualified to take it and, as a matter of fact, it is on offer and possibly will be accepted by a gentleman who as far as I know has never been to the Seychelles in his life.

Does that mean that if a new Chief Justice is appointed, the acting Chief Justice goes back to the position of Attorney-General and that is the end of Mr. Collet?

I cannot say that exactly, because the Attorney-General's term of office expires in November, and it depends on whether a new Chief Justice is appointed before his term as Attorney-General expires. If he is, the present Chief Justice will revert to Attorney-General and the new Chief Justice will take over.

In the circumstances which I have indicated, Mr. Collet, then proceeded under the orders of the Government to collect these taxes, and he adopted measures which we are instructed were not in the main different from those adopted in this country. There are certain cases which are definitely in dispute and which were mentioned today by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hornsey. We still want further particulars in regard to that class of case, but in the main there is no great difference between the collection of taxes in the Seychelles and the practice which has been adopted in this country. But these are very complex matters. The accounting system, as can be readily understood, is not of the clearest in a place like the Seychelles and the Secretary of State is inquiring into the whole matter and trying to find out what has happened. The Governor is letting us have a full statement which we shall consider very carefully.

A good deal has been done by the Governor to get at the root problem of the Seychelles, which is not the harrying of Income Tax payers, but the questions of trade and, particularly, of health. As I have said, trade has never been better than in the last few years. The Governor has paid an enormous amount of attention to that aspect of the situation. He has also done everything he possibly can to improve public health, which is sadly in need of improvement. Figures of disease of one kind and another seem extraordinarily high and everything he has done has been done with the legitimate and useful end in view of trying to better the people of the Seychelles and improve their physical condition and the economic structure of the territory as a whole.

In reply to the three suggestions made by the hon. Member for Hornsey, I would say first, that we do not consider that there is any ground for an independent Commission. There is no unrest as far as we know except among the people who have not paid their Income Tax. If we went all over the world, especially all over the British Empire, setting up commissions every time there was unrest among people who had not paid their Income Tax we should be doing nothing else but setting up commissions.

What justification has the hon. Gentleman for that statement? I have read a telegram which has come from the Producers' Association. What right has he to say that the people who sent the telegram have not paid their Income Tax?

Recently I had an interview with one of the most respected inhabitants of the Seychelles and he is not making a complaint because of Income Tax.

All the hon. Member for Hornsey has charged us with is harrying Income Tax defaulters and if that is the only charge against the Governor of the Seychelles it is not sufficient ground on which to hold a public inquiry. It is the hon. Member for Hornsey who is making the argument, not the Producers' Association, for they are not Members of this House?

I am not accusing the hon. Gentleman of that at all, but I am accusing him of supporting a system which is a disgrace to a British colony.

After all, a charge has to be supported by evidence in any court, and the only evidence the hon. Gentleman brings is that the Income Tax payers who owe Income Tax object to paying it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]— Well, it is for hon. Members of the House to judge, but that is my submission.

I have dealt with the point about the Chief Justice. Finally there is the question of allowing people from outside to come in and hold the more important posts. I agree that the hon. Member has put up some very strong points on that suggestion and we will consider them very carefully, but there are difficulties. There is local patriotism. Most of the Colonies are now moving towards self-government and naturally feel—this is particularly true of the West Indies for example—that they would prefer their own sons and their own kith and kin to have an opportunity of some of these jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Harrow (Mr. Skinnard) said, it never works the other way. One can get people from the big colonies, but no one seems to take them from little colonies, and we need to remember the legitimate feelings of the people in these territories. They love their little country and are very proud of it and are interested in the people who will become eminent as a result of study. To deny them the possibility of taking office in their own country is something which, as a general principle, we could not accept, although we agree that where no such candidate of outstanding merit is available it is better to get someone from outside. Generally, I agree, it is desirable to get someone from outside for the post of Chief Justice but we could not make a definite statement on that—nor could we make a definite agreement, bargain or promise that that shall be our general course of conduct in these matters, because we have to consider not only the broader picture, but also the feelings of the people in these small territories. I do not for a moment say that everything Mr. Collet has done has been such as we would readily approve, but one must remember that he has not been acting in any capacity which would give him any personal return. He is an officer of the Government. He may have been a little forceful in his methods—

His conduct has been declared ultra vires.

Exactly, he is not the first lawyer or Government servant whose conduct has been declared ultra vires. One must give him credit for doing his best and acting under the instructions of the Governor. Broadly speaking, what the Governor wanted to do was to clear up Income Tax matters and that aim was approved by the Secretary of State. It is not Mr. Collet who should be attacked, but the Governor and His Majesty's Secretary of State. I suggest that in future when the hon. Member for Hornsey wants to attack a member of the Administration, he should go for bigger fish and not for a small man in a little Colony, who cannot defend himself.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting by his last remark that this matter should not have been brought before the House? Is that what he is suggesting? If not, how could it have been brought before the House, except in the way in which I brought it?

I am suggesting that in this case it is better to levy criticism on the Secretary of State, rather than bring in all sorts of domestic matters about Mr. Collet and his wife and things which have little relevance to this matter and are really unfair.

I wish to raise the case of Mr. Frank Hampl, a Czech subject who has resided in this country for nearly 10 years, because the last fortnight there has been an order made excluding him from residence in Great Britain. There are many hon. Members in this House who, like myself, are Mr. Hampl's personal friends. We have known him since he came to Great Britain in the early days of 1939. He came to reside in North Staffordshire and there made contact with a refugee committee which was not sponsored or backed by influential people, but which raised money from ordinary people and helped refugees to establish themselves in this country or to go to the United States. A sponsor and patron of our committee was a very honoured Member of this House, the late Lord Wedgwood, who knew Mr. Hampl, and I am certain that were he alive and a Member of the House of Commons he would be standing here defending Mr. Hampl today.

I have known Mr. Hampl intimately for 10 years. I have known him to be an honest, upright and honourable man and a great friend of this country and a great friend in the dark days. He got a job in Stoke-on-Trent, a humble job, and in 1942 my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) went to him and asked him whether he would become organiser of the "Lidice Shall Live" movement. During the war Mr. Hampl occupied himself in furthering and strengthening relations between the citizens of Czechoslovakia residing in this country and the people of this country. He did so with such success that when the war ended the British-Czecho-slovakian League was formed and a club was established of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley is the chairman, I am a member of the League and an occasional visitor to the club, although because I am occupied with many other things my membership is practically nominal Until Mr. Hampl was served with this order no breath of suspicion had centred on him or on his activities. That point needs to be emphasised

In the latter part of February this year Mr. Hampl was approached by a Czech who was a regular visitor to this club. He was not a person who walked in suddenly or came in on odd occasions. He was a man who came in day by day, had his lunch there and occasionally his evening meal. He was Colonel Hnrcir, an Assistant Military Attaché to the Czech Embassy. He asked Mr. Hampl to do something which was quite normal. He asked him whether he would receive a letter on his behalf and pass a letter on to a caller. This is a normal activity I think of most clubs, and Mr. Hampl readily agreed. He did not think very much about it. In March, Colonel Hnrcir came in and brought a letter addressed to a Mr. Brown, and then Hampl found that he received in exchange a letter addressed to Mr. Smith. As far as I have been able to confirm Mr. Smith is Colonel Hnrcir and Mr. Brown was, or certainly the receiving end was, a Mr. Zachpal who as far as I know is still at liberty in this country.Certainly he was here in June, although it has not been possible to get in touch with him. I have done my best to verify my facts and have tried to find out what was in the letters. The most I can get is a hint that the contents were cuttings from technical papers, with comments on them, but I am not certain about that. It is, however, the fact that, on the one hand, it was Colonel Hnrcir and on the other Mr. Zachpal. This exchange of letters happened on three occasions—in March when Mr. Hampl was there, in April when he was not there, and again in May.

Are these gentleman whose names I cannot repeat, still residing in this country?

I have a difficult speech to make and these are questions which I shall put to the Minister. He is the person who can clear up that point. I have done my best to get at the facts and I have only so much time in which to state my case. I cannot be sure of the answers to those questions and the Minister is the only person who can really answer my hon. Friend's question.

On 22nd June, Mr. Hampl was visited by two officers of the Special Branch of Scotland Yard who asked him whether he knew a Mr. Brown. He said, "I know a lot of Mr. Browns." Then the name of Mr. Smith was mentioned and Hampl connected the questioning with the incident to which I have made reference. He at once told the Special Branch officers in detail all that he knew about the exchange of letters between Colonel Hnrcir on the one hand and Mr. Zachpal on the other. He went further. On 26th June he went to my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley, the Chairman of the club, and submitted to him a written statement which I hold in my hand, a copy of which I supplied to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Hanley brought the matter before the executive committee of the club, and it is recorded in the minutes in these terms:

Now the plot begins to thicken. Towards the end of June, Colonel Hnrcir and his chief, General Plass, the Military Attaché to the Czech Embassy, resigned from their jobs and left the Embassy, taking with them a sum of £16,500. So far as I know they are still about in this country. Colonel Hnrcir certainly is, because on 12th July two registered letters went sent to them asking them to account for the missing money and to return the books and accounts which would enable competent people to decide the exact sum that was missing. The letter addressed to General Plass was returned unopened. The letter to Colonel Hnrcir was not returned. Subsequently a letter to General Plass was sent to Colonel Hnrcir but that was returned. I wish to ask the Under-Secretary of State three questions. Is Mr. Zachpal, alias Mr. Brown, still at large in this country? Is Colonel Hnrcir alias Mr. Smith still about; and is General Plass still about?

At this point I want to emphasise that I approached this matter with no preconceived ideas. I was inspired by my friendship for Hampl and the knowledge of what he had done to strengthen British-Czechoslovakian friendship. I had formed no idea of any plots or anything sinister. Clearly the fact that Colonel Hnrcir had received a letter and had walked out, and as far as one could find out had been walking around London, did lead me to the conclusion that Colonel Hnrcir could tell quite a lot if he would.

On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Member, when addressing this House, not merely to show his braces but to put his hand in his braces?

If I must reply, the braces are good Army issue. I apologise.

When the exclusion order was served on Mr. Hampl, the officials of the British-Czechoslovakian club looked round for a possible successor. Approaches were made to a young Czech resident in this country who is a student at a university. He has been here during the war as a Czech fighter pilot. He had no particular political affiliations. He was a member of the club who went in for odd meals and took part in some of their activities. His activities centred round his university work and his social activities in the club.

On Thursday of last week Mr. Arton decided that, if Mr. Hampl had to leave this country, he would become secretary of the club. On that day there was a visit from a gentleman who described himself as from the import licence section of the Board of Trade. He was interested in Mr. Hampl and in his successor and Mr. Hampl introduced him to Mr. Arton and said, "Here is my successor, meet Mr. Arton." Forthwith this gentleman from the licence department of the Board of Trade took out his pocketbook and wrote down the name of Peter Arton. Last Saturday a relative of Mr. Arton, a naturalised British subject, was summoned to the Foreign Office and there informed that unless Mr. Peter Arton left this country by last Wednesday night, a deportation order would be served on him. He was advised in the strongest possible terms to tell Mr. Peter Arton to have nothing to do with the British-Czechoslovakian Friendship Club.

There is an extraordinary feature of this case. Mr. Arton wished to leave Great Britain during the Summer vacation to visit his parents, but he was unable to get a steamship passage, and the earliest promise of one was in October and he had failed to get an air passage. But, by the influence of the Foreign Office, he was offered a steamship passage last Monday. That was a little early, and he left this country last Tuesday night through the help of the Foreign Office who got him an air passage. One begins to ponder over what the Foreign Office is really after. The best explanation is that they want to keep this country and Czechoslovakia as far apart as they can. I believe that to be true. I believe that Great Britain has a guilty sense—

Nonsense.

I believe that the darkest patch of British history was the Munich Agreement, and I think that the efforts of Mr. Hampl and Mr. Arton to knit together our two countries does not find favour in official eyes.

That is not all the story. I would ask the Under-Secretary whether the Secretary of State for Home Affairs has delegated his power to deport aliens from this country to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? I am not a lawyer, but when one reads the Aliens Order of 1920 it does not look as if the Home Secretary has any right to delegate that power at all. He certainly has wide powers, but I suggest that the officials of the Foreign Office who threatened Mr. Peter Arton with deportation were going far beyond their authority, and only the Secretary of State for Home Affairs can in fact do that. I ask whether Mr. Peter Arton, who is a Czech subject who was here during the war, serving in the Czech Air Force, is free to re-enter Great Britain at the end of his vacation in order to resume his studies?

About 10 days or so ago I saw in the Press a report that a British subject had been arrested in Czechoslovakia. I do not adopt one attitude towards my own country and another attitude towards another country. I condemn things that I think are wrong if they are done in another country and I reserve the right to the same attitude with regard to my own country. I did my best to make inquiries about the apprehension of Mr. Coles in Czechoslovakia. I would appeal to the Czech Government to take a lead in trying to stamp out this atmosphere of mistrust and fear and to take Mr. Coles and hand him his British passport and put him back over the frontier. I make that plea as a sincere friend of the Czechoslovakian people. I ask them as the smaller country to make that gesture, and as the country that was betrayed by Great Britain at the time of Munich, in order to try and get away from all this atmosphere of mistrust and suspicion.

Mr. Coles is not a British subject at all; he is a Czech. If the House is interested in his name, I will give it. He was in possession of a passport, number 912062 which it is clear he could not have obtained by proper means. I ask the Under-Secretary whether he will take legal action to deal with those who obtain a British passport by fraudulent means. Mr. Coles is a very fortunate person. He managed to get a special allotment of British currency amounting to £52 under reference S.S. 549541. I ask the Under-Secretary whether he will take action aaginst those who obtained money for the purpose of undermining the relations of this country with Czechoslovakia. That again is not all the story. His visa, a Czech visa, which was endorsed on the passport, was a forgery. I ask the Under-Secretary to make inquiries with a view to bringing to justice those here in London who have forged this passport.

If I thought for an instant that the activities centred round Mr. Hampl, or the other incidents I have described, were in any way tied up with the security of this country, I would not have raised the matter. For far too long have I served in the Forces to want to do that. I am convinced that this action, which has led to Mr. Hampl being excluded, and the action against Mr. Peter Arton and Mr. Coles is not centred round espionage on security grounds, but is a case of political warfare.

This is the Foreign Office playing at politics, and they are still in their adolescent days. No longer do we regale the adolescents of this country with tales of cowboys and Indians. The smallest child knows that that is only a story. Now we concentrate on stories of spies. The women are always blonde, beautiful and dangerous; the men intelligent and courageous. In my experience most of the women are far from resembling that description. As for the men, for the most part, from what I have seen of them, if they were demobilised and put into productive jobs, the best they could do would be to steal empty milk bottles for a living. There is mighty little romance about this, but the net result is that, day by day, and week by week, and month by month, the relations between our country and other countries are poisoned, and ultimately—

Nonsense.

—and ultimately we get to the point where out of little pinpricks grows the possibility of war. I think that is the time to call a halt.

I want my country to be right. I believe that the contribution that Great Britain has to make is to give a lead. She has political maturity which can well enable her to flout and throw away all these romantic things and set the standard for every other country. I should have thought that a Labour Government—and I certainly think this as a Socialist—ought to be very careful how it handles an order like the Aliens Order, which was adopted by the most reactionary House of Commons of modern times.

I plead with the Under-Secretary to approach the Hampl problem anew. I plead on humanitarian grounds. This man has been here for 10 years. Unfortunately his marriage has broken down. He has two small children. I would say that the least we can do is to allow him to stay for a reasonable time to enable him to get his affairs in order. I do not approach this problem purely from the narrow point of view of the case of Mr. Hampl. I approach it from the wider issue of wanting this House to say to the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary "Thus far and no farther." I want this House to say that, while in the present state of world affairs we are prepared to countenance measures of military security, we are not prepared to allow irresponsibles in the Foreign Office to carry on this work of pushing other countries around, because it happens to favour a particular phase of policy.

On a point of Order. Is it Order to attack civil servants in this House and to describe them as irresponsibles, it already having been indicated in the course of the hon. Member's speech—

It is certainly in Order to describe one hon. Member as an irresponsible.

—that certain circumstances may enable them to be identified?

I assume that the hon. Gentleman is addressing his remarks to the Minister, or to the Home Office, and that he holds them responsible. I did not gather that he is making a personal reflection on a civil servant. At any rate, the Minister is going to reply.

Certainly, it is not my intention to aim my arrows past the responsible Minister. My only trouble is to find out who, in fact, is responsible. Certainly, the responsibility for the exclusion of Mr. Hampl rests with the Home Office although that responsibility seems to be exercised a little loosely by the Foreign Office. I do not wish to detain the House any longer because I know that other hon. Gentlemen wish to speak. I close by again making an appeal on humanitarian grounds for Mr. Hampl to be allowed to remain a little longer.

2.52 p.m.

I have known Mr. Hampl for 10 years, and worked with him under Lord Wedgwood years ago in North Staffordshire, on a refugee Committee together with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Swingler). We have known this man Hampl all these years. We knew him as a friend of Britain when this country was in its most critical period. We are confident that Hampl would not by any means wish to betray this country. If some of us who are friends of Hampl had not taken up this matter this would have been another of those cases of soft silent methods being used to move bodies out of the country without the right of public trial or without the right of this House being exercised to control the people who are acting as a state within a state. We believe that here an appeal must be made in the name of British justice. I do not defend Hampl or anybody else. If he has done something which is treasonable, then he should bear the burden. But the man must have the right under our Constitution to defend himself. That right is not being given to him.

We had a discussion with the Home Secretary and I heard a phrase, which has been used in the Press. It was said that "wittingly or unwittingly" this man has acted as an agent moving information from point A to point B when it was of importance to this country. Without the right of trial, whether he did it wittingly or unwittingly, this man is being moved out of the country. Many months ago I protested in this House about the Prime Minister's speech on the Civil Service and the kind of system by which M.I.5 or the special branch of Scotland Yard can take action without any hon. Member of this House having an opportunity of appealing against it. That is something derogatory to the British sense of justice.

I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House are with me, whatever our political differences may be, when I say that a man must have the right to prove himself guiltless if he happens to be guiltless. I appeal to the Home Secretary, who happens to be one of the most human Home Secretaries that we have had, at least to give some time to Hampl to settle his affairs and also to try to stop the growing tendency to employ back-door methods of pushing people out of this country or even trying people of our own nationality without the right of appeal. This is a dangerous thing within the British life. If this House of Commons does not protest today, this procedure will grow like a snowball. Men on both sides of the House have talked boldly about the British sense of justice over the centuries, but if we do not take care it will disappear gradually from this country, which is one of the last bastions of democracy in the world today. Whether it hurts my party or does not hurt my party, I feel that it is my duty as an elected representative of the British people to demand that the paramountcy of this House should be maintained over hidden agencies who are non-representative of the people and who have powers such as it would appear are possessed by M.I.5 and the special branch of Scotland Yard. I urge our right to have these matters brought into crystal clear British daylight, so that the average British citizen shall know what is happening and what our Foreign Office, the Home Secretary or other officials may be doing. I do not wish to accuse any officials of any Department of irresponsibility. They have a heavy burden in this 20th century world, but I am not prepared to give them powers greater than those possessed by the elected representatives of the people. I appeal to the Home Secretary to review this case, and, at the least, to give Hampl an opportunity of staying in this country to tidy up his affairs. I ask the Minister to make some statement to this House on the real position.

2.58 p.m.

Though with much less eloquence, I feel that I must add my testimony to that of my two hon. Friends. Like them, and I think like all hon. Members from North Staffordshire, I have known Hampl for a period of 10 years and I know of the great service he rendered to this country during the war. There must be a considerable number of hon. Members who know of the movement which was started under the auspices of Dr. Benes during the war. Hampl played a great part in the development of that movement in Stoke-on-Trent. That movement was also connected, certainly in the minds of people in Staffordshire, with the name of the late Josiah Wedgwood. I believe that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has shown that the circumstances of the issue of this deportation order, are, to say the least of it, most unsatisfactory and that they require further investigation. A man who has been in this country for a period of ten years, and who has rendered definite services to Britain and to the relations between this country and Czechoslovakia, is entitled to some measure of justice. We know that aliens are allowed to stay in this country only on sufferance from the legal point of view. At the same time, we pride ourselves on our sense of justice and we criticise other countries for the methods they employ. I ask the Under-Secretary to respond to the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley to give Mr. Hampl a chance to be faced with the charge and the evidence against him so that he can have an opportunity to prove his innocence.

3.0 p.m.

We have heard what I feel is a powerful case, put soberly and with restraint by the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg). I think I can speak probably for both sides of the House when I say that very few hon. Members enjoy the respect of this House more than he does. He is one of whom it is quite impossible to conceive any idea of association with disloyal or Communist elements. He has put the case soberly and reasonably.

Is the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) speaking for all sides of the House?

I think that the interventions in this Debate by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) have been unfortunate enough already.

To the Under-Secretary I would just say that I hope that at this stage we shall not have a debating reply. I hope that he will deal with these charges as soberly as they have been made. In circumstances of great national danger, such as those with which we are faced today, it is absolutely necessary to remove from positions of confidence—from positions where they may have access to secrets— people whose contacts may lead one to suspicion and lack of confidence. But we are penalising people on suspicion when we do that. We may be doing a necessary thing, but we are doing an odious thing. In those circumstances it is very necessary to limit our actions to what really is absolutely necessary for the security of the country. Any action beyond that must be watched with the most jealous care, because this is such an arbitrary power.

Without thought of prestige, I hope it will be considered whether the action taken against Mr. Hampl—and I know nothing about the rights or wrongs of this case—and that taken against the other Czechoslovak gentleman who was a fighter pilot are really necessary for the safety of this country. If they have done anything wrong, could they be charged without endangering the safety of this country? If it is merely a matter of suspicion, are they endangering us by staying here? That should be the only consideration.

3.3 p.m.

I shall do my best to respond to the request of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), by not making a debating reply, and by attempting to deal with this question as the House would wish me to do. Hon. Members will realise that this is a topic of a kind which is not normally debated very much in this House and which it is not at all easy to deal with by the method of public debate. I will, however, do my best. I think that all my hon. Friends have spoken very warmly of Mr. Hampl; they all enjoy his personal friendship and they all believe him to be a man of integrity. I appreciate that motive, of course, and I would like to say that it is no part of my duty here today to reflect in any way upon Mr. Hampl as a man in his personal life, or to reflect in any way upon his anti-Nazi record in the past. What I know of him bears out what has been said today by my hon. Friends.

As the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) has said, this issue has now been taken a good deal beyond the personal case of Mr. Hampl. Many names— other names and other incidents—have been mentioned, and the hon. Member for Dudley sought to convince the House that all these various names and incidents were connected and that, taken together, they add up to some kind of a concerted plan to damage Anglo-Czechoslovak relations. He made the accusation fairly specifically against the Foreign Office; as he knows, that is not the Ministry with which I am connected. At the same time, against whomsoever he may have directed his accusations, I am in a position to assure the House that nothing could be farther from the truth. As he said at one stage of his speech, the responsibility for taking action in this case lies with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and my right hon. Friend yields to none in his wish to see good relations between these two countries. I should like, if I may, to say the same for myself. I am no expert in Czech affairs but I have been to Czechoslovakia twice since the war; I have good relations with many Czechs; I have spoken in Prague with many leading Czechoslovakian statesmen, including some who are still in power in that country.

I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hanley (Mr. Stross), with whom I had conversations about Mr. Hampl before any of this trouble arose, will bear me out when I say that at that time it must have been clear to him that, so far from there being any animosity towards the British-Czechoslovak Friendship League, or its secretary, I was exceedingly anxious to help. I only regret that at the time when, as has already been published in the papers, I told my hon. Friend that I knew of no reason why Mr. Hampl should not freely return from his visit, the information which subsequently came to the notice of my right hon. Friend was not available, and I think my hon. Friend accepts that to be the case. I can understand the personal feelings which actuated my hon. Friends in raising this matter, but I find it rather harder to understand their readiness to accept—as it seems to me without very great examination—every allegation which is made, at home or abroad, against the British authorities in this matter.

Please do not imply that. We do not say that at all. It is a very simple issue: the right of this man to defend himself. That is all I am interested in, whether he is right or wrong.

I am glad to hear that is the only point which interests my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies). I think it would be wrong, however, to suggest that that is the only point which has been raised in the other speeches, and the comment which I was in process of making was a perfectly fair one. My hon. Friends who spoke earlier appeared to accept rather readily tales which come from sources which, on the face of them, would not appear to be objective; whether their information turns out to be true or false, the sources would not appear to be objective.

rose —

No, I really cannot give way. My hon. Friends seem very ready to accept those statements, but at the same time not so ready to accept the quite simple, if to them unsatisfactory, explanation which my right hon. Friend gave to them when he received them a short time ago.

Well, really!

Indeed, I think they have been rather leady to impute very sinister motives to British officials in a number of different Departments. I do not think I am being in the least unfair to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know what his sources of information are, but he certainly has sources which are not available to me, and I can only speculate as to what they may be. He appears to have attached weight to them, but I am simply not in a position to know what weight should be attached to them at this time.

The hon. Gentleman is really being less than fair. We went to the Home Secretary and gave him copies of Mr. Hampl's statement and copies of the minutes. The very moment I got notice of this Adjournment Debate, I wrote the hon. Gentleman and gave him details of the questions I was going to ask him. Never at any time have we been given any kind of explanation at all.

When I was talking of the possible sources of information my hon. Friend may have had, I was thinking not so much of the case of Mr. Hampl as of the other matters which he has raised, and the other allegations against British authorities to which he has referred.

I will, in one or two sentences, tell the House—it has already been published in the Press—the explanation which my right hon. Friend gave—and gave quite openly; he did not in the least mind when he saw in the papers—about the case of Mr. Hampl. He pointed out to the hon. Members who visited him that this was a case which involved the passing of information which, to put it no higher, might be prejudicial to the security of this country, and he said that as a result he had decided it was not in the public interest that certain persons should remain here. One of the persons involved was Mr. Hampl, and accordingly my right hon. Friend took the action which the House knows was taken. It is that action which apparently has aroused so much indignation.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, when discussing the other case which he raised—the case of Coles, about which I have no authentic information as to what has happened abroad—my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley suggested to the Czechoslovak Government that they should give this man back his passport and put him back over the frontier as a gesture of friendship, in order to lower the temperature. I was surprised when he said that, because if that is his view of the correct procedure, what on earth is his objection to my right hon. Friend, who has reached the conclusion I have told the House, simply asking Mr. Hampl to go?

He is a Czech subject.

That intervention bears out precisely what I said a few moments ago. I do not know how the hon. Member knows that he is a Czech. I do not know, and he must have it from sources of which I am not aware.

rose —

I have been interrupted a lot already. I cannot give way.

The hon. Gentleman has said nothing.

I will not be able to say anything if my hon. Friends keep interrupting. I am trying to answer some of the questions which have been put.

There are still one and a half hours left.

I think it would be an imposition on the House, in view of the arrangement which has been made by all parties, if I were to extend this Debate. While I am not going to sit down on the stroke of 3.15, I think it would be wrong if I did not try to keep more or less within the time allotted for this Debate. As I said, Mr. Hampl was one of those who, it seemed to my right hon. Friend, should not remain in this country, and accordingly he took that action. I know of no government which does not reserve the right to take such action in a case of this kind. I know of no government that has not got these powers and does not from time to time exercise them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) talked about the growing tendency of getting rid of people in a hole-and-corner manner, although those were not his exact words. I am not aware of any such growing tendency. It has always been possible under the Aliens Order to take this action, and it is from time to time taken, but I can assure him that there is no such growing tendency so far as I am aware, and that certainly it is not lightly done. My right hon. Friend is one of the principal Ministers concerned with the security of this country, and he has a very grave responsibility and does not treat it lightly at all. He cannot shuffle off his responsibility on anyone else. He has to make his decision on the facts available to him, as he thinks best in the public interest. It would not be right in this case, or in any other case of this kind, to ask the Secretary of State to disclose all the information available to him, and I do not believe that the House would insist on any Home Secretary doing any such thing. I am sure I have the House with me when I say that I shall not in this instance disclose all the details which are available to my right hon. Friend.

I want, as far as I can, to give some assurance to those Members who are prepared to take an objective view. I do not think my hon. Friend suggested this in his speech, but it has been suggested in the Press that this was a frame-up by Colonel Hnrcir, the former Czech Military Attaché before he resigned from that post. It has been suggested that on his evidence this action has been taken, and that there was a frame-up. I can assure the House that that is not the case. I would remind those Members of the legal profession that the way one should treat the evidence of an accomplice is a well-recognised practice in the English courts; it is not that the evidence should be necessarily disbelieved, but that it should not be accepted unless it is corroborated. That principle was applied in the case of Mr. Hampl, in so far as the statements subsequently made by Colonel Hnrcir have any bearing on the case. I was asked whether Colonel Hnrcir is still in this country, and the answer is "Yes." The reason is not very far to seek. He is, in fact, a refugee, and I do not think there is any need to discuss why he is a refugee. The fact is that he is a refugee, and that according to the practices that have been observed in this country for many years past he cannot be returned to Czechoslovakia. I am not saying that he was not implicated; indeed, he was. I would only say further, however, that within a very short time of Colonel Hnrcir being required by his own authorities to engage in these activities, he ceased to be so engaged, and resigned for that, among other reasons.

He pinched £16,000.

That might have been a good reason why he was not prosecuted any more than Mr. Hampl was prosecuted. It is said that linked up with the case of Mr. Hampl are these other cases. That is not the responsibility of the Home Office, but I was given a brief outline by my hon. Friend of what he intended to say, and I have done my best to obtain information.

Of the case of Arton I know absolutely nothing beyond that he was a young Czech who was in the Royal Air Force, and is now here, and has been given an indefinite time condition to stay in this country as, I think, a student at the London School of Economics. I do not know of any reason why anybody should, so to speak, "have it in for him." I have not been able to trace why a relative of his was called to the Foreign Office. I have no knowledge whatever of any of the things alleged to have been said to him, and on the present total lack of evidence I must beg leave to remain entirely sceptical about it.

Was it because of the enormity of his offence that he was sent to the London School of Economics?

I think the House can give its own answer to that question. As to Mr. Coles—

Taking it that my hon. Friend knows very little about Mr. Arton, do I understand that Mr. Peter Arton is free to return to this country and resume his studies at the London School of Economics?

It is quite impossible for me to give any guarantee. I have said that I know of no reason why he should not come back. I know of no shadow of suspicion which has been put upon him, or why the things which are alleged to have been said to him should have been said. I do not at the moment, accept that they were said. After I made a statement in respect of Mr. Hampl further events occurred between that and the time he came back. It is not an attempt at evasion on my part, if I do not attempt to go beyond what I have already said about Mr. Arton.

The statement was made that Mr. Coles is not a British subject, but I do not think my hon. Friend gave the full story as it appeared in the Press. I have no information about his being arrested in Prague, other than the public announcement there. I am not able to compete with the sources of information at the disposal of my hon. Friend. He asked me about a British passport, and so far as I can discover from the records at this end a passport was issued to Mr. Coles. It was issued on the usual evidence, to wit, a British birth certificate, and I have no reason to suppose that there was anything abnormal either in that or in the issue of the currency allowance. I do not know what may have happened subsequently to the passport. I do not know whether the person who appeared in Czechoslovakia with that passport is the person to whom it was issued. I do not know whether he went to Boulogne, where his passport was picked off him, and a new photograph put on it. I cannot say a single word about it except that so far as the issue of the document is concerned I have given the information to the House. What I can say, quite categorically, is that so far as my Department is concerned—and it is my Department which has to take action in these cases— these matters, whether there is anything in them or whether there is not, have nothing whatever to do with the case of Mr. Hampl. They have no connection of any kind with the decision taken in this case by my right hon. Friend.

In conclusion, I would say that I remain somewhat surprised at the readiness with which these charges against the Foreign Office and, to some extent against my right hon. Friend, who is alleged to have shirked his responsibilities and to have delegated them to somebody else, which is not at all the case, should have been brought publicly, with such slight evidence. I rather resent the ready assumption that my right hon. Friend, and for that matter myself, are either willing to take part in some plot against Anglo-Czech relations or, on the other hand, are dancing like marionettes as some hidden hand jerks the strings. I resent those suggestions, and I repudiate completely, on behalf of my right hon. Friend and, I think I may say, on behalf of all his colleagues, the charge that they or that any of their officials are anxious to damage Anglo-Czech relations.

I can only say that if damage does result from this, as I think, very unfortunate affair and Debate, it will be due firstly to those who saw fit to organise improper activities upon British soil and, I regret even more to say, to those who have chosen to surround the action, taken carefully and soberly by my right hon. Friend in the exercise of his responsibility, with misrepresentation and the imputation of improper motives. I am afraid that I cannot accede to the requests made by several hon. Members on this side of the House that my right hon. Friend should alter his decision.

I want to raise a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have listened very carefully to the statement by the Under-Secretary of State, and I want your Ruling on this matter.

To have listened to a statement is not a point of Order.

It seems to me that it was implied in the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State that if relationships between us and Czechoslovakia—

That is not a point of Order, any more than the previous point which the hon. Member raised was a point of Order.

I wish to draw the attention of the House away from matters with international repercussions to a domestic matter affecting my constituency. I say it is a domestic matter but I think I can also say that people in all parts of the world who have, at some time in their lives, known Cambridge, whether as visitors, as students at the University, or as residents, will remember "The Backs," and that they will remember them with affection. That handful of hon. Members who have never been fortunate enough to visit Cambridge may be forgiven for assuming, as one or two did, that I was going to raise some matter concerned with football. In fact, everybody who knows Cambridge realises that I am referring to that road, officially known as Queens Road, which extends along the backs of the colleges and is one of the beauty spots of Cambridge.

There is no need for me to speak at length of those beauties; they can speak for themselves. This tree-lined avenue is at present a class 3 road under local control and it is the wish of all who know it to preserve it as such. In recent weeks a suggestion has come forward from the divisional road engineer of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that this road should become a trunk road and that it should be turned, as Mr. Punch has put it, into one of the Minister of Transport's "auto-Barnes." The House may shudder at that pun, but I can assure the House that Cambridge shudders even more at the suggestion. I would like to be perfectly fair about it; nothing concrete has resulted so far, either literally or metaphorically. At present it is simply a suggestion from the divisional engineer, and I rather suspect that when I first raised the matter in this House on 14th June the Minister of Transport had not heard of it before.

As the Minister naturally assumes responsibility for what is done by his officers in his name, it will repay us to investigate the reason for this peculiar suggestion. It has obviously been made because of the difficulties of traffic in Cambridge. Cambridge has a most acute traffic problem. Its streets were never built to carry the volume of traffic which is now attempting to use them, and when rearrangements are made to solve congestion at one point, the result very often is fresh congestion at another point. However, to attempt to solve the temporary traffic problems of the 1940's by destroying amenities which have existed for hundreds of years is really no answer at all. My hon. Friend may say that the road is being used for through traffic already and that the through traffic is encouraged to use it. That is perfectly true. He may or may not be aware that there is a local by-law which compels vehicles of above a certain size to use that road after a certain hour at night rather than go through the centre of the town. That may be so, but I say again that that is no excuse for vandalism. He may also remind us that if this road becomes a trunk road, the local authority, if it is the agent for maintaining the road, will receive 100 per cent. grant instead of the present 50 per cent. grant.

Why then should Cambridge look this gift horse in the mouth? The real basis of objection is that if this road becomes, a trunk road, local control over it goes completely, and in order to preserve local control the local authorities are prepared to forego that extra 50 per cent. grant. Their fears may not all be justified, but if I can put them in an extreme form I would say this. It is true that the road is not very wide; it is true that it has a bend in it; it is true that on one side there is no continuous footpath; and it is true that elm trees overhang the road and that some of them are very old and liable to be blown down in a gale.

Those being the facts about the road, what would a good road engineer, on learning those facts in his remote fastness of Bedford, do about it? "The road is not wide enough," says the road engineer "—take more land to widen it, even though that means taking college playing fields and gardens, etc. It has a kink in it—iron it out, even though that means taking away more land. There is no footpath—take still more land and make a good wide footpath on both sides. Trees overhang the road—let us cut them all down." I would not go so far as to accuse my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend of vandalism to that degree, but I would say that a class 3 road of this character cannot be made into a trunk road without some drastic change in its present appearance, and I cannot see a trunk road being established in place of the present Queens Road without the amenities suffering.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not say that local control need not go altogether, because in fact the Ministry of Transport use the local highway authority as their agents for maintaining trunk roads. That is so, but in that case the local authority is not a manager with any form of local discretion but is merely a contractor carrying out the exact specifications of the Ministry. So local control does not remain at all.

My hon. Friend may raise a further point which is a more important one. He may say: "What alternative road can you offer to solve this admittedly difficult problem of finding a road which through traffic can use to avoid going through the centre of Cambridge?" It has been suggested that Grange Road might be such a road. It is a road which runs parallel to the Backs. I would not press that because I think diversions would be involved at both ends—on to Grange Road and off Grange Road, and unless they were compelled to do so drivers who know the area would not use that roundabout route. I do not think that that is the answer.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is no immediate alternative as a road for through traffic, avoiding the centre of the town, but I would say that that is not an excuse for taking steps which might destroy these amenities for all time. My hon. Friend may produce all sorts of elaborate statistics about traffic through Cambridge and the problems which arise from it. He may, as the phrase goes, blind me with science, but again science is no excuse whatever for vandalism.

What is it that we want? The real answer is the development as quickly as possible of the ring road around Cambridge which already exists in part and is planned for completion as soon as possible. In the meantime, let through traffic use this road but let the road remain a class 3 road under local control. The volume of through traffic in Cambridge is not excessively high. The town is not on the Great North Road or anything like that, so one need not have any fear of excessive use of the road. But what would be the consequence of trunking?—to use the Ministry jargon. When there is trunking it means that all decisions in respect of the highway and its boundaries are taken exclusively by the Minister and he can make whatever alterations he pleases without reference to anybody. There is an even more important point involved in trunking. The Minister of Transport has control also over all buildings on either side of the road within 220 ft. of the centre of a trunk road.

Let us consider the proposal from the point of view of planning. Cambridge is taking planning seriously. The County Council as the new planning authority has set up at considerable expense a very efficient planning department under a planning officer. In addition, Professor Holford, who was responsible for the City of London plan, has been called in as consultant. We can say that we have endeavoured to obtain the best advice possible with regard to the planning of Cambridge. We appreciate that we have a unique heritage which we must hand on undamaged to coming generations, and it is not for us to take steps which might impair that heritage. The Backs are a vital part of that heritage and to remove them from all local control would, I say, be a complete negation of all the new planning legislation. If I could suggest a parallel it would be the equivalent of giving somebody the task of planning the frontage of the Thames and putting the Embankment itself under separate control.

I do not know what form the reply of my hon. Friend will take. If he and his right hon. Friend still wish to probe this suggestion further I hope he will repeat the assurance that his right hon. Friend gave me on 14th June, to the effect that a local inquiry will be held if necessary before any decision is made. I should like to delete those two words: "if necessary" because I can assure my hon. Friend that if he intends to go forward with this scheme a local inquiry will most definitely be necessary. I should also like an assurance that even before a local inquiry is held the town planning consultant should be brought in and his views on the matter ascertained. I cannot claim to speak for him, but I would very much be surprised if he were not horrified at the idea. The best answer of all I could get would be if my hon. Friend would say that the Minister has agreed to drop the whole business. On 14th June the Minister said with regard to the suggestion,

3.40 p.m.

In the few minutes I have at my disposal I do not propose to traverse the technical points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds). All I hope to do is to try to soften the heart of the Minister. If I did not know him better, I would think that he had no sense of duty and no sense of fitness at all if he could think of carrying out what we who have lived in and worked in Cambridge believe to be an act of sheer vandalism which nothing could repair once the Ministry of Transport got its hands on what we believe is the loveliest half mile in Europe.

I wish my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend, who perhaps do not know Cambridge as we do, could see the memory pictures which form in our minds whenever the Backs are mentioned—looking for the first flowers in spring in St. John's Wilderness, the general charm of the river during May Week, Evensong at King's in the golden light of an autumn afternoon and, best of all, in winter when the leaves are falling, the triumph of that great mediaeval architecture seen through the tracery of black empty branches. These are things of which people all over the world think when the Backs are mentioned. To imagine that these Backs should be mutilated in the way they must be if they are turned into a trunk road and to think of that place of meditation, of beauty and happiness illumined by glaring headlights at night is an unbearable thought. I am sure that in any part of the world where this matter is in the forefront of discussions of those who love Cambridge and love the Backs, there is not so much resentment, as pity and scorn that anyone should even conceive this idea. Therefore I hope my hon. Friend will convey to his right hon. Friend the views of us who know the Backs so well and to whom indeed they are a part of our lives, and the views of hundreds of thousands like us in all parts of the world and that even at this late date, before any definite decisions are taken, he will revoke even those preliminary steps embarked on to take away from Cambridge one of the loveliest parts of its heritage.

I shall be brief, but this is a subject about which I feel keenly—

I must remind the hon. Member that he has already spoken today and therefore cannot speak again.

3.43 P.m.

I should indeed have a hard heart if I were not moved by the poetry of my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning)—the nearest approach to poesy there has been today. If indeed that poetry were allied to the real facts of the situation, I should feel I could not stand at this Box and make a defence, but I am very glad to be able to tell her that most of the hobgoblins she conjured up exist only in her own mind. I think that by the time I have finished she will realise that, far from deserving to have the word "vandals" thrown at us, as she and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Symonds) did, we take very great care and pay great attention to this sort of national area which, as they both said, has a great affection in the hearts of everybody, whether they went to Cambridge, or to another place.

Perhaps it would be worth while if I spent a moment explaining what a trunk road is these days, because it is clear from much of the criticism which has been made of this proposal that the Trunk Road Act of 1946 is rather ahead of much public consciousness. When we think of trunk roads, I suppose we think of those gleaming, metalled highways, usually with two carriageways, with footpaths and cycle tracks, with roadside cafes and neon signs, and all the rest of the amenities of modern civilisation. That may be the popular conception of a trunk road, but there are many trunk roads that do not begin to bear any resemblance to that, I am glad to say. For example, I do not know how many of those who have jumped into this battle declaiming against making The Backs a trunk road have realised that there is at the moment a trunk road running through Trumpington Street, King's Parade, Trinity Street and St. John's Street.

I do.

My hon. Friend may realise it very well; I was not addressing my remarks to him at the moment. All those streets form part of the national trunk road system at this moment, and there is no sign there of the kind of conception that I have just outlined as being the popular imagination of what a trunk road ought to be.

What has happened, of course, is that with the passage of the Trunk Road Act, 1946, national carriageways—if I may use that term—have been laid down. Their character will not necessarily all be the same. Their character will, indeed, to a large extent be preserved in many cases, and by an example of a trunk road which is only a quarter of a mile away from The Backs, it is clear evidence, which I can demonstrate to the House, that all these suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge that trees will be cut down, kinks straightened out, and the rest of it, are very wide of the mark.

Is my hon. Friend aware that along the trunk road he mentions there is already a built up area, and there is not a single tree overhanging that road?

I know the area very well, and that brings me to my next point. My hon. Friend has stressed to me, privately and in public, the necessity for preserving the trees where they are fit to be preserved and, indeed, this afternoon he said, if they are not fit to be pre served. One of the first actions my right hon. Friend took when he became Minister was to appoint a horticultural officer with considerable experience, who had his training at Kew Gardens, especially to advise on these matters, and he plays a great part in all of them. My hon. Friend shakes his head—

I did not.

May I say to him that this officer has just had a strong argument with the Cambridge Town Council who wanted to cut down some trees which that officer thought was quite improper, and he has been the means of preserving them. We must have regard to the fact that Government Departments, and Ministers certainly, are not vandals in their approach to this problem, and quite frequently take a view which is at least as broad as that of those who live on the spot.

Now as to the position of Cambridge itself. As my hon. Friend said, the divisional road engineer made this suggestion to the Town Council, and it has been rejected by them, I understand. He then went on to say that in his view the road ought to remain a class 3 road. That is not the view of the Cambridge County Council. If I may quote the words of the County Surveyor in a letter to the Divisional Road Engineer dated 27th July, he says:

Will my hon. Friend allow me—

I would like to finish the quotation—

"Moreover, when the new system of traffic direction which the Borough Surveyor has submitted to you, becomes operative there is little doubt that the traffic along The Backs will tend to increase further still.

I have little doubt in my own mind that when the Origin and Destination Survey is taken the count of traffic will justify the raising of this road to Class 1 standard."

I was about to ask my hon. Friend if he realised that in such circumstances it is likely that when the Cambridge Borough Council says "Yes" the Cambridge County Council would say "Nay," and the reverse? That is not at all unusual.

I realise that very fully indeed, and that is the reason why at this moment my right hon. Friend will say neither "Yea" nor "Nay." He is determined to keep his position unprejudiced and quite open in this matter. He is not prepared to say that this proposition should be ruled out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge invited him to do. On the other hand, he is not in a position to say at the moment, because he has not the technical advice, whether in fact the Backs should become part of the trunk road system or not. His position is unprejudiced and quite open. When the facts are placed before him he will take one of two decisions. He will either say, "In my judgment, in the light of the facts before me, I do not propose to go ahead with this idea, "or," In the light of the facts before me, I think it is worthy of further consideration, and I will, therefore, make a proposition which will enable a local inquiry to be held if there is opposition to the proposition when it is made." I imagine that there is likely to be opposition, in which case there will be a local inquiry.

The Backs are recognised as a very important through road round Cambridge. We are not talking about a proposition that would convert a sequestered pleasant backwater into an arterial trunk road. It already carries substantial traffic. I have certain figures, which are now two years old, but are in themselves sound evidence of that. The town council as I can see from a photograph I have before me, has already labelled it a bypass road and is directing traffic—as one can see on the signposts, A.603 traffic— to Ely which lies North to go West before they go North. It is quite clear therefore that the Cambridge Town Council recognise that this is a very important through road.

The real issue is one of control, whether it would be better to have it controlled locally or nationally. On that issue my right hon. Friend at this moment is not prepared to say anything until he has examined all the facts and opinions have become evidence. Although he has read the correspondence columns of "The Times" all the opinions do not appear there. Whatever the decision, I am quite certain that the amenities of the Backs which, as my hon. Friend said, are prized and valued, will be preserved, no matter what is the legal status of this road.

I am afraid it will not be possible to become as poetical about the subject of the liquidation of sterling balances and unrequited exports as about the previous subject. But it has its moments of importance. It deals with something like £3,500 million of sterling balances, which is a very considerable sum. Those who are left in the House at this stage are more likely to consider themselves as "frustrated exports," unable to get to the seaside or to the country, which is their main objective.

To understand this question we have to go back a long way. The first document to which I would refer is the agreement made on 6th December, 1945, on the original loan from America. There, on page 5, Clause 11, it is stated: to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his enthusiastic band of financial tightrope walkers, who are of Olympian calibre in this matter from practice, an almost superhuman task. It is most important that we should realise that it is the dragging on for so long of these negotiations concerning sterling balances and unrequited exports which brings us to the present dangerous position. That the Government realise this, is, I think, evident from another quotation which I should like to make from a document which, though more recent, is almost out of date now and was almost out of date at the time when it was issued. I refer to the Economic Survey for 1948 which was issued in March of this year and which contains a phrase which is really the key to what I wish to say. There it is stated:

During the war, the position of India changed radically. From being a debtor nation she became probably the greatest true creditor nation in the world. That is not a matter that this House should regret or about which we should be jealous or envious in any way at all. It is one of those swings of fortune which have happened very often in past history. It brings with it a great measure of responsibility to those who find themselves suddenly in the position of creditors—particularly large creditors—of those who have assisted them in the past to build themselves up into that position. I should like to say this about the negotiations that have taken place with India. They must have been extremely difficult and I think that the Chancellor went into the negotiations not with his hands entirely tied, but in a position which was very much more difficult than it might have been owing to the action of his predecessor. Nevertheless, it seems to me that there has been some failure to put forward strongly enough the case from our point of view.

It is clear that India must find it disappointing to have these enormous sterling balances which they would like to turn into goods and to be told that they cannot have any, or practically none, and that these are more or less blocked sterling balances. But there is some sense of proportion in all these things. If it had been brought home more clearly and if there had not been a lack of clarity and hardheadedness in putting the case forward, I think that we might have had a better arrangement. It must not be forgotten that the position of India would have been very parlous without the heavy outpourings of men, materials and money which other Allies, the United States and ourselves poured into the defence not only of India but of ourselves as well. I am certain that those who were in India during the war will agree with me. I saw that happening. I was in Calcutta when the only air raid which the Japanese ever made there took place.

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

Motion made, and question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [ Mr. George Wallace. ]

Productivity was reduced by about 75 per cent, and did not pick up again for a very long time afterwards. It is so easy to forget, when the wolf has been driven from the door, that he was a wolf and not just a tame rabbit. I fear that that change in the Indian mentality has taken place all too greatly.

The sterling balances, of course, must be distinguished in another way: those which are held by nations inside the sterling bloc, and those held by nations outside it, like Egypt which, next to India, is probably the greatest holder. Here, again, the set of circumstances is very much the same. In the defence of Egypt the money spent by ourselves and other Allies there during the war was enormous, and at the end of the war Egypt— whose direct military contribution in no way equalled that of India, which was admirable and in every way a very bright page in military history—held an enormous sum of sterling balances. Once again, negotiations take place and, at the end of it all, we find ourselves saddled with the necessity of pouring out of this country goods for which we get back nothing at all.

It is this translation of sterling balances into goods which I wish to emphasise. The most dangerous thing in the world, on this particular subject, is to think in terms of figures or of money, because that is the direct way to not realising at all what this situation means. We are told by the Chancellor—probably more honestly and openly by him than by any other Member of the Government—and by the Board of Trade that the export drive is the chief bulwark for our safety. It is perfectly clear, therefore, that anything which detracts from that drive, anything which makes that drive less effective, must be a matter of great concern to all of us.

Not so long ago in this House we were debating on two occasions Colonial and Empire development and we had before us schemes which had the approval of all parties in this House for the long-term development—which will not come to fruition for a very long time—of the natural resources inside the Dominions and the Colonies; but those schemes can only be carried out, not by writing cheques, which means nothing whatsoever, but by the cheques when translated into terms of steel, cement, electric motors and anything that goes to make a harbour or a railway or locomotives in half a dozen different parts of the world.

How important it is, therefore, to see that the potential being produced by this country, and the hard work that is being done in industrial areas such as the one I represent is not, from our point of view and, in the long run, from the general point of view, running to waste. The first thing we must ask the Government to do, now that they have come to the end of their negotiations on the sterling balances with practically every country— the excuse has been put forward so often that it would harm further negotiations if they were to make a consolidated picture of the arrangements which are resulting in unrequited exports—is that they should now sit down and produce for us a clear and consolidated report showing the true position. The importance of that cannot be over-emphasised. We see the monthly figures of our exports, and in the mind of the average person—I believe the Minister will agree with me on this—the mental effect is that it is effortless. We see that we are £120 million or £130 million up on the previous month; we think that we are doing quite well and that these figures will be directly translated into the importation into this country of food, raw materials, and other things which are vital—as we are told the whole time—for us not only to live, but to be able to increase our potential output.

We know quite well from the E.R.P. negotiations that it is on the basis of what we can do for ourselves that the new assistance we are getting from America is being meted out to us. How important is it, therefore—and this was a matter which concerned America very much, as is seen from certain paragraphs in the original Loan Agreement—that we should know perfectly clearly to what extent goods going from this country are unrequited; that is to say, instead of bringing, in the case of India, jute, groundnuts, or something like that, or in the case of Egypt, Egyptian cotton, back to this country for our great and increasing needs, all that we can get against them is a book entry in the Bank of England.

Let me say straight away, that this is no plea of any sort for repudiation. I have always been against that, and have always been at one with those who say we cannot dishonour a debt, even if it was incurred on behalf of a person who is at the other end of the stick. Nevertheless, it is vitally important that we should know what percentage—and I believe it is quite a high percentage, taking the whole of the agreements made about unrequited exports or the use of sterling balances, including, incidentally, current balances— are being used. If we are told, as I think we may be told, that something like 10 per cent.—I cannot find what the right figure should be—of our exports are unrequited exports, than it makes the plastering of this country with notice boards saying "Ten per cent, more effort and you get out of your trouble" somewhat foolish. It really means that 10 per cent, of the effort is putting us even deeper into these difficulties.

Yesterday the Economic Secretary to the Treasury gave me a reply—to which I am certain he noticed I asked no supplementary question, for obvious reasons —which is not quite clear. He said:

indicated assent.

If that is so, taking six to seven months exports at somewhere around £800 million, £90 million represents rather more than 10 per cent, of our exports that are being unrequited.

May I make it clear? It represents the total liability for the whole of 1948 as so far agreed. It would, therefore, be available against the exports, not for six or seven months but for the whole year.

Well, I am glad to have that information, because the reply does not say so. It says:

"Since then"—

that is since 29th June—

"details have been announced.… This brings the total of sums so far released for current purposes"—

therefore, it cannot be a full 12 months, because the statement is made only on 29th July—

"to some £90 million up to the end of 1948." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1948; Vol, 454, c. 1541–2.]

I think there is a misunderstanding. It means the amount agreed on that date to be released for the whole year.

Well, even that does not affect the argument, even if the figure is only 5 per cent, as it may well be. That brings me to the first question I want to ask. Would the Minister have prepared for us when we meet again—because this does exercise the minds of people who are seriously worried about the extent to which this is cutting down the value of our export drive—a consolidated statement showing the figures of exports, every month, or every three months, so that we realise what we are sacrificing?

My other point concerns the terms of trade which have turned against this country, and the increased cost at which we have to buy. The other day I saw that the figure in America is about 8 per cent, up in three months. This makes our position extremely dangerous, and, with the possibility that Marshall Aid will not be a cushion on which we can sit for protection against the hard realities that lie beneath it, it may be that at this stage we have to go to all those with whom the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been negotiating and say, as anybody in ordinary commercial practice would say when honourable debtor and honourable creditor meet together, "We shall have to make certain arrangements"—and this is the right way to tackle the thing—"over a long period." Any reasonable creditor knows that the right thing to do with an honest debtor is to give him time to get on his feet.

If these arrangements which have been made are too onerous in the terms I read out earlier, and if the present resources, as they have changed again in the last six months, are such, we shall have, not to repudiate, but to ask for a three years' moratorium, which will assist us to get our machine and potential output going better. We shall be in a freer position in regard to raw materials and food. In the end, as the total balances to be dealt with cannot possibly be dealt with for a great many decades, the extra three years' breathing space from those on whose behalf we expended the money represented by these enormous figures will very likely be of the utmost value. I have put this forward on a factual and non-party basis in the hope that we shall get two things from the Minister; first, that he will bring out a consolidated report showing how we really stand, and secondly, that he will consider asking for reconsideration of the whole of this subject.

4.12 p.m.

I want in the few moments at my disposal to reinforce what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher). He rightly drew the attention of the House once again to the fact that these sums should not be called sterling balances but sterling debts. They are debts incurred during the last war. What I do not think he sufficiently stressed was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer have all said that these debts were incurred during the war between nations who were partners, and that at the end of the war His Majesty's Government reserved the right to make such adjustments in these debts as to give to each of the participating countries a fair share of the common burden.

The late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer have time and again said in this House that they were going to do that, but they have never done it. The nearest they got to it was when they froze the sterling funds of Palestine, but when I had the rashness to ask whether this was to be considered a good omen that the Government were at last going to do something, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that laconic incisiveness for which he is famed, replied, "No, Sir."

Whereas the previous Government and His Majesty's Government's present spokesmen have made it clear that these debts were subject to revision, the Government have done nothing to ease the burden with which this country is faced. If we look at what the Government have done, we find that all they have done so far this year is for one reason or another to release £550 million under agreement. It is my contention that every one of these releases means a burden to this country. I do not think 11 will be disputed that the £90 million unconditionally released is available to buy up exports, thereby resulting in unrequited exports. What I cannot understand is this theory that working balances are not available to countries to purchase goods, this similarly resulting in unrequited exports. If we look back on the grisly financial agreements made by the Government, it will be seen that in Egypt directly the working balances which were originally made available were exhausted, the Government promptly released further sums to take their place. Take the case of the Argentine. Certain working balances were available, but once it came to the question of whether these balances were to be used by the Argentine to re-purchase the British-owned railways, or whether further sums should be made available, His Majesty's Government immediately made further sums available.

If we consider that £165 million, in the last 18 months, have been made available for the re-purchase of British assets, this must result, again, in a severe worsening of our economic position. Let me refer to the Argentine railways. The Argentine Government are faced with two considerations. They can either get sterling from sterling balances, in which case it costs nothing to buy the Argentine railways or, alternatively, they can sell us goods, and for what they receive in exchange for those goods take over the railways. There might be something to be said for the latter procedure. It might well be said that to get £100 million worth of food and raw materials would be worth the Argentine railways, but to give them away against a hundred million of pounds granted by His Majesty's Government is making a severe, unnecessary and unjustifiable inroad into our economic resources.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury said that we had completed our arrangements for the funding of sterling balances, but I understand that not to be so. I understand that there are still £800 million outstanding which are unfunded, and which may, at any time, percolate into and then swamp the sterling area and result, particularly so long as free exchange markets are maintained within the sterling area, in an immediate drain on our exports and productivity.

The Government must, first, be charged with weakness in that they have never tried to scale down these balances so as to produce a just proportion between this country and others who fought together in the war. Second, they must be accused of dishonesty in that they have never admitted the full liability incurred through the releases they have made and that they have tried to make an untenable differentiation between what is paid conditionally as working balances and what is released for other purposes. Finally, so long as they show this weakness and dishonesty they are prejudicing our economic future. Probably the gravest thing that can be said is that they do not mind what they sell and what arrangements they reach provided they can prevent the economic storm breaking above their heads for a few months longer. Never has the national interest been so consistently diverted for the immediate political profit of a Government. I hope that in the Government's reply we shall get, for the first time, a comprehensive statement which will explain why these enormous releases have been made, and how it is justifiable in the national interest that they have been so released.

4.19 p.m.

In the last Debate we had on this subject—which by a curious coincidence was also just before the House departed for less arduous activities—I congratulated the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman), who raised the matter then, on his conversion to the policy of controls over the exchanges and over exports which we on this side have always advocated. I am now glad to see that the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) has also joined us. He and the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby and the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), who is the real pioneer in this process of conversion have, in their present enthusiasm for controls, certainly travelled a long way since their party opposed all controls at the time of the General Election, and opposed the Exchange Control Act two years ago. I am, therefore, hopeful that if we have a similar Debate just before Christmas, the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) will have joined the van of converts.

The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch asked me why we distinguished between outright releases and working balances. The answer is that a working balance is something which is necessary to a country holding it and which therefore goes up at times and at times goes down. It is necessary for a country to have a working balance in order to back its trade. It is in the interests of the country holding the working balance that the balance should not disappear. It is certainly not our intention, if the working balance runs down to zero, merely to replace it with a further working balance to enable the country to carry on.

The hon. Gentleman has used the word "necessary." Does he mean that use of the working balance was necessary to enable the Indian Government to complete the purchases of unrequited exports?

No, Sir. That will continue through ordinary processes of trade.

If the hon. Gentleman says that is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that further working balances shall be released, will he say why they did it in the case of Egypt?

There may have been circumstances when it would be necessary to do it, but I do not accept the view of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch that £500 million was the total release. I do not know how he worked it out, so I cannot criticise it.

If the hon. Gentleman will look at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's answers on 29th June and 13th and 15th July, he will find that they come to £533 million.

What the Chancellor of the Exchequer actually said was that he did not accept that figure. I also cannot accept the figure which I gathered the hon. Gentleman said was the total—

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said it.

There is certainly no figure as high as that not covered by an agreement for voluntary limitation. The hon. Member for Bury referred to a paragraph in the Economic Survey in which we set out our policy for unrequited exports. It is far from being out of date. We entirely stand by the declaration of policy that we made there after full consideration of the matter. We fully realise that, as he said, an excess of exports to any country merely involves us in giving away or lending part of our own production and is a strain on our productive resources which cannot be justified. The need to limit such unrequited exports has been continually in our mind and will be a leading principle of our policy in the months and years ahead.

In spite of that, it would be foolish and indeed impracticable to try to enforce an arrangement by which we had no surplus exports to any country at any time. The reasons for this are as follows: I suppose that it is realised, as a matter of simple arithmetic, that if during the E.R.P. period we have a deficit with the dollar area on our visible trade and if we are to balance our accounts, then we must have some surplus of exports to other countries. It also follows from the principles of arithmetic that unless we balance our trade with each separate country we inevitably have surplus exports to some of them. I have always thought that planning works best when it is in harmony with the laws of arithmetic.

Is it not better to use the surpluses where we get something back rather than where we are simply getting back nothing?

Certainly. I was coming to that. I am afraid that I must go on. The second good reason why some excess of exports from this country to a country such as India, Pakistan, or Burma may be justified is that by selling essential sterling goods to those countries, we can save dollars by enabling those countries to avoid purchasing the same goods from dollar areas. That is important in the case of textiles at present, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Thirdly, temporarily unrequited exports in the form of capital goods sent by this country to various parts of the sterling area are an absolutely necessary part of that development of productive resources in the sterling area which we all agree we have to carry through during the E.R.P. period.

The hon. Gentleman must distinguish between India and the other parts.

I am afraid that I must continue now. Fourthly, exports which are for the moment unrequited may be a very valuable means of establishing British export markets in parts of the world where in the long term we shall need to have those markets. Finally, we must have some regard in this matter for the fundamental human needs of the population in various parts of the sterling area. Indeed, in the past two years in some countries such as India, unless it had been possible to draw on sterling balances to some extent, it might not have been possible for the ordinary life of the population to go on.

The hon. Member also spoke of the sterling balances and the bearing of those on unrequited exports. I fully agree with him that unrequited exports financed by the drawing down of sterling balances represent a strain on this country, and it is our policy, and always has been, that such drawing down of balances must be kept within strict limits, but we believe that the wisest and the best way is to secure this limitation by voluntary means. Of course, as the hon. Member said, these debts were incurred to some extent during war, and many people feel deeply that that puts them into a different category from other types of debts. Unfortunately, though some of us feel that deeply, other people as deeply disagree, and since at the moment it just is not practical politics to reach agreement on that basic point, we have thought it best to make sensible practical arrangements covering the interim period to enable trade and economic life to go on. There are only two practical possibilities in this matter. One is unilateral action taken by the United Kingdom without agreement with the other parties, and I gather that the hon. Gentleman did not agree with that. The other is the policy which we have been following of voluntary agreement with the parties concerned for limitation over a short period.

I would like to try to answer the question about figures which the hon. Member put. It is far from true that the movement of these balances has been a one-way traffic. In the Balance of Payments White Paper, we gave some figures of the movements of balances. I can now give later figures allowing for the departure of Palestine and Transjordan from the sterling area. Taking 1946 and 1947 together, while sterling area countries de- creased their balances over the last two years by £183 million, other countries increased theirs by £78 million. That comes to a net drop of £105 million over the period. The same is true of the unrequited exports. The same White Paper shows that our total export surplus on current account in the sterling area over those two years was only £50 million. I do not think that that could be regarded as an exaggerated amount.

If I had more time I would give the full figures for the period from January, 1946, to April, 1948; but the conclusion of that calculation is that over the whole of that period the net drop in sterling balances of all countries inside and outside the sterling area works out at only £83 million. If the hon. Member calculates that as a percentage of our total exports over the whole of the 2¼ years, he will find that it comes to an amount of about two or three per cent, of the total of our exports. I think that is the figure which he was really after. That, I think, really puts the whole of this controversy rather more in perspective. There is in fact an ebb and flow in these balances which is bound to occur seeing that we are in effect the banker and the manager—

The Question having been proposed at Four o'Clock, and, the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order, till Monday, 13th September, pursuant to the Order of the House yesterday.

Adjourned at Half-past Four o'Clock.