We have sought this debate today for two reasons: first, to consider the appointment of Rasebolai in the Bamangwato Reserve and, secondly, to inquire what is the intention of Her Majesty's Government concerning the general administration not only of the Bamangwato Reserve but of Bechuanaland as a whole.

It is fair to say that many people were considerably surprised when, within a very few days of the holding of the recent kgotla at Serowe, it was announced that Rasebolai was to be placed in a position of authority, not as chief but, as we understand it holding the powers of a chief. Possibly the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations can enlighten us as to the respects, if any, in which the powers differ from those of a chief in the full sense of the word. From all I have heard Rasebolai is a person of good character. Nobody doubts his ability or capacity to hold high office. It should not be thought for one moment that I am criticising the person because I am critical of the manner of his appointment.

It seems to me, however, that the Government by backing a candidate for a position at the kgotla who was beaten, or at least did not win, and then trying to bring him in, within a matter of a few days, by a back door, lay themselves open to a charge of sharp practice even if they are undoubtedly acting perfectly within their legal rights. It is not only the people on these benches who hold that view. No doubt the Under-Secretary noticed the leader in "The Times" the day following the announcement which, speaking of Rasebolai, said:

"In fact, though he is imposed, he is not imposed as chief, but only to discharge the functions of a chief. It is conceivable that this delicate distinction will preserve a clear meaning even when translated into Sechuana. It is unlikely however to enhance in the minds of simple men that reputation for absolute good faith and open dealing which is vital to the moral value of British rule in Africa."

That is the charge which some of us wish to bring against the Government on this point of their manner of dealing with this affair, because it casts doubt on the Government's good faith when they act in this way.

Only recently faith in the absolute openness of the Government was shaken by their use of the Queen's own name in circumstances in which we might respectfully suppose that Her Majesty had never expressed a personal opinion at all. Although Africans are not all literate they are really not all such simpletons that they cannot see through things like this. Every time they lose their faith in the absolute honesty of British administration, our reputation is in danger, and, after all, it is our reputation on which we rely for our presence in most parts of Africa.

I am not proposing today to argue the question of the chieftainship or that Seretse ought to be recognised as chief. It appears to me that, on this matter and many others, the Government have a completely closed mind, and we must recognise the fact that, while they are in office, the position is not likely to be changed, and, therefore, it seems to me to be more constructive today to turn to some of the wider issues.

Before this trouble arose over the Bamangwato succession, the position of the chiefs in these territories—because there are eight reserves in the Protectorate—has been open to question in regard to their position and functions, and there is every reason to think that a more up-to-date system of Government and administration is desirable. The young men, in particular, I am told by those who have close acquaintance with the Territories, are becoming more and more dissatisfied with the old tradition of a chief and a kgotla and want to have a more specific voice in the Government and a more definite opportunity of taking their part in the Administration. Recent events, I believe, have been accelerating the general process of tribal disintegration that is going on in most parts of Africa. The emotional disturbances in the Bamangwato have contributed to this, and I think it is essential that, if we are to have progress in the area, the Government should tackle the problem of the reform of administration in the Reserve and Protectorate.

If the appointment of Rasebolai had been announced as part of a plan of reform, it would have been very much more acceptable. If we had been told that it is an interim stage in a definite programme of development, we could have judged the matter better on its merits, but we have had no such indication. We do not know what is in the Government's mind, and it is conceivable that their mind is not only closed but empty, as far as this is concerned.

I should like the Under-Secretary to let us know, for example, what has happened to the report by Lord Hailey on the administration of the Protectorate. It has been in the hands of the Minister for some time. When will it be published? Will the Under-Secretary give any indication of what its recommendations may be, or what the attitude of the Government may be towards it? One has a feeling that this difficulty over the Bamangwato succession has mesmerised the Commonwealth Relations Office to such a degree that they have been apparently unable to make any notable progress, not only in the Bamangwato Reserve but in other parts of Bechuanaland.

There are seven other reserves and the Crown Lands as well, and we have heard very little of what is being done to establish a more satisfactory and up-to-date form of administration in these particular areas. Had more progress been made in that direction, it would now be easier to take steps in the Bamangwato Reserve itself. I do not believe that we shall solve the trouble in the Bamangwato Reserve except within a wider framework. It has been far too much concentrated, to my mind, on personalities, and if we had properly constituted local councils with a central political body, they would be able to effect a much more satisfactory state of affairs.

There is a strong public opinion in Bechuanaland in favour of a more centralised administration. The Advisory Council have passed a resolution to the effect that they believe that the time has come for a Legislative Council in this Protectorate. The Protectorates are now, I believe, the only Territories—though not Crown Colonies, they are similar in conditions and population—under our control which have this antiquated form of government. The official attitude up to now has been that they ought to have more experience, but, after all, they have had Advisory Councils in Bechuanaland for the last 30 years at least, and it seems to me that, if one goes on saying that they ought to have a little more experience, one would be postponing reform for a dangerously long time.

In addition, there are the advantages which would accrue to Bechuanaland as a whole from these reforms. I believe that, if we have a central body with specific powers, not purely advisory and meeting once a year, as at present, but a body superior to the native governments in each of the reserves, that would in itself provide an opening—not only for persons like Seretse—who, after all, may return in some capacity or other to the Reserve, because he is not completely banned for ever—but also for Tshekedi. who is a man of very considerable abilities, and whose abilities, I believe, should not be entirely devoted to cattle raising, important though that may be.

One of the great disadvantages of an autocratic chieftainship is that it provides little or no scope for the really able man who is not a chief, and it seems to me that one of the advantages of the reform suggested would be that it would make it possible for persons like Tshekedi, Seretse or Rasebolai, and perhaps all of them, to have their full place in the government, with other persons in the reserves and in the Crown Land areas, who do not have the opportunity at present which they should have in this wider field.

I was speaking only yesterday to one of the chiefs in Bechuanaland, the Chief of the Bakwena, who was pointing out the advantages of a properly co-ordinated central administration in the field of education, which is vitally important, and of economic planning. He said, very properly, "Our individual territories are really too small. The Advisory Council have no powers; they can only make suggestions. The officials by no means see eye to eye with us, and there is an underground current of dissatisfaction which, unless we can canalise it into constructive channels, may in future be extremely troublesome."

I cannot think that simply appointing Rasebolai as Head of the Native Authority in the Reserve will solve the problem. I believe myself that there are vital economic problems in this area, and that we shall not get a satisfied and pacified population until greater progress is made in the economic field. I should think myself that, if we could now hold out a general prospect of economic development and communal development, we might have a fair chance of diverting some of the energies of the Bamangwato into constructive channels, instead of allowing them to remain in the sullen, discouraged frame of mind in which they undoubtedly are at the present time.

I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us something of what the Government are doing in the economic field. Are there any schemes of communal development combined with mass education going on, such as I saw recently in West Africa, in which an attempt is made to get the enthusiasm of the people directed towards proper schemes for their own betterment and advantage? Can we have information on this? Can we be told just where we stand with regard to some of the larger development schemes?

I have the impression that work on some of these larger schemes is going on in this area, but I fail to get the impression that the ordinary people either know anything about them or have been asked to co-operate in them in any way which would appeal to them. They are being discussed at a fairly high level, and technicians have been round, but has any real attempt been made to explain to the people concerned what are the ideas for their future, and to give them a chance of feeling that these schemes are their schemes and not matters which are merely decided for them from above without any reference to their opinion. The Under-Secretary could at least tell us how we stand with regard to these schemes.

Has he had the report of the Commission, on which were Mr. Arthur Gaitskell and others, on development in Bechuana-land, and, if so, may we know its contents? Can he tell us what is happening with regard to Okovango Swamp Development Scheme? Good progress has been made with the Lobatsi abattoir, but we should like to know more about how it fits into the scheme of contemplated development. What about the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund grant? How much has been spent, and if the proportion spent is not very large, can we know the reasons why? In the past these territories have been quite shamefully neglected. We have spent less on them than on almost any other territories in the British sphere. The importance of the Protectorates is such that we need a dynamic and positive policy, and some assurances from the Minister and his right hon. Friend that they are pursuing such a policy and not just sitting back and letting things ride, which is the impression that many people have outside their own Departments.

I am quite sure that we all wish that these Protectorates should remain Protectorates so long as they wish to. If the time comes when pressure is put upon them—and it may very well be economic presssure—it is vital that they should be far better prepared to withstand such pressure than they could possibly be at the present time. To some extent they depend on labour going into the Union. It is essential that if a situation should arise in which that labour could not or did not wish to go into the Union, opportunities for employment should be made available within the Bechuanaland Protectorate. The argument for a self-con- tained economy has been put forward in connection with the scheme for Central African Federation, but the position in the Protectorates is just as important, and it is now that all these developments should be proceeding.

I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us some assurances about what the Government are trying to do in the political and economic fields, and what they are trying to do to harness the loyalty and enthusiasm of the people, to make them interested in their own development, education and their own future. Unless we can have a response from the people themselves the future in this Protectorate may well be a tragic one.

If this debate has served no other purpose, at least it will have given the Undersecretary an opportunity to tell us what the Government have in mind, whether they have any really constructive proposals in view and whether there is a sense of urgency about this matter. If he can give us those assurances we shall have had a profitable morning.

I should like to speak now in order to answer the points which have been made by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White). She began by saying that the Government might be accused of bad faith, which might lead to a loss of confidence in their honesty of purpose, and that the appointment of Rasebolai as Native Authority was likely to look like sharp practice. It may well be that the hon. Lady, like the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway), was somewhat misled by the reports in "The Times", to which he alluded in his supplementary question to my right hon. Friend when he made the announcement about Rasebolai in the House last week.

The appointment of Rasebolai followed a long kgotla, in which many speakers were heard on the question of the chieftainship. The impression given by the reports in "The Times" was that there was overwhelming support for Seretse. I particularly noticed a phrase about "the endless succession" of speakers for Seretse. That is not in accordance with the facts. I have with me a very detailed report on the speakers at the kgotla, in which the remarks of each speaker are summarised in about eight or nine lines. I have also received from the High Commissioner an analysis of the division of the speakers, and I should like to give the House the result of this analysis and summary.

There were 14 speakers in favour of Rasebolai and 12 speakers in favour of Seretse. There were some others in favour either of Oratile or who thought that the Government should nominate the chief. If we go by the number of speakers —which, in my submission would not be the right way of approaching the matter —we find that there were more speakers in favour of Rasebolai than of Seretse, so it is clear that on that point the report in "The Times" was misinformed with regard to "the endless succession" of speakers for Seretse.

The matter, however, does not rest there. Among the speakers for Rasebolai were no less than four royal sons of Sekgoma and, as in other primitve societies—it was the case in mediaeval England—a great deal of weight is very naturally given to the authority of the speakers. I appreciate that in trying to compare the situation with that of Front Bench speakers and back bench speakers I lay myself open to a riposte, but I think it can be compared to a number of Front Bench speakers in favour of Rasebolai and individuals from the Serowe town population speaking in favour of Seretse.

The correspondent of "The Times" probably gave us a correct account of how the speakers for Seretse were met with murmurs of approval. As the House well knows—because we have discussed the detailed affairs of this tribe on so many occasions in the last few years—the situation is that Serowe is a considerable town, undoubtedly containing a large number of Seretse supporters. A kgotla, theoretically, is the attendance of all the main chiefs, but when a kgotla is held in Serowe, it is easier for the town population to attend.

The agricultural population contains a great number of supporters of Rasebolai. Obviously it would be quite wrong, even on Western democratic procedure, and entirely out of keeping with the way the Protectorate is administered and out of keeping with Bechuanaland custom to take a vote at a kgotla and count by heads, but the only reason I wanted to tell the House about this was because we have had the spectacle of kgotlas with large numbers of the town population which, at times in the last few years, have degenerated into a town rabble with a series of disorders in which a number of people have been killed. On this occasion they were well behaved. Nevertheless, it is a town mob and there are also to be considered the delegates from the country districts.

If the House looks at the matter in that light they get a very different impression of what happened at the kgotla. It would have been wrong in the view of the Government, after the pledges which have been given, to impose a chief on the tribe. The aim is for the tribe to reach a rough degree of unanimity— in other words, that there should be an overall feeling of the tribe in favour of an appointment. The officer who administered the kgotla felt that that degree of unanimity, which both sides of the House require, was not achieved. On the other hand, it is equally false to say that Rasebolai was rejected out of hand or that there was unanimous support of Seretse. The situation at the kgotla was that there was a greater expression of feeling for Rasebolai, both in the number of speakers and even more in the weight of the speakers, than there was for Seretse, but that was not sufficient to justify the kgotla in deciding that Rasebolai had been elected.

Perhaps I may pass to the suggestion that the appointment of Rasebolai to native authority may lead people to think that we have been guilty of sharp practice. Let me assume that everybody in the House wishes the Bamangwato tribe to settle down and to achieve peace and prosperity, and let me also assume that if I can satisfy the House that the appointment of Rasebolai as Native Authority provides a very good chance of doing that, then hon. Members opposite would be willing to let us have that chance even though they did not agree that we had taken the right course. I am sure they want the tribe to settle down and to take up its natural functions of economic and other development, and I am sure that even if they thought we were wrong they would suspend their judgment and do nothing which would make conditions worse.

Reports from the Reserve and from Serowe are very encouraging. Let me tell the House why I say that. The news that Rasebolai had been appointed as native authority was very well received. In one case there were angry murmers in support of Seretse but in the outlying districts and in Serowe itself the decision was very well received.

Rasebolai has started to hold daily kgotlas, a thing which Europeans in authority could not do. At these kgotlas supporters of Seretse are attending and are asking for dispensation for such things as leave to sell cattle. Rasebolai has appointed what we might call his cabinet. We are very glad that the hon. Lady recognises the qualities of Rasebolai, and perhaps I may amplify the point for a moment by reminding the House that he is a man who is very much respected in the Reserve, respected also by his opponents. He had a very good war record, and I have here a lengthy quotation, with which I will not weary the House, from an account of the war service of the people of Bechuanaland in which a very great tribute is paid to Rasebolai by the author, who describes him as one of the outstanding Africans in the last war. I think we can all agree that we have chosen a very good man, a man who is respected and who has proved his sense of responsibility, his sense of duty and his loyalty.

There has been a very good start. Rasebolai is holding his daily kgotlas and, in appointing his cabinet, he has shown statesmanship and a complete lack of any kind of political vindictiveness. In fact he has no political attitude and therefore there is no ground for supposing that he would take it out of his enemies because I do not think he has any. In his cabinet, which he has announced this morning—I am not clear of the exact relationship between local time and Bechuanaland time—there are 13 appointments. Of these, six are royal headmen. I remind the House that five sons of Sekgoma were speakers in favour of Rasebolai at the kgotla and that the royal headmen come under the same class —and here they are supporting him. There are two supporters of Tshekedi who did not follow him when he exiled himself to another land. There are six others who went out with Tshekedi to the Reserve and there are three known supporters of Seretse and two who were supporters of Seretse. The 13 are thus roughly made up of six who went to the Rametsana, three pro Seretse, two who were pro Seretse, and of the others all or some spoke in the kgotla in favour of Rasebolai. There are two who were pro Seretse but went over and two who were pro Tshekedi but who remained in the Reserve.

I appeal to hon. Members earnestly not to say anything or to do anything which would stop the tribe proceeding to a satisfactory conclusion, even if they disagree with us. I am sure from the character of his speeches that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough has the good of the tribe at heart. He and I do not agree about the way to do things but I think we can agree that if there is a chance of a settlement he will give us that chance. Later, if he feels that the policy has not succeeded, it will be up to him to make his criticisms.

The hon. Lady said she did not propose to raise the fundamental question of the decision about Seretse. I may be anticipating, but the hon. Member for Eton and Slough may do so. I must say, as was said by the noble Lord in the announcement which he made in another place last week, as well as on other occasions in discussing the appointment of Rasebolai, that the Government are firm in their decision about Seretse. Seretse cannot go back as chief and until the chief is firmly settled and established he cannot go back to the Reserve. In my opinion I do not believe that any succeeding Labour Government can alter that decision. I believe it is an absolutely settled thing that the decision about Seretse is firm, and it is necessary that the Bamangwato should understand that because it is one of the essential conditions which they must realise.

The Government feel that they have come to the right conclusions about Seretse. The reasons are set out in the White Paper by the previous Government. I should like to correct a statement by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I did not notice it until this morning so that I have been unable to give him notice, but it is reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT that he said the exclusion of Seretse was for five years. That is not an absolutely correct statement. We all know what the position is. The exclusion from the chieftainship was made and the announcement in the White Paper by the Labour Government said it would be reviewed not less than five years hence—in other words it would not be reviewed until the expiry of five years. It is not true to say that the exclusion from the chieftainship was for five years.

It is not for less than five years but for exactly five years.

I do not think so. I will have a look. I think it was for not less than five years. It does seem to me that it is very important that hon. Members in this debate should give the new arrangement a chance. Rasebolai is a good man. Rasebolai is doing well. Rasebolai has summoned his daily kgotlas. He has made statesmanlike appointments to his cabinet. I do feel that anything said in this debate that might give the impression to the tribe either that the exclusion of Seretse was not final or that the appointment of Rasebolai was subject to any cancellation would be most unfortunate. I have found the reference to that time now. It says certainly not less than five years. That is what I thought I said.

It is a little ambiguous. Probably the hon. and learned Gentleman is right. It meant that at the end of that time the situation would be reviewed. I understood that at the end of five years it would be reviewed to see whether the banishment should be extended beyond the five years.

I think not. I was correct in saying it would not toe less than five years.

The banishment?

No, the review. The review would not happen before the end of that time, in not less than five years.

The hon. and learned Gentleman said Rasebolai's appointment was not subject to cancellation, but if I understood the Secretary of State correctly he said in another place that if somebody else were chosen as chief there would be then a transfer of power from Rasebolai to whomsoever was chosen as chief.

What I meant was that if as a result of this debate misleading information were sent to the Reserve to the effect that the whole thing was in doubt as to the appointment it would be most unfortunate. I do feel that very strongly. It is essential, if we can, to have a modicum of common approach in this debate to this establishment of the Native authority.

In our view the advantages of establishing an African as Native Authority are very great. Up till now a European officer has been head of the Reserve exercising the powers of Native Authority. He has had Europeans under him filling the posts which Rasebolai has now filled in the manner I have just told the House. It is impossible for the Europeans to enter the tribal life of the Africans and achieve that co-operation between the persons in charge of administering and the persons who are being administered that Africans can achieve. The House will readily think of the many day-to-day things that a Native Authority who is an African would be able to do, assisted by Africans in those responsible and subordinate posts, and which it was impossible for the European Native Authority to perform while he was filling that post.

That brings me to the questions which the hon. Lady has asked about economic development. I did not prepare for this debate with a whole list of figures and a detailed account of the economic life of the Protectorate and the Reserve. I refer the hon. Lady to the report of the Adjournment debate we had at Christmas, when I gave quite a few details about economic progress in Bechuanaland. I dealt with many of the questions in detail then. I will write to the hon. Lady some of the information she wants. I can say this now, that the Commonwealth Development Fund has allocated a large sum, just over £1 million, towards development in the reserve until 1956 for water, irrigation, soil conservation, education, all those usual basic services for the Africans.

While the dispute about the Baman-gwato succession has been in existence there has been difficulty in pressing forward economic development. There has also been difficulty in pressing forward with any kind of development politically. I would remind the hon. Lady of paragraph 20 of the White Paper which was issued by the Government of her own party in 1950. There it was hoped that local councils and other forms of associating native people with the administration of the Reserve would be possible while the chieftainship was in abeyance and a European was the Native Authority. In fact, it was found impossible to do that in the days when the hon. Lady's party were the Government.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what has been happening in other parts of Bechuana-land where there has been no succession dispute? We all know about the allocation from the Commonwealth Development Fund. What I asked was how much has been spent, and what progress is being made. We have not had a reply to that.

I think the actual amount is £576,000. I thought the hon. Lady was going to speak about the Motion in the name of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough, to which she appended her own name—

There is no such Motion before the House. That Motion is about the administration of the Reserve and about Rasebolai.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought that the hon. Lady was to talk about the subject of that Motion. I have had no notice of any kind of any other Motion.

There is no such Motion before the House. The Motion is about the Adjournment. I was talking about the administration of the Reserve. That is a reasonably wide subject. In any case, I gave the hon. and learned Gentleman notice yesterday that I was going to raise the political side and the whole question of the councils in Bechuanaland.

The Question before the House is, "That this House do now adjourn."

The only notice I have had is, that the Bamangwato were to be the subject of discussion. The hon. Lady gave me notice about the political side, I quite agree, but how she expects me in dealing with that to have all these economic facts as well I do not know. How on earth could I?

As the Commonwealth Relations Office is responsible for these Protectorates, as that is one of their main responsibilities, and one of their only administrative responsibilities, and as the hon. and learned Gentleman holds office in respect of that Department, I should have imagined that, had he been really interested in it, he would have had information about the general state of development even though he would not have accurate figures at his finger tips.

Obviously, one can make inaccurate statements if one does not have notes of such things but relies entirely on memory. That is the whole point of being given notice of what is to be debated. Were I to give inaccurate statements the hon. Lady would be the first to deplore and criticise. The ordinary Parliamentary decencies require that notice should be given of the subjects to be debated. I thought I was going to talk about the Bamangwato and the situation in the Reserve, but I have been presented with many questions concerning the whole of Bechuanaland. I think I should be mistaken if I were to try to answer them from memory at a moment's notice. I shall rest on that, and appeal to the House whether that is fair or not.

Now I come on to a point which the hon. Lady did say she was going to raise, the question of the Legislative Councils. She did give me notice of that. The situation is that we have to proceed slowly, and we must proceed within the framework of the African tribal life. That has been disrupted. The office of Chief has not been filled for so many years, and now that the office of Native Authority is filled we hope that we can proceed with the development of the local councils. This applies both to the economic and to the political sides.

The Chiefs allied with the Bamangwato tribe also expressed the view in the past that there was no possibility of any progress in the political field until the question of the Bamangwato succession was settled. We hope it will be settled in that sense, that the tribe will be at peace and that they will follow the rule of the Native Authority; that it will be settled in that way so as to allow for economic and political development. What is in our mind is, by a series of local councils to get the Africans interested in their local government; to give them more power with regard to administration in such things as their native treasury. It may not be within the knowledge of the House that Rasebolai has already announced that he intends to form committees of younger men who will be brought into consultations on questions of the Reserve.

If I may sum up for the House, I renew my plea that this appointment of the Native Authority should be allowed a fair chance. It is the best solution in an admittedly difficult situation. It is working well, and I hope that subsequent speakers will not add any fuel to the fire which will cause any doubts in the minds of the Bamangwato about the decision of the Government. Let those hon. Members who disagreed with their own party and their own Government about the original decision of Seretse reserve their fire for another occasion. Let us try to end this Session on a note of expectancy about this appointment.

I wish to comment upon the technique of making the kind of peroration we have just heard. I understand it from the hon. and learned Gentleman's point of view, and I would ask him to try to understand my point of view, perhaps I might say our point of view, even if he does not agree with us—and I think these are almost his own words—to see why it comes about in this way.

The hon. and learned Gentleman says to us, "You do not agree with Government policy. You think it is wrong. But give it a chance. Keep quiet. Do not say anything which will give anybody the impression in public that you do think it is wrong." That is rather a lot to ask, because we believe that over enormous areas of Africa, possibly over the whole area, the whole situation is headed towards a breakdown which is virtually inevitable.

We believe that the whole relationship between the white minorities exercising political rule and economic power over enormous African majorities sets up trends which, if nothing interferes with them, lead to disaster with an almost majestic inextricability. That is not because white minorities in Africa are, as individuals, more immoral than the white citizens of this country. It arises simply from what is common to the teachings of Christianity, or Freudian psychology and of Karl Marx.

I know that that is a curious trinity to put together. But taking what is taught about original sin, what Freud said about the power of the human, whatever it is— I do not know whether it is the brain, the ego, the super-ego, or what—to rationalise its own emotional preferences, and also what Karl Marx says about the power of the whole economic environment to impose certain decisions upon us, even contrary to our own reasoning power, it is almost inconceivable that over the whole area of East, Central and Southern Africa where white minorities now hold sway, and in which these Protectorates are situated, that Governments, unless something else intervenes, will take those steps which are necessary to advance and accelerate the advancement of the African majority in time to give to them confidence, so that the whole situation may develop harmoniously.

During the period of the Labour Government we on this side—I think I am right in saying almost all of us who are now present on these benches—felt that despite some mistakes and shortcomings, of which the mistake made in relation to Seretse Khama was by far the most serious—despite that we felt that the influence of Government was tending powerfully against the general trend to disaster, and that there was a good chance that it would be successful. We earnestly believe that the present Administration is, by all of its actions, reinforcing the trend towards disaster.

Yet now we are asked to say nothing; to give this course a chance. What does this mean? We believe this heads towards a breakdown. We believe that the relationships between the white minorities and the African majorities cannot continue. We cannot forecast in detail what form the breakdown will take, but on the other side of it we hope that the relationships between white people and Africans can be re-established. But relationships with what kind of white people? With white people who keep silent about all that is happening until it has happened?

Are we, step by step, to be told, "You think it is wrong here, but keep quiet about it. You think things are wrong there, but keep quiet about that, too"? On the other side of the breakdown, relationships will only be re-established through those white people who have spoken their mind betimes. Although I appreciate that the hon. and learned Gentleman could not possibly agree with all we say, I hope he will understand how some of us feel on this side of the House and what we conceive to be our duty in proclaiming that, in our view, what is done is wrong.

I am not very much impressed with the figures given about the number of speakers, because there is one thing we cannot assess, and that is how many of those who a fortnight ago spoke in favour of Rasebolai would have spoken in favour of Seretse Khama if there had been any chance of the Government allowing him to go back. We cannot judge it but it is a reasonable assumption that many of those who spoke for Rasebolai would do so on the grounds, "Well, the British Government are absolutely vetoing the one thing we believe and almost know would bring the tribe unitedly together. Therefore, we must say something for somebody who is next and do our best."

For this reason, I am not very much impressed with the figures given of the number of speakers. I still believe that even if there were some grounds for thinking that the reasons originally given for the five-year banishment for Seretse may have been valid, they were rather thin at the time. I believe that experience since has shown that we were all wrong. Perhaps I have suggested that a few of us on these benches have been more right than others, but I am not sure that we were.

If our views have been shown right and we have been proved right by events, then, by the same events, we have been proved wrong in that we did not express our views at the time in a way we should have done in voting for them on a suitable occasion. Therefore I feel that most of us in this House have been wrong over this matter and that the prestige of this country and the possibility of good relations with Africa would be improved if even now or as I believe when there is a change of Government Seretse Khama is allowed to go back and be given a chance to become the chief.

The hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) has said that we are trying to prevent criticism of the appointment which has just been made on the grounds that it would cause disunity if such criticism were made. I do not think that anyone has tried to prevent criticism. All that we wished, as the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) suggested, is that we should look to the future and not fasten all our attention and criticism upon an appointment which, from all points of view, was very reasonable and just; and that we should not encourage the people of the Bamangwato tribe, as the hon. Baronet did, to raise their glasses, or the African equivalent, to a "King across the water" when they have already backed up this new appointment and. indeed, welcomed it.

We have spent a long time in this House—20 hours to be exact and 450 columns of HANSARD—in discussing the affairs of what is one small tribe in one Protectorate in that part of Africa. I think that we should all be proud of that fact. We could also be ashamed, if as a result of all this debate, no decision of any sort was come to. We have come to a decision but it is an interim and not a final decision. I have no wish naturally, Mr. Speaker, to involve you in our controversy, but I cannot forbear quoting the words which you used in turning down the attempt of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) to move the Adjournment of the House on this very subject.

You said that the appointment of Rasebolai was only a step within a long story, and I do not think that it could be put more succinctly than that. We have done something by this decision but nothing final. What we have done is to lay down a considerable paving stone of certainty in a morass of uncertainty. On this small foundation the Bamangwato tribe now rests, and we who are their trustees have done something to restore the balance. To prove their case that this was a wrong step to take, and that it will cause more harm than it will cure, I think that the Opposition should show to us how it was wrong.

They could do so on three grounds. They could say that it was constitutionally improper; they could say that it was immoral; or they could say that, even if it is constitutional and morally right, Rasebolai was not the instrument to have chosen. May I devote my few remarks to examining their case upon those three grounds? First, that it was constitutionally wrong. I do not think that claim is upheld by the Opposition themselves. Certainly, the hon. Lady, in her speech, made no such attack upon my hon. Friend. We have the right as trustees of this tribe to appoint a native authority. We had no right to appoint their chief and we have not attempted to do so. Rasebolai will be able to exercise all the prerogatives, or almost all the prerogatives, of the chief but he is not the chief; in the words of the natives themselves he is not "clothed in the leopard's skin."

If it was constitutionally right and proper in March, 1950, for the late Government to exile Seretse Khama and his heirs and to put this territory under the direct rule of Europeans, why is it wrong now for the Conservative Government to restore a measure of self-rule to that same tribe and to give them back a native authority of their own race and colour?

I come now to the second possible line of attack—that it was morally wrong. In dealing with this I would say we have no more dictated to the Bamangwato whom they should have as their chief than the Labour Government dictated to Seretse Khama whom he should have as his wife. To prove a moral case against us, the Opposition must put forward the alternative which they themselves would have adopted had they been in our position at the time. They could have done only two things: they could have done nothing, or they could have recalled Seretse Khama to be chief of his tribe. If they had done nothing, they would have been prolonging the period during which this tribe was under direct European rule, and in doing that they would have been going against all the promises and intentions outlined in their White Paper of March, 1950. That White Paper, among other things, said this, in referring to the exile of Seretse and imposition of European rule:

"This is, however, a purely temporary expedient. … Steps will be taken to ensure that the inhabitants of the Reserve are again associated with the conduct of their affairs as soon as practicable."

Is that not exactly what we are doing now by the appointment of Rasebolai?

Would the Opposition, in our position, have allowed this tribe to remain under direct European rule for the minimum of five years mentioned in that White Paper, until, in fact, the whole case of Seretse had been reconsidered? If they had done so, I suggest very seriously that it would have been a retrogressive step by taking away from those people, whom we are all anxious should be educated in self-government, the possibility of self-government.

In taking the action that we have taken in appointing one of their own number, colour and race to this high position, just below that of chief, we have surely taken a progressive step which the Opposition cannot counter unless they deny the implication in the paragraph in the White Paper to which I have referred.

On the second alternative to restore Seretse—and the hon. Member for Gravesend said in so many words that he would do so now if he had the power—may I answer that particular point, too? To do so would, in the first place, be reversing the decision to which he personally may not have been part and to which I know the hon. Member for Eton and Slough objected at the time, but which the bulk of his party agreed to in March, 1950, when they had responsibility for our affairs.

Do they honestly believe that the return of Seretse now, under the aegis of the British Government, would increase or decrease the unity of the tribe? Do they believe that Seretse, arriving back with his wife Ruth and their child, would be received with the universal acclamation of the tribe? Do they believe that when Seretse died, the succession of the chieftainship would not become a matter of great controversy both here and in Africa, where questions of mixed blood always provoke quarrels of which we have already had examples?

If an injustice was done to Seretse it was not done by us. It was done, in the first place, by his own tribe and, secondly, by the Labour Government, and not subsequently by the Government of today. If the hon. Member for Eton and Slough intends to speak in this debate, I beg him not to persist too much in the championship of a man whose future can be reasonable and honourable provided that he is left alone. There comes a point when nobility becomes ignoble and when liberalism becomes illiberal. That point has been reached in the matter of Seretse Khama.

What future might he have? He himself might draw a lesson from the example of his own uncle, Tshekedi, a man who was exiled, who protested against his exile and then accepted it; a man who then returned to his own country under conditions, to which he agreed, that he would lay no further claim to the chieftainship of the Bamangwato Tribe and that he would play no part in politics. Since then Tshekedi has taken part as a member of the committee which went out under Mr. Gates. He is a man who has played his political cards not only well but with profound nobility, a man who is able to contribute to the future welfare of his tribe without ever having a chance of gaining its chieftainship for himself or his heirs.

The third possible line of attack upon the action which we have taken is that, though we may be morally and constitutionally in the right, Rasebolai was not the man whom we should have appointed to the job. In her opening remarks, the hon. Lady was good enough to say that she thought well of him or, at least, had heard no evil of him, and my hon. and learned Friend referred to his brilliant war record. Rasebolai is a man of royal blood. He is not unpopular. We have heard how well his appointment has been received in all the villages, and we may well remind ourselves of the contrast between the acceptance of Rasebolai and the riots caused in June, 1952, by the announcement that Seretse would never be allowed back to the chieftainship. Rasebolai is not an illiberal man. He is a man who has had many dealings with white and black, and throughout he has shown himself a master of diplomacy and circumstance.

Reference has been made to a war history which was written by a man who had no political axe to grind and could not possibly have foreseen that the person of whom he was writing at that time would one day occupy an important position in African history, as Rasebolai does now. I will quote one paragraph out of the many:

"It may justly be said that R.S.M. Rasebolai rendered a service to his people and to his Corps second to none; his fine sense of judgment and even temper, which were never ruffled by difficulty nor spoiled by success, together with his soldierly bearing, made him the ideal man. … He had not only all the real dignity of an African of good breeding, but he had a modesty of demeanour, and above all, that rarest of all things in the African, a capacity for understanding the white man."

This is the man whom we have now called to preside, at least temporarily, over the destinies of this troubled tribe, a tribe which contains about 20,000 Bamangwato and about 80,000 others who have been brought in by conquest or alliance and now enjoy the sort of status that the helots enjoyed in ancient Sparta. Could there be anybody other than Rasebolai who could bring together this curiously amorphous tribe, one which has been split by so many troubles in the past? I do not think so.

I do not want to deal, as I had intended to, with the questions which the hon. Lady raised about the economic and political future of the territory, except to say one thing. All the signs are surely that there is a growing together of the black and white elements in the Bechuanaland Proteotorate as a whole. We have an African Advisory Council and a European Advisory Council, and recently, I believe on the initiative of the Europeans, joint council meetings have been held. As the hon. Lady rightly said, Bechuanaland is one of the few territories in our Empire without a properly constituted legislative council. I think we both hope that this joint council will form the nucleus of an eventual permanent council of the type which both she and I desire.

The territory is in a terribly unsettled state. Distrust of our motives and our intentions has been spread not only among the Bamangwato, but among many of the neighbouring tribes. I support the appeal made by my hon. and learned Friend that the Opposition should not unintentionally or otherwise cause dissension among these people at the very time when there is a chance of unity. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, speaking in the debate on Central African Federation, closed by saying that, the Bill having become law, all of us, of all parties and all nationalities, should strive to make it work.

I make exactly the same appeal to all parts of the House in the case of the Bamangwato Tribe. Let us see how things work out. Let us see whether Rasebolai makes as good a ruler as we believe he will. Then, in a few years perhaps, we may see the tribe once more able to agree upon the chief whom it wishes to rule over it permanently.

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that nothing should be said in the House today which gives a false impression in African Bechuanaland about the intentions of Great Britain or public opinion here. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke officially on behalf of the Government. He will observe that there is no official spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. and learned Gentleman made some play with the fact that when the kgotla was meeting some speakers carried more weight than others did because they were "front bench" and not "back bench" speakers. Therefore, I hope he will note that he is deserted in that there is no official Opposition Front Bench speaker.

I hope he will also note that opinion on the Opposition benches reflects opinion in the wider Labour movement. I am in no position to prophesy, but I should be astonished if at the Labour Party conference in the autumn—that is our kgotla; it is our policy-making body —a resolution is not overwhelmingly carried expressing the distress of out people at the original decision of the Labour Government to banish Seretse Khama. The conference will not make its decision out of consideration for the past. It will not try to rake over past dissensions. It will be making decisions solely in the light of a future Labour Government. None of us knows when there will be another Labour Government but we are certain that it will be a matter of a year or two at the most.

The people of Bechuanaland must know what opinion is in this country Even if the matter is to be deferred for several years, there are still some important considerations which must be faced squarely in this House as well as in Africa. Some of us voted against the banishment of Seretse Khama at that time. It was against our own Labour Government that we voted, and that is a measure of the strength we feel on this subject.

I believe that the Government today are taking a most reactionary and dangerous step in trying to re-establish Rasebolai with all the authority of a chief, because we are quibbling over words when we say that because he does not wear some ceremonial garment he is not the Chief. In fact, all the Government are trying to do is to have Rasebolai accepted as leader of the tribe In this instance I believe that tradition and progress go together. Seretse Khama is the traditional chieftain, and also the person to re-establish among his own people the best hope of ordered progress in those parts of Africa.

Bechuanaland must know what future decisions are going to be made, because if Rasebolai can operate in the meantime simply as a custodian—and Seretse's banishment was originally for five years a the most—then the whole matter will be reconsidered, and if his people want him back a future Government here will no obstruct his return, which would be the way to minimise differences inside that tormented territory at the present time Let the tribe know that their hereditary chieftain will once again be submitted to them at some not too distant time in the future when they can decide. If at that time in the future they reject him that is their responsibility, but we feel that we have done a wrong and we must right that wrong.

There are three levels of this debate. The Minister tried to get the facts accurately stated about the recent kgotla. I am not going to discuss whether 14 voted for Rasebolai or whether 12 voted for Seretse Khama. That is almost irrelevant. I have watched a strike position deteriorate, not because the original reason which brought the men out was unjust, but because, as the weeks and the months passed, seductive speakers told the men that they could not have their wives and children starving, that obviously all wanted peace and a settlement and that all should do their best to get such a settlement.

The odd thing about human beings is that not only do they believe in material things but they have also values and principles. Again and again people will be found to take action against their own material interests because they think an injustice has been done. It is no use coming to us and saying, "Let us forget the original cause of all the trouble so that we can settle down when some kind of order will come through." I do not believe that even if opposition vanished inside Great Britain and other parts of the world, it will vanish inside Bechuanaland.

There has been talk about the administrative problem inside Bechuanaland. It is very important for the people there and also for us because have have the responsibility. We all want a settlement that will enable these people to go forward with progressive schemes, and I think in this case the person to do that is Seretse Khama, not because I am in favour of the hereditary principle, not because I have any passion for the principle of hereditary chieftainship, but because I believe that this particular chieftain has been put in his present position because he chose to marry an extremely distinguished woman of my own race.

Ruth Khama has not been brought into this debate, yet we must know she plays an important part in this matter. She is a very clever woman who has distinguished herself in her own life. Here you have two people who might have done so much to help inter-racial relationships in Africa. We have not to think in terms of the last 50 years but in terms of the next 50 years. Here we have a marriage of two people who are intrinsically worthwhile, and instead of an enlightened British Government standing behind them and easing their problem, we have subjected them to every kind of hardship and psychological and emotional strain so that they have to be as good as they are to survive.

The administrative problems inside Bechuanaland are important and we want the best possible way of solving them. We believe that Seretse Khama's return as president of his council would be on the side of every progressive measure that we together should try to carry forward. We have to remember that sometimes an injustice, though it may seem small in territory, in scale and in the number of people involved, nevertheless can become a symbol for the entire world.

It so happens that Seretse Khama's banishment is a symbol among both coloured and white people in Africa, America and anywhere else. I had a conference on African affairs in my constituency at the week-end. We gave a chance for questions to be put forward, and though there were few it is very worthy of note that when the questions came in they showed that the issue which dominates the British public's mind about Africa and which was repeated over and over again was, "What are we going to do with Seretse Khama, when is he returning to his tribe?"

Hon. Members opposite may think that foolish and they may object to it, but the fact is that progressive British public opinion feels we have behaved in a most reactionary way in this instance. We have it on our conscience and we believe we ought to stand behind a young couple like Ruth Khama and Seretse Khama, that that is the future way to improve inter-racial relations, and that we have here a unique opportunity of marrying together the best hopes of progress by seeing that the hereditary chieftainship in this instance is not victimised for behaving in the way of future values instead of being intimidated and overpowered by racial hatreds.

I think that a fresh voice in the innumerable debates on this subject, if not a fresh mind, may be acceptable to the House. I come to this subject with a comparatively open mind and I am, therefore extremely interested to hear from the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) and the hon. Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) that they are so certain that they are right in this matter that they are not prepared to let the course which the Government are now trying out to have a fair chance. That is the real burden of their speeches. The hon. Lady said, "I do not believe that the opposition"—meaning the opposition to Rasebolai—"in Bechuanaland will, in fact, disappear." I hope by that she did not mean that she did not want it to disappear.

The hon. Member will probably remember that what I said was that if Rasebolai could operate in the meantime on the basis of his merely being a custodian and that Seretse Khama might, in all probability, be returning in the next few years it would be more successful with the tribe than trying to say, as the Government spokesman did, that this is the end of the matter and that Seretse Khama will never return.

Instead of calming the situation, that seems to be the most irritating way of further irritating this tormented tribe, as the hon. Lady called it, and leaving them still in uncertainty and still unable to fix their loyalty upon somebody with a degree of permanency and with a chance for future stability. If the hon. Lady thinks that it is impossible for this tribe to fix their loyalty permanently upon someone other than Seretse Khama, then I beg of her to think that she may be wrong.

After all, if it is only possible that she is wrong, is it not worth trying it? Greater women than herself and greater men than myself and anybody in this House today have admitted from time to time, when the circumstances demanded it, that they may have been wrong, and were prepared to give the thing a chance. To calm the fears of the hon. Member for Gravesend, I would say that I do not think that is an immoral attitude to adopt, or somehow a derogation from one's duty.

Nobody felt more strongly between 1931 and 1935 than the present Prime Minister that the action then being taken by the National Government about India was wrong. Yet in 1935 he came to this House and said, "Well, I must give this a chance; I may have been wrong about it." If a man as great as that could take that attitude about India, then surely the Members of the Opposition can take the same attitude about Rasebolai and the Bamangwato Tribe.

Throughout the history of this country it has been one of our prides that we can, if necessary, after 20 hours or more debate, as my hon. Friend said, say, "Well, perhaps we were wrong. We have been beaten over and over again on this point. It is at least possible that we are wrong, so let us give the thing a trial." That is all that the Government are asking for at present, and I submit that it is not asking very much.

The alternative thesis is to keep going the present status quo of rule by district officers without any native authority and without any native rule at all, at least until the end of the five-year period. I do not think that the hon. Lady's suggestion about Rasebolai ruling for an interim period is a practical one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) said, what is wanted—and everybody admits this—is some surety now, not in five or 10 years' time, on which the future economic and political development of this area can be built. It is no good saying that we are to have another interim arrangement, that we are to put somebody in for a few months or a few years. What is wanted is a permanent arrangement.

The whole hereditary principle, which the hon. Lady dislikes so much in other cases, but likes so much here, is evidence of the fact that particularly among primitive people it is permanence and stability that is wanted most of all. To produce another interim arrangement is to fly in the face of all those psychological needs.

As I said, coming to this with a comparatively fresh mind, it seems to me that what the Government are asking today is so very little that only people with completely closed minds could grudge them what they ask. They are asking for a chance to see what they can do with a situation which they inherited and did not create, and it is considerably lacking in political magnanimity for hon. Members opposite not to grant them that small request.

The last subject which I had down for the Adjournment has been withdrawn. I see that hon. Members on both sides still desire to speak on this matter, and if it would suit the convenience of the House I would propose to call another speaker from both sides and postpone the ending of this debate for another half an hour or so, if that is agreeable to the House.

On a point of order. You say, Mr. Speaker, that you propose to call a speaker from each side of the House. Does that mean that after one from this side and one from the other has been called, you will conclude the debate?

I propose to call one on my left and one on my right and then the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway).

The hon. Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) has pleaded with hon. Members on this side to consider whether we may not be wrong on this subject, That seems a very peculiar appeal to make, because our plea to the Government is to consider whether, in fact, they may not have been wrong, as we believe the evidence which has piled up since the first action was taken by the Labour Government in this respect has proved. Every proceeding that has taken place in Bechuanaland since that time seems to confirm the criticism that was made of the original action taken by the Labour Government.

The hon. Gentleman, like the Minister, pleaded with us not to use any words that might cause difficulties in Bechuanaland, and we were asked to believe that the only way to operate was for the House to accept the decision taken by the Government and not to say anything that might cause difficulties. I seem to recall that words of a very similar nature were used by my right hon. Friend when he was the Minister in charge of this matter. In a debate on Tshekedi, my right hon. Friend said how dangerous it would be for the tribe if it were believed that Tshekedi was to be sent back and that his banishment was to be lifted.

But the Opposition did not exercise such restraint on that occasion. They pressed what was, in effect, a vote of censure on the Government. We had a full day's debate, and many passions were raised in the course of it. Therefore, it is really very strange that this appeal should be made by the present Minister.

There is rather a difference here. We have embarked on a course of action which is going well. Things are actually happening, and all I asked was that we should suspend judgment to see if things would continue to go well.

I will deal with that in a moment. I was recalling that on precisely this same kind of matter the Opposition went ahead, despite the difficulties which the spokesmen of the Government at that time said might be caused by so doing.

Reference to that debate makes us very doubtful about some of the information given to us by the Commonwealth Relations Department, because the burden of the claim made by the Minister at that time was that serious difficulties would be caused if Tshekedi went back. That argument has now been proved to be false and all the information presented to the House by the Commonwealth Relations Department on that occasion has been proved to be wrong. Tshekedi went back and none of the serious consequences foretold came about. Therefore, we have a distrust of such information. This attempt on the part of the Minister to try to diminish the evidence for the support of Seretse among the tribe is not new. We have heard it before. We heard it from the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor. But at nearly all the meetings that have taken place year after year, we have had evidence that almost the overwhelming majority of the tribe wanted Seretse back.

indicated dissent.

The Minister shakes his head. I am not altogether convinced that the evidence supplied to us by the Commonwealth Relations Department is really any better than that supplied by the correspondent of "The Times." It will take a lot to convince me about that, particularly when we know that much of the evidence submitted by the Commonwealth Relations Department on this point has proved to be wrong, as in the case of the return of Tshekedi.

I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the report in "The Times" of yesterday shows that the previous reports were corrected.

Oh, no.

If the hon. Gentleman looks at it, he will see that, in fact, the report was corrected by implication.

I read the report. I do not have it with me, but it seems that the Minister has read into it somewhat different implications than I have done. Certainly the impression which I still have from the report in "The Times," which I believe to be the correct impression, and which, I think, the Minister believes to be the correct impression, is that certainly a good majority of the members of the tribe, if they had their free choice, would still prefer to have Seretse back. That is the fact of the matter. We have had arguments from previous Ministers trying to diminish this evidence of support for Seretse, and yet it still continues to go on despite the temptations, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), of how people might be attracted away if they thought that the Government had made a final decision.

Now, I come to the second argument used by the Minister when appealing to us not to use incautious words. He says that things are going well, that this appointment has been received well, even by those who were the supporters of Seretse, and that they have acted with great restraint. I hope they go on acting with great restraint. But we have no right to trade on their restraint in order to continue perpetrating a gross injustice. The more restrained these supporters of Seretse show themselves to be, the more we should examine our consciences to see whether we are right.

One of the most impressive things I have read in the stories from Africa in recent years was the story of what happened in the South African election, when it was said to be a quiet election. In the few days before the election took place, stories were going around that there was to be a strike. Many of the leaders of the Africans ran considerable risks to appeal to the Africans not to take strike action and not to take violent action. They did that not because they had even any great hopes of what could be the outcome of the election, because both the parties campaigning in that election were very unfriendly to their claims; and yet these people, whom some would call not fully civilised, showed themselves much more civilised than the white people in an election, because in the circumstances they acted with great restraint. Certainly in that case we would have no right to say that because the Africans were restrained, therefore they did not feel deeply.

Equally, in this case, the Minister has no right to act upon the assumption that because they do not take violent actions, because they do not show their feelings violently, they do not feel any less strongly on that account. That would be a most dangerous principle for the Minister to put forward. Therefore, the more restrained that the supporters of Seretse are, the more we have an obligation to consider what is the claim they are making to us.

The Minister says that what the Government are seeking is a rough degree of unanimity in the tribe. It is the policy of two successive Governments that has destroyed the rough degree of unanimity in the tribe. Therefore, the responsibility rests on those who have been responsible for provoking this disunity. It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman justifying the morality of this action by comparing it with the morality of the action taken by the previous Government, because many of us claim that both actions were immoral.

Not merely do we claim that. When hon. Members who now occupy the other side of the House were sitting on this side, they also said it was immoral.

indicated dissent.

Not in the case of Seretse. What they said in the case of Tshekedi was that it was immoral to banish from his native land a man who had committed no crime. That is exactly what is happening to Seretse. There is no difference whatever in the injustice which is being done to the individual.

I remember a most impressive speech made by Lord Salisbury in another place, when he, who later became the Minister responsible for this action, said. "Expediency is a most dangerous counsellor" and made a moving appeal that all considerations of expediency, or even of what might happen in the tribe, must be laid aside in face of the simple demand that Tshekedi should be allowed to live in his own country. We are saying that Seretse Khama is not allowed to live in his own country, and he has committed no crime.

I was hoping that the Government might have said something more. Although we are all grateful to my hon. Friend who raised this matter, I certainly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock that this is not a closed issue. It cannot be allowed to be a closed issue because the question of whether men who have committed no crime should be banished from their native land cannot remain a closed issue. It is one that has to be fought.

I would only hope that the Government still would reconsider the matter. The Prime Minister, perhaps, might be the kind of person who would reconsider the issue in the light of what was once said by Edmund Burke, who did know something about relations in the British Empire at that time. He said that "Magnanimity is not seldom the highest wisdom." It is we in this country who have the duty to show magnanimity on this issue. The way we can show magnanimity is by saying that both sides, both Governments and both parties, committed a monstrous injustice and that we would seek to wipe the slate clean. I believe that if that happened, there is no Member of the House who doubts that the effect, not merely in the tribe but throughout Africa, would be of enormous advantage to the whole cause of good relations and co-operation between white and coloured peoples all over the world.

Perhaps the most significant feature of this debate is the complete absence of any Member of the Opposition Front Bench, who might normally be expected to put the official point of view of the Opposition on this matter. It shows that the debate has been raised primarily by a small group belonging to the Labour Party who are determined to pursue this matter to what may very well, and unknown to them, be a bitter end.

It is very interesting to those of us who have sat in the House and heard the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) to hear her lift aside the curtain of the future, not only the future after the next Election, but also the future that will take place at the Labour Party Conference in October. She told us that she would be very much surprised if in spite of the fact that, quite clearly, the Opposition Front Bench here do not consider it of sufficient importance to turn up for this debate, in spite of the fact that the platform at the Labour Party Conference will oppose, or, at any rate, look askance at, the motion that is to be discussed and passed there, it will be passed by the body of the hall.

We are on an Adjournment debate and are not discussing a Motion. I point out in fairness to our own Front Bench that it is not customary for an Opposition Front Bench speaker to take part in a debate on the Adjournment

In my experience it is customary for them, not, perhaps, to take part in the debate, but certainly to be present and to listen to the arguments, and if necessary, if they think it right, to support the point of view of their supporters behind them if they think that it carries weight. It is clear, however, that those who normally occupy the Opposition Front Bench do not consider that this is an appropriate subject for a debate of this sort. In that we entirely agree with them.

I wish, however, that the hon. Member for Cannock had raised the curtain a little further on the future political history. Would she tell us, for instance, who is to be the next Prime Minister if the Labour Party are to be returned after the next Election? Would she tell us what is to be the policy of the Government apart from this one item regarding Seretse? The truth is that the hon. Lady and hon. Gentlemen on the other side who have spoken—I exclude the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White)—have not been speaking for the great mass of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

What is more, they have tried to give an impression that the great majority of the Parliamentary Labour Party are opposed to the Government's handling of this situation when that is not so. That is borne out by the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East, because whereas at the beginning of the debate it appeared that her speech would be directed to be a criticism of my hon. and learned Friend the Undersecretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and of the policy of the Government with regard to Rasebolai, by the end of her speech she had moved on to quite different grounds. Indeed, she had accepted—and we welcome that—the policy of the Government in appointing Rasebolai to be the Native Authority. What is more, she had turned constructively and properly to considering what were the next steps that lie ahead. That, surely, is the right way in which this should be tackled.

I can only feel that the display given by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot), and the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock—I do not want to anticipate the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway)—is a further attempt to confuse the Bamangwato Tribe on this very important issue and to raise the hopes of that unfortunate young man Seretse Khama. They know quite well that they have no justification for doing so, but that it will add to the very great problem and difficulties which already exist in Africa and stir the fires of racial intolerance for which they have no right nor justification.

The hon. Baronet the Member for Grayesend (Sir R. Acland) said that Christianity, the philosophy of Freud and of Karl Marx all pointed towards a deterioration in the position in Africa and the relation between the races. It is monstrous for any hon. Member, on either side of the House, to use arguments of that sort, apparently without conceding the philosophical conflict between the three points of view which he quoted. If we are to have our judgment in this matter affected by arguments of that sort, quite clearly this House will no longer be taken seriously by thinking people outside.

What is more, if we are to have a small group—a "ginger group" or whatever they call themselves—of dissidents in the official Opposition using their position to try to portray that they represent the great mass of the Members of their party in this House—which they know they do not—or the great mass of the people of this country—which equally they know they do not—they are making the procedure of this House and debates of this House carry much less weight overseas than they should. It is quite clear that the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides are behind the decision of Her Majesty's Government to take a step forward to resolve the political problems of the tribe in the Protectorate by appointing Rasebolai.

We believe that this is a correct decision in the interests of the tribe, in the interests also of the progress of the whole of that Protectorate. It is also a step forward towards resolving some of those fearful difficulties with which we are faced in Africa as a whole and which many speeches to which we have listened in this House, not only on this occasion but on past occasions, from hon. Members below the Gangway, have done so much to make more complicated and more dangerous.

I believe that in Africa one can only take one short step at a time to resolve the problems which face us. It is no good thinking that we can get a pattern solution for all those problems at one fell swoop. What we can do is to take it step by step. In that way I think we shall help towards a successful future for that continent.

May I begin by assuring the hon. and learned Gentleman the Undersecretary that I shall try to speak today in a way which will help the welfare of the Bamangwato tribe? I want to assure him that in the whole of this matter that is my concern and that personal considerations are not my concern. I shall do my best to forget the very provocative speech which has just been delivered by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) which seemed to me very unworthy of him on an occasion of this kind.

We have raised this debate because we believe that behind it are very fundamental issues. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary has suggested that "The Times" report of the proceedings of the recent kgotla were an inaccurate reflection of what occurred there. I only want to say to him that I also have received very detailed reports of what took place at the kgotla and that the reports which have reached me are nearer to the interpretation of "The Times" than the interpretation which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave today. I shall not stress that because I agree with him that when political conferences take place—when kgotlas take place—it is difficult to judge the real mind of a movement, or of a people, by the number of speeches which are delivered, or even by the murmurings of applause.

Does the hon. Member think that the phrase:

"another of the endless succession of Seretse supporters"

was correct?

There was a series of supporting speeches. The point which I raised in my supplementary question was the remark by "The Times" that one thing was clear from this kgotla. It was that the people did not want Rasebolai as their chief.

Our main complaint against the Government on this issue is that after the kgotla had met and—I will not put it more strongly than this—when it was quite clear there was nothing like unanimity as to who should be their chief or their leader, within a few days the Government appointed Rasebolai, one of the candidates who was not accepted and who, in my view, was decisively not accepted, as the Native Authority with, to use the term used by the hon. and learned Gentleman, "chiefly powers." As the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) said, while Rasebolai is not to be the nominal chief, he will, in fact, carry out the duties of a chief. I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was an affront to the tribe, after that kgotla had met and after it had declined to appoint Rasebolai as chief, that within a few days he should have been made the Native Authority with chiefly powers.

I will refrain from saying anything which is likely to make the administration of Rasebolai more difficult. I cannot judge, but the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I cannot accept his assurance as to what has happened since Rasebolai was appointed Native Authority. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that Rasebolai had begun well. Just as I came into the Chamber I received a very long report of the situation in Bechuanaland in which it is quite clear that the supporters of Seretse—who I think must be regarded still as the great majority in the tribe— maintain in the strongest possible way their opposition to the appointment of Rasebolai as chief.

I will read two or three sentences:

"The Bamangwato neither want Rasebolai as their chief nor as their Native Authority. They regard him in the true political sense as a usurper, for he has been instrumental in the exile of Chief Seretse Khama against the support and the will of the majority of the tribe."

Whose views are those?

This document is signed by Mr. L. D. Raditladi, who is acting as secretary of the supporters of Seretse Khama. and I have no doubt that they are the vast majority of the tribe.

After one further reference I will leave that matter, so as not to prejudice the attempt which is being made. My further reference is to the statement about the cabinet which Rasebolai has gathered around him. As I understand, it consists of 13 members but invitations have been given to only three supporters of Seretse Khama. I do not think that there is any doubt about the view of the majority of the tribe on this matter. I suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman that this does not indicate that Rasebolai is seeking to undertake these duties in the broad way which he suggested. With those comments on the present experiment I will be content.

I turn to the much more fundamental issue of the right of the tribe to select their own chief. Like the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee), I have no reverence for hereditary titles. That is not the ground upon which those of us on these benches have supported the claim of Seretse Khama to return to the Bamangwato as their chief. The ground on which we have supported it is that of democracy. A tribe have the right to appoint their own leader.

The difficulty occurred only because Seretse Khama, when he was in this country, married a white woman. About that I want to say that there is a feeling among Africans against mixed marriages just as there is among a certain section of whites. The first kgotla of the Bamangwato was uncertain about it.

No.

The first kgotla of the Bamangwato was uncertain about it.

The first kgotla of the tribe was overwhelmingly against Seretse. That is on record.

I said that the first kgotla was uncertain about it. I used that phrase deliberately because of all the circumstances under which that kgotla met.

At the first tribal meeting in November, 1948, when it was still thought that Seretse might give up his European wife, there was an almost unanimous condemnation of the marriage.

I used these words deliberately. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman does not think that I was trying to mislead anyone. I used the word, "uncertain", because in the circumstances in which that kgotla mot it is very doubtful whether the decision which the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted represented the considered view of the tribe as a whole. It was only in that sense that I used the word "uncertain."

I wanted to say that, the first kgotla having decided in that way, in the series of kgotlas which followed the tribe declared their desire that Seretse Khama should return to them as chief. I regard that as quite remarkable. I am one of those who believe that in the human family the future race will develop from the intermingling of peoples and of colours. It is only when we have that kind of relationship between the peoples of the world that we are likely to advance to the ultimate human family.

I believe that for this African tribe, with the prejudices which there were among Africans as among whites, to say, "We will still welcome Seretse as our chief; we will welcome Ruth"—as they did when she went into their midst—was a great pioneer decision. Any Government of vision which had the future in mind would have welcomed it as such and would have said that a great historical step in human relationship had been taken.

Instead of that, not only the Government of hon. Gentlemen opposite but the Labour Government as well decided that, in the circumstances, despite the desire of the Bamangwato themselves, Seretse Khama should not return. The Labour Government's decision, despite what has been said on the benches opposite, was limited to the period of five years. I do not want to be dogmatic on this point, but I doubt whether any of my hon. Friends would disagree that opinion in the Labour Party, which is reflective of opinion throughout the country, has changed on this matter of Seretse Khama to the point that, if Labour again came into office, the movement and our party would require the Government to change the decision which they reached when they were in office earlier.

I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman who appealed to me to regard this as a closed matter that I admitted to Lord Swinton when we met him in deputation that it would be possible for the Government to break the spirit of the Bamangwato Tribe and that they might, by the imprisonment of leaders and by the condition of vacuum and deterioration in the Bamangwato, bring them to a point where they said, "Yes, we will give up Seretse." But I also said that if a power and a strength could destroy a spirit in that way it was nothing of which to be proud: it was something of which to be ashamed. It could be done after years and years if the Government had the power to do it; but so long as those people desire that Seretse Khama shall return to be their leader they have the right to make the decision. They have the right to make the choice, otherwise we are tearing up in this House all democratic principles and all the beliefs in democratic choice about which we so frequently boast.

Bechuanaland is on the frontier of the Union of South Africa. We have often condemned the practice of the colour-bar and of racial discrimination in the Union. The most effective way to influence events in the Union is to give a model in our own Protectorates of racial equality and progress in educational, social and economic affairs. Seretse Khama has become the symbol of racial equality throughout the world. As long as he is excluded from Bechuanaland we have no moral right to condemn racial discrimination in the Union of South Africa. We ourselves, in our own area, are committing the very crime for which we condemn them.

I want to see Bechuanaland and the Protectorates moving towards race equality and social, educational and economic advance. I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I think he has the motive in the present decision of seeking to end that vacuum, and hoping, by ending it, that social, educational and economic advance can take place. It may be an interim solution; but I say to him, finally, that, if there is to be social, educational and economic advance, the first condition of it must be to secure the cooperation of the Bamangwato Tribe. That co-operation will not be forthcoming as long as we do not recognise their right to choose their own leader and choose their own chief.

If we are to make Bechuanaland and the Protectorates an example of the kind of society which we would like to see in South Africa, then our first duty is to stretch out our hands to the Bamangwato people and say to them, "Yes, we recognise the democratic principle that you have the right to choose your own leader, and choose your own chief; choose him." We shall then find that they will respond in co-operating with us to make these Protectorates the kind of example of equality and of social, educational and economic progress which is the desire of us all.

I wish to bring the House back from the far distant climes of Bechuanaland and the other places which we have been discussing, to something much more homely—the problems resultant from the flood which took place on the memorable night of 15th August, 1952, in North Devon and West Somerset.

It is now over eight months since that disaster occurred, but I have not ventured to bring this problem before the House earlier because I felt, first, that plans for reconstruction of the magnitude involved in this case, and incurring an expenditure of about £1 million, must, of necessity, take time to mature and to be considered; and, secondly, that since that occasion there has been a much more disastrous flood on the East Coast, which has taken up the attention of the House on several occasions. But I now feel that the time has come to ask what the situation is, at any rate, as far as the neighbouring towns of Lynton and Lynmouth, in my constituency, are concerned, because they were badly ravaged. When I say that, I must not mislead the House, because I refer only to Lynmouth as being badly ravaged, because Lynton was completely untouched except for the loss of trade.

The problem falls under two headings. The first is the question of physical reconstruction and the re-development of Lynmouth, and the second is the problem of financial relief. To deal with one at a time, I should like to say that, as a result of two Questions which I put down last Monday and Tuesday to the Ministers of Transport and of Housing and Local Government respectively, both of which were couched in terms of criticism of the two Departments concerned for failing to get on with the job quickly enough, as a result of the very full reply which I received from the Minister of Housing and Local Government, I am quite convinced myself that, on the part of these two Ministries, there has been no undue delay, considering the magnitude of this problem.

The plans were received by the Ministry only on 2nd March, which was not very long ago. It took six months before the plans actually arrived there, and that, of course, is another matter. There may have been some delay during that period of six months, but that is not the responsibility of the Ministry. In my opinion, the Ministry have dealt with it with speed and efficiency since 2nd March, and that brings me to the first question which I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary.

How far has that plan now progressed in regard to its being approved? Has it been approved by all Departments concerned, or not, and is it, in fact, only awaiting Treasury approval of the amount of money to be spent? The second point arising from that is on what date shall we hear that the plan has been approved? Will it be one month from now, more than that, or may we even hear today that it has been approved? It follows that, when the plan is approved—and this, in my opinion, is perhaps the most important point for the local authorities concerned—the Devon County Council, which is the planning authority, and the Lynton Urban District Council, which is the coast protection authority, will want to know, at the same time, what are their financial responsibilities.

Will there be a 100 per cent. grant in payment for these works, or will some portion—and, if so, what portion—fall on the ratepayers respectively of the county or of Lynton? There will be further delay until the local authorities know their commitments in their respect, and it is quite reasonable to expect that they cannot embark on huge works involving an expenditure of £1 million until and unless they know how far they are financially committed.

As far as the Lynton Urban District Council, which is the coast protection authority, is concerned, they are assuming that they will get a 100 per cent. grant. The reason for that assumption is that certain remarks were made on the memorable occasion when the Minister of Housing and Local Government came down on 20th August, only a few days after the disastrous flood, and personally looked at the damage, spoke to the people and addressed the local council in the Council Room. The impression derived from these remarks was that they would get a grant of 100 per cent., which would place none of the cost on the rates. The visit of the Minister, and the subsequent visit of the Minister of Transport, had a very large psychological effect, because it restored morale and gave fresh hope that, eventually all would be well again. I do not believe that that hope was misplaced.

As far as physical reconstruction is concerned, I should like to remind the House that, in the Minister's reply to my Question last Tuesday, he said:

"In the meantime, so that urgent work may proceed quickly, I have already agreed that tenders may be obtained for the reconstruction of the harbour arm and the Rhenish Tower, and detailed proposals for a section of the river works have also been prepared and submitted by the Devon River Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 1871.]

That answer was true so far as it went, but at that time the tenders referred to were at the Ministry. The plans for the dredging of the Lyn Estuary and the rebuilding of the causeway were at that time—and so far as I know, still are— at the Ministry. When will these tenders and plans be approved and when is it hoped to return them to the Lynton Urban District Council?

A further slight cause of delay with the urgent work which the Minister hoped might proceed quickly is that in the main plan of reconstruction of Lynmouth there is contemplated a new road which will run between the existing houses on the left bank of the River Lyn and the river itself. That will entail the demolition of some houses on the right bank of the river, and will also considerably influence the plans of the coast protection authority, because when that new road is constructed it will run along the river and into the area which is to be replanned and rebuilt by the coast protection authority.

The two things dovetail together. As soon as the main plan is decided and approved, financial approval is given and the proportion of assistance is agreed, the coast protection authority and the planning authority can get on with the job. Since I started writing these notes I understand that a tender for £29,500 for rebuilding the harbour arm has been approved over the telephone. I am most grateful for that and for the speed-up which it indicates.

Turning to the second part of the problem, with regard to the financial relief of those who have suffered in this disaster—which is perhaps the more important of the two and will certainly be of more interest to the public—I ventured to raise this matter on the Adjournment because some of the people who have subscribed to the fund will receive a shock. On 18th August the Press, throughout the country, were good enough to publish an appeal over the signatures of the Lords Lieutenant of Somerset and Devon. That appeal was elastically worded. I have it here and I may quote from it later. It is probably true to say that never in the history of this country has an appeal of this kind been answered by so overwhelmingly generous a response.

I was on the spot for days and days and I saw money and goods in relief of distress literally pouring in, not only from all over this country but from the Empire, the Commonwealth and even from foreign countries. In cash alone the figure raised amounted to £1,341,160 9s. 8d. What has happened to that money? Where is it, what has been done with it? By 14th May last— which is the last date about which I have details—I am given to understand that the amount paid out was £434,669. That leaves very nearly £1 million still to be paid out, and at the rate of interest at which it is invested I am told it increases by about £20 a day, and probably more.

The payments out cover 1,291 payments in full settlement and 89 interim payments. All those payments have been made for what is known as direct physical losses. If one's house was swept away one put in a claim and one received payment, but payment is not made in respect of indirect losses. I was informed by the chairman of the committee dealing with the payment out that no less than £715,136 had been applied for.

The public are very disquieted about this. I have seen hundreds of letters on this subject. In the office of the Lynton Town Clerk, for example, there is a pile of letters a yard high. I want to quote just one letter which I saw in the "Western Morning News" a few days ago, which is typical of the feeling of the people. It is signed by a person I have never met or heard of—Mr. S. W. Sanders, of Sidmouth—and it is dated 16th May. It says:

"The information published in your columns about the position at Lynmouth discloses a situation which defies belief. In common with a large number of others, I sent a personal donation to the disaster fund. I was not concerned with the method of distribution as much as with the desire that everybody who suffered hardship in any way should be helped.

It seems to me that only a matter of degree separates the cottager who lost his all and the hotelier who, through causes beyond his control, is being driven into bankruptcy, but that a fund which now stands at nearly £1 million and is still growing daily can be permitted to stagnate … while such a state of affairs exists, indicates a sad lack of perspective and of the necessary ability on the part of those who are charged with the administration."

The final sentence is:

"The money was raised for the relief of the distressed in the flooded areas. It was a free gift by free people and it should be devoted to the needs of those for whom it was subscribed."

That letter puts in a nutshell what is thought by the people who know about it and what others will think when they read about this debate. Why is it that the hotels are facing ruin?—because that is absolutely true; I am not exaggerating. I went there last Saturday and I compared the bookings with the bookings at this time last year. They are infinitesimal. The people who are running the hotels and boarding houses of Lynton and Lynmouth are facing ruin.

I know a small hotel where a young couple started in business and they are now trying to sell it because they are young enough to get jobs elsewhere, which is what they have done. They face on their investment of £10,000 a capital loss of 50 per cent. or more, even if they accept the highest offer made. I have a letter from an elderly couple whom I have known for years. They are a most honourable, honest couple. They run a bigger hotel. The lady writes:

"I as a committee member of the Lynton and Lynmouth Hotel and Guest House Association (in conjunction with other members) am experiencing the utmost difficulty in meeting financial obligations, and if admittance of the claims is not recognised it will ultimately result in the closure of this hotel and of other local establishments."

She goes on:

"I am contemplating this drastic step after 27 years in the hotel business…"

Finally, she says:

"Hopes that the Easter week-end would produce signs of recovery were not realised … last year I accommodated 65 guests compared with only five this year. Advance reservations to date amount to £340, and for corresponding period last year £3,000 approximately."

Many of the people are too old to go off and start a new life. Why should they? They want something to tide them over this desperate time of waiting, and they cannot get it. They have spent as much as they can afford on advertising and they can now afford no more. The Association applied to the huge fund for £6,000 for an advertising campaign throughout the country. The application was turned down on the grounds that the loss was an indirect one.

That is the situation. Why has it arisen? Is it due to the present state of the law? There is a legal quibble as to whether indirect losses, as opposed to physical losses, may or may not be paid from the fund. I and others who subscribed hold that it never entered people's heads whether the loss was a physical or an indirect one. All the people thought of was the human suffering of one kind or another. I believe the money was given for all the purposes and not for only one purpose.

The problem is to be solved shortly in the High Court so I must not say any more on that aspect, but I would point out that the result of the situation is that the plight of the unfortunate people is simply desperate. They do not know whether they should sell out, borrow more money if they can do so, in the hopes of being able to pay it back one day, or live on the money which they already owe and cannot pay back. The sooner the case conies before the High Court the better.

I maintain that indirect losses were allowed for in the wording of the appeal. It says:

"…for the relief of all who have suffered."

Then it says

"The material damage will run into a figure far beyond the resources of the inhabitants of these stricken valleys. In human suffering it can perhaps never be computed."

It specifically mentions the holiday makers who do not live there, including the Boy Scouts who lost their lives, and says:

"These need help every bit as much as our own people, and for that reason we do ask the whole country to support this fund."

Would it surprise the House to know that the small sum of £500 was requested for the parents of the children who lost their lives, and that was also turned down because it was considered that no direct financial loss had been incurred as the children were not wage earners? I believe that to be contrary to the spirit of the appeal as well as to its wording.

One is inclined to inquire whether it is the trustees who are at fault or whether it is the committee. I am absolutely certain that the two trustees, both of whom I know, are men of the highest possible repute, and that their one inclination would be to pay the money out if they were allowed to do so. Exactly the same goes for the chairman and members of the committee. I know the chairman intimately and many of the members of the committe every well. They would pay out at once if they thought they could, but when they are dealing with a vast sum of publicly subscribed money which is not their own, they naturally take great care that they do not infringe the law.

That is the essence of the matter. What is the law on the subject? The public do not know it. I certainly do not know it. I wonder whether it would not be a useful investigation after the High Court case has been decided to find out exactly what the law is and to ascertain if it needs simplifying and clarifying. We should like to know how the law stands with regard to charities, whether the Charity Commissioners must be consulted, and what latitude the committee has.

I do not know how far this comes within the power of the Minister.

Perhaps it does not, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it comes within the terms of the debate.

I rather think that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about would require legislation.

I was suggesting that an investigation might take place, but in view of what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will leave that.

We do not know what the High Court case will cost, but I am absolutely certain that the money was not subscribed for expensive law suits and expensive administration. Cannot the Government sanction some form of interim payment from one source or another—I do not mind where it comes from—for the time being until the case is heard in the High Court?

Even if the debate does nothing else, I hope it will draw attention to the fact that the situation in Lynton and Lynmouth is serious. There is no doubt that the physical reconstruction can be concluded in Lynmouth probably at the end of a year or a little longer. Lynmouth was hit very hard. Lynton suffered no physical damage at all; but the people there are ostracised and bankrupt although the town is as beautiful as ever it was. It is exactly the same as it was before. That goes for other towns in North Devon which cater for the tourists, little towns like Woollacombe and bigger towns like Ilfracombe, Combe Martin and even Barnstaple. They could do with a little assistance from holidaymakers. I do ask the public to consider going down there to meet the very people to whom they subscribed so generously in the hour of their greatest need.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devon, North (Brigadier Peto) has put his case persuasively and skilfully, especially skilfully in managing to speak of legislation within the rules of order. He managed to compress within his speech a number of points about Lynmouth and the disaster. I should like to say how grateful I am to him for giving me notice of some of the questions he intended to raise, for that enables my answer to be more comprehensive than otherwise I could have made it.

I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend sufficiently distinguished in his speech between emergency work and permanent work. From what he said the public might think that the remedial measures necessary for clearance and temporary restoration had not been carried out, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that the emergency works were set in hand immediately after the flood, as distinct from the permanent rehabilitation of the area. I think that ought to be made quite clear.

My hon. and gallant Friend asked about the permission to carry out major works. He was very generous to the Ministry in saying that there was no delay on the part of the Ministry. This scheme of permanent reconstruction was received from the Devon County Council on 2nd March. It involves pretty major works, river work, roads, bridges, coast protection, sewerage, and the demolition of buildings. As I think my hon. and gallant Friend knows, before taking up my present highly paid post I was a modest civil engineering contractor, and so it is from personal knowledge that I would assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the time when thought ought to be spent on such works is at the planning stage, not afterwards. One of the reasons for the very high costs of some civil engineering works is that soil tests were not taken or bore holes sunk to begin with, for the knowledge that a consulting engineer needs in the preparation of his plans is very great. I have not gone into these particular plans personally, but I know of cases where hundreds of thousands of pounds have been wasted because there was inadequate preparation at the planning stage.

This scheme was carefully examined by the different Departments concerned, and we want to deal with it speedily. My hon. and gallant Friend asked when a decision is to be announced, and whether it would be in more than a month or in more than two months. We hope to be able to announce a decision on the scheme in the next two or three weeks, certainly within five weeks. I hope that that speed will not unduly distress my hon. and gallant Friend.

He asked how far the plan had gone, and what will happen about the money and what are the grants in aid going to be, and what were the Lynton Urban District Council going to get. I gather that they thought they were going to get a 100 per cent. grant. I should not like to comment upon that because it is under discussion now, but I would observe, after neary two years' experience in this Ministry, that every local authority expect a 100 per cent. grant on every and any occasion.

I should not like to belittle in any way the difficulties which the Lynton Urban District Council will have to face. At the same time I make no comment at all upon what the sum will be, but the decision will be taken and the Devon County Council, the Devon River Board and the Lynton Uban District Council wil all get to know their respective shares of the expenditure. We hope to deal with it reasonably quickly. The Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Agriculture, my Department and the Treasury, all the Departments concerned, have a meeting at the end of this month when they hope a decision will be taken. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that it will be dealt with as sympathetically as possible.

Would my hon. Friend answer the first question? How far has the plan gone? Is it with the Treasury or has it not got as far?

That is really an internal Government matter. It is not a question of one Department's holding the matter up. It will be joint Government action. The Government stand or fall by collective responsibility, and it would be wrong for any one of us to attribute blame to a particular Department, although the Treasury does come in for its share of abuse from hon. Members in all parts of the House. The decision will be a joint one.

As to the interim work, a fair amount has already been approved. A tender submitted by Lynton Urban District Council for the reconstruction of the harbour arm and the Rhenish Tower has been approved. This work will be put in hand at once. My hon. and gallant Friend asked when, and the answer is absolutely at once. We have also told them that they can go to tender for the reconstruction of part of the sewerage system, and the Lynmouth Council and the River Board have been getting on with the preparation of detailed proposals for the most urgent parts of the river works. They have submitted a detailed plan for that section of the work which is on the Somerset side of the river.

My hon. and gallant Friend says that approval has been given to a tender on the telephone. My capacity for astonishment, I thought, was exhausted, but I now find it is not. I hope whoever got that permission on the telephone will hasten to get it confirmed in writing. We had troubles caused by this sort of thing over the requisitioning of houses during the other flood disasters. I would hear two different accounts of one and the same telephone conversation and they would bear no relation to each other. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will communicate with his constituents and urge them for goodness sake to get confirmation in writing.

The only matter outstanding on the actual work itself, apart from the main scheme, is the tender for dredging the channel into the harbour. We are doubtful whether it would be wise to do this now, since there is a danger of the dredged channel being filled up again by debris which may be brought down the river while the main river works are going on upstream. It may be better to leave this until the main river works are finished. It is a technical matter, but I am sure that that is common sense, and that my hon. and gallant Friend will see that it is.

I come to the point now about the summer visitors. I sympathise with the people at Lynton and Lynmouth, but I observe that Devon and Cornwall are finding slight difficulty in regard to summer visitors at the present because of the high cost of the railway fares. However, whatever we in the Ministry may do, whatever the local authorities may do, whatever the civil engineering contractors may do, it will not be possible to do very much for those two towns this summer.

One town.

I am sorry. I mean for Lynton this summer. It will take some time to carry out the works even when the plans have been approved. Heavy works of this nature do take some time to get going, because they are tricky, technical jobs.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when considering how to carry out those heavy works, taking as much as possible by sea rather than by road?

I do not quite know what particular point my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind. I do not know what sort of stuff he wants carried by sea, but, normally, for river works the difficulty is not so much the weight of materials but the technical nature of the job. Such heavy works proceed slowly by stages because the civil engineer's job is a highly technical one, rather than because it involves weighty materials. As I was saying, whatever we may do, we shall not do a great deal this summer.

The last point my hon. and gallant Friend made was with regard to the appeal fund. He asked what the Government could do. First, we cannot discuss what will happen in the High Court because the matter is sub judice, and there is therefore very little I can say. The second reason I cannot say very much—and I am reluctant to say this—is that the responsibility is not that of my right hon. Friend or the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Whilst one hates to avoid difficult questions in that way, I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will see the force of the argument. For those two reasons, I hope he will forgive me from commenting on it.

May I say in conclusion that we have, and always ought to have, great sympathy for Lynton and for the Lynmouth disaster. When a place which is not very wealthy has a disaster of this nature suddenly overtaking it, when its financial resources are strained in carrying out the work involved, things are made awfully difficult. It is in that spirit that these discussions will be taking place with Government Departments, when the Government will announce its decision on the financial considerations involved.

I wish to make it quite clear at the outset that throughout the debates on the Transport Bill we on this side of the House were opposed to the setting up of the Road Haulage Disposal Board, but now that the Board has been set up we feel it incumbent upon us to raise in the House this afternoon the composition of that Board and the functions on which it will be engaged.

We have believed all along that the Transport Commission, as a public authority, should be given the responsibility of disposing of that part of its undertaking which the Bill provided should be disposed of, and throughout the proceedings we tried to improve the composition of the Board and to make it a disinterested body. We suggested a change in its personnel, and we suggested, further, that in no circumstances should any member of the Board be interested in road haulage. But the Minister, in his rather brusque way, rejected all the Amendments we brought forward.

I recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) suggested that the Disposal Board should be made more of a judicial or semi-judicial body, and the Minister replied:

"It"—

that is, the Disposal Board—

"demands a body of experts used to the industry who will be in a position to understand how the question of the disposal of these assets can best be solved as business propositions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1698.]

Before the Bill was on the Statute Book the Minister invited nominations from interested parties, among whom was the Road Haulage Association. The Road Haulage Association, blown out with the successful lobbying on the Minister in which it had been engaged, rushed in and publicised the nominations. When we saw that their two nominees were very much interested parties, one being a director of a finance company interested in financing the purchase of the lorries, Questions were asked in this House by my hon. Friends, but the Minister, though pressed, refused to give any assurance whatsoever that he would not appoint to the Board persons who were as interested in buying the nationally-owned lorries which were to be put up for sale as in selling them.

In spite of the fact that the Minister refused to give us any undertaking whatsoever, yesterday, when he announced the composition of the Board, he did, in stating the names of the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman, show that to some extent he had come round to our point of view; that he was appointing as Chairman and Deputy-Chairman two disinterested, independent persons, who, in our view, should be able to act in a judicial capacity.

The way in which the Minister has treated the House in this matter is typical of his whole behaviour throughout our discussions on the Transport Bill. He invariably refuses to take the House into his confidence. He hides behind the protection of the Guillotine, which has helped him so much, and he will not tell us what his intentions are. In fact, he misled the House in this as he did in so many other matters. Why could not he have told us his intentions earlier in connection with the Disposal Board, following, presumably, the debates which took place in the House, that he was going to make it, partially at least, a judicial body by appointing an independent Chairman and Deputy-Chairman? Or is it that finally, thanks to the excessive zeal or confidence of the Road Haulage Association, and the pressure which resulted from this side of the House when their nominees were disclosed, he was compelled to give way and to decide that the Chairman and Deputy-Chairman should act in this way?

There are just one or two questions I should like to ask the Minister about the Chairman. He is to be part-time and to receive £3,000 a year. That is not a bad salary, in my view, for a part-time job. Is he to adjudicate? Is the Deputy-Chairman, who is to be full-time—and to receive, incidentally, the same salary of £3,000 a year as the part-time Chairman —in effect to do the work of administration and organisation, and when there are difficulties, or when proceedings are necessary, is the Chairman then to come along and to adjudicate? It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how he visualises this Board working, in view of the rather unusual set-up upon which he has decided. The member of the Board representing the Transport Commission is Lord Rusholme, but the three remaining members are interested parties.

Lord Selkirk stated in another place on 9th March:

"The primary purpose of the Disposal Board, then, is to assist in keeping a balance between the different interests which exist. That is the first purpose of the Board."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th March, 1953; Vol. 180, c. 1062.]

I ask the Minister this: Does he really believe that a representative of the Road Haulage Association can assist in maintaining a balance between the various parties concerned, the State on the one hand, which is ultimately the owner of the Road Haulage Executive vehicles, the purchaser on the other hand, and the Commission? Can he possibly expect the R.H.A. to act as a disinterested independent body in holding the balance in this connection.

The R.H.A. nominee, whom the Minister decided to accept, is Mr. Farmer. I am well aware that in the road haulage industry his reputation is good, and for all I know it may be that of the road hauliers who could have been drawn upon he is as good as any. But the fact remains that he is an interested party; he is a road haulier—Atlas Express Company, Limited. I want to know from the Minister this afternoon whether Mr. Farmer will have to divest himself of his interest in road haulage. He certainly should. If he is to serve on this Board in an impartial capacity he should divest himself of all his interests in road haulage.

After all, that is what was done in the case of iron and steel, and I cannot quite understand why there is this difference between the Road Haulage Disposal Board and the Iron and Steel Board. In the case of iron and steel the Opposition moved Amendments to ensure that members of that Board were not interested in the industry, and the Minister, while he did not accept the wording of our Amendments, later introduced an Amendment of his own to meet our point.

In moving it, the Solicitor-General said:

"It places fairly and squarely upon the Minister the duty to satisfy himself in relation to the chairman as a whole-time member of the Board before he makes the appointment that that person has no substantial financial interest in any undertaking of the iron and steel producers."

My objection to the Road Haulage Association—

Before leaving the analogy of steel, will the hon. Gentleman say whether he is telling the House that members of the original Iron and Steel Board set up by his hon. and right hon. Friends immediately renounced all their interests on their appointment?

I am telling the hon. Gentleman that the Amendment moved, now incorporated in the Bill, reads:

"Before appointing a person to be the chairman as a whole-time member of the Board "—

Whole-time.

"the Minister shall satisfy himself that that person has no substantial financial interest…."

If the principle is there, will the hon. Gentleman say why part-time was not included as well?

Because we wanted to include all members appointed, but the Government refused to accept the inclusion of part-time members.

My objection to the R.H.A. being invited to submit nominees and to one of their nominees being accepted is very simple. The gravamen of my charge is that the R.H.A. is an interested party and represents the interest of the purchaser and not of the vendor. It is a very queer act of salesmanship and a most peculiar type of auctioneer who is more interested in the purchaser getting a bargain than he is in the vendor obtaining a good price. That, in fact, is what is happening in this case. We say that to put nominees of the Road Haulage Association on to the Disposal Board makes as much sense, and serves the community as well, as employing a bookmaker as a jockey—it would have the same result. The public will not have a hope and the losses will be very great.

What is worse, or equally bad, is that the Road Haulage Association is also interested in financing the purchasers of these lorries. In other words, it has a dual interest. It is interested in purchas- ing the lorries on the one hand at the lowest possible price and on the other it is interested in that price being low so that the security which it has on those lorries which it finances will be that much the better. It has a double-interest in these vehicles selling at the lowest possible price in order to assist its members to obtain them cheaply and to assist the finance company in which it is interested with regard to the security.

I do not want to deal with the Transport Unit Finance policy, set up in association with the United Dominions Trust, which has been aired frequently in this House. I have here an advertisement which makes its position clear:

"A new company, Transport Unit Finance Limited has been formed jointly by the Road Haulage Association Limited and the United Dominions Trust Limited to enable haulage contractors and other users of commercial vehicles to purchase transport units from the Transport Commission under the Transport Act, 1953. Would-be purchasers requiring finance for this purpose are invited to get in touch with Transport Unit Finance."

That is an advertisement in the Road Haulage Association's own journal. What is more, this is to be a private company, so it will not have to publish its accounts or balance sheet and will be able to carry on under the cloak of a private company; and we shall not know in what way it is working in association with the United Dominions Trust.

I think that it shows the attitude of the Road Haulage Association that when it submitted its nominees it suggested that Mr. Barrie should be a member of the Road Haulage Disposal Board, and Mr. Barrie was also appointed by the Road Haulage Association as a director of this Transport Unit Finance. Surely this shows the attitude and contempt of the Road Haulage Association for the national interest, and the confidence which it has in the Minister acting on its bidding. It is quite wrong that one of directors who is serving on this Transport Unit Finance should also serve on the Road Haulage Disposal Board.

The hon. Gentleman has no evidence of any such recommendation.

I certainly have. The Road Haulage Association has published the names of the two nominees it sent to the Minister—Mr. Farmer and Mr. Barrie—and also the names of the direc- tors it has nominated to the Transport Unit Finance.

The hon. Gentleman said that the Road Haulage Association had recommended these men in the light of their knowledge that they would continue to be members of the United Dominions Trust. That is not true.

The hon. Gentleman must have misheard me or has not been paying great attention. I made no reference to that whatever. I did not use the word "continue" I said that the mere fact that they suggest that Mr. Barrie should serve on the Road Haulage Disposal Board when they had nominated him already as a director of Transport Unit Finance shows the contempt with which they regard the national interest.

I should like to draw the attention of the House to the part which the R.H.A. has played in the proceedings which have led to the passing of the Transport Bill. The Minister because of the Election pledges which were given, and very suspicious reasons have been hazarded in this House as to why they were given, has acted throughout, in our view, at the bidding of the Road Haulage Association. He congratulated at the luncheon of the Road Haulage Association, earlier this week, the Secretary of the Association, who had, he said, "Educated him into the road haulage industry." Why did he have to go to the Road Haulage Association for his education?

I said that I had had much advice and help and that Mr. Morgan Mitchell had been among those who had helped to educate me in the road haulage industry. What the hon. Gentleman said suggests that my education in road haulage should be confined to those who have never had to operate road haulage activities.

Not at all. I was going on to suggest that if the Minister required education he might have gone equally to the largest road haulage undertaking in this country, which is the publicly-owned Road Haulage Executive, instead of going to a private operator.

The Minister need not be so sensitive, but perhaps we understand why he is sensitive on this matter, because the Road Haulage Association gave the whole show away this week. I have here "Road Way," which is their house magazine, and in it there is an article headed, "A Job Well Done," summarising the activities of the ad hoc committee on denationalisation from its appointment in June, 1951, until the passing of the Transport Act, 1953. A member of that ad hoc committee was Mr. Farmer himself.

The article goes on to describe the activities of the Road Haulage Association in relation to the Minister and the Ministry. It states that there were ten meetings with the Minister himself and that there were also numerous meetings with the Minister's officials at the Ministry of Transport, as well as with members of both Houses of Parliament. They drew up a memorandum asking that three things should be done: One, the removal of the 25 mile limit restriction; two, that the R.T.C. should be subject to the licensing provisions; and, three, that the R.H.A. undertaking should be disposed of. The last two were incorporated in the Bill. In the original Bill there was no time-limit as to when the restriction was to be brought to an end, but subsequently, owing to pressure, as the R.H.A. points out in its article, on the Minister, a time-limit was fixed.

I have no time to go through all the points made by the Road Haulage Association, but they say that, as a result of the meetings with the Minister,

"… road transport achieved the distinction of being selected as the first industry to be the subject of a denationalisation Measure."

They took credit for that. They say that when the first Bill had been introduced,

"at the invitation of the committee the Minister of Transport attended a meeting with the National Council in October, 1952, for a full and informal discussion on the Bill."

Following representations made by the Road Haulage Association and after Amendments in the Bill, the Transport Bill was issued in a revised form, and when the revised Bill was issued,

"a revised list of Amendments was immediately drawn up and discussed with the Minister."

The story is one of the Road Haulage Association meeting the Minister and Ministry officials and pressing upon the Minister and discussing with him changes in his Bill, a very large number of which have been incorporated in it. The story has not ended, because this article ends by drawing attention to the Disposal Board and saying:

"It is the view of the Committee that the success of denationalisation will depend very largely on the manner in which the Road Haulage Disposal Board carries out its duties."

Nobody will deny that, but the article suggests that it is essential that the Disposal Board should have the fullest information of the current needs of the industry

"and information has been sought through areas as to the the extent which members and others are interested in the purchase of R.H.E. assets."

It is quite clear from this article that the intention of the R.H.A. is to endeavour to keep in close touch with the Disposal Board and presumably, if it were possible—and I trust it will not be possible—to exercise pressure there.

What a story this is! Was there ever so blatant a disclosure of sectional interests successfully lobbying a Minister of the Crown and achieving their objective? In this case there was a subordination of the national interest to the financial greed of the private road hauliers. In this case, the national interest was to protect the national assets, to see that they were not squandered in disposal; but the R.H.A. had no interest in that. What is their interest in all these proceedings? It is certainly not serving the community. It is not disposing of national assets to the advantage of the State. It is not establishing a more efficient transport industry better to serve the transport users. It is to obtain national property at knock-down prices in order to make a quick profit.

The hon. Member keeps talking about knock-down prices and the lowest possible price. Is he not aware that where there is a willing buyer and a willing seller there is a fair price? The lowest possible price I know is a peppercorn, and I do not think that even he suggests that that is to be the price.

Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether the Commission and the Road Haulage Executive are willing sellers. It would be the first time I had heard that. The Minister is very well aware of the strong objections on the part of the Commission and the Road Haulage Executive to disposing of their very successful road undertakings, and that is one of the reasons why we are so worried about this Disposal Board. Where there is an unwilling seller but a willing purchaser, it is essential that we should be as fair and just as possible. That is why, all the way through, we have urged that this should be a judicial body and not a body of representatives of sections of the community.

I should like to contrast the treatment which was meted out by the Minister to the Trades Union Congress with that which he gave to the Road Haulage Association. I am aware that from the beginning he invited the Trades Union Congress to come and consult him over policy when the White Paper had been issued. After the White Paper was issued the trade unions decided not to accept that invitation because they were uncertain, no doubt, as to what the policy was to be. They proved correct, because even after the first Bill was published Government policy was still uncertain. That Bill was withdrawn, through the incompetence of the Ministers concerned, and a second Bill had to be introduced.

After the second Bill had been published and definite policy was known, the trade unions then accepted the Minister's invitation, but the Minister was never really interested in meeting the trade unions in the same way as he was interested in meeting the Road Haulage Association. I say that because in this House on 2nd December, as reported in HANSARD, column 1701, the Minister stated:

"I have been throughout, at all stages, ready and anxious to have talks with the trade unions…. They have not … acceded to my request up to now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1701.]

I had to intervene to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that a meeting with the trade unions had already been arranged for two days later and that the meeting had even been announced in the Press. Yet, at the time, the Minister did not know of the meeting; he was so anxious to meet the trade unions that he did not know he was going to do so two days later. I do not know whether the Minister heard what I said or whether he wishes me to repeat it.

I heard it very well.

Perhaps he will give me an answer when he replies. Perhaps he will tell me how he came to be so ignorant of the fact that he was to meet the trade unions if he were anxious to meet them.

I am not quite certain whether I told the hon. Gentleman or not, but I knew I was meeting the trade unions but I was not certain that it was on this particular point. I have met representatives of the trade unions continually, and not only upon the Bill, since I have been Minister. I am content to leave the warmth of their welcome of the value of the talks to be announced by the trade unions themselves and not by some of their self-appointed spokesmen.

When does the Minister expect a vote of thanks?

At least they will not find self-appointed spokesmen on the other side of the House. It would be interesting if a report of the meetings between the Minister and the trade unions were published. I understand there were three meetings, and my information—perhaps the Minister can confirm it—is that at one of these meetings he was present for only a short time and left the trade unions to discuss matters with the officials.

The hon. Member is making certain comments and drawing certain deductions from matters of which he is very largely ignorant. I think it is fair to say that the trade unions have accepted my anxious desire to meet them on every possible occasion, and I have never once refused to see any trade union delegation or individual who has asked to see me. The reason why there was a third meeting was in part due to the fact that pressure of events for which I had no personal responsibility meant that I had to go to something else, which happens to all Ministers from time to time, and in the course of the second meeting we arranged a third. There could have been a fourth or fifth, and no doubt there will be. We are in the closest argument about practical matters, and I think that it is in that field that I can make the best contribution to help the trade union movement.

The reason may well be that further meetings were not considered by the trade unions to be of any great value in view of the small number of concessions which were made to the Opposition during the passage of the Bill through the House.

I must bring my remarks to an end. I have tried to give the House the story of the Minister's relations with the Road Haulage Association and to contrast his attitude with that towards the Trades Union Congress. I consider this to be a sordid story. It is rather an unpleasant episode because it involves an unnecessary liquidation of valuable national assets at substantial monetary and physical loss to the country. It will cause a grave disturbance to the rest of the transport industry.

Above all, the disposal of these national assets and their disposal through a board which is partially an interested body will involve the security and conditions of employment of all those engaged in the transport industry, and, in particular, of the 70,000 employees of the Road Haulage Executive. Those 70,000 employees, both administrative and operative, are worried today about their future. There has been no indication as yet by the Minister as to what is to happen to the Road Haulage Executive in the near future, or how the very difficult problems which will immediately arise are to be handled.

It seems to me that the Disposal Board was launched in very muddy waters and that it will take all the ingenuity of those at the helm, including the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman, to steer it into cleaner channels. That can only be done if the Minister, who has considerable powers under this Act, keeps clear of the Board and allows it to carry out its job, and, above all, keeps clear of the Road Haulage Association and warns it off in the national interests. That is the least that the Minister can do.

The only individuals that I know of in the country who have muddied the waters in which the Disposal Board is now obliged to swim are sitting very close to us at this moment. I have seldom come across any other persons in the country who take any other attitude than that of wishing this Board well, and of congratulating my right hon. Friend on having chosen a set of men who will carry out their duties in a highly honourable way and will exercise a complete official and commercial impartiality.

The opposition to what my right hon. Friend has been so gallantly and effectively doing in transport dies very hard on the other side of the House. But it is indeed dying rather hard this afternoon. The public will note the sense of great enthusiasm which has greeted the words of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) and how the serried ranks behind him cheered every sentiment of his speech. But the political clamour which has been raised by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and carried on by the hon. Member for Enfield, East is now clear, and in the public mind it is apparent that it has no substance in fact or foundation at all.

As to serried ranks, would the noble Lord care to follow the time-honoured method of looking at what support there is today for his right hon. Friend.

This has been engendered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They are supposed to come here and to give their support and enthusiastic cheers to those hon. Gentlemen who seek to press home their charges. I can only point out as a result of the small attendance today that hon. Gentlemen opposite now realise that, with the appointments of these persons to the Board, there is no substance in any of the charges that they have been making in recent weeks. One can only express regret that they have not only made the remarks they have in the last few weeks, but they have not sought to apologise to certain individuals for what they have said in the past.

What about the position of Mr. Barrie? He was not asked to serve on the Board. He is a member of the Road Haulage Council, and he would have been a magnificent member of the Board if he had been chosen. He was not asked to serve on it. If he had been asked, in all probability, and quite certainly according to the terms of the Act, he would have been obliged to sever his connection with Transport Unit Finance. Yet it did not enter the thought of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East in all the questions that he has put that if this man accepted an invitation from my right hon. Friend to serve on this Board he would, in the same breath, have had to resign his connection with Transport Unit Finance.

Can the noble Lord say why the Minister selected Mr. Farmer instead of Mr. Barrie if Mr. Barrie would have been such an admirable member.

I am going to deal with Mr. Farmer shortly, but at the present moment I am on Mr. Barrie. What I am trying to tell the House is that so steeped in prejudice are certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they do not even entertain the thought that a man can act honourably in his business relationships and is capable of resigning his connections with financial firms which are engaged in this business at the same time as he takes office on a statutory body.

If that is the case and if these resignations are going to be automatic, why did the Minister refuse time and time again to give an assurance to this House that nobody would serve on the Board who was also interested in purchasing as in selling?

The hon. Member must not direct questions to me about what goes on in the Ministry of Transport. The Minister is going to reply to the debate.

As to the case of Mr. Farmer, the hon. Member for Enfield, East persists in saying that he is an interested party and insists that he should divest himself of all interests in road transport. As I understand it. Mr. Farmer is a part-time member and will remain the managing director of the Atlas Express Company, Limited, which is his business. He is engaged in road transport. He did not stand for office in the Road Haulage Association, and if the hon. Member seeks to say that he is some way still connected with that Association as a member of their council and that through that there is some link with Transport Unit Finance, that is an entirely false view. He has no connection officially with the Road Haulage Association, but is a part-time member of the Disposal Board and he will continue as managing director of the Atlas Company. Why on earth should he not do this thing?

I would refer the hon. Member to Section 2 (7) of the Act, which quite clearly lays down how a member should comport himself. The Opposition accepted subsection (7) because they did not move an Amendment against it, nor did they speak against it. The subsection says:

"(7) A member of the Board who is in any way directly or indirectly interested in any transaction entered into or proposed to be entered into by the Commission with which the Board are concerned shall disclose the nature of his interest at a meeting of the Board; and the disclosure shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board, and the member shall not take any part in any deliberation or decision of the Board with respect to that transaction."

Is not that how Mr. Farmer will behave as a member of the Board when the Board takes on its duties? Quite clearly if there is any transaction in which his company is involved or any other company that he is interested in or connected with, not only will he not vote at the meeting but he will disclose to the Board his interest in the matter and so will all other persons upon this Board.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are not true to their own actions in the past. I have here a list of the members of the original Iron and Steel Board, announced by the then Minister of Supply, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) on 14th September, 1950, as follows:

"Chairman—Mr. S. J. L. Hardie, Chairman of the British Oxygen Company, Ltd. Vice-Chairman of Metal Industries, Ltd., and director of many other industrial undertakings."

Could not the same suggestion have been entertained that in his position as Chairman of the nationalised Iron and Steel Board, Mr. Hardie, with his tremendous interests in business, might seek to further those interests? The Deputy-Chairman. Sir John Green, was in the same position.

Which he gave up.

I quite agree that subsequently the full-time members of the Iron and Steel Board gave up, but neither Mr. Farmer nor Mr. Barrie, if he had been chosen for the Disposal Board, would be full-time members and they are not obliged to give up their business connections any more than the members of the Socialist Iron and Steel Board. Other members of the Iron and Steel Board included:

"Mr. J. W. Garton, Chairman of Brown Bayley's Steel Works Ltd., and Managing Director of the Hoffmann Manufacturing Co. Ltd., and Mr. R. A. Macleon, Chairman of A. F. Stoddard & Co. Ltd., Director of Scottish Industrial Estates and a number of other commercial concerns."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th September, 1950; Vol. 478, c. 1252.]

They did not give up their business connections, and no more should Mr. Farmer.

I can quite understand the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East hoping that I will pass on to another topic, because I have been endeavouring to show to the House that the case he has made upon these matters is entirely without foundation. One will never get a fine herbaceous border if one strips the flowers of all their leaves, and we shall never get a useful Road Haulage Disposal Board that secures people who are what might be called disembodied spirits with no outside connections at all. Of course they must have had previous experience and must bring into the Board the knowledge they have acquired. They will have continuing contacts with the industry because one hopes that the Board will quickly dispatch its business and that its members will be able to revert to their normal business activities.

The point is how they behave as gentlemen with a job to do. They are tied by the terms of the Act to certain behaviour, and they have been chosen as zealous, keen and honourable representatives of various sections of the industrial world. I am certain that we can have absolute confidence in the men selected by my right hon. Friend.

It is only from hon. Members of the party opposite who are always concerned with perfectibility in human nature that one can secure what might be called disembodied spirits to serve on these national Boards. Let them go to H. G. Wells or to electronics or to Hollerith Processes in order to produce some kind of completely unbiased scientific type which will take a completely impartial view and will have nothing whatever to do with the facts and substance of human nature and the course of our daily life. Those people are not found in any country in the world, and it is only the doctrinal fallacy of right hon. and hon. Members opposite that leads them into these deluded courses.

I have one final word to say beyond congratulating my right hon. Friend, as I most warmly do, on the choice he has made and wishing the Board the utmost success, and that is to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I hope the hon. Member for Enfield. East will not pursue these paths any more. He has won confidence in the House, if I may say so without being presumptuous, for his utterings on transport and for his wide experience and his informed knowledge of these proceedings, but when he tries to become the Sancho Panza to the political adventures of the hon. Member for Cardiff. South-East it scarcely becomes him. I can only hope that he will return to the well tried paths he has trodden in the past, because, otherwise. I am afraid that misfortune awaits him.

I want to put one or two points. I say in all sincerity that if the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is asking for an example of disinterested service—and he says that it is possible to find someone capable of completely disinterested service—I would immediately point to the noble Lord himself. I will not say that he is a disembodied spirit, but he is disinterested.

It has been suggested that charges have been made against the honour of certain gentlemen who have been chosen to serve upon the Road Haulage Disposal Board. I am quite certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) is making no such charge against this individual. But what seems quite clear is that this man is being placed in a completely impossible position. I am not saying that it is not possible for Mr. Farmer to behave honourably when a proposition is put before him in his capacity as a member of the Board. But he is the managing director of a company engaged in the business of operating lorries.

If his own company puts in a bid, he has, presumably, to leave the room. Supposing it is a competing company which has put in a bid, what sort of attitude does Mr. Farmer then take? What would the competing company have to say if the negotiations were going on between themselves and a body on which Mr. Farmer, a competitor of theirs in another sphere, had to help make the decision?

The fact is, as I say, that this gentleman is being put in a completely impossible position. I should have thought it right and proper and only ordinary human decency that his nomination should not have been accepted by the Minister. The Minister suggests, as did the noble Lord, that there is an analogy between the Iron and Steel Board and the Road Haulage Disposal Board. But it was hoped that the Iron and Steel Board would be a permanent institution, and that there was a life-time of work on the Board for the members who were chosen to serve on it. The Road Haulage Disposal Board is a temporary body set up for a specific purpose, and its life-time will be limited.

What is to happen to Mr. Farmer who, as has been said, has severed his connection with the Road Haulage Association? Is it being said that because he has chosen to serve for 12 or 18 months on the Road Haulage Disposal Board he is not in future to return to the Road Haulage Association and to resume his proper place in the life of the road hauliers? This is cramping his life and limiting his potential service to his fellow business men. It is making it difficult for him to give completely of the ability that he undoubtedly has in his own community without laying himself open to the charge of going counter to the undertakings given on his behalf by the Minister.

I should have thought that in the interests of the House and of the country and of the person concerned his resignation from the Board ought to have been accepted at the outset, which would have left everyone with a much cleaner taste in the mouth.

I intervene only for a few moments. I cannot help thinking that it is a sad reflection on the integrity of hon. Members opposite that, whenever appointments of this kind are made, they immediately become suspicious. [Interruption.] It only shows that they are themselves—

Jobs for the boys.

—incapable of discharging a public duty independently and with integrity and without being influenced by personal motives.

It so happens that there are a large number of people who are ready to undertake public duty without personal interest being involved. Perhaps one of the worst features which I have noticed since the first upsurge of Socialism in 1945 is that that principle has been so often brought into question by hon. Members opposite. It happened time and again. I remember, for instance, when a high appointment was given to Lord Waverley. No man of higher integrity could be found; but immediately the appointment was impugned by hon. Members opposite.

Or Lord Douglas?

No one has ever impugned the integrity of Lord Douglas from this side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No, not his integrity. I should not have bothered to think of him had not the hon. Member mentioned it. His suitability for the appointment may have been questioned, but not his integrity.

Every time that these issues arise, Members on the other side question the integrity of the person involved. Although it is not directly concerned with the appointments that we are now considering, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has, during the course of these debates, attacked those who were to finance the disposal of the vehicles—

Mr. Gibson Jarvie.

—particularly, as the hon. Member says, Mr. Gibson Jarvie. Mr. Gibson Jarvie is a personal friend of mine, and has been for many years. It is quite unjustifiable that he should have been attacked in that way by the hon. Member. As the hon. Member well knows, Mr. Gibson Jarvie has for many years been highly respected in the City of London and has carried on a prosperous and successful business, one in which, as the hon. Member knows, in its earlier days the Bank of England was not disinterested. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East had no justification whatever for impugning, as he did, the integrity of Mr. Gibson Jarvie and Mr. Carmichael, who was associated with him. They are both gentlemen who in this connection are doing a service in that they are providing the finance without which the disposal could not be completed.

What does the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East want? Does he realise that unless somebody finances this disposal, the job cannot be satisfactorily concluded? Somebody has to provide the money. It was most unfortunate—

rose—

I will give way presently —when in the earlier stages of the debate the hon. Member referred to Mr. Gibson Jarvie and used words of opprobrium which were totally unjustified. He used the words "slippery operator," and he had no justification for using the Privilege of this House to use words which he would never dare use outside in relation to Mr. Gibson Jarvie. He knows perfectly well that if he stood on the public platform and referred to Mr. Gibson Jarvie as a "slippery operator" he would find himself in the courts at once. The hon. Member took advantage of the Privilege of the House for the purpose of abusive words of that kind.

I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member thinks he is now abusing the Privilege of the House in view of the fact that the Motion that was put on the Order Paper has been withdrawn. If the hon. Member wants a separate discussion on that, let him put it back on the Order Paper and we will have it. I would sooner have the discussion than not have it. If the hon. and learned Member was a party to withdrawing the Motion—I am not sure whether he was a signatory—

I was.

—he ought not to start it up again now unless he is prepared to take the proper course.

The hon. Member cannot get away with it on that ground. That Motion related to an entirely different matter, when the hon. Member used his opportunities in the House to quote from a speech by Mr. Gibson Jarvie, made, I think, at an annual general meeting, and to give it a completely different interpretation from what the context justified.

I have it here.

That is what we were dealing with in that Motion.

Why did the hon. and learned Member withdraw it?

I certainly did not approve of its being withdrawn—I wished it could have been debated; but the top signatories, apparently, decided to withdraw it. They did not consult me. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that none of us likes to leave on the Order Paper Motions which reflect upon each other if they cannot be debated. They must either be debated quickly or be removed.

But that is a side issue and has nothing to do with what I was talking about. That Motion did not relate to the abuse by the hon. Member of persons in the position of Mr. Gibson Jarvie by the use of the term "slippery operator."

Does not the hon. and learned Member recall that his right hon. Friend the Minister made some halfhearted remonstrance against Mr. Gibson Jarvie's servants for going to local road haulage depots and trying to secure information in advance of other people?

The hon. Gentleman is very fond of answering one hon. Member by misquoting another. What I said was that I supported the action of the Commission in saying that if anybody came to their depot and asked for information about the carrying on of their business with a view to financing anybody who wanted to purchase it, the request should be referred to headquarters. I did not remonstrate in any way. There might be some perfectly harmless request of that kind which should have been conceded.

The Minister—

This is my speech.

—has not denied that those visits were made by Mr. Gibson Jarvie's servants to depots in an attempt to get information. He does not deny that, because he knows it is true.

I promised to be short, and I apologise for two other speeches being made in the middle of mine. What hon. Gentlemen opposite so often fail to realise is that we live in a commercial country. Once the matter of principle has been decided that an industry of this kind is to be denationalised and private enterprise is to be allowed to have it back, in some way or other it has to be financed. There is nothing derogatory about engaging in commerce, and yet hon. Members opposite have done their best to try to abuse those who are making the thing possible. Without the finance being provided by someone it would not be possible for the principle to be carried into effect.

I repeat that it is most unfortunate that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East should abuse the Privilege of this House to use opprobrious terms of the people who are financing, or are arranging the finance of, this operation, who are only carrying on a perfectly legitimate business. There is nothing discreditable in hire purchase. We are talking about the disposal of the road vehicles—

On a point of order. Are we discussing the question of appointments to the Board, or the hire purchase method of disposal and the people who are to finance it?

We are really discussing the Motion. "That this House do now adjourn." That makes it difficult for the Chair to put any limits to the discussion.

The hon. Member knows that I am in order in what I am saying and is only prolonging my speech.

What ought to be fully understood is that the business of hire purchase is a perfectly respectable one which has been carried on for many years. It has provided the finance for an enormous number of people and has been of great convenience to the public. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is vocal in his abuse of Mr. Gibson Jarvie. for instance, because he is facilitating the disposal of these vehicles, but I wager that there are plenty of Members opposite who are themselves involved in hire purchase contracts to buy their own motor cars or radio or television sets and who are quite content to take advantage of the system which is provided, but when it impinges on their political views they immediately resort to abuse.

I hope that at some time when the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East has given proper thought to this question, he will realise that he was in error in the attitude he adopted to Mr. Gibson Jarvie and, if, as I believe him to be, he is a gentleman of honest instincts, he should take a suitable opportunity of withdrawing and apologising.

To deal briefly with one point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe), if the company of Mr. Gibson Jarvie is prepared to finance these vehicles on the same terms as the ordin- ary supplier of television sets finances them, he might be doing something of a service. But, to the best of my knowledge, the rate of interest which will be required by the company of Mr. Gibson Jarvie is very much higher than the normal hire purchase rate for domestic articles supplied over the counter. From that point of view he is not doing this out of a particular love for the vehicles but as something which he knows will be a very profitable undertaking, and in any case he will have such control over the assets that he cannot possibly lose but stands to gain much money out of it.

That is all right, and I make no complaint about it, but to come back to the point of argument, whilst it may be argued that there may be people in the industry with very considerable knowledge—and it is desirable that we should make use of that knowledge—there are also many who are not directly connected with the industry at present but whose services could equally well be used as those of people who have a direct interest.

Let us take the hypothetical case of a person who is a member of a board engaged in the industry. The first thing we have to consider is not only that justice must be done but that it must appear to be done. If the company is a successful bidder for any of the assets there is immediately a suspicion that the person concerned had the advantage of some particular knowledge, even if he has not used it, and that he has gained an advantage over other people. It is quite impossible to get away from that suspicion. It may be unfounded, but it is impossible to get away from it.

It is not only a question of suspicion engendered by hon. Members on this side of the House for, as hon. Members on both sides know quite well, it is a generally understood thing that it is thought that if a person has access to information it may be used directly or indirectly if that knowledge is available to him and not to others. That is not a reflection on the personal conduct of the individual at all, but the Road Haulage Executive will have submitted to it the minimum price that must be offered for certain assets. If it is to be a question of bidding, there will be a reserve price lower than which the Board will not be prepared to sell. With the best intention in the world, the person with the advantage of that knowledge knows the minimum bid and it is a very great advantage, whether commercial vehicles or anything else is being sold.

Let us assume that that person says, "I have this knowledge. It would be quite unfair for me to use it on behalf of my company; therefore I will do nothing about it and my company shall not bid." What is the position? As managing director of a company it is his duty to look after the interests of the company. If in order to be perfectly honourable he refuses to use the information available to him he must damage his company. I ask whether that is a desirable thing to do with regard to any individual? If it is not desirable, it is not desirable to have him as a member of the Board and place him in the invidious position of deciding whether to use the information directly or indirectly available to him, not to use it and to prevent his company from gaining an advantage, or to put him in the worse position by saying, "You must not bid because people will think you have information on which you have made the bid."

All the names are announced, but the Minister might well have chosen people with wide knowledge of the industry— people who have no direct connection with the industry but who know it from the point of view of vehicles, or construction, or the sale of vehicles or of the sale of assets connected with commercial vehicles and so on, all of which come into the kitty. They could have served on this Board and there would have been no suspicion—which is bound to arise now—that people use special information to their own advantage. I think it unfortunate that the appointment has been made and I hope that the Minister will find some means of rectifying the mistake.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mir. Beswick) seemed very sorry for Mr. Farmer, but I think that Mr. Farmer is probably one of those who puts national before personal interests. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Pargiter) was also sorry for members of the Disposal Board, but I think these gentlemen will limit their activities more than otherwise they would, in view of the very serious obligations they have to the nation.

I want to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). He seemed to see something sinister in representations being made to the Minister. Surely that is quite wrong. It is quite in order for any body of citizens to make representations to the Minister, and if the Government of the day think those representations are right it is right for the Minister to accept the representations. I deny absolutely that there is anything sinister in the fact that these recommendations have been published.

My hon. Friends and I have also made representations to the Minister. I refer to a phrase in the statement of the Minister yesterday in which he said:

"Lord Bilsland has agreed to make himself available for consultation on all questions involving Scottish interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 2267.]

My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) raised this point on 3rd December on the Committee stage of the Bill and put down an Amendment, the effect of which was that one member of the Disposal Board should be appointed after consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland. In moving that Amendment he realised that there were special difficulties. He referred to the problems of Scotland and also to the problem of Scotland being represented and realised the weaknesses of the Amendment. He underlined the difficulties in these words when he referred to the Board as being:

"broadly representative of particular sections of those who are interested in transport, whereas a Scottish representative would have to cover all those interests in his person."

Though he put down this Amendment, he did not have the right solution in his mind. But he put the idea into the head of the Minister, an idea with which no good Scot would disagree. He said:

"that it would be virtually impossible to get eight distinguished persons without having a Scotsman among them, and that, therefore, it is likely that there will be a Scotsman on the Board in any case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December. 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1679.]

Encouraged probably by the expert opinion of my hon. Friend, the Minister replied:

"I will certainly do my utmost to see that one of the representatives of the various interests appointed is a Scotsman. It is almost certain that that will be so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December, 1952; Vol. 508, c. 1702–3.]

Alas and alack, Scotland has been rebuffed. She has been rebuffed before and I suppose once again we have to stand up to a rebuff to our pride. The Minister tried to find a Scottish representative from among the names given to him and failed. What he did was to find an even better solution in appointing Lord Bilsland. We are indeed fortunate that the services of Lord Bilsland will be continuously available for

"consultation on all questions involving Scottish interests"

on the Disposal Board.

As president and chairman of the Scottish Council there are few people in Scotland who know Scottish problems better than does Lord Bilsland. In him we in Scotland have on the Board somebody who has the respect of all sections of the community. Unlike some of those whose names have been bandied around today, he has the respect and confidence of both sides of this House. He is a man who has always shown himself above party or sectional interest. He has always put Scotland first. I should like to thank the Minister sincerely for finding a happy solution to a very difficult problem.

I should have liked to be in the position of being able to congratulate the Minister on his English choice just as the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne) has been able to congratulate him upon his choice for Scotland, but I am afraid that the choice for England will be received with serious concern by those engaged in transport and especially those on the workers' side of the industry.

There was one point in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) with which I entirely agreed. It was that there are thousands of men and women inspired with a desire to give public service. They belong to all political parties and some are without party. They could have been drawn upon by any Government Department to serve on boards of this character. Among them are people who have actually been associated with the industry. My criticism of the Minister is that he did not avail himself of the number of persons available who were entirely disinterested.

It is all very well for the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) to suggest that when the proposals about the appointment of the Board were before the House we on this side did not put down Amendments to the appropriate part. On reflection, the noble Lord will probably wish to withdraw that imputation. In fact, we tried to amend the provision about the appointments to the Board, so that those appointed should divest themselves on appointment of any transport interests which they might have.

I say with a sense of responsibility that we are dealing with an Act of Parliament which comes perilously near to public corruption. We are dealing with an Act which has been put on the Statute Book at the behest of one section of the transport industry who appear to have dictated the policy of the Government in this respect. The appointment of Mr. Farmer to the Board is, I believe, a most regrettable step. It is regrettable because, whatever may be the sincerity and honesty of purpose of Mr. Farmer, he will be misunderstood on all sides—even on the business side—in any advice he tenders to the Board.

Indeed, if interests with which Mr. Farmer is, or was, associated manage by good fortune, or by making the highest bid, to get hold of some of the plums of this transport undertaking, Mr. Farmer will be misunderstood even though he may have declared his own interest. He may have taken no decision on the matter, but the fact that he is on the Board, that he is in close contact with all the other members of the Board, will cause suspicion not on the workers' side but on the side of the owners who will be scrambling to get the vehicles which the Board have for disposal.

It was very unfortunate indeed that Mr. Farmer should have been appointed to this Board. The Minister has agreed that Mr. Farmer was a Vice-Chairman of the Road Haulage Association, and I should have thought that, in his own interests, and having regard to the fact that he has had so many long conferences with the Road Haulage Association, even the Minister would have realised that this was the last appointment he should have thought of making in these circumstances. So far as the workers in the industry are concerned, this Act is bad enough. To provide for the sale of these vehicles is bad enough in itself, but we are gravely concerned lest the decision of the Board in the disposal of the vehicles should be a reckless decision which would result in creating unemployment in the industry and, finally, in reducing the standard of efficiency of the services which the Road Haulage Executive has given to industry, and substituting for it a competitive but inferior service.

The Minister has not denied that the road haulage section of the transport industry has given good service to industry generally. This Disposal Board is vitally important to the industry, because, wicked as this Act may be, the fact remains that everyone engaged in transport is extremely anxious that everything should be done, both by the Minister and the Board, to try to avoid any disastrous effect on the industrial life of the nation. It may well be that, unless the personnel of this Board have a purely national and not a private interest to serve, unless they put the national interest against a sectional interest, we may be landed in a position in which the industry will be so broken up and disposed of that no great service will be rendered to the industry, to those engaged in it or to industrial life in general.

Therefore, I am surprised that the Chairman of the Disposal Board is to be part-time, while the Deputy-Chairman is to be whole-time. I say to the Minister —and perhaps this is the only word of congratulation I shall offer him today— that it is these two appointments which show an appreciation of the pressure and the arguments which have come from this side of the House. I regret, nevertheless, that the Chairman is to be a part-time and not a full-time member. It means that with all the good will in the world, and although the Chairman is respected for the splendid work he has done in various capacities in the past, if he is appointed on a part-time basis he will not be able to apply the consideration to the problem that his Deputy-Chairman will be able to do. That is a misfortune, and I urge the Minister to see whether this question could not be reconsidered, so that the gentleman concerned could give his full time to the job in order to give greater satisfaction to the industry.

It is very regrettable that the Disposal Board should be necessary at all. In spite of the bad structure of this Bill—

Order. It is now an Act of Parliament. The hon. Member has referred to it in very critical terms on several occasions. He knows that there is a rule of order which prevents Members reflecting, beyond a certain point, upon Acts which have been passed.

I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker.

I again appeal to the Minister to reconsider the question of the Chairman being a part-time member of the Board. He is a man who enjoys the general confidence of all parts of the industry and of the industrial life of our nation, and we should feel a little happier if he were able to give his whole time to the job of Chairman of this important Board.

I find the opposition to my right hon. Friend's selections for the Road Haulage Disposal Board, to say the least, disingenuous. In considering the membership of the Board one thing about which we should be concerned is to make sure that the members are those who will best enable the Board to carry out its job. The object of the Board is to see that the road haulage vehicles are disposed of to private enterprise smoothly, with efficiency, and with justice to the public interest. When I use the word "efficiency" I am thinking not only in terms of the actual process of disposal, but of the pattern of the transport industry which will emerge from the disposal. It is necessary that transport should be increased in efficiency as the years go by.

If we are to have a Board which will effect this object in the full sense it is inevitable that it should consist of men with practical and up-to-date experience —and I stress both "practical" and "up to date"—of the different sections of the road haulage industry. If we admit that, I do not see what other course my right hon. Friend could have taken in his selection of the men who will serve on this Board.

We are entitled to rely on the Board discharging the purpose we have given it, on two grounds. First, we have a full right to rely upon the absolute integrity of the men who have been chosen. I am sure we can depend upon that. Secondly, we can rely on the fact that this Board is comprised of a balance of different interests, so that even with the best of intentions, if one of the members of the Board were prejudiced in his outlook or judgment, that prejudice would be corrected by the counter-balance of the other interests. With those two factors, I believe we shall find that, as at present composed, the Board will do its job to the satisfaction of the House and the country at large.

The only regret that I have about the membership of the Board is that it has no trade union representative. The balance of interest would be much more complete if it had one. I do not for one moment quarrel with the trade unions for opposing the Bill if they disagree with the principle of denationalisation, for it is only fair and right that they should do everything they can to oppose it if that is their sincere belief, but, the Bill having become an Act of Parliament in a democratic manner, I regret that the trade unions have not seen fit to accept the suggestion which was put forward from these benches that the Board should include a trade union representative.

I agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) that the interests of the transport workers are greatly affected by the way the disposal is carried out. Those interests would have been the more certainly safeguarded if they had had a representative on the Board, and, also, from their great experience of the industry, they could have contributed something of real benefit to the furtherance of efficiency in the industry on which so much depends. But for that one regret, I feel such that my right hon. Friend has chosen the best possible Board and that it will do its duty to the satisfaction of the House and the country.

The hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. Carr) said that he did not see that the Minister could take any other course in the appointments if he wanted on the Board persons with a knowledge of industry who would be in the best possible position to advise what the selling price should be and how the units should be made up. It would be out of order to go into past debates, but the answer is simple, that one does not need a Disposal Board at all and that the British Transport Commission should have been allowed to sell it own assets in its own way, knowing far more about their composition than anybody else in the country. That was our whole case, and it must appeal to the hon. Gentleman as being the obvious alternative to the course he has suggested.

I agree that that might be a tenable argument, but we have passed an Act of Parliament which has laid down that there should be a Disposal Board, and, given the fact that there is a Disposal Board, we are discussing what the correct membership should be. I believe we have the correct membership with the one exception which I have mentioned.

I was going to say that we were faced with the position that there is a Disposal Board and that the argument cannot apply, but if the hon. Member had lent us support earlier the Minister would not now be in the difficult position of trying to find suitable persons, who will appear to be above suspicion in every way, for the purposes of this task.

Yesterday was a melancholy day, with the Minister announcing the setup of the Disposal Board; melancholy because it is the first time that a special board has been set up by the Government to sell assets making an annual profit worth up to £100 million, and to sell them at a loss, which is apparently to be so great that the House has written into the Act provisions to make it up. What a melancholy task that is for any disposal board to undertake. I wish them well in their work. The measure of their success will be the smallness of the loss which they incur. The original estimate of the loss was £20 million, and I suppose if the they can keep it down to less than that the Minister will feel very satisfied. To that extent, I suppose, we shall feel he has achieved his end, if they can keep it down to that figure.

The fact that we do not feel that there was any need for this proposition increases our hostility to this Act. We shall scrutinise its operation, and follow it through its course with the closest vigilance possible. We shall do that for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is our considered view, and the view of a great many people associated with the transport industry, that this legislation is not final and that the pressure of events will compel any Government to consider the future of this industry once more; and there will have to be new legislation. That will certainly be our intention. I say no more than that about it.

One of the best jobs that the Road Haulage Association can do for its members now is to advise them in relation to their financial position vis-á-vis Transport Unit Finance in the event of some further legislation. It would, for example, be very unfortunate if any purchaser of a road transport unit today became indebted to Transport Unit Finance and found that because of fresh legislation that became necessary he was left owing money to Transport Unit Finance although he might not have his business. I hope that the Road Haulage Association will watch that aspect of the matter very closely indeed, because it can obviously be a very real problem to those small men who are to become indebted to this company.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), whom I congratulate on raising this matter today, referred to the fact that this company which is being formed to finance these units has significantly been made a private company. Why not a public company? Why does the United Dominions Trust think it necessary to shroud from the public view the operations of this company? Why should the public not be allowed to see its balance sheets? Why should not the public be allowed to see the rates of interest at which it is lending money, and the profit which it makes, so that it can be determined just how far the hon. and learned Member for Hove (Mr. Marlowe) is accurate when he refers to the great patriotism of those who are financing Transport Unit Finance, and just how far their patriotism turns out to be profitable to them?

An hon. Gentleman opposite sought to suggest that the rates of interest would be disproportionate. I did not have the figures at my fingers' ends at that moment, but since then I have checked the position, and I understand that the rates of interest will be extremely favourable, a good deal less than those charged in ordinary hire purchase. If they are proportionate to domestic hire-purchase terms the hon. Gentleman will be perfectly satisfied, I gather, but they will be a good deal more favourable.

I hope that we shall have some public statements from Transport Unit Finance to enable my hon. Friend to make up his mind about this, and also about what the Government intend to do about the hire-purchase agreements, so that Transport Unit Finance will have its repayments spread over a period which, I understand, may be from three to five years, instead of the normal period of repayment of a member of the public when he goes to buy his television set or his radio. I think it is significant that a private company is formed. I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman was not present during all our debates on this matter previously. I do not blame him for that, because a lot of us would have liked to have escaped from them, but during those debates I made a suggestion that the right way to finance this business, if it had to be financed, was by means of a Government corporation without loss to anybody.

The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that he has just threatened to ensure that there is a loss. A moment ago he was making quite sure there would be a loss by talking of subsequent legislation. That would be a deplorable way to deal with public money.

What I am quite sure of is that Transport Unit Finance will not finance their operations so that they will make a loss on this particular transaction. Apparently, the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees with me that that is so. It looks as though the man who will suffer will be the small man who is to be financed by them. I hope that the Road Haulage Association will watch the interests of their members in that direction.

The Minister, of course, has pressed on with all haste in this matter in order to set up the Disposal Board. He is so interested in selling the lorries that he does not pay sufficient attention to the future of the Road Haulage Executive itself. I do not know whether he would be prepared to answer this question this afternoon, but perhaps he would consider it now and answer it, if possible—and I certainly hope it will be possible—when we get back.

What is to be the future of the Road Haulage Executive? Is he going to abolish it or not? If he is going to abolish it, he should say so very soon so that the British Transport Commission and its officers know what their position is likely to be. I think he will agree that he has at least an equal responsibility to tell them what their future on the Road Haulage Executive is as he has to get the sales of these lorries going, so I give the Minister notice now, if I may, that, if he cannot reply to this question this afternoon, we shall certainly be asking him when he intends to announce—and I imagine it is his decision—what the future of the Road Haulage Executive is to be.

I fully agree that the Minister made a concession to our point of view in his appointment of the Chairman, and in the fact that he did not appoint the incredible Mr. Barrie. I only say incredible because of the position in which he was placed by the Road Haulage Association, in which he was apparently to serve on the finance company and on the Disposal Board at one and the same time. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) says he would have resigned from the finance company in that case. If the noble Lord really believes that, why did the Road Haulage Association nominate him for both these posts at one and the same meeting? It was a rather odd situation, unless they were backing both horses and hoping that one would come home.

I really cannot understand why they should have nominated him to serve on the finance company and on the Disposal Board at the same time, unless they believed that the Minister was ready to accept such a course of action, which would have exposed the Minister and made him very vulnerable indeed in the eyes of the public. I am very glad he did not make that appointment, and I hope that we contributed to his not making the appointment.

indicated dissent.

Apparently we did not contribute to it; he was going to refuse the appointment in any case. I am very glad that at any rate we made it easier for him to refuse that appointment by bringing the matter out into the light of day.

As far as the Chairman is concerned, here again the Minister has made difficulties for himself, for during the passage of the Bill we put down Amendments in which we suggested that this Board should be of a semi-judicial character, but he brushed them aside. As my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East said, he did not even give us a hint of a concession, that perhaps he might appoint someone who had the distinguished legal qualifications of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve. How much easier he could have made his own path if he had done something like that. Or is it that he did not intend to do it and has only been forced to do it now through the persistent volume of criticism to which he has been subjected from this side of the House? I do not pretend to know; only he knows which is true.

I would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Hove that it was not this side of the House which called members of the public who serve on public boards "quislings." It was the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury who invented that eloquent expression for those who serve on public boards. Apparently a man is a "quisling" if he serves on a public board set up by a Labour Government but not if he serves on a public board set up by a Conservative Government. He might well remember that when delivering his strictures.

We all have an affection for the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) referred. Stalin once said of Bernard Shaw that he was a good man fallen among Fabians. The noble Lord is a noble man who has fallen among Tories. I was very interested indeed in his comparisons with a herbaceous border; it set my mind at work as to where we ought to place him. I think he is clearly the lily, "unstained and pure," standing above all others, and is certainly one of the finest flowers in the border. [HON. MEMBERS: "Dandelion."] No, not a dandelion.

It reminds me that when I was in Ceylon I saw flowers called sori. It is not a very elegant name but it is a vivid, brilliant, highly-coloured, brazen and shameless flower. The only way in which my comparison falls down is that it was of vivid red colour, and no one could accuse the Minister of that. The Road Haulage Association is easy; clearly, it is the mistletoe—a parasite which feeds upon its host and eventually strangles it, but perhaps I had better not continue this analogy too far.

I want to come to the question of the Road Haulage Association's representative on this Board because, in the light of the other appointments the Minister has made, his is the appointment which we think leaves the Minister most vulnerable to criticism. As the right hon. Gentleman told us yesterday, Mr. Farmer was a vice-president of the Road Haulage Association until the day before yesterday, and apparently he severed his connection on being appointed, or knowing he was to be appointed, to this Board.

I want to put this to the Minister. We all know that the Road Haulage Association intends to prepare a scheme to achieve the complete denationalisation of the industry. "Road Way," their journal, told us that,

"To solve this dilemma, the Association is offering to assist all members and former members known to have an interest in the purchase of transport units.

The National Council has decided that an extensive enquiry be undertaken in all areas and sub areas … Each operator concerned is being asked by his Area Secretary to give as detailed particulars as possible of the type of unit, number and type of vehicles and premises for which he would be prepared to tender. If his business or part of it has been acquired, he is asked to indicate its nature and to say whether in the main it can still be identified as an independent unit."

The object is that the national representatives will be able to submit this plan to the Disposal Board, confident that it can be made to work and will meet the wishes of the members. That is a perfectly fair thing for them to do. It is indeed their function; they are the trade union for the road hauliers. There is no reason at all why they should not do this.

What I say to the Minister—and I am surprised that he does not seem to see this—is that, having done that, and having submitted the scheme to the Disposal Board, it should then be for the Board itself to adjudicate upon the scheme. It should not be for one of the interested parties to adjudicate. It is difficult to dissociate one's recollection of Mr. Farmer from the fact that he has been a national vice-president for many years and the fact that he will have links, as he is bound to have links with these people advocating this scheme.

I say that it would have been better for the Minister to have chosen a haulier who had nothing to do with the Road Haulage Association except, perhaps, as being an ordinary rank and file member somewhere in the provinces who played no part in the job at all. One might further say that it would have been far better not to have a haulier on the Board at all because of the particular difficulties in which we are placing them.

There is a very good Civil Service code of conduct which the Minister has not followed in this case. I well remember that, it was brought to my notice when I first entered the Civil Service. I will paraphrase it: it is that a member of the Department is not expected to subordinate his private interests to his public duties, but nor is he supposed to put himself in a position where the two may conflict. That was the code, and as far as I know it may still be the code, which applies in certain Departments in the Civil Service. Can the Minister say that he has not exposed Mr. Farmer to that particular difficulty? I believe that he has exposed him to it. He is not supposed to subordinate his private interests to his public duty and he is being put in a position in which his ties, links and knowledge of the schemes of the Road Haulage Association are going to conflict with his duty as a member of the Disposal Board. Let us remember that the duty of the Disposal Board is quite clear. It is its job to get the highest price and in the aggregate the best possible price for the units which are to be sold for the public. That is not the duty of the Road Haulage Association. It is the reverse. It is to keep the units at the lowest price and make the best possible bargains for their members.

The two things are in conflict. How can it be said that a member of the Road Haulage Association who has played such a prominent part in the affairs of the Association and who, I believe, has been a member of the negotiating team—and Mr. Barrie whose nomination was also put forward and rejected—all through the Bill and who has been meeting the Minister regularly—and I expect the Minister has formed a very high opinion of his activities—is not being put in the position where his private interests to the members of the Road Haulage Association and his public duty to the Road Haulage Disposal Board to get these units at the best possible price do not conflict?

It seems to me that the Minister has made a mistake in relying so much as he has done throughout the whole of the debates that have taken place upon the Road Haulage Association in this connection, and we regret it very much. We shall watch the activities of the Disposal Board very closely. With Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve in command, none of us believe that he would be a party to any "finagling" of any sort, and, of course, no one would dream of suggesting it. We shall certainly try to ensure that so far as the future of the road haulage industry is concerned the best possible price is secured for these public assets, as we hope and trust that it will be.

We also hope very much that the Minister will have regard not only to the Disposal Board and to the work that it is doing, but also to his very much greater responsibility to the British Transport Commission and to the public at large, including the Road Haulage Executive, which still remains in being and will still perhaps have as many as 5,000 or 6,000 vehicles, so that we can know that he is interested not only in carrying out what was an Election pledge that was made by the Conservative Party, but also in carrying out his public duty as the Minister responsible for well-organised transport in this country

I think that we can all welcome the concluding sentences of the speech of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). In particular, I was glad to hear him say, "We all hope that the Disposal Board will get the largest possible sum of money for these public assets." I think I heard him say, "We will all do all that we can to help to bring that about." Was I right in saying that he also said that he not only hoped that the Disposal Board would get the best possible price but that, "We will all do all we can to help them do so?" I think that HANSARD will show that he also expressed that view.

I am sure that I need not remind him that the Government and the Opposition have duties in this field. The greater responsibility is that of the Government. The Opposition, if some day, however unlikely, they become the alternative Government, have their responsibility, and I think that the concluding words of the hon. Gentleman, on what I believe is the 30th day we shall have debated some aspect of the Transport Bill, will be of very great interest to all concerned.

As the House knows, it is my responsibility to appoint the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and the four members of the Board. I appoint the Chairman and Vice-Chairman without asking anybody to submit suggested names to me. In the case of the other four members, I am, under Section 2 of the Act, under obligations to make certain consultations with bodies representative of trade and industry, with bodies representative of persons holding A and B licences, with bodies representative of C licence holders, and with the British Transport Commission itself.

I have, as I have already told the House, carried out all these consultations. I asked for suggestions from the British Transport Commission. In regard to trade and industry, I approached the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the National Union of Manufacturers, the Federation of British Industries and the Traders Co-ordinating Committee on Transport. In regard to persons holding A or B licences I approached the only national organisation in that field. I am under a statutory duty to consult with such a body representing persons who have A and B licences. There is only one such body of a national character, and as has long been known I am under the duty of consulting with it.

The Minister says he has to consult these bodies, and that is perfectly true, but consultation does not necessarily imply that he has to ask these bodies to nominate names. Surely it is within the power of the Minister to suggest that the Board should consist of certain names and should consult with them concerning their views.

It is quite open to me not to accept any of the names.

Or to ask for them.

Or to ask for them, but it would be a curious form of consultation if I do not take the advice of the persons concerned. For example, the British Transport Commission suggested one name in particular to me. Would the hon. Gentleman suggest that I should have rejected that name and should have nominated someone quite different to represent the Commission?

Since the Minister has asked me a question, perhaps I may be allowed to reply and to point out that Section 2 (4, a) is very different from subsection (4, b and c), in that he must specifically accept one of the nominations received from B.T.C.

I am coming to this and I hope the hon. Gentleman will see why I followed the course I did.

With regard to persons holding A or B licences, I repeat that I consulted the only national body covering A and B licence holders. In regard to persons with a C licence I consulted the Traders Road Transport Association, which has a large and influential membership. I made certain selections which I announced to the House.

I very much welcome the statements that have been made from both sides of the House today in regard to the Chairman, Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve, Q.C. The hon. Member for Bradford. East (Mr. McLeavy), the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the hon. Member for Enfield, East on the Opposition side and hon. Members on this side endorsed the particular qualifications of Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve as Chairman. I must say that I find it a rather curious illustration of a rather strange mentality that I am almost put in the dock for choosing somebody against whom it is impossible to find any complaint. Hon. Members opposite have jibed continuously because I have deprived them of the opportunity of being able to censure my choice. Throughout the last few months there have been stronger attacks on me than this, and if at the end of the day this is about all that is left I do not think we have done too badly after all.

This is not the end of the day; it is only the beginning.

It is not the end of the day in a way, but I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that everything possible would be done to make a success of the disposals.

rose—

I cannot give way again.

As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, East said the Chairman is a man who has already had a long period of disinterested public service, and I should like to thank him personally on behalf of Her Majesty's Government for his acceptance of this most important duty. Governments of very different views have had on occasions to rely on his integrity and judgment, and we all remember the services he has rendered the State in many capacities when he was appointed to, or confirmed in, his office for various tasks under the late Socialist Administration. Whether it was the War Works Commission, the War Damage Commission, the Local Government Boundary Commission, or the Central Land Board, no one has ever suggested that he could not be relied upon to bring a disinterested mind to bear on vital national problems.

I was glad to read in the "Manchester Guardian"—a newspaper which has not been uniformly friendly to every aspect of the Transport Act, but which has been a great deal more friendly recently— that

"If the Board contains a leavening of practical knowledge of road transport. Sir Malcolm's experience of general administration and of Statutory Commissions should ensure a smooth transfer within the 18 months which the Government hope will prove enough to complete the task."

I was asked by one or two hon. Members why it was that Sir Malcolm was a part-time Chairman. I do not share this passion for full-time chairmen. I believe that the public service frequently loses a great deal by the desire to appoint somebody to give the whole of his time to a particular task. I would rather have the part-time services of the best man than the whole-time services of some indifferent alternative. We believe that this body, working together with the Deputy-Chairman as a full-time member will achieve very satisfactory results.

I entirely agree with what the Minister has said about part-time members if they are not the chairman or the head of a board. But surely the head of a board should be a full-time member.

I think experience will show that under the general guidance and the final responsibility of the Chairman, even though he is described as a part-time chairman, we are getting the equivalent in service to what other people might call full-time contributions. I think we can claim that the Board contains a great deal more than that leavening of practical knowledge of road transport to which the "Manchester Guardian" drew attention.

I also wish to thank on behalf of the Government a friend of many of us in this House, and a recent friend of mine, Mr. Orchin, who has consented to act as Deputy-Chairman. He has had very long experience of transport, having entered the Railway Clearing House as long ago as 1899. He was the Director of Finance in my own Department some years ago and after his retirement from the Civil Service he went as Chief Financial Officer of the Road Haulage Executive itself, though he ceased to hold that position some time ago.

With his very wide experience, I think he is a valuable choice, and all that I and others have seen of him so far makes one confident that he will do the task admirably. Regarding the other members whom I have appointed, as I told the House, Mr. Gordon Graham has been appointed after consultation with bodies that seem to me to represent trade and industry. Mr. Gordon Graham is a former managing director of Morris Commercial Cars, Limited. After consultation again with C licence holders, I have appointed Mr. Greenwood, transport manager of Messrs. Thomas Firth and John Brown. Limited.

A great deal has been said of the possible disturbance to trade and industry through this Measure, and through the Disposal Board in particular. I think the fact that we have been lucky to secure these two gentlemen with their wide experience of trade and industry is all to the good. Also, as the House knows, we have appointed Mr. Farmer, and I shall deal in greater detail with some of the rather wild statements made about that selection later on. Mr. Farmer is a very responsible member of the national organisation of A and B licence holders and managing director of the Atlas Express Company.

Finally, we have appointed Lord Rusholme at the request of the British Transport Commission, who, in addition to being a member of the Commission, is a director of other associated companies controlled by the Commission, not the least of which is Thomas Cook and Sons. I think that all those on both sides of the House who know him well will know that he will carry out his task which I recognise, for him, must be a particularly difficult one, with good taste and good judgment.

As I announced yesterday, in all Scottish matters affecting Scottish interests, the Board will act in consultation with Lord Bilsland. I should like again to thank Lord Bilsland for the ready way in which he has accepted the suggestion. He has agreed to make himself available for consultation on all matters affecting Scottish interests. He is. as the House knows, chairman of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry). I am sorry that there are not many Scottish Members here, but I am grateful for the kind things said by my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. J. N. Browne). I was much impressed by a number of the arguments that were made in the House, not least those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson).

The appointment of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman was wholly in my hands. I concede myself to have certain obligations to consider seriously names put forward by the other bodies whom I had to consult, but I felt that Scottish interests would be fully protected in this way. As the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), who told me in advance that he could not be here today, said in the House on 17th November, the Scottish Council

"represents, as far as can be achieved, a cross-section of all interests in industry, commerce and business in Scotland."

And he added, which is rather welcome nowadays:

"It has no politics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1457.]

Will Lord Bilsland have a vote when it comes to the discussion of Scottish matters on the Disposal Board?

No; he is not a member of the Board. As the hon. Member knows, the Act provides for the Chairman of the Board to come to me on certain occasions, and I do not doubt that if there was a conflict of opinion on a matter of importance it would be brought definitely to my attention.

Now, I come to the only charge which has been seriously advanced. That is, the suggestion that I should not have appointed from among the names submitted to me by the Road Haulage Association any ex-officer, and some say not even any ex- or present member. It is a little difficult to know wherein the substance of this charge lies. I thought at first a week or so ago that criticisms in this field concentrated solely on the possibility that I might appoint a gentleman who had also been nominated a director of a finance company that is interested in the provision of finance.

We stopped that.

The hon. Member waxed very eloquent about that. He says, "We stopped that." Far be it from me to deprive him of any feelings of power. I am all for associating the Opposition with the Government of the day whenever possible, and provided we are allowed finally to make up our own minds, to give any credit where it is due. But I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member. That was actually a decision made independently of the debate; but I am sustained by the view that the hon. Gentleman put forward.

I did not appoint that gentleman, many though his qualities are and absolute as his integrity most certainly is. I did not appoint him, but the hon. Gentleman had to find something with which to sustain a further debate on transport before we rose for the Whitsun Recess. And so the new suggestion was made that now it was not a question of appointing somebody who was associated with this finance house, but a question of appointing somebody who was a former official of the Road Haulage Association. The suggestion has even been made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East that it would have been better not to have had even a member of the Road Haulage Association, and not even a haulier.

I think so.

Surely nothing could be more utterly fantastic. It would debar those people who know best the pattern of industry and of demand from playing any effective part in the work of the Disposal Board. It would be as logical to debar any shareholder of any finance house which might conceivably advance money to any potential purchaser, or to debar any member of a local Co-operative society which might have shares in the C.W.S., which might be interested in the purchase of vehicles. There could not be a more absurd suggestion. Indeed, as I have already pointed out in this House while there are arrangements for recouping the Road Haulage Associations for expenses forced on them through the formation of the company, not only will the directors of the new company be unpaid, but they have absolutely no financial interest whatever in that new company.

It has been suggested that I was wrong to work with the Road Haulage Association at all, but that is in the Act, Under the Act I am obliged to do so and, as you have pointed out, Sir, it is now an Act of Parliament and there is a statutory obligation on me to consult bodies representative of A and B licence holders. It is not merely my Act now, but an Act of Parliament. I take it that the opening words of the hon. Member apply to the whole field of the Act itself I am under statutory duty to

"appoint one member … after consultation with such bodies representative of persons holding A or B licences"

as I think fit. Where else could I go save to the Road Haulage Association?

If hon. Members are interested in the reasons why I have acted as I have they should consider the figures. The Road Haulage Association has 17,000 members. I must say, as I have said before, that I think it remarkable the way in which they have kept together despite the difficulties imposed upon them under the 1947 Act and the absurdities of the 25-mile limit, which we hope will soon come to an end. There are 12,000 A licence holders in the country. I am not now talking of membership of the R.H.A. There are 5,000 A contract licence holders and 31,000 B licence holders. including a very large number who are not really in the transport business but are mainly in retail trades. I think it fair to say that the Road Haulage Association has the overwhelming majority of genuine A and B licence holders in their ranks and they are most certainly the only national association.

I am under statutory duty to consult a body which seems representative to me. I could not deny that this body is the most representative. It has been known from the start, of course, that as soon as these words appeared in the Bill—it cropped up constantly in debates in this House—that the next step I would have to take, among others, would be to consult the Road Haulage Association.

The Opposition from time to time tried to alter the basis of the Disposal Board in order to prevent anyone serving on it who has had experience in the last three or four years in road haulage—a particularly foolish suggestion. But they have known they were dealing with names which might be suggested to me—almost certainly would be suggested—by the Road Haulage Association. I repeat that they are the people who have the best knowledge of what is most likely to meet the needs of those who today, at this particular minute, are either anxious to re-enter, or to enter the road haulage business.

Also, as the representative body looking after the interests of A and B licence holders—and this applies also to names suggested by C licence holders— they represent the interests of people who will have to pay the levy. So it will be naturally in their minds that the loss should be the least possible.

I should like the right hon. Gentleman to try to get this point straight. On this side of the House the main charge has not been against consultation with the R.H.A. in regard to appointments to the Disposal Board. The charge has been that the right hon. Gentleman has selected one of their nominees who is a national vice-chairman, which is quite a different matter. We do not object to consultation —which, as he said, is in the Act— but we are attacking him for the person be chose after consultation.

I quite realise that, but it would be a curious form of consultation when, if names were suggested which came from members of this Association, I repudiated all those names, despite the fact that they have the overwhelming majority of genuine road hauliers in their ranks, and took someone from outside, whose knowledge is most unlikely to be as detailed and up-to-date.

The financial interest of any member of the Road Haulage Association in any individual transaction because of the creation of this company between the R.H.A. and the United Dominions Trust is so remote as to be absolutely negligible. It is far and away less than the interest that a shareholder might have in a company which was interested in the acquisition of assets.

My object and my duty throughout, both in the drafting of the Bill and now in the carrying of it into effect, is to produce a representative and well-balanced body of persons whose knowledge and experience will help and guide the Commission in this task of disposal. If the logical conclusion of some of the charges from the other side was in fact followed, what would be the result? I should have to show that there was no one on the Board who had a direct or indirect interest in what might happen. The party with the greatest direct interest in the disposal either of companies or units is the Transport Commission itself. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite seriously suggest that they should not have a representative on the Board?

They are a public authority.

None the less they have a definite interest in the matter. They may be a public authority but they will be engaged in competition with a lot of other people whose freedom will be acquired through the operation of the Board. Even after the Board has done its work as a result of this Act. the Commission will be the largest owner of road haulage vehicles in the country. If the argument advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite is correct I should not have a representative of the Commission on the Board.

rose—

I cannot give way. I sat here for the whole of the debate. I listened without interrupting unduly.

It is fantastic.

We have another 28 minutes left. Anybody else can talk who wants to, subject to what Mr. Speaker says. It could be argued that the Commission is the only body with an actual interest in individual transactions by the Board. I do not know whether this has penetrated the minds of some hon. Gentlemen. The other three people appointed after consultation are interested in the general results. The Road Haulage Association is interested in the general results in the interests of the A and B licence holders generally; trade and industry in trade and industry generally, and C licence holders in C licences generally. But the Commission will be directly interested in a lot of individual transactions. One does not conclude from that that it would be wrong that they should serve on the Board.

Running through the minds of certain hon. Gentlemen opposite, though they have not been prepared to say so, was the belief that it would be difficult to find people with an up-to-date and extensive knowledge of transport who would find it possible to act in a public spirited way without constantly remembering that they had their personal interests outside. Hon. Gentlemen know perfectly well that if situations arise with firms in which members themselves might be interested —or if somebody else is going to bid for the same business as they know their own firm might bid for—they will take no part in the deliberations.

All this is clearly provided for in the Act. We had a long discussion on this part of the Act—

Two hours.

Two hours on this subsection was not bad time. I appeal to hon. Members. At the start the hon. Member for Enfield, East said that, though they never welcomed the Act, the Labour Party now felt it incumbent upon them to apply their minds to the composition of the Disposal Board. We have settled the composition of the Board, and I think we can now all apply our minds to the creation of the climate in which it can operate and in which it can work. I should like to conclude by again thanking the Chairman and Vice-Chairman and the other members of the Board for their acceptance of these most responsible posts.

I wish to direct the attention of the House to another road problem—road accidents.

This is one of those problems on which everyone regards himself as being expert. I read many letters in the newspapers, I hear many speeches and I receive many letters expressing views on what should be done. In today's issue of "The Times," I have read a letter from Mr. E. C. Boyce, who is the County Surveyor of Gloucestershire, and who operates in the part of that county that you, Mr. Speaker, represent in this House. He draws attention to the fact that, in his judgment, not enough money has been spent on certain minor road improvements. I think that the real issue to which he has drawn attention concerns that part of your county in which there have been a great many accidents.

My general observation of the roads of Great Britain has led me to think that they are really rather good, but there are odd spots where a good many accidents take place. I hope that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer is kindly disposed to the Ministry of Transport's future Estimates there will be an elimination of these bad spots, which will receive prior consideration.

The strange thing is that if hon. Members will study the valuable publication which comes out each year from the Ministry and is called "Road Accidents," issued under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary, they would find a very detailed analysis of conditions of light, road surfaces and general road conditions, as well as the condition of the drivers of vehicles. It is an attempt to analyse causes, and, quite obviously, diagnosis must precede cure. In my judgment, I do not think that enough use has been made of these very valuable statistics. It is true that they are very complicated and require a great deal of study, but they are very valuable. There is such a lot of prejudice on the subject of road accidents. All of us in this House are pedestrians, but most of us are also drivers of motor vehicles, and I think I am a pedestrian for far more hours of the day than I am a driver of a motor vehicle.

I read a speech the other day by a most distinguished and august person, a judge, who addressed the Magistrates' Association at lunch, and urged upon them that they must impose very heavy penalties on people involved in road accidents if they were under the influence of drink. My hon. Friend produces this document, from which we learn that the number of cases in which the drivers had been regarded as having at least contributed to the accident was 120,000, and the number of cases in which drivers were under the influence of either drink or drugs was 1,013. I took occasion to write to this judge to say that he was doing great harm to the cause of road safety by drawing attention to a feature which diverts attention from other things. I regret that he did not give an answer, but perhaps he could not think of one. I must be careful, because he is a Member of another place, although I was not discussing him in that capacity.

If one reads through this document one finds the strange fact that most accidents arise on perfectly straight roads, where the surface conditions are admirable, and when there are good conditions of light and weather. We must try to discover the causation, because until we do we cannot find a cure. I walk down Victoria Street every week, and cross the road two or three times on my way to my office. I watch the other pedestrians. I find that most people cross the road without looking to the right or to the left, like Scots people looking for a three-penny bit in the road. They are completely indifferent to traffic. I believe that pedestrians are more responsible for accidents than drivers. They show an incredible indifference.

We have introduced the system of zebra crossings. It is working better than it was at first. I very frequently cross one of the zebra crossings outside Westminster Hall, and if I see a number of vehicles approaching I wait, because I think it would be selfish to hold them up. When there is a break in the traffic I indicate that I want to cross by putting up my arm. I must not talk legislation, but my hon. Friend may be able to do something by way of one of these curious animals, Statutory Instruments. It would be a great advantage if, before any pedestrian exercised his rights, he gave an indication by holding up his arm. that he intended to cross the road. I am talking about the pedestrian who says, "I have a right to cross the road" and exercises his right very often at the expense of his life. In my judgment, the driver is often quite unjustly blamed.

I was a member of the Standing Committee which considered the Road Traffic Act of 1934, which restored the speed limit which the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) very wisely abolished. On the occasion I was in opposition to my own party. I believe all speed limits to be fundamentally bad, because they lead too many people to drive too fast. A man who is driving in the streets of London may consider himself entitled to travel at 30 miles per hour, and if he is travelling at a lesser speed he thinks he is driving safely, but in many cases he should not be driving at more than three or four miles an hour. In other cases, the speed limit is now treated with complete indifference. The Minister of Transport is to sell off a lot of lorries. Many of them have on their rears the figure "20," which means that they must not travel more than 20 miles an hour. Some of them travel at 40 or 50 miles an hour. It is absurd to allow this flagrant abuse of the speed limit.

The fundamental cause of road accidents is impatience on the part of both pedestrians and drivers. We have all had the dreadful feeling of driving behind a huge vehicle. We try to overtake, but the road is rather narrow. I have not 'been involved in this kind of accident, but there are occasions when drivers take a chance and overtake, because they are impatient at being held up so long by one of these vehicles travelling at under 20 miles an hour, and an accident occurs.

I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what administrative steps his Ministry are taking to try to reduce this terrible burden upon life and limb. It is not the worst cause of accidents. In yesterday's Press we had a report of accidents in the household. Far more people break their necks falling down steps than are killed by motor vehicles and far more people suffer severe injuries through burns of a domestic character than are injured on the roads. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that between 4,000 and 5,000 people are killed on the road every year, as well as 200,000 or 300,000 being injured in varying degrees, so it is worth devoting a little attention to this matter.

It is fortunate that we are discussing this question on the eve of a holiday, because during holiday periods a great many road accidents occur. There are many people who do not drive very frequently—indeed, drive only at holiday times—and who are a little out of practice. They take undue risks. It is not inappropriate, therefore, that in these few minutes before we go away for what I think, Mr. Speaker, is a very well deserved holiday for you and me and other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, we should discuss this subject. I see the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) present, and I know that in Brixton they have a holiday inside, but I do not say inside where.

It may not be a waste of time that we should have this brief debate at the moment. I do not seek any publicity for myself, but it might attract a little interest in the Press and give a little warning to those going on their holidays on this occasion that this Whitsun and during the Coronation period they should be a little less impatient and so cease to imperil their own lives and the lives of other citizens.

It is fortuitous that the Ministry of Transport finds itself confronted with two Adjournment day debates in succession owing to the fact that an hon. Member who gave notice to you, Mr. Speaker, that he would raise another topic has decided not to do so. It is none the less valuable at this time to have an opportunity of reviewing the present situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) will not expect me to follow him into the realms of accidents in the home, although I agree with him that the figures are alarming. It reminds me of the statistician who proved to his own satisfaction and that of everyone else that death was far more likely to come to one in bed than in other circumstances.

We are here for a few moments to look at the present situation of accidents on roads. In 1952, we had what I could call a good year, with an overall reduction of about 10 per cent. in the numbers of killed, but it is disquieting to find that once again, in the first quarter of 1953, the figures are rising month by month.

The number of cars is rising, too.

Perhaps the lion, and gallant Gentleman will permit me to make my own case. We are not unaware of that fact at the Ministry.

At the top of the casualty list increase come motor cyclists, month by month, and we have done what we can to encourage the wearing of crash helmets, safety caps or "skid lids," call them what we will. The House may recall that in January I delivered a broadcast in which I initiated a Coronation year crusade aiming at a 10 per cent. reduction this year in the number of accidents, and it may be recalled that we did our best to call attention to this fact.

In one of those glimpses of the obvious for which he is so famous, the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) has told us that there are more vehicles on the roads. Of course there are: 250,000 more than a year ago, and they are coming off the line at the rate of some 20,000 a month. But we have been reminded that the condition of the roads has also something to do with the situation. A transport expert from another country said the other day what I think was not untrue: that the roads in this island were the best and worst in Europe—the best maintained and the worst aligned. I think that is not an unfair comment.

Those who interest themselves in this problem are sometimes apt to have a one-track mind and to focus their attention upon one particular factor. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East referred to the low percentage of accidents which occur owing to drivers being drunk in charge, although that does not make the offence any less serious.

Hear, hear

There are some who would have us put everybody in prison without an option the moment they are guilty of this offence, forgetting a fact which anyone with any knowledge of the administration of the law knows perfectly well—that the moment we make imprisonment the sole and only punishment far fewer are convicted. The suspension of a licence for a period is often an infinitely more effective sanction.

There are those who would have us have a blood test in these cases. That has been tried in many countries, but there is no evidence to show that a blood test proves more than the presence of alcohol. As a proof of drunkenness it is far less effective than the common practice in this country by the police, and the far more easily obtained result of a test of the urine of the suspected person. That is found to be a far more reliable guide to drunkenness or otherwise.

My hon. Friend referred to the zebra crossings. I was glad to hear him say that he thinks they are working better. Our own view at the Ministry is that by day they are the best form of pedestrian crossing evolved, but by night they leave much to be desired, especially when the weather is foggy or wet, and it is for that reason that we are pressing forward with the installation of flashing lights on the beacons all over the country. In Birmingham, they have already made a good start, and we hope that as the months go by these installations will proceed rapidly. With regard to the control of pedestrians on crossings, the Road Safety Committee have recently had this matter under examination in considerable detail, and will be submitting some suggestions to my right hon. Friend before long.

I come to speed limits. Like my hon. Friend, I was here when the 1934 Act went through under Mr. Hore-Belisha. I did not sit on the Committee upstairs. Confession is good for the soul, and I confess that I took very little interest in the Measure at the time. I should have taken a great deal more if I could have foreseen the future and have known that one day I should be standing at this Box on behalf of the Minister of Transport. I must say this about the 30 miles an hour limit and its operation that while, of course, there are many offences against it, and while, of course, there are people who proceed too fast through 30 miles an hour limits, its existence does act as a useful deterrent. There was a sharp fall in the accidents following its imposition in 1934.

Where, I believe, it is apt to fail in its application—and I think this is worth saying—is where the restricted area is unnecessarily long. We are frequently getting requests from this and that local authority to impose or extend the restricted areas for speed, but anyone who motors on our roads will agree that where the restricted length is unreasonable impatience supervenes, or one says, "We must have missed the derestriction sign and be out of the restricted area." To be effective the restricted area must be short and in a built up area, and that is why, perhaps, we appear to many local authorities to be difficult about imposing or extending those speed limits. However, we regard them as a useful deterrent.

Just before he resumed his seat, my hon. Friend put the pertinent question: What is the Ministry doing about this problem of road accidents? What steps is it taking? My reply is, the three E's, as opposed to the three R's in education: engineering, enforcement, education. On engineering, there is an expenditure of £3 million on the accident black spots. One would like to spend a great deal more, but £3 million is £3 million, and already a great deal has been done in the past 12 months on the accident black spots where the record is worst. They are being tackled. We have to concentrate on jobs which cost £5,000 or less, the small jobs.

As to enforcement, one of the reasons for the law being broken is weakness in the enforcement machinery, and the increase in the number of mobile police, or "courtesy cops" as we used to call them in the old days, and who are, of course, necessary will very much assist. So far as education is concerned, there has been the steady propaganda of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I would also call the attention of the House to the very valuable report of the Conference of Road Safety Organisations under the chairmanship of a friend of many of us here Lord Llewellin.

At the instigation and suggestion of his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, that body met and studied throughout the autumn and spring and produced this volume, which I commend to anyone interested. It contains a vast number of important suggestions. There is to be a Road Safety Week between 17th and 26th October this year, during which great efforts will be made to focus the attention of the country on this important topic, particularly that of the schoolchildren, whose casualties are, of course, the concern of us all.

At the end of the day there is no substitute for the human element. We cannot make people drive safely by Act of Parliament, I am afraid. We can only keep hammering away at the importance of courtesy and care on the roads. It is, I think, fortunate that my hon. Friend has given me this opportunity of saying a word on the eve of the Whitsuntide holiday and the Coronation period, which must mean a great increase in the amount of traffic concentrating in, particularly, the Metropolis.

If the weather is good this weekend, as may well be, there will be more vehicles on the roads than ever before. There will also be those who are going walking, which I always think is one of the best ways of seeing our beautiful country, and I appeal to pedestrians to keep to footpaths where they are provided, and, on roads where there is no path, to walk on the right. I appeal to those who are on wheels to keep down their speed when the traffic is dense and when there are many people afoot.

We have asked for a "Coronation Crusade." So far we have been disappointed. How unhappy it would be if this event of great national rejoicing were to be marred by a sharp increase in loss of life or grievous injury to those upon our roads. I say to all those who are venturing forth at this time, to whom I wish a pleasant holiday and relaxation, which all of us wish for ourselves, that he who is careful upon the Queen's highway can find himself carefree at his journey's end.

The hon. Gentleman said he had £3 million to spend this year on the improvement of roads. Has he given any special attention to that great obstacle to good traffic conditions. Cavendish Bridge?

I said that we have £3 million to spend on accident black spots, where the accident record is bad. I know all about Cavendish Bridge, but that involves a major road improvement not covered by this allocation of £3 million. However, the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the last words spoken in this House before the Whitsun Recess will remain very much in our minds.