I beg to move, in page 1, line 20, after "section", to insert:

"and to the provisions of section 8A of this Act".

I think that this Amendment might, with convenience, be discussed with the proposed Amendment to page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert:

(2) Immediately after section eight of the said Act of 1948 there shall be inserted the following section:—

"8A. Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (2) of section one of this Act, the Corporation shall not act in association with or on behalf of or assist, establish or expand, or promote the establishment or expansion of, any body or person, unless the Corporation is satisfied that in any colonial territory, in which the Corporation proposes so to act, assist, establish, expand or promote, that body or person—

(a) takes all practicable steps to promote the safety, health and welfare of persons in the employment of that body or person;

(b) in taking such steps as aforesaid, and in dealing with matters affecting terms or conditions of employment, seeks consultation with persons or bodies appearing to the Corporation to represent, or to have qualifications to speak on behalf of, substantial numbers of the employees affected; and

(c) does not hinder or limit, or seek to hinder or limit, the combination of the employees of that body or person or of any of them (irrespective of race), either among themselves or with any other employees and either for the time being or permanently, being a combination which is lawful and the principal objects of which are the regulation of the relations between employees and employers or between employees and employees or the imposing of restrictive conditions on any trade or business or the provision of benefits to the persons so combining.

It might perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee—I agree that this is a paving Amendment—if we could have the discussion on the more important Amendment, Sir Charles.

The reason we have to take it this way is that if the first Amendment is not carried the following Amendment will fall. I think that that is the usual practice.

We on this side of the Committee desire to see this Bill become law. I would call the attention of the Minister to page 9 of the Annual Report of the Colonial Development Corporation, which says:

"The Secretary of State has promised validating and enabling legislation to take care of past, present and future; C.D.C. hopes it may come quick."

We will give all aid to getting this Bill passed as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the needs of the Colonial Development Corporation.

A statement was made during the Second Reading debate by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Beresford Craddock) that he was getting a little tired of hon. Members on these benches who knew nothing about the Colonies making speeches on them. I would invite the Minister and hon. Members behind him to look at the names on the Notice Paper. They are names of hon. Members who have had as much experience of Africa and the Colonies as some of the hon. Members on the benches behind the Minister.

As this is a paving Amendment, may I pass to discussion of the later Amendment? Our concern is essentially with safeguarding conditions for coloured workers in the Colonies, their health, welfare and the like. Particularly do I want to stress the vital importance of the C.D.C., and of taking steps in matters of consultation with organised workers and those who speak on behalf of organised workers, as the Amendment says.

We on these benches have seen the difficulty of the Development Corporation working its schemes in one part of Africa. The purpose of this Bill is essentially to validate past actions which were declared ultra vires, particularly in connection with housing, not only in Malaya but in Southern Rhodesia. Now that the Federation has been formed we have to face the question of the employment of workers in Southern Rhodesia. We may anticipate some difficulty because in the Federation some people do not look kindly on the organisation of trade unions, especially of black trade unions. Our difficulty is that about the Protectorates in the North we can ask questions in this House and, so to speak, fight the battle of coloured workers in Lusaka or perhaps in Blantyre, but it has been difficult to ask questions on behalf of workers in Southern Rhodesia.

I am told, perhaps the Minister will confirm it, that there is soon to be a Bill—it may be on the stocks now, in Salisbury—which will make legal the organisation of African workers in trade unions. There are trade unions in the Copper Belt for white workers and black workers also. I understand that in Southern Rhodesia they are now seeing the light and are to enable black workers to organise in unions. If this is so, we are perhaps pushing at an open door, but I always believe it best to see what lies beyond the door and how far it will open when we start to push. I should, therefore, like information on this matter.

We are very concerned that coloured peoples should not be subjected to discrimination, whatever it may be. I am speaking here not of a colour bar applied in hotels or schools, but purely in the context of economic activities undertaken by the Colonial Development Corporation, who might wish to employ coloured workers in Southern Rhodesia. I hope that this point will impress itself on the Minister, who will see from page 46 of the Annual Report that there is an ambitious housing scheme in Southern Rhodesia which will employ large numbers of coloured workers.

We seek the Minister's opinion in this matter and we hope we shall have his help and co-operation. The House of Commons has an extremely important task in safeguarding the interests of those coloured peoples who are not represented by an hon. Member here who can fight their battles for them. Indeed, in this case—and I am speaking of Southern Rhodesia—the coloured peoples have no member in the Legislature to fight their battles for them.

We invite the Minister to look very carefully at this matter so that the Development Corporation shall not merely take "all practicable steps" but shall not

"hinder or limit, or seek to hinder or limit, the combination of the employees of that body or person or any of them"—

and these are the important words—

"(irrespective of race), either among themselves or with any other employees and either for the time being or permanently, being a combination which is lawful and the principal objects of which are the regulation of the relations between employees and employers or between employees and employees or the imposing of restrictive conditions on any trade or business or the provision of benefits to the persons so combining."

This is a very important point; we stand or fall by it. We urge the Minister to be vigilant in this matter. I am sure he is as concerned about it as we are, but we want him to act and not merely, later in the debate, to echo what we have said and then do nothing about it afterwards. We beg of him to take heed of our advice.

It is difficult to exaggerate the significance of these two Amendments in the minds of millions of peoples in Africa and the Colonies. One of the most dynamic features in many of the Colonies today is the fear which Africans and other peoples have of economic development. The only Colonial Territories in which that fear does not exist are those which have gone far towards self-government. In the Gold Coast, in Nigeria, in the West Indies, where the colonial peoples feel that they will be able to control the conditions of industrial development, investments are welcomed, but anyone who has been to East Africa will have found that the fear of the African people of such industrial development is affecting not only the industrial situation but also the political situation.

A great many of the difficulties which have been experienced in Uganda during the last two years have been due to the discovery of copper in the Mountains of the Moon and the fear that the industrial development of that copper will lead to a departure from the decision that Uganda should be an African State.

The second of these two Amendments could do very much to remove those fears. The fears are that there will be a repetition in other Colonies of the conditions which exist in their most extreme form at Johannesburg in the Dominion of South Africa but also in the copper mines in Northern Rhodesia. I was speaking only this week to an important African from Swaziland, who expressed the same fear as that which I have indicated to exist in Uganda. There has been a discovery of iron ore deposits, and there is a terrible fear that in the Protectorate of Swaziland the conditions of Johannesburg will be repeated.

I very much hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to accept the Amendment. May I point out to him, in the first place, that it repeats words which were in the original Act of 1948, the words that all practicable steps should be taken

"to promote the safety, health and welfare of persons in the employment of that body or persons;"

I am a little distressed to find that-those words, which were in the 1948 Act, have not been repeated in the Bill.

I think my hon. Friend is mistaken. I understand that, if not directly repealed, the provisions of the 1948 Act are continued.

I am obliged to the hon. Lady for doing my task for me even more succinctly than I would have done it later. It is, of course, correct that that part of the 1948 Act remains untouched.

I will simply say that I very much hope that the Amendment will be accepted so that those terms are recorded in the Bill.

And repeated.

I regard it as a very dangerous principle that one always has to refer back to other legislation when considering the contents of an Act, and I strongly urge that these words should be repeated in the Bill.

I want particularly to stress paragraphs (b) and (c), which insist upon the recognition of trade unions in the sense that there should be consultation with persons or bodies

"appearing to the Corporation to represent, or to have qualifications to speak on behalf of, substantial numbers of the employees affected;".

It is even more important that there shall be no obstruction to the formation of trade unions, irrespective of race, in any industrial concern to which the Act applies.

I emphasise the phrase, "irrespective of race." When the Bill becomes law it will apply to Southern Rhodesia, and while it is perfectly true that in Southern Rhodesia organisations of African workers are theoretically lawful, they are not allowed to participate in any of the negotiating or conciliatory machinery. I understand that a Bill is now before the Legislature which will seek to give powers to an African trade union to participate in such machinery, but it would be a great mistake if this House did not include a definite Clause in the Bill giving the African workers power to organise in their trade unions and making that power a condition of any help given under, the Bill.

I believe that the acceptance of the Amendment will do something to remove the fear of thousands of Africans of industrial development in their Territories, because it will place emphasis upon their own right to organise in their trade unions and to demand better conditions. For those reasons, I urge that the Amendment should be accepted.

I want to support the Amendment, which is an exceedingly substantial one. It is true that the first part virtually repeats the provisions included in the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, but, as has been pointed out, it seeks to extend those provisions. We are particularly anxious that these provisions should be strengthened, because another provision of the 1948 Act is also being continued, namely, that part which refers to the definition of Colonial Territories.

If that definition is not changed, it means that any country which becomes self-governing can continue to receive funds from the Corporation. At the moment, the only country concerned directly is Southern Rhodesia, which we are adding specifically to the countries in which the Corporation may operate, but the possibility may arise in future that the Corporation may work in countries over which we in the House of Commons would cease to have any control in matters of labour conditions. It is partly for that reason that we want to make quite certain that the Corporation shall not enter into activities unless it is satisfied that the labour conditions will be what we think desirable, particularly where workers of more than one race are employed.

It is for that reason that we hope the Government will accept the Amendment, or a slightly different one if they wish. They will realise that we on this side of the Committee have had little time indeed to put these Amendments forward and to study them, and presumably the Government have had even less time. Therefore, we shall not take exception at all if they criticise the drafting and say that they would like to have the weekend to think it over.

The principle is really important. My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) is absolutely right. Anyone who visits these territories and discusses economic development there finds that the people have very divided minds about it. They realise that the social services, education, health services and so forth which they desire cannot be supported without some industrial development or exploitation of minerals. At the same time, when they look at what has happened to their fellows in the Union of South Africa, or even in the Rhodesias, they ask, "Do we want that kind of society and a position in which we find ourselves frustrated?" To give one industrial example in Southern Rhodesia, I think that I am correct in saying that no African can be apprenticed in the building trade. We are discussing grants for housing. Who will build them? If African builders are to build them, under what conditions are they to work?

This is extremely important if public money, with the sanction of the House of Commons, is being given towards housing projects, and we know that African workers on those projects cannot be recognised as skilled craftsmen, no matter how good their work may be, because labour conditions in the country are such that they are not allowed to be recognised as having undertaken an apprenticeship and, therefore, cannot be recognised as craftsmen and cannot work side by side on building sites with European workers who are recognised as craftsmen.

This is only on example of what may happen in work financed by the Corporation. I ought to emphasise the words "financed by", because we are anxious that not only should the Corporation in its direct undertakings observe good conditions, which as far as I know it has always done, but that where the Corporation is indirectly responsible, through financing some other organisation or body, we should be equally satisfied that no finance is given unless that other agent or subsidiary is also observing proper conditions.

I wish that we had gone a little further and had inserted in the Bill something equivalent to the Fair Wages Clause which operates with public authorities in this country, but we have at least attempted in the Amendment to give effect to our thoughts, and I hope very much that the Colonial Secretary will give a sympathetic response. If the right Hon. Gentleman does not like the actual way it is done in the Amendment, I hope that he will do something to meet the important points that we are putting forward.

I am grateful to hon. Members for the way in which they have put a case which, I recognise, is likely to attract a good deal of sympathy and understanding. I tried, by a device which I feared would be unsuccessful and which pretty rapidly became unsuccessful, to postpone discussion of this Amendment until we had reached the later and bigger Amendment already mentioned. I did so because I wanted to say that we would accept the first Amendment and so perhaps colour in a friendly fashion the subsequent course of the Bill. Unfortunately, I was not able to get away with that one and we are now discussing an Amendment which, very much as I like the suggestion made by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint. East (Mrs. White), I find impossible to accept.

I would say to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) that I am definitely impressed by the glittering phalanx of names attached to this and other Amendments, and I recognise the very considerable amount of experience and knowledge which goes into preparing them. The hon. Member is quite right in saying that the main purpose of the Bill is to validate actions which the Government believe have been inadvertently ultra vires the Corporation's powers.

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) asked a question about the Southern Rhodesian proposed legislation. I understand that in a speech from the Throne to the Southern Rhodesian Legislature on 4th July this year, legislation was foreshadowed to permit Africans to join trade unions. I am not in a position to be cross-examined on that, either constitutionally or in any other way, but I thought that the Committee would be interested to know that, and I recognise that it is a very important piece of news indeed.

My attitude towards the colour problem is well-known to the Committee. It is my genuine desire to see racial discrimination disappear as rapidly as possible throughout the territories for which we are responsible. I do not believe that the best way of doing this is necessarily by legislation but, nevertheless, I share the object of hon. Members opposite and agree, in the words of Lord Milner, that "the rotten ground of colour" should not be the qualification for political and other advance.

I do not believe that this Bill is the proper vehicle for laying down conditions of employment which must be a matter for local consideration. I do not suppose that there is any reason to think that any of the Corporation's associates or successors would not have full regard to what are normal laws and regulations as well as the standard practice of good employers in the territories concerned. If there was any question of the interests of the workpeople not being safeguarded, it would be open to the Governments of the territories concerned to discuss the matter with the Corporation, and indeed make representations direct to me as Secretary of State.

That would appear to be the proper way in which to safeguard us against the possibilities to which hon. Gentlemen opposite have drawn attention. But to accept an Amendment couched in this language, or indeed in any other language that I could think of, would impose on the associates of the Corporation more than is imposed on them by laws, regulations and practices in force in the Colonial Territories. In addition, it would impose on them the invidious and onerous task of setting themselves up as judges of social conduct in the Colonial Territories, matters which I do not think they would be qualified to decide, and matters which, though of great importance, I think ought to be dealt with in other ways. All these needs will be caught up in the labour laws of the respective Colonies.

What labour laws?

Of course there are labour laws in a vast majority of territories. The hon. Gentleman ought not to make that kind of observation, suggesting that in the territories for which we are responsible there is no legislation of any kind. Indeed, a study of the Order Paper every Wednesday, when I am constantly cross-examined about labour legislation, is an adequate denial of such a statement.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell me what provisions there are in Kenya for a minimum wage for industrial workers, for minimum hours for industrial workers, for a reasonably widespread recognition of trade unions for industrial workers, for pensions on retirement, for protection against industrial accidents and for compensation for accidents?

The hon. Gentleman and I had quite a discussion on the Carpenter Report and other matters some time ago during a debate on Kenya, and that is a more appropriate place to discuss this matter in detail. However, I have sympathy with the thought in the minds of hon. Members, and I feel sure that all who are responsible in this respect and read the report of this debate will under-stand the need, as far as it is practicable, to see that there are the very best possible local labour conditions attaching to any bodies with which the C.D.C. may be in partnership or to which it may from time to time transfer responsibility for its undertakings.

The right hon. Gentleman said that there were labour laws in the vast majority of countries. What about those Colonies in which there are no labour laws, if the C.D.C. wants to operate there?

When I said "nearly everywhere," it is fairly true to say that it is difficult to imagine a territory where there is not already adequate power, or where it could not quickly be taken if required for the activities of the Corporation. If such a situation arose, I should be the first to see that local legislation was introduced to give protection to the people concerned.

I am astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman saying that this does not appear to him to be the appropriate place for discussing this matter. According to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, the Bill redefines the functions of the Corporation. If, therefore, we redefine the functions of the Corporation in one respect, why not in another? There is nothing wrong about that.

The right hon. Gentleman has made a speech which, if he were logical, would cause him to take Section 8 out of the 1948 Act, because this Amendment refers particularly to that Section of the Act. In that Section the Corporation has in our opinion now, at this date, not properly defined obligations to set itself up as the moral authority which the right hon. Gentleman has just said it ought not to do. That is precisely what it does, so I do not understand what he means by his last statement. That Section reads:

"(1) The Corporation shall take all practicable steps to secure—

(a) the safety, health and welfare of persons in their employment or in the employment of others in activities carried on with the assistance of the Corporation or in association with them."

Therefore, the Corporation is the judge under the 1948 Act. Paragraph (b) reads:

"the benefit of practical knowledge and experience of such persons in the organisation and conduct of the activities in which they are employed."

Subsection (2) continues:

"In the performance of their duty under the preceding subsection, and in dealing with matters affecting terms or conditions of employment, the Corporation shall seek consultation—

(a) with persons or bodies appearing to them to represent, or to have qualifications to speak on behalf of, substantial numbers of the employees affected;

(b) where the matter in question arises in connection with the carrying on of activities in a colonial territory, with the Government of the territory."

If language means anything at all, it means that the Corporation is asked by the Act of 1948 to establish itself as the judge of whether all those functions and obligations are indeed carried out. So the Corporation is the judge, and, therefore, there seems to be no point in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that he did not think that the Corporation ought to set itself up as an arbiter of moral conduct.

What we are saying here is that when the Act of 1948 was conceived it was thought that the functions of the Corporation would be rather different from what they are. In other words, as my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has said, it was thought then that the Corporation would itself mainly be carrying on industries, setting up projects and administering them. Recently, however, the functions and activities of the Corporation have changed, qualitatively if not quantitatively. They have become more and more a finance corporation, and, therefore, in our view the language of the 1948 Act is not as felicitous as it should be.

It is clear that where the Corporation is itself the sole employer, the words of the 1948 Act might be regarded as suitable, but where the executive instrument of the Corporation is another association or company, it would be foolish for the Corporation to step over the heads of its own instrument and negotiate separately with the employees of that instrument.

When the Act was framed such a contingency did not arise in our minds, because it was thought that, in the main, they would be direct employers. Where, however, the Corporation acts as a finance corporation and give money or grants or loans, we desire to see that conditions are attached to the loans or grants, because that is the only point at which the purposes of Section 8 of the 1948 Act could be secured.

What has the right hon. Gentleman got to say about that? Let me point out to him how exceedingly cumbersome it would be if the Corporation, having established a company, then, in the discharge of its duties under the 1948 Act, negotiated with persons appearing to the Corporation to represent substantial numbers of the employees. That would be a stupid affair, would it not? What we want to do is to secure that the Corporation satisfies itself that the instrument it selects will create fair conditions for the employees, and that the Corporation will accept this as a continuing obligation.

Of course, it is much more difficult when these activities are carried on in self-governing Dominions. Nevertheless, we do not ourselves want to be charged with the taint of giving money from this House to employers who are carrying on activities and creating conditions repugnant to the good sense and decent feeling of the people of Great Britain. Therefore, we are anxious that the Corporation should have the duty of imposing these conditions from the beginning.

They are not onerous conditions. For example, Section 8 (2, a) states that the Corporation shall seek consultation

"… with persons or bodies appearing to them to represent, or to have qualifications to speak on behalf of, substantial numbers of the employees affected."

We are afraid that, unless this is amended, the condition could be said to be satisfied if the instrument of the Corporation recognised only the representatives of white employees. So far as I understand the terms of the law, they would be satisfied. So long as there is a substantial number of white persons organised and they have representatives, if the instrument itself recognises them, the Act is met.

We want to safeguard ourselves against that. We want to go far beyond it. I see nothing in our Amendment to which the right hon. Gentleman can take exception. He may quarrel with the wording, and that we can understand. As has been said, the Amendment has been prepared at the last moment. That is the Government's fault; not ours. Just as our own language may not be a fitting vehicle for our intentions, so the response of the right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, has been equally unsatisfactory.

Let us consider what kind of safeguards we are trying to make. We suggest that, after the words that I have already read, we should insert:

"the following section:—

'8A. Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of section one of this Act, the Corporation shall not act in association with or on behalf of or assist, establish or expand, or promote the establishment or expansion of, any body or person, unless the Corporation is satisfied that in any colonial territory, in which the Corporation proposes so to act, assist, establish, expand or promote, that body or person—

(a) takes all practicable steps …"

Then we repeat the language of 1948. We go on:

"'(c) does not hinder or limit, or seek to hinder or limit, the combination of the employees of that body or person or of any of them (irrespective of race), either among themselves or with any other employees and either for the time being or permanently, being a combination which is lawful and the principal objects of which are the regulation of the relations between employees and employers or between employees and employees or the imposing of restrictive conditions on any trade or business or the provision of benefits to the persons so combining.'"

What is objectionable in that? Why cannot those words be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman? All the Amendment does is provide that the Corporation shall ensure all the rights of organisation and combination which exist in this country. There are many statutes in this country now which lay an obligation upon employers to consult representatives of workpeople.

In the case of all the nationalised industries. This is a nationalised industry.

Certainly, all the nationalised industries have this obligation imposed upon them. As my right hon. Friend reminds me, this is also a State instrument, and all we are seeking to do is to secure for workpeople in the Colonies the same sort of protection that they would have if they were employed in this country. What is wrong with that? These words do not in any way impose on the Corporation functions which would limit its financial and economic activities.

There is a further point which should be borne in mind. When the 1948 Act was framed, combinations of workers in the Colonies either did not exist or were in their infancy. Very considerable help in the formation of such trade unions has in recent years been given by the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, but until that was done we had to rely on what might be described as welfare officers or sympathetic personnel whom the Corporation could consult and encourage. The situation is now changing somewhat. Trade unions are growing. Experience has been gained. Consequently, the time has come for the position of these unions to be validated, recognised and encouraged.

It does not seem to me that the right hon. Gentleman has made out a case at all in this respect. He started by saying that he hoped he would be able to lubricate the passage of the Bill through Committee today by being able to accept the first Amendment. The Amendment we are discussing is the most agreeable of all. It is one which he could accept without making the conditions of the Corporation any more difficult.

When the right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that he does not think we ought to write into statutes conditions which ought to be created in different ways in the localities themselves, he flies in complete defiance of the whole history of trade union and welfare legislation. I would remind hon. Members that, even in Great Britain, after our centuries of experience of industrial organisation, the House has seen fit to give legislative protection to certain bodies of workers.

Agricultural workers have it. There are trade boards. When I was Minister of Labour, I had to sign very many Orders on behalf of the House establishing wages, conditions and practices in industries which Parliament felt were unable to protect themselves. If bodies of workers in Great Britain are unable to protect themselves, and Parliament has to put an umbrella over them, how much more necessary it is in the embryonic conditions in the Colonies.

The workers there have no Members of Parliament of their own.

My hon. Friend reminds me that those workers have no House of Commons and no Members of Parliament to help redress their grievances or remedy the wrongs done to them. If we need to do it for our people, ought we not to do it for those people in the Colonies for whom we have direct responsibility?

The right hon. Gentleman has not done himself justice in this matter. It is true that he has not had much time to reflect on it, but I should have thought that his instinctive responses would have been favourable to the Amendment. If he wants more time, we are prepared to give it to him. If he would like to consider the wording so that he may be able to change it in another place, we do not mind. In fact, we should prefer that he has the assistance of his skilled draftsmen rather than accept what may be clumsy language which we had to devise on the spur of the moment. Nevertheless, I should have thought that our intention ought to commend itself to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee.

I have listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has had to say about the Amendment. I certainly do not want to make any criticisms of its drafting, but I must say that I disagree with some of the inferences which the right hon. Gentleman drew from its wording. I was rather astonished to hear his observations to the effect that, when the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, was passed, it was contemplated only that the Corporation would carry on activities itself, setting up factories and so on.

Mainly.

Well, mainly. However, the Act itself clearly envisages the Corporation acting through other bodies. It is in relation to that that one has to consider Section 8 of that Act. It is clear that Section 8 means that the Corporation shall exercise these powers, both in relation to activities which it carries on directly and activities which it carries on indirectly through other agencies and bodies, but it is not right to describe the Corporation when performing that duty as acting in any judicial capacity. The Corporation is not acting as a judge at all.

I did not read those for that very reason.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. So the only point is in regard to the proposed paragraph (c). That, in fact, imposes a limitation, not an extension, upon the existing powers of the Corporation. As I understand the argument, it is suggested, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that in matters covered by paragraph (c) the Corporation should act, as he said more than once, as a judge.

I did not use the word "judge" in the first instance. It was first used by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend. He said that he did not want to set up the Corporation as a judge of moral standards. I used the word "judge" following what may have been the bad example of the right hon. Gentleman.

It may have been following on the use of the word by my right hon. Friend, but the right hon. Gentleman was using it in another connection related to Section 8 of the 1948 Act. I am pointing out that under the 1948 Act the Corporation was not in the position of being a judge. I am saying that the Corporation is under a duty to perform these tasks and that is not a judicial function. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with me.

The right hon. Gentleman began his speech by saying that the 1948 Act intended the Corporation to finance business as well as employ people directly, but is not the Corporation under the 1948 Act under an obligation to judge whether Section 8 of the 1948 Act is being carried out by its instrument?

Section 8 of the 1948 Act imposes no judicial functions whatsoever on the Corporation. If the Corporation acts as a judge, it is performing a judicial function. But it is not acting as a judge. What it has to do under Section 8 is to take all practical steps to secure certain aims—the language of Section 8 is perfectly clear—and that is the duty imposed on the Corporation.

Would the Attorney-General address himself to the fact that whereas, under Section 1 of the 1948 Act, the Corporation was "charged" with the duty, henceforward under the Bill for duty will be substituted merely to secure a purpose—which is making things very different?

We can deal later with the changes by Clause 1. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that his question is not related to the issue under consideration.

The change made to the existing Act by paragraph (c) is really to impose a fetter additional to that already contained in the 1948 Act upon the duties and powers of the Corporation. As my right hon. Friend has said, paragraph (c) does impose a new duty and a duty which my right hon. Friend has criticised as being inconsistent and difficult to associate with the authority of the local legislatures.

One must surely bear in mind the different spheres where the Corporation will act with local legislatures. Under Section 8 of the 1948 Act a duty is imposed on the Corporation in relation to activities which it is carrying out directly or indirectly, but paragraph (c) goes far wider than that and imposes on the Corporation a duty of acting as a judge of the social legislation of the respective Colonies.

It is true that paragraph (c) places an obligation on the Corporation which is more specific than that in the 1948 Act, but in the 1948 Act the Corporation could promote activities only in Colonial Territories defined in the Act and those territories were the responsibility of the Secretary of State. The Colonial Development Corporation was responsible to the Secretary of State and had to report to him. The position was, therefore, that the provisions of paragraph (c) could be ensured under the 1948 Act by the Secretary of State responsible to the House. The position under the Bill now is that the Corporation will be entitled to promote or assist activities in territories for which the Secretary of State has no responsibility to the House.

I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. If he is thinking of activities in Southern Rhodesia, they would be possible only with my permission and if it were clear that those activities were designed for Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland. If the right hon. Gentleman's comments are due to his doubt about what the position would be after territories for which I am now responsible have become independent, then, of course, that is another matter.

May I put it in a concrete way? The C.D.C. can make grants in Kenya, but that is a territory for which the Secretary of State has responsibilities and for which he is answerable to the House. In that case, we can hold him responsible for ensuring that the Corporation observes paragraph (c) in such a territory. However, the Bill allows the Corporation to promote activities either directly or in association with others in territories for which he would not be so directly responsible to the House. In that case, the argument for the insertion of paragraph (c) is very strong.

The right hon. Gentleman is confused on this point. As the Committee knows, there were a number of activities in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia before Federation. After Federation came into force, it was possible that there would be some doubt about whether the Corporation could continue to act in the Northern Territories. Steps were, therefore, taken to make it clear beyond doubt that the Corporation could continue its activities in the Federation.

The provisions of the Bill in no way add to the territories where the Corporation can engage in activities and, in particular, certainly do not extend its functions to territories for which I am not responsible. Where Southern Rhodesia is concerned there is a limitation on the activity, because I do not believe, for example, that a housing loan—to which the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) referred in the debate two days ago—would be possible, unless it were shown that it was in the interests of the two Northern Territories.

I am very anxious to see that the limited amount of money available is concentrated on those territories which Parliament had in mind when the 1948 Act was passed. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that the Corporation is not extending its activities into territories for which I am not responsible.

The right hon. Gentleman earlier referred to the fact that there is to be labour legislation in Southern Rhodesia. If the Bill does not extend to Southern Rhodesia, what was the purpose of those remarks?

I was asked a direct question in the temporary absence of my hon. and gallant Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and I gave the information to the Committee. I said expressly that it was not my function or position to be examined about it, but I was trying to be courteous to the Committee, and I stated what I knew to be the case.

If there is a scheme in Southern Rhodesia for building houses to help Northern Rhodesia, and there is some question as to the conditions of the workers employed on that scheme, can the right hon. Gentleman rectify any grievances there may be if we put them to him?

If the scheme is put forward for housing in Southern Rhodesia and is designed to help Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland, there would be the presumption that the House gave permission for such a scheme to be started. The act of the Secretary of State in approving that, and giving sanction for the Corporation to go ahead, could be challenged in the House of Commons, and he could be called to account for having granted that permission, and no doubt he would be continually subject to criticism or the reverse for having done so. As to what the Southern Rhodesian Government might or might not do in partnership with the Corporation in running activities in Southern Rhodesia, that would not be answerable by the Secretary of State.

The Secretary of State now admits that, provided he certifies it, it is possible for the Corporation to operate in a territory in which it could not operate under the original Act, and in a territory for which he has not the same direct responsibility as he has in the territories covered by the original Act. Is there not an overwhelming argument for making this provision apply to all territories to which public moneys will or may be allocated in future, including those to which it could not be allocated under the original Act?

The right hon. Gentleman is still confused. This Bill does not extend the field of the activities of the Corporation to territories in which they could not operate before. There has been no extension in its scope in that direction. There is a certain limitation there, and it would be fair to say that that is the only field in which the Bill does limit the activities of the Corporation. In every other field it expands it. This is a Bill to give greater scope to the Corporation and not to limit it, but in this one field—to Southern Rhodesia—there is the limitation that, although a particular housing loan in Southern Rhodesia is validated by the Bill, I do not think that a subsequent loan could be granted for housing there unless it were for the benefit of the Northern Territories.

I am not quite sure whether I am interrupting my right hon. Friend's intervention in the speech of the Attorney-General, or the Attorney-General's intervention in the speech of my right hon. Friend.

I understood that the Attorney-General had completed his speech.

I am rather surprised that he thought that the speech had been completed, because it did not seem to me to add very much. It was divided into three parts. The first was a bitter attack upon the Colonial Secretary, who had submitted at great length that the Clause was impracticable, while the Attorney-General said that the provision was already in the Bill.

No.

Surely he did. The Colonial Secretary said that we cannot do this because of the difficulties involved, and the Attorney-General said that we need not do it because the original Clause covered all that we want, and that it would remain.

The second part of the Attorney-General's speech I will deal with in more detail later, but it was a passionate defence of the Parliamentary draftsmen. He defended their observations and the clarity of what they are putting before us. It was a curious commentary upon the way in which the Bill has arrived before the House.

In the third part of his argument he fell back upon "Lead Kindly Light." He said that we had to remember that Westminster and Nairobi are a long way away from each other.

"… I do not ask to see

The distant scene; one step enough for me."

I forget who wrote that very good hymn.

Cardinal Newman.

I am told that it was Cardinal Newman—before he was made a cardinal, of course. I am certain that when he wrote that he was referring, as in the cliché, to "a step in the right direction" and not to a step backwards.

When the Colonial Secretary tells us, "In every other way this Bill extends the ambit of the Corporation's activities," I say, "What about subsection (5), which is put in specially to limit its activities, and what about the reference to 'other territories'"? What about the Corporation's objections to it, almost in toto? What about the note of censure in the White Paper, in which it said that its moral and legal obligations had been frustrated by the action of the Government?

I must put that point at rest. The Corporation asked for legislation and is anxiously watching the progress of the Bill through the House and hopes to see it made law very soon.

This is rather sad. This is another split between Her Majesty's advisers, because, in the concluding remarks of the Minister of State at midnight on Wednesday-Thursday, he said that the Corporation were opposed to the Bill.

indicated dissent.

Yes. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Corporation is opposed to the Bill. Will he get up and say that it is not? Did the Corporation not say that it objected to many Clauses in the Bill, as now drafted?

As I have just been accused of saying something which I did not say, I would ask the hon. Member to look at HANSARD, which was available only this morning. What I said—and I said it very clearly—was that I was speaking for Her Majesty's Government.

I am obliged. I am the last person to want to misrepresent what Ministers have said, and as I am on my feet I have asked one of my hon. Friends to refer to the exact quotation.

But here we have an opportunity of adding clarity, and providing the Committee with a little light. Does the Corporation approve of every Clause? I recall that this is the exact question that was asked the other day by myself, or my right hon. Friend. My recollection is that the reply was quite clearly, "No, I am not going so far as to say that they approve of it."

I can help my hon. Friend. The Minister of State, having been asked whether the Corporation agreed to the Bill extending its powers said:

"I cannot give that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July. 1956; Vol. 557. c. 609.]

This is interesting and helpful, but it is not directly related to the Amendment.

I was only trying to reply to the Attorney-General, to whom you listened with some patience, Mr. Hynd. Indeed, we all did, our patience being rather tried. I thought that it was proper, in reply to the Attorney-General's remarks—and as my argument covers the whole ambit of the debate—to call attention to the major irrelevances and inaccuracies. I do not want to pursue that further.

The Colonial Secretary came here in one of his dulcet moods. We know that the right hon. Gentleman has three personalities. This is not a case of schizophrenia; he has three distinct personalities, to which we have become accustomed, and my hon. Friends think it is a weakness in my character that I have a sneaking regard for two of them. Whether it is a sign of a hardening of the arteries or of reactionary tendencies, I do not know.

The Minister opened the debate with a most dulcet speech. He said the Opposition was trying to help; they were brilliant men, whose talents were being applied to the problem. It was Mid-Bedfordshire speaking, no doubt with his voice muted by the surrounding mattresses. As Colonial Secretary, he now throws a new policy on the table, rather in the manner of the grocer's assistant, under notice, saying to an irate customer, "There is only one kind of cheese, and you may as well have it." It was all very happy and all very slapdash and cheerful. He was saying, "You either have it or you do not," with perhaps a slight trace of Biggleswade.

He says he has no colour bar in his system, and I believe him. I have no doubt that if he were given a free hand he would like to deal with the major evils of the colour bar. But the atmosphere in which we are discussing the Bill is not that of a year or two ago. No one who looks at the progress of the Corporation—the limitations which have been put upon it, by way of all the Government directives and Government advice, which have reduced it from the rôle of a corporation designed to expand the standards of living in the Colonies to a mere entrepreneur trying to rescue losses here, invest money there, and get partial control for a private enterprise company and so on—would really view it as anything other than retrograde. Although we are happy to see that the old traditional colour bar which has ruled England is disappearing as we become a more cosmopolitan country, it is still true that at times we get an atmosphere in which retrograde measures are constantly being taken.

We get the leader of the Established Church in this country pronouncing a new dogma that all God's children are equal in His love, but that He may dislike the look of some of them. I am paraphrasing the statement, and that is precisely what was announced as a contribution to our religious thought. We get a hoarse whisper from the Dame of the Primrose League saying that she does not really like niggers but ought not to say it, and we get the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) nuttily screaming "Nuts" from time to time as his contribution to colonial policy. It is a shame, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman himself likes it, but it is no more than a perfectly simple example of a perfectly simple problem put before the House.

The learned Attorney-General has said that we need not have this power because it is there already. If that be so, the position is really simple. There is never any harm in saying a thing twice. Indeed, there are many people who think that if one says a thing twice one means it. It gives emphasis. It does not do any harm. Here, on a Friday morning, this Committee is being asked to discuss a Bill produced on this thesis, which none of us believe, that years after the Act was passed, years after it had been operated, years after schemes had been developed, financed and run without any protests in the ports of the seven seas and the four corners of the earth, someone in the Colonial Office suddenly said "There's summat wrong with this 'ere Bill."

This is what the Minister of State really said. It was not that anyone challenged it as the right thing or that anyone had issued a writ. It was not that anyone threatened any legal process, but, suddenly one morning in the Colonial Office, someone had the same feeling that my mother had when rheumatism was likely to attack her, and regarded it as a portent of impending disaster. He said, "I think there is something wrong," and so we get this Bill. We say "What is it that is wrong?"

The Attorney-General said it.

Was it the Attorney-General who said it? Was he consulted? Was his advice given as to whether it was wrong? Or was it the case that he thought it was wrong? Who did say it? The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been very forthcoming with information up to now. He started with an air of passionate co-operation. Who said it?

As I gathered from what the Attorney-General said, we need not have anything, because all these things are in the 1948 Act. Why, then, do we have to have this Bill at all?

I heard the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) purporting to paraphrase what I said in a way which makes me think that I did not make my statement very clearly. What I said was that, in relation to this Amendment, two-thirds of it is unnecessary and the remaining third, which is the only material part relevant to this debate, was unacceptable, as my right hon. Friend has said. With regard to the reason for this Bill, this is a validation of past acts. It is really a matter which does not arise in relation to this particular Amendment, but if any question arises later on the reasons for this Bill and the Amendments to Clause 1, I should be only too glad to reply to that point in due course.

This is rather fascinating. Let us come back to paragraph (c) of the proposed Amendment to page 4, line 7, which says:

"(c) does not hinder or limit, or seek to hinder or limit, the combination of the employees of that body or person or of any of them (irrespective of race), either among themselves or with any other employees and either for the time being or permanently, being a combination which is lawful and the principal objects of which are the regulation of the relations between employees and employers or between employees and employees or the imposing of restrictive conditions on any trade or business or the provision of benefits to the persons so combining."

Clearly, it refers to trade unions. All this Clause says is not that they are not to have trade unions, according to paragraph (c), but that we shall not stop them having them. In relation to this subsection, all the arguments of the Colonial Secretary are irrelevant, because, so far as I am aware, there is no Colony which prohibits people from having trade unions. There are a great many which do not encourage them, and some which make it extremely difficult to have them. Nowhere in the whole ambit of the peaceful operations of the Colonial Development Corporation would it infringe any law by observing paragraph (c), which stops it saying, like some of the banks, "We are not going to let you have a trade union".

What is the difficulty about the Minister accepting the Amendment? Does he really say that he wants to reserve to the C.D.C. the power to say that no one who works for it shall be free to join a union, or that no one who works on a particular project in a particular country shall be able to join a trade union? Is that what he says? If so, it belies the sincerity of what he said immediately preceding it. Is it really the policy of the Government not to accede to a provision which does no more than prevent either the formation of employer's unions or prevent any anti-union policy being operated by somebody using our money, contributed by trade unionists of this country in order to help their fellows in other parts of the world? Could there possibly be a more false argument?

I recall the attention of the Attorney-General to the circumstances in which the Bill comes before us. Somebody must have advised at some time, presumably, because the Colonial Development Corporation specifically states in paragraph 12 of its Report that it has taken legal advice and has consulted eminent counsel and that that advice was that there is no necessity for this Bill. The Corporation says it has been stopped from carrying out its moral and financial obligations, that it has taken advice from eminent counsel, and that advice is that it is right. Yet, here we are, on a Friday morning, asked to pass this provision and push this Measure through in a hurry after eight or nine months of delay, and at the fag-end of the Session, because—

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that, unless we do pass this Bill today, whatever may be the merits of the facts in dispute, the Colonial Development Corporation will be held up for many months during the long Recess in the handling of its projects?

Let us get away from this at once. There is no necessity for a long Recess. I have not the slightest objection to sitting through the grouse and salmon seasons. We have no obligation to be away from here on August Bank Holiday. If we do not pass it today, we shall pass it next week. Do not let us have the argument that because the long Recess is approaching we must pass this Bill in one day, because I am sure that my hon. Friend would not mean that. I can only think that he means that I am taking too long, and I am always sensitive to these impressions. The Attorney-General ought to tell us whether he thinks this Bill is necessary.

I said to the hon. Gentleman a few minutes ago, and perhaps either he did not listen or I did not make myself clear, that the question of the need for this validation Bill really does not arise on this Amendment at all. If I were to try to give the answers to these difficult questions, you, Mr. Hynd, would be the first to call me to order. I have indicated to the hon. Gentleman that, when we get away from this Amendment and come to discuss Clause 1 as a whole, I shall be glad to explain to him the reason why, in my view, the need for this validation Bill clearly exists. It would be more appropriate to deal with it then than on an Amendment of a somewhat narrow character.

I have felt for some time that the argument was getting rather wide of the Amendment.

The Attorney-General says, "I want you to accept from me that the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, clearly covers a lot of the things that we are trying to cover in the proposed Section 8A. It provides many of the provisions for which we are now trying to provide and, therefore, I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite not to press the Amendment because the Bill is quite clear." But if the Bill is clear, why are we mucking about with it at all? What are the Clauses in it which are clear and what are those which are not?

The Attorney-General says, "When we get to Clause 1 I will deal with it." But we are on Clause 1 and have been for over an hour. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman feels that he wants more time for reflection before he makes the momentous announcement, I am quite prepared not to press the matter any further. However, I think that this is an extremely important Amendment, and that the Government's reason for refusing to accept it becomes more sinister every moment.

I had hoped that the humour and eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) would have softened the Minister a little, and I rise only because the right hon. Gentleman has not risen again. As I have never been engaged in any pugnacious activities across the Table with the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps I might try to persuade him. Perhaps he will find it easier to listen to my blandishments than to those of my hon. Friend who has sometimes clashed with him.

I think the right hon. Gentleman will agreed that it is paragraph (c) which lies between us and that the rest of the Amendment is either unnecessary or quite acceptable. It is paragraph (c) about which we are in dispute. It seemed to me that the Government advanced three reasons for rejecting the proposals in the paragraph. The first logical objection put forward by the right hon. Gentleman was that as he would have to give sanction for any new enterprise undertaken by the Colonial Development Corporation he would, of course, like to see that satisfactory conditions of labour were being accepted in connection with such new enterprise and would be carried on under conditions which were regarded as satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman says, "I should have to sanction it and I could be questioned in this House."

That is all very well, but if we were to follow that argument to its logical conclusion we should reach the stage where we said that Ministers could be given general responsibility, such as they receive from the Crown already, for the discharge of their duties and that Acts of Parliament would become completely unnecessary. We should never need to lay obligations on Ministers to do certain things because they could always be questioned in the House. I am sure that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman himself would not wish to stand too firmly on an argument of that kind.

The mere fact that the right hon. Gentleman could be questioned in the House if he were to sanction enterprises which were carried on in an unsatisfactory way from the point of view of the labour involved is no reason for not accepting this Amendment. The House cannot regard it as satisfactory merely to have the power to question and criticise the right hon. Gentleman if he gives wrong decisions. The House must ensure that he gives the kind of decisions which it wants him to give.

The right hon. Gentleman's second argument was that it is most improbable and most unlikely, and would, in any case, be very rare, that the Corporation would undertake enterprises in territories for which we cannot legislate, to wit, Southern Rhodesia. But I suggest that though such cases may be infrequent, they are almost certainly bound to arise. It is very difficult to conceive that in the new Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland it will not be necessary for the benefit of the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to make use of the power resources in, for example, Southern Rhodesia.

It might be necessary and economically wise to establish a cotton ginnery close to the power being provided inside the border of Rhodesia. That ginnery would be available to the cotton producers of the Northern Territories, the other two territories of the Federation. If that kind of case arises, it is surely necessary to try to ensure that our money—and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West made clear, is the whole point—is not to be used in enterprises which carry on wrongful labour policies. We are not seeking to legislate for Southern Rhodesia or, generally, for the Colonies as a whole. We are only trying to ensure that, where our money is being used, it will be used by enterprises which pursue satisfactory labour policy.

The third line of defence advanced by the right hon. Gentleman was that there is no necessity to have this special insurance about the use of our money, because the general legislation in the Colonies is already adequate and because Southern Rhodesia is shortly introducing legislation which will be adequate. But we submit that legislation in some of the Colonies is inadequate in this respect and that the new legislation forthcoming in Southern Rhodesia will also be inadequate in this respect. We agree that it is going to permit Africans to form trade unions of their own and to bargain collectively if they can, but I bet that the employers' council will not be refused permission to bargain collectively or to refuse to recognise African unions, or African unions be given an opportunity to establish themselves in industry by the sort of process which obtain in America under the Wagner Act.

Some time ago I found myself in British Guiana, where the trade unions were at a grave disadvantage because, although they could be formed under the laws of that Colony, they could not assert their right to bargain collectively, and because there was nothing in the legislation of the Colony which in the least resembled the Wagner Act of the United States. They were always told that that type of legislation was foreign to British tradition and that nothing could be done about it.

I say that that is a wrong policy and that we should follow the example of our American cousins in this matter. Where it is difficult for people to organise they should be given the full protection of the law and the right by ballot to decide in an enterprise in which they command the majority of the support of the union.

I seriously suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he has not fully considered all the implications of this Amendment. Of course, he has not had time to do that, a fact which I recognise very well, but I ask him most sincerely to give an undertaking to consider the matter between now and Report and to bring forward an Amendment of his own.

It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) making a psychological study of the Minister. If he considers his Press in Bedford—I was speaking there last week—he will see that the Minister is described as a schizophrenic not only in his approach to Africans and the West Coast of Africa, but in matters concerning Malta and Cyprus.

It is apparent in this debate that the Minister has one set of values for the Gold Coast and Nigeria and another set for the plural society in the centre of Africa. I listened to what he had to say earlier about the labour laws in the Colonies. The right hon. Gentleman is most attractive at the Box and puts forward quite smoothly his argument about labour laws in the Colony. But surely his argument has boomeranged. He says that they are not perhaps in full force, for example, in the Seychelles, and then he says that we shall make them better and better.

Is that not a case for accepting this Amendment because, surely, in this matter the Colonial Development Corporation will want a target scheme for these territories? With regard to these schemes for the Colonies which are backed by public money we ought to say that we shall have only these high standards of arbitration and conciliation, and this should help the right hon. Gentleman in framing his labour laws. Would it not be a big lever for him in acting within a Colonial Territory such as Southern Rhodesia?

It is a fact that at this time we have a housing scheme in Southern Rhodesia and I would call his attention to page 46 of the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the Colonial Development Corporation where it says that we are proposing to build, and are building, and will build more houses for African workers. Why are we doing that? It is in order to build up a "stable and efficient labour force." Is not that the whole object of the Bill? Is it not important that in a Bill such as this the right hon. Gentleman should be given all the help which hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and indeed all of us, can give in using the C.D.C. to ensure better conditions in Southern Rhodesia?

The right hon. Gentleman says that he wants this as much as do hon. Members on this side of the Committee; that he is as keen about it as we are and is happy, as we are, to fight against discrimination. I should have thought that here was a chance to use the C.D.C. in this way, and we cannot see why he is so diffident about accepting this Amendment. I am surprised at the right hon. Gentleman. Again there emerges evidence of his duel personality. In some respects, the right hon. Gentleman is very good and very helpful. I know the opinion of him which is held by some Africans. I am not "piling it on" when I say that in certain parts of Africa, the right hon. Gentleman is thought of very highly. But in other places matters are much more difficult, because the right hon. Gentleman has two loyalties, and one loyalty pulls much harder than the other in these affairs.

The argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman does not convince me. His argument about the labour rules is specious, but if they require reinforcing, we think that, were this Amendment accepted, it would help him enormously in tackling the backward employers, particularly in Southern Rhodesia.

Despite the generous words of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), I have heard nothing in this discussion which would cause me to alter my view that this is not the place to impose on the associates of the Corporation more than is imposed on them by local laws, regulations and practice. I am sure that this is a matter for local laws, regulations and practice, and it should not be imposed in this way. Despite the arguments which have been advanced, I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman falls back upon his majority—not having an argument to advance. He has not sought to answer any of the arguments which have been advanced this morning, not a single one. The Attorney-General never attempted to answer the argument that the language of Section 8 of the 1948 Act would not possibly have been used if the activities of the Corporation were known to be as indirect as they are. The Ministers knows that very well, because if he looks at the language, he will see that almost all of it is intended to deal with employees in the direct employment of the Corporation. How does he think that in practical terms the Corporation can enter into direct consultation with the employees of somebody else? But that is exactly what was said here, and the right hon. Gentleman has not answered that point.

In effect, the right hon. Gentleman has said, "When I am asked to put in protective legislation for Africans in areas where there is a rural community, I would rather leave it to the local whites than protect them in the House of Commons." That is really what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and it is not good enough. Section 8 (2, b) of the 1948 Act states:

"where the matter in question arises in connection with the carrying on of activities in a colonial territory, with the Government of the territory."

In other words, the right hon. Gentleman would consider that the C.D.C. had fulfilled its obligations if it could settle with the Government of Kenya—and we know what the Government of Kenya have been doing.

I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would not always say this about the Government of Kenya. It is a cruel reflection on a very large number of loyal and courageous people who are attempting to build up a community of many races in Kenya, and whose brilliant work is so often forgotten, when a smear of one or two people is extended over the whole people.

Really! The right hon. Gentleman is not dealing with the facts at all when he talks about a smear of one or two people, after what has been said over and over again with great particularity about the industrial conditions and the wages of the Africans in Kenya. What is the use of the right hon. Gentleman talking like that? He knows very well that it is not true.

No one is saying that there are not many idealists and altruists and hard workers in Africa and in almost all the Colonies—probably all of them. What we are saying, and it cannot be contradicted, is that, even more than British workpeople, Africans have not been able to raise their standards without the assistance of statutory protection; and the right hon. Gentleman refuses to give them that. He refuses to assist the African to enable him to have conditions for organisation which exist here. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Leave it to local laws." But we here are responsible and here is our instrument. We are refusing to act.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end to insert "(including Government authorities)".

I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time

I do not think these Amendments will cause the controversy provoked by the last one. They should be very much simpler to deal with. The main purpose is to make it quite clear that the Corporation can deal in cooperation with Government bodies. There seems to be some doubt about that at the moment. The words used are:

"… in association with other bodies or persons …"

We want to make it clear that these other bodies or persons will include Government bodies. The matter is of importance in connection with schemes such as those which are being carried on in Malaya. We want to ensure that schemes like those can be carried on.

There is a tendency now for the Corporation to deal more with private bodies and private companies. We want them to deal also with Government bodies. We hope that the Government may find themselves able to accept these simple little Amendments asking for power for the Corporation to deal in association with Government bodies.

It would be very hard to visualise a Government authority which was not a "body" or not a "person". The Bill as drawn was intended to include Government authorities, and I think that it is wide enough to do that. In the 1948 Act there was a specific reference to:

"… bodies or persons (including Government authorities)…"

When one contrasts that Act with the Bill it is, I think, on the whole desirable to eliminate any possible chance of doubt by inserting a provision to this effect.

However, to accept the Amendment would involve a number of consequential Amendments elsewhere throughout the Bill. We feel that it would be much better to clarify the position and to remove all possibility of doubt by moving an Amendment in Clause I, page 4, line 7—which I shall seek to move as a manuscript Amendment—to insert, at the end:

"and any references to bodies or persons includes a reference to Government authorities."

I think that that will entirely meet the point made by the right hon. Gentleman and it will also remove any possibility of doubt, although I should like to make it clear that the view was—and I think it is correct—that "bodies or persons" is a phrase wide enough to include Government authorities. In the circumstances, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to be good enough to withdraw the Amendment.

In view of what the Attorney-General has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 24, to leave out "either"

I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the next two Amendments, in page 2, line 26, to leave out "or independently", and in line 27, at the end to insert:

Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise the Corporation to lend money to any body or person unless that body of person is either controlled by the Corporation or certified by the Secretary of State to be carrying on activities to the advantage of the people of the colonial territory concerned and not to have as one of its main purposes the making of private profit.

These Amendments seek to bring about something to which we made considerable reference during the Second Reading debate. We desire that, as far as possible, the Corporation shall carry on schemes of its own. That was the original intention, and we think that there has been a very grave alteration in that now the Corporation is seeking more and more to ally itself with other bodies and to pass over its responsibility to other bodies, in particular to private companies; and that it is becoming increasingly a finance corporation.

There are other finance corporations in existence which do very valuable work. It was not envisaged when the C.D.C. was originally set up that it was to be a finance corporation. We think, therefore, that if the Amendment were accepted it would bring the Corporation far more closely to the original intention which was expressed when it was founded. In order that I may make the argument a little bit clearer, I should like to refer to the Corporation's Report, from which it can be seen that today about £18 million is spent on schemes which are actually managed by the Corporation; about £12 million is now out on loan and about £7 million is spent on schemes managed by private enterprise. The total amount involved in schemes actually managed by the C.D.C. is less than that which is concerned with loans and schemes operated by private enterprise. That seems entirely wrong.

1.0 p.m.

The Report shows that the C.D.C. intends to continue this policy and to emphasise it more than at present. The Report says, on page 8:

"Exceptionally C.D.C. is ready to carry executive responsibility in new schemes specially directed to benefit local people, if such schemes are viable and it feels thereto competent."

That is not the remark of a Corporation which intends to do much development itself, but which intends to go into its shell and leave other bodies to do the work for which it was originally set up. That is most unfortunate. We want to limit the whole tendency to hand over to somebody else the work which the C.D.C. should do.

The difficulties that may arise if that policy is pursued indefinitely can be illustrated by the case of the Williamson Diamond Mines. The Report states that a sum of no less than £500,000 is earmarked to be lent to Williamson Diamonds, Ltd. I understand that the money has not yet been lent, and I do not know what is to be the rate of interest. In this case, as in other cases, there may be a rate of interest well below the normal rate at which money could be borrowed through the usual channels.

That means that the C.D.C. will not only become a finance corporation but will lend at cut rates to certain private industries. In doing that, it will have no control; in fact it will have no control. We have already been discussing the control of labour relations in a scheme with which the C.D.C. is concerned.

The idea with the Williamson scheme is that there should be extensive mechanisation. We have an example of mechanisation and its results in the strike going on in Birmingham. I do not suggest that this will be mechanisation of that kind or degree, but suppose there is rapid mechanisation about which the Africans are not consulted, and suppose there is suddenly a great disturbance. The C.D.C. will have no control whatever over it. It will be happening through the action of a private company, but the C.D.C. will have lent the money to make that disturbance possible.

I hope that if there is mechanisation in the Williamson Mines it will be carried through successfully, that the Africans will be informed in advance of what is going to happen, and that the public relations of Williamson Diamonds, Ltd., will be considerably better than those of the B.M.C. They certainly could not be worse. The point is that there may be disturbances in companies to which the C.D.C. has lent money and over which it will have no control whatever.

We are anxious to limit the functions of the C.D.C. in this respect, although in general we want to increase the functions of the C.D.C. so that it will do more work. Lending money to outside people instead of doing jobs itself is not a function for which the C.D.C. was set up.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this series of Amendments, although I acknowledge that I do not expect he will, because the Amendment reflects the difference between that side of the Committee and this.

The objective of the Amendments is that monetary assistance should be given through the Corporation only where it is quite clear that the activities of the concern to which the money is to be given would be to the advantage of the people of the Colonial Territory concerned, and would not be mainly for making private profit. The principle of community service without private profit is the essential difference between the two sides of the Committee.

This issue is becoming enormously important in all the Colonial Territories. Discoveries are continually being made of valuable mineral resources like the discovery of uranium, copper and iron ore. The peoples of the territories are concerned that the wealth which results shall pass to them and not mainly or to a very considerable extent to financiers in this country or otherwise external to the territory. That may seem a cliché, but it is a very real and practical issue.

I would illustrate it from Northern Rhodesia, where a United Nations return has showed the amazing fact that one third of the total wealth produced annually in Northern Rhodesia is extracted by financiers in this country and America because of their ownership of the copper mines. If the Amendments were accepted—

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the great bulk of what is produced from the copper mines of Northern Rhodesia goes to help the native population? He must know of the building operations going on in the territory.

Order.

I did not object to the intervention, and I am very ready to reply to it if it is within the rules of order to do so.

It was perfectly in order, but it was an argument rather than an intervention.

I am prepared to reply to the argument. It is true that the workers in Nyasaland will go to Northern Rhodesia and even to South Africa because wage standards are higher than in the more primitive industries of Nyasaland, but what is happening in Nyasaland emphasises the point I am making. Although the workers can get higher wages in the copper or diamond mines, the fear and opposition of the people towards industrialisation under external ownership with the profits passing to a few people is very great. Only last week, in the Nyasaland Legislature, the African representatives were strongly opposed to proposals for the increased industrialisation of Nyasaland.

The reason—I do not think the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) was here when I put it at an earlier stage of the debate—is that these people do not welcome industrialisation for private profit-making outside their control. They want to obtain political power to lay down the conditions of industrialisation, as is being done in West Africa, by taking possession of the industries concerned for the people themselves. That is the psychological factor and the fear everywhere.

On an earlier Amendment the right hon. Gentleman said that it was restrictive. The present Amendment is also restrictive, but surely we have the right to say that when British money has been voted by Parliament to a Corporation the money shall be used for the advantage of the people in the Colonial Territory concerned and, in the second place, shall not be used mainly for private profit-making. That is the restriction we are seeking to lay down, and in my view this Committee would be failing in its duty if it did not apply that restriction.

The right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dug-dale) discussed the two Amendments. I am afraid that I missed the Second Reading debate and I must apologise to the Committee for having done so. I was engaged in very important discussions concerning the territory to which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has so recently referred, Northern Rhodesia. Those discussions were planned before I knew about that particular debate and I hope that the Committee will understand my absence.

Although I missed the Second Reading I discussed with the Minister of State and my advisers the full course of the debate and, of course, read every word uttered in it. I must confess that it was difficult to give the debate the proper attention it deserved because, through no fault of the House or of the producers of HANSARD, my copy of the Report of that debate arrived only today.

It is always available in the Library:

Unfortunately, I was not able to perambulate towards the Library—not through any incapacity, but because I was occupied elsewhere. Most of the speeches made by the Opposition in that debate were to the effect that this was a sinister attempt to put a restriction on the functions of the Corporation. Indeed, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said that he thought we had thought up and cooked up a rather "phoney situation" in regard to the validity of certain activities of the Corporation. I can assure the hon. Member that even if I had such a sinister plan it would not successfully have run the gauntlet of my colleagues concerned with the Bills to come before us before the Recess.

I am not anxious to add to the amount of legislation and controversy which my office so greatly demands, and which is so frequently exercised. The Bill is primarily a validation Bill, to enable the Corporation to carry on, in the case of Southern Rhodesia, everything it had done hitherto. The main burden of the speeches by the Opposition was that we were to limit the functions of the Corporation yet these Amendments—this one and the one we recently discussed—suggest restrictions on the activities of the Corporation. Hon. Members were fully entitled to move those Amendments, but that is a little difficult to reconcile with the charge that the whole purpose of the Bill is to make the Corporation

"cabined, cribbed, confined"

in its activities.

The hon. Member for Oldham, West said that the Conservative Party was actuated throughout by hostility to the Colonial Development Corporation. I should like at once to say that that is completely untrue. I remember vividly how, in 1948, when the late Mr. Oliver Stanley was leading for the Conservative Opposition on matters of this kind and gave a genuine welcome to the Bill which became an Act, I, alongside him, echoed that welcome to the setting up of the Corporation. In the activities in which the Corporation is engaged I can assure the right hon. Member for West Bromwich that no hostility of any kind has been shown either by myself or my predecessor.

I am sure that Lord Reith and his colleagues would recognise the continuing desire on my part to understand the difficulties of the Corporation and the problems and complexities which are bound to confront a body which, while asked to act as a commercial organisation in many ways, none the less is subject to what must be irksome Government restrictions properly imposed upon it by an Act of Parliament.

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough made a great many not very respectful references to the conception of private profit. He mentioned the Williamson Diamond Mines and also the Copper Belt, in Northern Rhodesia. I must try to keep in order, but those two great concerns have been mentioned and I must say how much I as Secretary of State owe to the operative figures in those two great companies for all the work they do for the real material and moral improvement in the territories in which, through hard work of individuals and the blessings of Almighty God, certain great natural resources have been found.

1.15 p.m.

In Tanganyika, we owe a great deal to the incredible persistence and courage of Mr. Williamson. There, against difficulties in which anyone else might have abandoned the quest as hopeless, he has gone on with zeal and fortitude. Williamsons Diamonds Ltd. is one of the finest employers in the Commonwealth. No one who has seen the steady trek of Africans to get a job with Williamsons would regard private profit as a thing which is distasteful to the average African.

I had no desire to attack Williamsons. I was giving an instance of money to be handed over to an independent company. I am sure that if any independent company would use it well that company is Williamsons. I was not concerned to attack the firm.

I am glad of that and I am sure that those remarks will be reassuring in Tanganyika. Nothing was drawn on 31st December, or to the date of the signing of the Report.

I have had other opportunities of saying what I think of the work, in Northern Rhodesia, of Sir Ronald Prain, in the Copper Belt, and of his fine statesmanship and personal courage. I hope that a chance will arise for me at a not too distant date, in front of Africans and others alike, to pay tribute to the work he has done and the really practical results there in the creation of an African middle class—which is surely a desirable thing—to which he has set his hand, and also his almost incredible vigour and enterprise.

May I add this, as the hon. Member referred to private profit in slightly scathing terms? If the whole of Africa, with its rapidly multiplying populations, expected to live by taking in each others' washing—if I may use that rather vulgar phrase—then no doubt private profit would not be necessary. If we are to look for a steady increase in the standard of living that will only come when people with the highly proper motive of private profit are encouraged to go out to, and work in, Africa. I shall regard myself as having been an inefficient Secretary of State if, at the end of my service, I have not also encouraged a sense of private profit among Africans themselves. I very much hope to see further development of an African middle class, a property-owning class, as one of the great stabilising factors in that vast continent.

If accepted, these two Amendments would prevent the Corporation setting up a new body unless it was under the total or partial control of the Corporation. That would restrict the Corporation in comparison with the 1948 Act and would be quite inconsistent with Opposition talk about the Bill being based on the assumption that we were anxious to restrict the activities of the Corporation.

An important point was made by right hon. Gentlemen on which I think it would be proper to make a brief, although inadequate, comment, namely, the proportion of the activities of the Corporation which could be generally described as finance house business. I know that the right hon. Member has expressed some anxiety about that in this House and outside. My colleague, the Minister of State, two days ago explained that it was not the intention that the Corporation should finance all loan-worthy operations of Government, and he quoted the C.D.C. Annual Report for last year which stated that the Corporation stands by to help with essential capital for which the finance is not otherwise available.

The making of loans has always been within the Corporation's legal powers, and when the Labour Government of the day, quite rightly and, I think, with great good sense, set up the Colonial Development Corporation, they included among its legal powers the making of loans. There has been a considerable demand for these loans. The present Government accept the Corporation's view that a reasonable proportion of finance house business is necessary if the Corporation is to fulfil its statutory obligation to break even, taking one year with another. There have been a number of investments on a substantial scale, of which, of course, the greatest is the £15 million invested in the great Kariba project, some of the preparatory work of which I hope to see before very long.

If the Corporation is to discharge its statutory duty, it is only reasonable that a reasonable proportion of its assets should be invested in loans for schemes of this kind, but I share the desire that it should have adequate funds available for direct commercial development and, in consultation with the chairman—and to the work of Lord Reith and his colleagues over the last few years I should like to pay a generous tribute—I shall always watch with interest and with care the proportion of its assets which goes into loan business. We certainly do not want to see straight-forward commercial development prejudiced by a disproportionate investment in purely loan business.

I am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Would he say what he calls a suitable proportion? Would it be 30 per cent. or 60 per cent. or 90 per cent., or what?

I think it must vary according to the purposes for which the loan is given. I should be misleading the Committee if I gave any figure, but I assure hon. Members that the Corporation, in consultation with the Government, will do all it can to see that this does not become a top-heavy aspect of the Corporation's activities but bears a reasonable relationship to its more directly commercial ventures.

I quoted remarks from the C.D.C. Report in which it was said that only exceptionally is the Corporation ready to carry out executive responsibility for new schemes. That looks as though fewer and fewer new schemes will be provided for which the Corporation is itself directly responsible.

But it does not mean that it will be the exception rather than the rule to have a scheme. That must remain its main form of activity. What the Corporation had in mind was that commercial management may well be in other hands, and I regard it as a very prudent discharge of its duties that it should enable business to be started but not attempt itself in every case to run the business as from the Corporation.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the Corporation was designed, in a way, to be a bridge between the State and private enterprise in opening up commercial development in the territories. It may be that in certain schemes, where it has not adequate capital, the best contribution of private enterprise may lie in management. It is in such circumstances that the Corporation is properly leaving management to private people or sharing the management of a concern with them; although, naturally, the Corporation remains under the Statute, and particularly the Act of 1948, to which reference has been made, responsible for the conduct of the business.

It was always the view of the old Greek orator that a speech should commence with the exordium, conclude with the peroration and have some facts in between. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman concluded with a few facts, because previously I had thought that his speech was to be all peroration. I wondered whether he was cheered on by the confident applause of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), whose economic views normally are so out of date that they could be more appropriately expressed in the Norman-French used in the consortium-regii which preceded the Witenagemot.

The facts which he has given us are a little lean and unconvincing. He produced only one argument—and that was a very crashing argument indeed. He said, "You chaps are trying to restrict us." In fact, only two Amendments have been dealt with and the second of those would certainly have extended the operations; or, at least, it made clear the original intention and certainly was not restrictive. Is it now the right hon. Gentleman's argument that the first Amendment, which he refused to accept, was designed to restrict the Bill?

The argument by which he sought to persuade the House to refuse to accept it was that it would make no difference at all and that the Colonial Development Corporation could be relied on to do all this without the Amendment. He is now conceding to us the very argument which he then rejected; he is conceding that he feels that the Corporation would have been restricted had we carried the Amendment on behalf of trade unions. I should be out of order to pursue that matter in detail, and I merely make the point because I think it relevant to this Amendment.

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) very properly raised the question of Williamson Diamonds Ltd. The question whether it is a good company or a bad company has no particular relevance to this argument. If the Colonial Development Corporation intends to lend money, one assumes, on the whole, that it will lend it to a company worthy of the loan. The point which we are discussing is whether, in the circumstances, the Colonial Development Corporation should be empowered to make loans, outside the ambit of Parliamentary control, to private enterprise at all.

The only information which the House has on the matter, as far as I am aware, and certainly the only information I have seen, is contained in paragraph 63 of the last Report of the C.D.C., where it is stated:

"C.D.C. agreed to lend £500,000, if called on, to assist extensive mechanisation of mine. … Nothing drawn at 31.12.55 nor to date of signing this report."

Let us assume that this is a first-class enterprise, as no doubt it is. If it is a sound, first-class enterprise, it can borrow the money through the ordinary commercial channels anyhow. If it is an unsound commercial enterprise, presumably the Colonial Development Corporation should not lend the money. It would be a matter of applying to the Colonial and Development Welfare Fund, generally, for the possibility of a grant to keep alive an enterprise which might be worth while from the point of view of the inhabitants of a Colony but might not be able for the moment to pay its way—but where is the Parliamentary control over that? It is bad enough to have these reports which Lord Reith sends back in pidgin English. On Wednesday I described it as pidgin English.

It is a first-class report.

It may be a first-class report—in fact, I said it was—but it is not in English.

It is readable and understandable.

I now think that in reclaiming some derelict schemes they have perhaps reclaimed the scheme of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) for basic English and are trying to use it to good advantage in preparing a report. It may be that this is an effort at reclamation.

Is it reasonable that hon. Members, who are already working under difficulty, should be expected to collect the report of each industrial company in the Colonies to which we have lent money by this means in order to try to keep some check? Even if they do, can they ask Questions and get any information? Shall we have any control over the employment of labour and over whether trade unions are used?

I am glad that we have mentioned Williamson Diamonds Ltd.; it is a good thing that we should mention a good company in this connection because it will not then be suggested that it is a company at which any one is trying to snipe. I have no doubt that it is an excellent enterprise. It may well be that, subject to proper and appropriate safeguards, it is an enterprise which ought to have the help of Her Majesty's Government in one way or another. I do not criticise that. We must remember, however, that time after time, when we have tried to get a few pence for the children of the world, the Prime Minister has said that the economic situation of the country is such that it is utterly impracticable for us to consider such a grant without imperilling our future and the future of the Empire. Now, however, we are told that £500 can be lent without any question being asked.

1.30 p.m.

I should like to turn to another enterprise. In the Gold Coast, according to paragraph 85 of the Corporation's Annual Report, there is an enterprise known as CDC-Keir and Cawder Contracting Limited, a name which was changed to Coast Construction Co. Limited after the publication of the Report. The authorised and issued capital of £100,000 in £1 ordinary shares is held equally by the Colonial Development Corporation and the company. The shareholders have agreed to provide additional finance by loan up to £420,000.

The Report states that Keir & Cawder Limited manages the company through its associate Stirling-Astaldi (West Africa) Limited. Therefore, we get into a whole mass of private enterprise in trying to check up public finance. This company is run by CDC-Keir and Cawder Contracting Limited, now named Coast Construction Co. Limited, which it manages through Stirling-Astaldi (West Africa) Limited and has money from the Colonial Development Corporation, and we are in the position of requiring half-a-dozen chartered accountants and a couple of ferrets to try to find where the money has got to. We should protest about all this.

The other night I understood a Conservative Member to make a remark which is not as clear, as I read it in HANSARD, as I thought it was at the time. I understood the hon. Member to make a remark to the effect that we should encourage the supply of "risk" capital and then provide guarantees of markets. The Colonial Secretary appears to be shaking his head, but the right hon. Gentleman was not there at the time. However, I will leave the point there.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he would say something about when it was found that the original Act was inappropriate, where the advice had come from and what it was about. Is this something that we cannot do under the 1948 Act? Has this matter been held up because of doubt on the part of the Colonial Secretary? I apprehend that the doubt is directly in relation to building societies, but there are other transactions mentioned in the Report which have been held up. Surely the time has come when we should be told who advised that the original Act was inappropriate, who said that some of the acts of the Corporation were ultra vires, what they were and to what extent the Bill will make intra vires what was formerly ultra vires, and to what extent it leaves the situation unchanged.

It is appropriate that the Colonial Secretary should speak of the high purposes of the Bill and of our anxiety to serve the best interests of those concerned, and it is understandable that apprehensions should be expressed as to what will happen in the future. I want to refer to a specific case of what happened in the past, in support of the argument that we ought to ask that the Colonial Development Corporation should be limited a little more. I refer to what has happened in the Seychelles—and the House of Commons is being accustomed to the idea that almost anything can happen there. Hon. Members must no doubt have wondered from time to time what kind of development activities take place in that Colony.

The hon. Member appears to be getting too wide of the Amendment.

I have examined the Bill carefully to see whether, in the first place, the sort of activity that I have in mind would be permitted to the Corporation. I find to my distress that Clause 1 (3, j) refers to

"enterprises for the carrying out of building, engineering or other operations, in, on, over or under land."

That seems to cover most things. Therefore, it could refer to the activity of recovering pirate treasure in the Seychelles, supported by Her Majesty's Government with lack of success, which is in fact a subsidy to private enterprise the profit of which is for the benefit of private individuals.

This is an exact example of something which ought to be excluded under the Bill. The example comes from the Seychelles and is fantastic, but I do not expect the Colonial Secretary to say that because it took place in the Seychelles it does not matter, I hope that he will say that standards should prevail in that territory of the kind that prevail elsewhere.

My hon. Friend will see from Clause 1 that provided sufficient bodies remain in the submerged galleon, the enterprise will come under Clause 1 (3, b) which refers to

"… any enterprise relating to the taking of marine mammals."

If it does, it will be far removed from the Amendment.

One of the most notorious pirates of the eighteenth century, Olivier La Buse, threw from the gallows a cryptogram to the crowd below and it seems that the inhabitants of the Seychelles have been more successful than historians in deciphering it. His treasure is valued at more than £80 million. It is supposed to be hidden on land owned by Madame Berthe Morel. It is possible to buy a share in the supposed rights to it.

The conditions governing the enterprise to recover this treasure included a provision that the whole cost of the manual labour involved was borne by Her Majesty's Government, and in return the Government were to receive 10 per cent. of anything found within four months. If that is not financing private enterprise and private property—

If it is, it is very far removed from the Amendment.

With great respect, Sir Rhys, hon. Members have been allowed to suppose that in certain conditions, certain things might happen and we ought to have safeguards. Presumably, I would have been in order if I had said that this fantastic example might have happened, but in fact it did happen and surely it is equally in order to give a true example.

All that the Amendment does is to leave out the word "either".

We certainly understood you, Sir Rhys, to say that you were calling for discussion the further Amendment in page 2, line 27, which states:

"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise the Corporation to lend money to any body or person unless that body or person is either controlled by the Corporation or certified by the Secretary of State to be carrying on activities to the advantage of the people of the colonial territory concerned and not to have as one of its main purposes the making of private profit."

Therefore, surely, it must be in order to say that we do not think that this is the sort of enterprise in which the Corporation should be permitted to invest money.

That is certainly in order, and the Amendment to which the hon. Member has referred is being discussed with the Amendment which has been moved.

But surely it would be perfectly proper to describe the kind of financing that the Corporation can do, and one of the purposes of the Amendment is to limit the activities of the Corporation to more direct employment and participation and to limit its financing so as to exclude wild-cat schemes of the kind described by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin).

To limit it to illustration is in order, but to convert the illustration into an argument is not.

Is the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) suggesting that this is a possible activity of the Corporation, or that it ought to be and the Corporation should not be allowed to share the activity with anybody else, which is the consequence of the Amendment? I am still in the dark about this activity. It is entirely news to me, and I have a good deal to do with the Seychelles, in various ways. This is the first that I have heard about it. It has nothing whatever to do with the Corporation.

I would have left the point now, but I am a little stunned by the Colonial Secretary's remarks. I do not know how far conversations in the right hon. Gentleman's own room can be quoted, but I should like to refresh his memory if possible. There is a very interesting complication here. There is the whole question of whether pirate treasure is the property of the Crown, and it is laid down in an Act of the reign of George II that anyone harbouring treasure shall be deprived of benefit of clergy. The Colonial Secretary seems to have interpreted this by bringing away the archdeacon and sending an archbishop instead.

Here is a true story of the kind of thing that this Government can be persuaded to allow or initial or rubberstamp when it comes from a territory such as the Seychelles. I suggest that having looked at it, the Committee should decide that this kind of thing should be firmly excluded even from application to a responsible body such as the Colonial Development Corporation, which we hope will have a much better record during its life than the Conservative Party has had.

we shall have a further opportunity to consider this next Wednesday evening when we discuss the Seychelles under the Consolidated Fund Bill.

We are very concerned about this question, and we want the C.D.C. to confine its activities as far as possible to those things in which it has a direct interest and for which it has direct responsibility. However, the Colonial Secretary has said that he himself is anxious that there should not be too much finance devoted to purely C.D.C. activities and that he will watch this and see that there is a limit and that the primary purpose of the Corporation should be to carry on, either by itself or with private enterprise, such schemes as are necessary for development in the Colonies. In view of that assurance, I am willing to withdraw the Amendment.

I would not like the right hon. Gentleman to be under any misapprehension. I said that a proper balance must be preserved. I did not use the phrase "primary or secondary purposes", but I do not think there is much difference.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end to insert "or reptiles".

Is this Amendment also going to be accepted? If so, I take it that reptiles will then include crocodiles, lizards, snakes, tortoises and turtles. If I can be assured that all of those reptiles are also included, I will leave the argument at that.

I am sorry to say that this important Amendment is not happily drafted. Although the addition of "reptiles" would, of course, include marine reptiles, it would also include, as the hon. Lady suggests, such reptiles as snakes, lizards, etc. It would be rather inappropriate to have a Bill stating that the word "fisheries" included snakes. Therefore, if the hon. Lady would care to insert the word "marine" before the word "reptiles" in her Amendment, that would make the language perfect, in which case, and subject to your consent, Sir Rhys, we would gladly accept the Amendment.

I am extremely sorry that we were rather hasty in the drafting of this Amendment owing to circumstances over which we had no control. It is clear that the word "reptiles" ought to be somewhere in this Clause, because in many of our Colonial Territories crocodile skins are a valuable product. Anyone who wishes to purchase crocodile skin shoes or handbags knows only too well how expensive are those materials. There are certainly some districts in the tropical territories where crocodiles play a considerable part in the economy of the country.

Our reason for putting down some of these Amendments is precisely to indicate how difficulties are created by trying to tabulate or categorise various things. If we are to have this kind of Clause, to which many of us object, it is ridiculous to exclude crocodile skins. For instance, lizard skins and snake skins are used for shoes, bags, belts and ornaments in trade and commerce. They are not always processed in the territories where they are found and, therefore, might not be included under "industrial enterprises" Therefore, if we are to deal with the matter in this way, we should be certain of having everything in the Bill.

1.45 p.m.

As I mentioned the other night, there is no possibility under this Bill for the Corporation to undertake what we hope will be a more successful enterprise than its last one of canning turtle soup. I believe I am correct in saying that this enterprise was not particularly successful in those circumstances, but there may well be other places in which it would be desirable. Therefore, if we are to have legislation which prescribes in such particularity the enterprises which the Corporation is or is not allowed to undertake, then this is the moment at which we can suggest various other things that ought to be included.

I shall have various other suggestions to make when we consider the Question of the Clause standing part of the Bill. I am sorry that there does not seem to be a proper place for the land reptiles. They do not come under agriculture in the preceding paragraph or under livestock. They might perhaps come under forestry, but they are not necessarily all in forests—some might be desert reptiles.

I grant that this is a reductio ad absurdum, nevertheless it is important because it is inherent in this method of legislation. I am sorry, but I cannot say, "Yes, I accept marine reptiles" and leave all the others unprovided for. I am afraid that the Attorney-General must find some place for the land reptiles—

indicated dissent.

It is all very well the right hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head. Although one is arguing this in a spirit of good humour, what I have said is true. There are certain places in the Colonial Territories where people depend largely for their livelihood on trading in these skins. There might well be circumstances in which it was desirable and proper that some of the funds of the Colonial Development Corporation might be devoted to this kind of enterprise.

It is wrong, therefore, that we should pass legislation, which may last for many years, that would lead to exactly the kind of stupid difficulties in which the Corporation has already found itself, because some lawyer has said, "No, you cannot do that under the Act". I had better not say too much because the Attorney-General will reply, but I can well imagine a lawyer thinking up some objection to an enterprise which the Corporation wished to undertake because some part of it covered a creature not named in this part of the Bill.

I submit seriously that if we are to have this kind of legislation we must try to cover all the possible creatures and commodities. My argument is a valid one, and it is the duty of this Committee to see that the Bill does not leave the House of Commons without being properly amended to ensure that it includes all the things which ought to be in it.

I am still not clear from the Attorney-General's statement what reptiles he includes. Does he include testudineous reptiles, a class of reptile which is of great benefit to the people of the West Indies? The C.D.C. had a cannery for turtles, which has now been closed, but while it was open it gave employment to a large number of people, and, in addition, it was a useful little dollar earner. Apparently both these things will be prohibited unless we can ensure that the class of reptile which I have mentioned is brought within the provision. I should like to know whether it is to be included or excluded.

The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) will appreciate—I agree with her—that one could define in an Act enterprises concerned with fisheries as including enterprises concerned with any single kind of animal, but it would be inappropriate to describe them as "fisheries". I made my suggestion to her because of the difficulty of accepting "reptiles" so that it would mean that "a fishery" would cover reptiles which never went into water, which would be inappropriate. I made this suggestion so that she might modify her Amendment by putting "marine" before "reptiles". However, I gathered from her speech that she was unwilling to do so. If she were prepared to accept the suggestion, it would be an Amendment which we could accept, and then it would be clear beyond any shadow of doubt that turtles would come within the definition of enterprises concerned with fisheries.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has pointed out, the real difficulty is in framing legislation of this sort. It is almost like a wireless entertainment; all kinds of things fall within different categories or fall down between different categories. The problem is that what one does not put in, one presumably leaves out.

I do not want to have an argument upon a suggestion which might perhaps more properly be considered on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, but in framing legislation of this kind, where some activity not defined in a statute might eventually disclose itself, it is sometimes a good thing to take power to make an Order to extend the activities to include newly disclosed ones. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might consider that. This is a difficulty in framing legislation, of which I have had considerable experience. One sometimes has to have a large number of Schedules to an Act when one wants to make classifications of this sort.

We had to do it in the case of the river boards. In that case, it was possible to exhaust the number of rivers, for it was hardly likely that new rivers would come into existence in Great Britain. Therefore, we could say where the legislation would alight by enumerating the rivers and river boards. When dealing with industrial activities in which new products and classifications may come into existence, it would be unfortunate if, because of the rather clumsy wording of the statute, the Corporation were denied the opportunity of assisting in new developments. I should have thought it would have been a good thing to have a general power Clause.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, after "electricity", to insert "atomic power".

I am advised that the Amendment is unnecessary because this class of activity is already covered.

Where?

I was about to explain it to the right hon. Gentleman if he would give me an opportunity of doing so without interrupting. I am trying to meet these points.

Do not be querulous.

I am not being querulous. It is nice to be able to get out two sentences without the right hon. Gentleman saying "Where?" when I am obviously just coming to it.

So far as the Amendment relates to the building of either atomic reactors or similar installations, they are industrial enterprises, which come within paragraph (d). In so far as the Amendment relates to the use of atomic energy for generating electricity, that is already covered by paragraph (e). Consequently, I am advised that there is no need to add the specific label of atomic power.

It is not easy to understand this. Why has there to be separate mention of electricity and gas? Why do they not come under the heading of industrial power? Why is there a difference in the case of atomic power? I am sure it is because the Government never thought about it and did not realise that atomic power was coming into existence and might play a great part in the affairs of Africa as it will in the affairs of this country. It is as well that this should be brought to the notice of the Government so that they may realise that there is such a thing as atomic power.

The right hon. Gentleman knows very well, in view of what the Government have done in relation to atomic power, that his remarks are completely unjustified. There is bound to be considerable overlapping between the various categories. For instance, one item might come within paragraph (g) and also paragraph (j). However, the Amendment is unnecessary, because it is not necessary to include within the scope of functions which may be enterprises any reference to atomic power.

Surely this is the most amazing of all the explanations that we have had this morning, and that is selecting it for special notice in the light of all the circumstances of the debate.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says "This is all right, because we have mentioned 'industry', and 'industry' includes everything industrial". What is "everything industrial"? We are discussing a Bill which amends an Act which opens by saying that the Colonial Development Corporation should be able to carry out

"… projects for developing resources of colonial territories with a view to the expansion of production therein of foodstuffs and raw materials, or for other agricultural, industrial or trade development therein."

There was no limitation on that. If it could be expanded, this expansion was dealt with a little later by the words to the effect that the Corporation should have power to carry on all activities which appeared to be requisite, advantageous or convenient.

That was the position when we started the morning. It is then said that there is something wrong with it and that everything is not covered. The Colonial Secretary specifically said that, with the solitary exception of the reference to Rhodesia and self-governing Colonies, the Bill expands the existing activities of the Corporation.

Why is it necessary for us to be arguing about whether turtles are reptiles and whether crayfish in Tristan da Cunha come under the industrial, agricultural or piscatorial activities of the Corporation? Why is it relevant? Why not simply say "industrial, agricultural, horticultural or piscatorial"?

What was it that this mysterious counsel who burst into the Colonial Office one day said was wrong with the existing Act? What is it we are trying to correct? Why are we talking in vacuo, without knowing what was wrong to begin with, and without knowing whether we are putting it right now? This must be the most incredible situation we have ever had. We still have the note from Lord Reith to say, "It is all right. I have consulted the most eminent of counsel, and he says it is all right and you need not do anything." That is put in a Report submitted to the Colonial Office.

What is "industrial"? Is it atomic power? When we laid down the functions of atomic power, we had to have a special Bill specifying in great detail the powers of the existing Corporation and just what it could do and what it could not do. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) has fairly said, if that sort of power is included in "industrial," why do we have to accept electricity?

2.0 p.m.

What power—using the word in the technical sense, in the sense it is used in "Ministry of Fuel and Power"—comes within the word "industrial" and what does not? Is it "industrial" when we are making electricity? Is it industrial when we are disseminating electricity? Is it industrial when we are selling it, and in the inspecting of meters does it continue to be industrial? At what stage does electricity cease to be industrial and become something for which there should be special provision?

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and I am confident that one can at least appeal to him, as a lawyer, to bear in mind the traditions of legal interpretation. He knows perfectly well that there is a fundamental rule, which applies not merely to deeds but to statutes, which we call the ejusdem generis rule. If one uses wide terms and leaves the wide terms alone, they are wide enough, but if one goes on from "industrial" to, say "making ice-cream, breeding crayfish, canning turtles and cleaning shrimps," then it will be thought that one meant to leave out kippers and herrings. That is a perfectly sensible view and it is reasonable enough.

This is the dilemma into which we are now getting. Surely this is a matter of supreme importance. From time to time we are told that the National Coal Board is on its way out and the atomic power corporation on its way in and it may well be that in our lifetime, with the great rapidity of progress and so on, we shall have a new form of power and a new form of energy.

I suppose that perhaps the most important of all development schemes in Colonial Territories at present is the harnessing of water for the production of electricity. There is not a single ancillary to industry which can have more supreme importance for the lives and welfare of the people in the Colonial Territories. Certainly Africa, lacking, as it does, many resources, and facing tremendous problems of weather and climate, has this form of power in abundance and the damning of rivers and the bringing of electricity is of very great importance. We are told that that is not industrial. If that is not industrial, why are the special provisions about alternative sources of power? If it is industrial, why is it specially included?

I have made this protest before and I protest again that it is not good enough for the Attorney-General to come here and say, "Look here boys, the Bill produced by the Colonial Office eight years ago we have found means something different from what we thought it meant. We have gone through the powers and activities for eight years, but it was all wrong. What was said at the Dispatch Box by the then Colonial Secretary—admittedly, representing a different Government, but still acting on the advice of the Colonial Office and producing a Bill drawn by Parliamentary draftsmen, submitting a Bill since the subject of observation, criticism and scrutiny—was wrong, but I ask you now to accept that what I say is part of the law of the Medes and Persians and you can take it from me, without the need to question, criticise, or inquire in any way, because what I say has all the validity of ukase."

The Attorney-General tells us that between midnight on Wednesday and the putting down of Amendment at three or four o'clock yesterday afternoon or this morning the Government have applied their collective wit and wisdom to this matter and now come forward and say that we need no longer question, need no longer hesitate. The Attorney-General says, "Wrong as we were in the past, we have now achieved a standard of correctitude which has never before been presented to Parliament. Do not hesitate, do not question, listen to me."

The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has continually pressed to know what was the difficulty which led to the need for the Bill. He has taken up a great deal of time on that point, although I sought to indicate that I would try to point out any difficulty when I could do so without becoming out of order. Despite that, the hon. Member has taken up time in repeating that demand and I hope that on this Amendment I can deal with it without getting out of order.

It is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first speech on that point.

It is my first speech on it, because each time the hon. Member raised it before I should have been out of order in replying to it. He has made more speeches on this point and has not appreciated my argument. A legal argument on the construction of a Statute is very dull.

If the hon. Member will look at Section 1 (1) of the 1948 Act he will see that a duty is put upon the Corporation. Subsection (2) starts with the words:

"The said Corporation shall have power, for the purpose of the discharge of their duty under the preceding subsection—(a) to carry on all activities the carrying on whereof appears to them …"

Appears to them.

That power which is given by subsection (2, a) is the power which has to be exercised, as the words I have read out say,

"for the purpose of the discharge of their duty under the preceding subsection".

Those are words of limitation. Once it is for the purpose of the discharge of its duty, then I agree that the Corporation, under the Act, was the sole judge of what it thought it could do, but it had to be for that purpose. It could not be said that some of the housing projects in contemplation were for the purpose of the Corporation's duty as defined in subsection (1). They may be very desirable, but they are not for the purpose of that duty.

The effect of the Bill is to extend the operation of the Corporation to enable it to carry on, for instance, housing projects, although they may not be for the purpose of the discharge of the Corporation's duty as it was defined.

It is precisely on the point of the housing projects that the Colonial Development Corporation, in paragraph 12 of its Report, says that it has taken the opinion of eminent counsel, who has no doubt that the project comes within the ambit of the Corporation's powers. Has the Corporation supplied the right hon. and learned Gentleman with a copy of that opinion, and, if so, has he considered it?

The Corporation has been very kind in enabling me to see a copy of the opinion which it obtained, but I have no doubt about the view I am expressing upon it. The fact that there is a conflict of legal opinion is by no means without precedent and really establishes the need for legislation of this character.

Can the Attorney-General tell the Committee what would happen if the C.D.C., for example in Malaya, Lagos, or Salisbury, were to build these houses under the old Act? What would be the penalty?

I do not think that I had better be drawn into that very wide topic.

I have not been reluctant to disclose this, but I have waited for the right time shortly to put the difficulty that arose on the interpretation of the 1948 Act. I do not claim that I discovered the doubts that arose. One does not spend one's time trying to discover doubts. I hope that I have been able to convince the hon. Member that there is room for doubt on the actual wording—perhaps not intended—in the original Act. The Bill seeks to put that right and to expand the powers of the Corporation beyond what, in my view, they were in the 1948 Act.

To return to the Amendment, I hope I can make it clear that the Amendment is unnecessary. I quite follow what he said about the ejusdem generis rule. I hope that he will not paraphrase my observations inaccurately again. If the Amendment relating to atomic power relates to the building of atomic reactors or similar installations, it would come under the heading of industrial enterprises within paragraph (d). If, on the other hand, it relates to the use of atomic energy for generating electricity, it is already covered by paragraph (e). So there is no need to add those additional words.

Perhaps as a layman I may be allowed to intervene for a moment between two lawyers and try to establish for the benefit of the Committee the state of confusion to which I am now reduced. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that the 1948 Act gave general powers to the Corporation to carry out certain duties defined in Section 1, and that Section 1 was, in his opinion, too limited.

I did not say that. I know that this is a difficult point but I really did not say that. I said that the difficulty arose as a result of the words at the beginning of subsection (2). The powers which the Corporation can exercise under paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of that subsection have all to be exercised for the purpose of the discharge of the Corporation's duty under the preceding subsection. That is to say, they must be linked with the discharge of that duty. I made no observations about the extent of subsection (1).

That is exactly what I said, The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Corporation had carried out certain duties which he doubted, to say the least, fell within the powers granted to it under subsection (1). In other words, there is no sense in it. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who had referred to the fact that subsection (2) said that

"The said Corporation shall have power, for the purpose of the discharge of their duty under the preceding subsection,"

he called attention to the limiting meaning of the words "under the preceding subsection", so we have to go to the preceding subsection to see what limitations, if any, are imposed upon the Corporation under that subsection.

The preceding subsection says:

"There shall be established in accordance with this Act a body, to be called the Colonial Development Corporation, charged with the duty of securing the investigation, formulation and carrying out of projects for developing the resources of colonial territories with a view to the expansion or production therein of foodstuffs and raw materials, or for other agricultural, industrial or trade development therein."

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that there is doubt whether those words are sufficiently comprehensive to cover certain activities of the Corporation. The Bill has been brought in to legalise what the Corporation has done.

2.15 p.m.

This is the root of the argument. It would therefore be assumed that the word "industrial" in Section 1 (1) of the 1948 Act does not cover electricity. If so, why put it into the amending Bill? This is where the right hon. and learned Gentleman is really in trouble. He has just agreed that "horticulture" be added to "agriculture" because there would be some doubt whether agriculture included horticulture. Would not horticulture be a project? Nothing could be wider than a project. If we have a genesis so wide as that it must include all the sub-geneses, and I should have thought that a project, semantically, would include electricity, horticulture and atomic energy. We could not have a much wider term. In order that there should be no ambiguity about the point, the Act refers to "investigation", "formulation" and "carrying out", so it would cover surveys.

How on earth can we make the position more precise by having a catalogue?—because once we do that we cast doubt upon the embracing nature of the general terms of the subsection. The Attorney-General is now saying, in effect, that electricity is not included under "investigation," "formulation," "project," "expansion of production," "industrial," "agricultural," or "trade development," but that it must have a place by itself. The reason why he has put it in the Bill is obviously that he does not think that any one of those categories includes it. If there is any other reason we should like to know it.

He then goes on to tell us something which is quite staggering. He says that although electricity is not an industrial undertaking, atomic generation is, and is included in the term "industrial." Can anything be more fantastic than that? I should like to make a suggestion to the right hon. and learned Member, which he should consider rather dispassionately. I have had at least as much experience of drafting legislation as he has. Having got himself into this difficulty and stretched himself on this procrustean bed, he might give himself a little relief. If it happens that there comes into existence some project which is not included in the definition of "project" but needs to be defined more precisely, why does he not take power, in a separate Clause, to ask the House to add to the powers of the Corporation power to carry out any works or projects not included in this Clause?

That would simplify the position. He would not have to come to the House for a new statute. It would then be necessary only for the Corporation to say to the Minister, "There are some doubts whether what we desire to do is lawful under the definition you have made. Nevertheless, it is a desirable thing to do, and under the powers you have got do you not think it would be possible to make an Order in the House?"

I suggest that we are really in trouble here. The list we are considering, to which additions have already been made, seems to us to limit the definition of Section 1 (1) of the 1948 Act. I suggest that the Attorney-General should consider, between now and the Report stage, introducing a Clause giving him power to add, by Order, anything to the powers of the Corporation which would enable it to produce or carry on any activity upon which doubt may be cast by the definition of the Bill. This is a time when all sorts of changes are taking place and novel enterprises coming into existence almost every day, and they cannot always be caught within legal terminology.

If the Government desire to put the widest possible field of industrial activity within the confines of a statute it is much better to make that statute more flexible, so as to cover any changes which may take place by Order and not by the cumbrous method of an amending Bill. If his desire is to make the Act wider and not narrower, I should have thought that my suggestion would commend itself to him.

The right hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say, has not appreciated—and maybe it is my own fault—the arguments which I advanced on the meaning of the 1948 Act. What he has said now is to relate subsection (1) of the 1948 Act to the Amendment now under discussion. Of course, subsection (1) of the 1948 Act has been amended by this Bill in the part which we have already passed. I was only referring to subsection (1) of the 1948 Act in an endeavour to answer the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) on the need for validation. I thought I could give him an answer on this Amendment.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 43, to leave out from the second "services" to the end of line 45.

I sympathise with the point which the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale) has put, but I think my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary will find it difficult to accept this Amendment, because it would, in fact, as the right hon. Gentleman obviously intends that it should, commit the Corporation to assisting in broadcasting if it thought fit. Broadcasting is defined as a service providing either education, entertainment or the spread of information, and these three functions are not, in fact, within the terms of the Corporation's activities. They are governmental functions, and for that reason I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is reasonable that we should resist the Amendment.

In view of what the Minister of State has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Before we proceed further, Sir Norman, may I say that I honestly wish to assist the Committee at this stage? There is a large number of Amendments still to be dealt with that are directed to adding to the inconclusiveness of the list of duties and functions which the Corporation can carry out. We on this side of the Committee are perfectly prepared not to proceed to move those Amendments if the right hon. Gentleman can tell us that he will, in fact, take power to add those duties by Order. That commits him to nothing at the moment, except to do that, because he need not exercise the power, though it is a much more flexible way of doing it. It is a matter which he can discuss with the Corporation, and if anything does come along which he ought to have added to this list he can do it. We should then be able to get away from this matter.

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee, and if I do not say anything very precise until a little later, it is because I should like to hear some more of the arguments to be addressed on these Amendments. I welcome the readiness of the right hon. Gentleman to assist the Committee, and I am very anxious that we should make progress with this Bill. The Corporation would be the losers if we did not carry this Bill quickly through this House, but it may be a little while before I am in a position to suggest a form of words that may be acceptable. I should be strengthened in any inclinations that I may have if I heard one or two further arguments in regard to these Amendments.

In regard to the Amendment about broadcasting, it touches me rather deeply in my responsibilities for Aden, for example, where some of the broadcasts from Cairo are heard. It is not that Colonel Nasser provides better services than we do, but it is because of the extravagant language, which bears no relation to the facts, that they appeal to people a great deal more than the more measured terms which traditionally those of us who tell a more accurate story are obliged to use in broadcasting.

I am now advised that it would be possible to meet the point suggested by the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues by the moving of a manuscript new Clause. I am ready to do that, and, in the light of that, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and his friends will reconsider their approach.

We are not moving our Amendments.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to move the next Amendment?

No.

The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is not moving any of the Amendments?

No, we are not moving any of the Amendments until the Amendment to page 3, line 37.

I want to make certain, because of my unavoidable absence from the Committee and my inability to consult my right hon. Friends, that if we are to take leave of Clause 1 I do not forget that I am under an obligation to move a manuscript Amendment to Clause 1, page 4, line 7, at the end, to insert certain words which I will ask leave to read out to the Committee, if this is the appropriate moment.

The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is not moving his Amendments?

No, Sir Norman. I think it would be better if the Minister were to move his manuscript Amendment and get it accepted by the Committee.

The difficulty about that is that the right place for the Amendment is here. The Amendment will be what the right hon. Gentleman wants; it will give power to add to the list of Statutory Instruments. Surely, it is purely a question of words. If we make too much progress we may get beyond the point, and we shall not finish the Bill.

I was only wishing not to do anything which frustrated the Minister's power to move the Amendment. Therefore, if the Colonial Secretary will move his manuscript Amendment now, we will not move any of our other Amendments to Clause 1.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, at the end to insert:

"and any reference to bodies or persons includes a reference to Government authorities."

If I can do so without being guilty of tedious repetition or of anticipating the work being done, I will explain why I asked leave to move this Amendment. Certain Amendments were moved earlier today dealing with Government authorities. It was difficult, of course, for me to say whether we would accept these Amendments because that would have involved consequential Amendments which would have inserted unnecessary words at least four times in one Clause. It was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that it would be better to invite the Opposition to withdraw its Amendments and for me to move instead a manuscript Amendment.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman now thinks that these words would include a reference, for example, to the Industrial Development Corporation in Jamaica?

Yes. I am aware that I am getting on to slightly dangerous ground when I start to define precisely what the phrase "Government authorities" may mean, and one of the reasons why those who advise us on matters of this kind were anxious to have the opportunity of a new Bill was to clear up the possibilities of doubt as to what the phrase meant by omitting the words altogether from the new Bill. Unfortunately, the homework done by the Opposition elicited the fact that the phrase appeared in the 1948 Act. Hon. Members opposite drew a sinister conclusion from the fact that it did not appear in the 1956 Act.

The purpose of the removal was nothing sinister. It was to remove in a Bill designed to clear misunderstanding the possibility of future misunderstanding. To facilitate the progress of the Bill and to clear away one misunderstanding, I am conscious that I may be bequeathing to my successors the possibility of another misunderstanding as to what axe exactly "Government authorities." I would certainly regard them as including development corporations in the Colonies concerned, and I do not think that that would be challenged by any of my successors, whatever their party affiliations may be. I am advised that a Development Corporation is a person. It is almost incomprehensible to me, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General assures me that that is so.

I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, to leave out "is needed" and to insert:

"would be advantageous or convenient".

The point of this Amendment is that again we fear that, as at present drafted, the Bill might be found to be too narrow. The experience which we have just had of the difficulty about the legal interpretation of existing legislation makes one very hesitant indeed to agree to a form of words which might turn out eventually to preclude some undertaking which was desirable. We feel that the Government are unnecssarily confining themselves if they use the words "is needed", because it might well be argued that a particular project was not absolutely necessary.

After all, the word "necessary" is a very difficult word to argue about. It is difficult to argue whether anything is really necessary or not. Therefore, we think it would really be much simpler for all concerned if this slightly more elastic form of words, or something comparable to it, were inserted in the Bill at this point.

Frankly, I have no particular example in mind. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman has necessarily any specific enterprises in mind, but I can visualise very easily a situation in which one might have a corporation put in a position in which it would find it very difficult to say that what it was wishing to do, or what, possibly, the local government was wishing it to do, was absolutely necessary.

This is really a drafting Amendment and one which we think would make it easier for the Corporation in future. I very much hope that the Government may feel inclined to accept the Amendment or, alternatively, substitute some other words of their own to meet the point.

It seems to me that this Amendment is one which should appeal to the Secretary of State for the Colonies because, so far as I have followed the proceedings this morning, there has been a general expression on this side of the Committee that the Development Corporation ought not to be tied down too much. It should have a sort of flexibility concerning what it wants to do.

As far as I understood the Secretary of State's attitude, he favoured that, and the arrangement which has just been suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and accepted by the Secretary of State also emphasises, I should imagine, the need for accepting this change in the wording of the Clause. I think that the two words "is needed" certainly infer a definiteness incompatible with the attitude which has been displayed so far today. The words suggested by my hon. Friend promote the desire not to hamper the Development Corporation too much in its activities and to give it that little flexibility which both sides of the Committee want.