I think it not inappropriate that on the Motion for the Adjournment for the Whitsun Recess the House should turn its mind to the problems of the tourist industry of Great Britain.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has recently taken the initiative in calling a conference, under the auspices of the British Travel and Holidays Association, to discuss this problem. It was his opinion—I am sure he was right—that there were manifold interests, both of the Government and of private industry, concerned in the provision of adequate facilities for recreation and leisure not only for our own people but for our visitors from abroad. Accordingly, he suggested to the B.T.H.A. that such a conference should be held of all the interests and that it should take place in the offices of the Board of Trade.

The conference took place last week. It may, therefore, be a matter of surprise that so soon after that conference I should ask leave to introduce this subject in the House. But it is precisely because the conference took place so short a time ago that I think it is right that the House should, for an hour, devote some attention to the problem.

Many subjects were raised at the conference, and there were many Ministers present to answer the questions. I fully recognise that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade cannot be held responsible for all those problems. I am using him simply as a telephone exchange. In the suggestions which I shall put to him I am asking him to pass on to his colleagues the subjects appropriate to their Departments. I shall not mince my words. I shall shoot a quiverful of arrows at the Front Bench, and I am sure that my hon. Friend can catch them all on his shield.

The trouble seems to be that the Government, although they are sympathetic towards the tourist industry, have not hitherto matched their sympathy with sufficient action. I think it was very clear from the conference—I did not attend it, but I have read nearly all the speeches—that the holiday industry had two main grievances against the Government. First, it considered that the Government were not good hosts. Secondly, it considered that the Government in this respect were not good businessmen. I shall divide my remarks under those two heads.

The Government are, in a sense, our chief receptionists. They make the first impression upon the visitor from abroad. We have in London Airport, and in dock terminals like the Ocean Terminal, at Southampton, wonderful facilities which are a pride to every Englishman who returns from abroad. Our Customs officers are notoriously among the most discreet and sympathetic in the world. The same is true of our police and of all those attendants who make the passage from the aircraft or ship to the train a pleasant one to the visitor.

In spite of these advantages, I still feel that we do not welcome our guests as well as we could and should. Everybody knows that the first impression is one which may be abiding. There are many Englishmen whose whole attitude towards the French or the Germans is coloured by a chance encounter with a porter who was rude to them at Calais or with a young student who carried their luggage for them at Heidelberg. Exactly the same is true of our own reception of foreigners.

I think it is a pity that when visitors from abroad arrive, for instance, at Dover they should be confronted by a notice saying, "Aliens this way", which, in any language, is very rude; and that they should have their pets taken from them and put in quarantine for six months when the countries from which they come are as free from hydrophobia as our own. It is a pity that they should be asked to pay a 5s. airport tax and another 5s. for the bus ride from the airport to central London when, probably, they have no English currency and may not even know the difference between a florin and a sixpence.

It is a pity that they should be segregated from the relatives and friends who have come to meet them. The other day, at Southampton, I met my own parents who were returning from the Far East. Although the ship had docked and the passengers had landed, for two or three hours I was unable to see them—for fear that diamonds or laudanum might secretly change hands.

It is also a pity that once our guests are established on our shores we should deny them the comforts to which they are accustomed in their own country and which there is no reason whatever to deny them here. We have been accustomed to foreigners landing on these shores ever since the days of Julius Caesar. Surely it is time, to quote the words of the Thomas Cook representative at the conference, that we ceased to treat our visitors as "gate-crashers" and began to think of them more in terms of invited guests.

No man ever won a contract by offering his guest a drop of whisky in his tooth glass in a hotel bedroom because our licensing laws forbade him to give him anything to drink downstairs. No visitor is attracted to come here again when he finds that our Sundays, even in the centre of the Metropolis, are still governed by puritanical laws quite out of tune with our times.

Can we not make it easier for people to come here for short periods, especially from the Continent, without so many formalities of documents and Customs inspection which obviously act as a deterrent to any visitor? Could we not have weekend passport-free visits? That is done frequently on the Continent. On the Continent, too, many countries have arranged among themselves, often under the auspices of the Council of Europe, for visitors to be able to bring in their cars without these bulky carnets which are the bane of all foreign travellers.

It would be an advantage if, in smaller ways, too, we could undertake some re- sponsibility for our visitors after they have passed through the doors at the airport or docks. For instance, we could make it much easier for them to find hotel rooms. In America there is a system whereby it is possible to ring up any post office in any town, and that post office will undertake to find one a room. We do not have a similar system here, but it is one to which the Postmaster-General might well give consideration.

I end this section of my speech with one further suggestion, this time addressed to the Minister of Transport. We have a rule that no coach or bus may travel more than 30 miles an hour. On narrow roads that is clearly a sensible arrangement, but it is utterly illogical to apply it universally, whether the road is wide and straight, or narrow and curving. The speed limit should be applied to the type of road and not to the category of vehicle.

It is indefensible that when we ask people to come here and invite them to tour our country in our own coaches, or sometimes in the coaches which they have brought with them from abroad, we should tie down the speed of those vehicles to a wholly arbitrary figure which delays them and which makes them think that our laws are based upon convention and not on common sense.

I suggested at the beginning of my speech that the conference revealed that those who are responsible for the tourist industry consider that the Government are not playing their full part in its business side. This is a co-operative venture. It is not one which can be left solely to private industry. The Government have a very important part to play.

I wonder whether the Government will acknowledge the value of the industry. Do they not regard it as a little too much of a luxury and as unimportant? That is not so. It is an extremely valuable industry, especially in the dollars which it brings to this country. In his own speech to the conference my hon. Friend made some estimate of what future expansion is likely to be. He said:

"… it is surely not fantastic to imagine the doubling of our present number of visitors within the next decade."

That would mean about 2,300,000 visitors to this country in 1968, bringing with them about £300 million of foreign currency which would be spent in this country and £120 million of that would certainly be in dollars.

This is nothing to be sneezed at. It is something to be encouraged and assisted. I believe that we are in danger of enticing all those people who come here and failing to provide for them, once they arrive, the necessary basic accommodation.

This is the paradox. While the trade is booming and every person, including my hon. Friend, can see that it is bound to expand further and further still, the industry is not thriving. At a time when we need more beds, we have fewer beds. Instead of hotels being built, hotels are being closed. Only one hotel of any size has been built outside London since the end of the war, the Leofric, at Coventry. One new hotel has been built in London and one has been rebuilt, compared with the dozens which have been closing down. Take the example of my own constituency. In Bournemouth, 50 hotels have closed down since the end of the war at a time when the holiday trade of Bournemouth has never been greater. How has this paradox come about? How are we to meet the demand which my hon. Friend himself admitted is not only possible but certain within the next ten years?

There are two reasons for the paradox. The first is that the holiday season for both the visitor from abroad and for our own holiday makers is confined to two or three short summer months. It is impossible for an industry to prosper if it is used to the full over only about one quarter or one fifth of the year. No other industry could survive that. It is exactly the same problem which our own Kitchen Committee faces. How can it hope to make a profit if the House is in recess for four or five months of the year and we are not here at the weekends? This is precisely the same problem which faces the hotel industry. The industry cannot meet its expenses for the whole year if hotels are half empty for seven or eight months and over-full for the remaining five or four.

What can the Government do to help us? They cannot change human character and they cannot change the habits of the British people by legislation. The British people are today convinced that their holidays can be taken only in the months of July and August. How- ever, in May and June, the days of sunshine are more, the days of rain are fewer, there are long hours of daylight, and the hotels are much less crowded. But, to ask an Englishman to take his holiday in May is like asking him to have a bath at three o'clock in the afternoon—it is neither a reward for industry, nor a stimulus to further endeavour.

Nevertheless, somehow we must persuade our own people to spread their holidays and to take advantage of the spring, early summer and later autumn months. The Government can help in this. They can have Departmental conversations with the Ministry of Education to see whether something cannot be done to stagger school holidays. We in this House might set an example to the rest of the country. I do not think that many hon. Members would complain if we rose for the Summer Recess in June and reassembled early in September. It would make some contribution in this problem. At present, we suggest to the whole country that the holiday begins in August, but it does not, it begins in May. This, as many hon. Members know, is about the best time of the year in which to see England.

The same effort must be made in regard to industry. We should try, much more energetically than we have tried hitherto, to persuade great factories to close for their annual holidays at different intervals and as many as possible at later times than at present. The foreigner should be persuaded that England is not permanently clouded in fog and rain except during the two central summer months. He should be persuaded that this is an agreeable country to visit, even in mid-winter, as I think it is, and particularly during the spring. About that, there can be no doubt at all.

The most serious objection of all is to the financial restrictions placed on the industry by the present policy of the Government. That is the main reason why the hotel industry is facing a very difficult phase at the moment, when its prospects are most hopeful. In a later passage of the speech which I have already quoted, my hon. Friend referred to this subject and compared the treatment of the tourist trade, particularly hotels, in this country to the treatment they receive in foreign countries. He went on to say:

"Here in Britain we generally prefer to think that the businessman knows his own business best, and that if an industry is any good, it can run under its own steam."

That is a good definition of our attitude.

We do not require large subsidies for this industry, but we maintain that it should not be placed in a category of special disadvantage. That may seem to be an exaggeration, but I do not think it is at all. When we look at the legislation passed through the House in recent years we can see that in subtle ways burdens have been placed upon the tourist industry, or the Government have failed to remove burdens which are already there. The cumulative effect is to place the industry in this category of special disadvantage. We had one example only last month in the Local Government Bill where, in spite of pressure by many hon. Members——

Order. The hon. Member has very dexterously skirted the topic of legislation, but I think he is probably going over the border now.

I was calling the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the fact that there is a cumulative result. I was not suggesting that we could now repeal or amend the Local Government Bill. I was suggesting that its effect might be one consideration that we should take into account when viewing the general question. It was a mere illustration and I need not pursue it.

It would also be quite wrong of me, in view of the rules of order, if I were to refer in more detail to the financial measures the Government could take to relieve this special hardship. I would only refer my hon. Friend to the document produced for the conference by the B.T.H.A. in which, on the second page, are summarised all their suggestions for encouraging the expansion and modernisation of the hotel and catering industry. I will not even read out those suggestions, because they are well known and I do not want to stray outside the rules of order.

We have a particular opportunity and advantage in this country for expanding the tourist industry. The tourist industry is one of the utmost importance. It affects our standing in the world, because our visitors will judge us by what they find here and by the treatment they receive. Financially, it is very important to us. We cannot afford to lose to competitive countries, particularly in Europe, the dollars which could so easily be attracted here if only we did not waste our opportunities by failing to provide the necessary accommodation and other facilities. It is deeds, not words, that we want.

My hon. Friend, by suggesting that this conference should be held, symbolised the sympathy of the Government towards this industry. Those attending felt it was the most worth-while thing they have ever done, but they ended the conference by saying that they hoped the Government would pay careful attention to the points that had been put forward, some of which I have repeated here, in the expectation that when this great new influx of visitors reaches our shores in 1968 and before, simultaneously with the immense expansion of our own home tourist industry, the industry and the Government, working in co-operation, will be able to meet this challenge and opportunity.

We are all very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth, and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) for raising this very important matter this morning and, in his usual comprehensive and efficient manner, dealing in detail with what today is an outstanding problem.

I was fortunate enough to attend this conference on tourism. It was really remarkable for the way in which it was arranged and the attendance of Ministers and representatives of all sections of the industry. There is no doubt at all that this conference was the most important thing which has happened to the tourist industry since the war. There is vast scope and enormous potentiality in the tourist and holiday movement, which today employs about 630,000 people in this country, rather more than the motor and aircraft industries together. My hon. Friend has mentioned the important part the industry plays in the economic conditions of the country, and some more figures are worth quoting.

In 1957, we earned £95 million from woollens and £111 million from aircraft and aircraft engines, but from the tourist industry we earned £128 million. Our exports of electrical machinery to dollar areas, in 1957, amounted to £34 million, about the same as exports of whisky, yet tourist earnings were the highest of all dollar exports at £43 million. It has been estimated that by 1965 this industry could earn £100 million a year. It is becoming an increasingly competitive industry, not competitive as between resorts like Scarborough and Bournemouth, or Torquay and Hastings, but in national proportions between this country and countries in Europe where, since the war, they have been able to build quite a large number of up-to-date hotels by reason of Marshall Aid and a great deal of assistance given by local authorities and national subsidies.

As my hon. Friend said, there have been only two large hotels built in this country since the war, one in London and the Leofric, in Coventry. Our need is not for luxury hotels, but for modern middle-class hotels with the most up-to-date equipment. We must provide more sleeping accommodation. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, it is not possible for the resources of private enterprise to provide it, I think that there is here a very clear indication that there should be some assistance from the Government. We saw a very large number of Ministers attending the conference, but one Minister was absent. I should have liked to have seen somebody there from the Treasury.

There are a number of ways in which the Board of Trade and other Ministries could assist. For instance, Purchase Tax on equipment should be exempted. The new hotel to which my hon. Friend referred—the Leofric, in Coventry—paid Purchase Tax on furnishings and equipment amounting to £30,000. There are other methods by which the Government could assist. The investment allowances should be restored, and hotels and restaurants should be classified as industrial buildings.

My next remarks are addressed to the hotel industry itself, remembering that 9s. of every £1 spent by tourists in this country goes on hotels and catering. If we are to set about this business seriously, there must be some safeguards for the tourists themselves. I do not believe that such measures are required in London, but certainly they are in some of the provinces, which need to have certain safeguards for the tourists. This is an industry which it is very easy for amateurs to enter, and there are a few unconscientious people who bring wide disrepute to the localities in which they operate and to the industry itself.

There is much to be said for the practice in the island of Jersey, where there is an arrangement by which hotels, boarding houses and all catering establishments are divided into three registers, so that the tourist booking his accommodation can be certain of the standard of accommodation which he will receive on arrival. I should like to see the industry itself set up what might be called a national charter of standards. Hotels and restaurants can themselves go a long way to improve their services, the quality of the food and also the hygiene, especially, which often fall considerably below the standard demanded by North American visitors. In short, it would appear that, if we are to get any help at all for the industry, the industry must itself do a great deal to put its own house in order.

I very much welcome this debate, because it has provided an opportunity for the House of Commons to consider this important industry, which the Government fully recognise as being one of great importance to our balance of payments position. This debate is in itself a useful follow-on to the highly successful conference on tourism which was held at the Board of Trade at the end of last week.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch (Mr. N. Nicolson) said in opening his speech, that he would use me as a kind of telephone exchange to pass on to other Departments what was not properly within my own province. I ant glad to give him that undertaking, and to assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) that all the points which they have made will be considered not only by Government Departments, but by those of my officials who are at present studying the points raised at the conference last week.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Bournemouth and Christchurch divided his speech into two parts—the rôle of the Government as good hosts and as good businessmen—and I will try to deal with his points in the order in which he raised them. He quoted, in particular, the importance of courteous attention on arrival in this country, and I can assure him that we do take steps to ensure that our foreign visitors are made welcome and are treated with the maximum courtesy on arrival. Certain checks have to be made to satisfy ourselves that the visitors coming to our shores are genuine tourists and not people wishing to enter the country for another purpose and masquerading as tourists.

When we come to make a comparison with the Continent, while our controls at the ports may appear to be a little more stringent than they are in continental countries, foreign visitors, once they are here, are very much freer from supervision in this country than the foreign visitor is in most European countries. There is no question, for instance, of a foreign visitor having to hand in his passport every night during his stay in hotels in this country, to which British visitors to a number of continental countries have to submit. It is perhaps well worth while, therefore, having closer supervision at the ports in order to have greater freedom once the visitor is inside the country.

The problem of finding hotel accommodation during the peak of the holiday season is difficult in this country, as it is difficult in other countries, and I should like to take special note of my hon. Friend's suggestion about the system which he has described as applying in the United States of America.

My hon. Friend also made some reference to features of English life which might be calculated to irritate our foreign visitors, such as the apparent dullness of our Sundays and the difficulties in hotels of drinking exactly when one likes to drink. A good deal has been made of the problem of drinking whisky out of tooth mugs in one's bedroom, but I would suggest that that is not a very great embarrassment or difficulty, provided that there are sufficient tooth mugs in the bedroom.

I should like to make this important point. Our foreign visitors come to see Britain as she is, not to see a pale imitation of France, Italy, or some other country, and what may appear to us as irritating restrictions may be part of the charm of Britain to the visitor. They may well welcome a quiet Sunday as an opportunity for relaxation, and, while the restrictions on alcoholic refreshment may occasionally embarrass them, they probably also provide the opportunity for telling some good and amusing stories on their return.

At our expense.

I do not think that is so very serious. I am sure no one has been deterred from visiting Australia because of the rather quaint licensing regulations there, and I do not think that my hon. Friend would be deterred from visiting Canada simply because of the regulations there. I would say that these matters are not so serious a deterrent as we who live among them might imagine.

I should not like to say anything about the coach speed limits referred to by my hon. Friend, because this is clearly not a subject for me to answer, but I should like to say that the Minister of Transport has been doing a good deal to open out the bottle-necks on some of the roads leading down to our holiday resorts, and that this should enable the large motor coaches to which my hon. Friends referred to complete their journeys more smoothly and more rapidly. In fact, on many of the principal routes to coastal resorts, which, we hope, will be heavily used this Whitsun weekend, important roadworks are now proceeding.

For instance, on the London—Portsmouth trunk road, the London—Brighton trunk road, the London—Worthing trunk road, the London—Eastbourne trunk road, the London—Dover trunk road, the London—Folkestone trunk road and the South Coast road as well, serious bottlenecks are being removed by one method or another. In fact, I have here no less than six pages of details of improvements which are taking place, and when all these are completed they will be a substantial help to holidaymakers using these thoroughfares to the coast.

I had the opportunity earlier this week of meeting some visitors from New Orleans who were coming to England for the first time, although they had been for one or two weeks on the Continent of Europe before coming here. I thought that, as I came fresh from the conference on tourism, I would ask them how they were getting on. It was quite embarrassing to hear the nice things they said about us, and I do not think we need have any doubts about some of the impressions which the average Englishman or English woman makes on foreign visitors.

They were enthusiastic about our natural kindliness and courtesy and the easy and calm way in which we receive them and their friends. I asked whether I could have details, and I think this example is particularly interesting. It happened only on Monday of last week. The man who was speaking to me said that he was not quite familiar with English currency and he put down what he thought was an appropriate tip for a hotel waiter in London when he was paying his bill. The waiter paused, and said, "Excuse me, Sir. You have given me far too much as a tip. I should be grateful if you would take some of it back."

A modern fairy story.

It is a true story, and not an isolated incident.

This man went to a theatre and bought a programme. He tried to tip the programme seller, who said, "Oh, no. We do not take tips for this service in England," and refused to take the tip. Those two examples serve to illustrate how often a wonderful impression is created by people who, normally, we should never hear about, and I am sure that such examples go a long way to offset the occasional unfavourable remarks which may be made and to which my hon. Friend referred.

As I wished to get both sides of the picture, I asked this American visitor, he having been so kind to us, whether he could tell me anything which was unfavourable. He paused for a moment, and then said, "Honestly, I cannot think of anything at the moment. I have never had such a good holiday in my life." That is typical of the welcome we are able to extend and are extending today to our foreign visitors.

My hon. Friend questioned whether the Government was behaving like a good businessman in connection with this important industry. He suggested that we regard the industry as a luxury, but I can assure him that that is far from the case. The Government recognise the importance of this industry as a earner of foreign exchange and we are anxious to see it expand and go ahead. My hon. Friend may turn round on me and say, "In that case, why do not the Government do more for the hotel industry?", because he mentioned some hotels which have closed in his own constituency.

We recognise that the tourist industry must have a firm home base if it is to become a successful export industry. Therefore, we must have a flourishing domestic hotel industry so that our foreign visitors can come here and be efficiently and effectively looked after. We have a great interest in seeing that our existing stock of hotels is maintained in an efficient and up-to-date manner and that new hotels are built wherever it seems economically practicable to do so.

Nevertheless, we must recognise that some changes in domestic habits have come about in the last ten years. Many people in Britain, about half the population, take their annual holiday away from home. Many people prefer to take their holidays in a different form from the prewar pattern. The growth of holiday camps is one example; the development of caravan sites is another; and camping and simple holidays are very often the order of the day. Therefore, there may well be areas and particular localities where some hotels or boarding houses have not been able to carry on.

That does not mean that there are no opportunities for the hotel industry as a whole. The opportunities are very great at present because the industry can look forward to an assured future such as it has never been able to experience in the past. The figures quoted by my hon. Friend from my speech last week are the best estimates we can give at present. Surely it is a striking thing for the hotel industry to be able to look forward to this continued and steady expansion over the next decade, and that ought to give the industry, and those who would like to put money into it, a sense of confidence in the future.

We have been studying the problems of securing the necessary expansion in the hotel trade. There are obvious difficulties about granting subsidies to a trade, particularly as we have been exerting ourselves in other spheres to discourage forms of internal or export subsidies. There are also serious disadvantages in singling out a particular trade, or sector of a trade, for financial aid or tax relief. The Government's policy in the economic field is to leave private enterprise to use and to direct the nation's economic resources into the most useful channels, rather than to tell businessmen how best to invest their money.

I recognise that other countries take different views and either give tax relief to the hotel trade or allow interest-free loans, as in Austria or Switzerland, where the tourist trade is a far greater factor in their total overseas earnings than is our own. It must be remembered that assistance to a trade frequently involves various forms of inspections and controls which probably would not be welcomed by our own hotel trade.

Having said that, I should like to remind my hon. Friend that in the last year or so, the financial position of the hotel trade seems to have improved to some extent. On 7th January of this year the Financial Times reported that companies in the hotel trade which had reported in the first 11 months of 1957 had trading profits no less than 19 per cent. higher than in the previous year. There is some indication that investors are beginning to recognise that existing hotels are in a favourable position to cash in on the increasing tourist trade, both in London and in the provinces, and useful work has been done in improving and modernising hotels which makes a valuable contribution to meeting the total demand.

In contrast to what was said by my hon. Friend, I would point out that about 500 new hotel rooms have been built in London in the last year alone. I hope, myself, to be opening an extension to a London hotel in about ten days' time. The expansion of hotel accommodation in London is particularly important from the point of view of attracting foreign visitors, especially those who come to this country for the first time, because they want to come to London first and then perhaps to go on and see the rest of the country later. So it is in London that we must ensure that an expansion of hotel accommodation takes place.

There is one more matter to which I should like to refer, and that is the perennial problem of the shortness of the hotel season and the difficulties which lie in the way of any solution to this matter. Broadly speaking, there are three factors involved: industrial holiday periods, school holidays and the question of the August Bank Holiday. Arranging for industrial holidays is a matter for the towns and localities themselves. The figures which we have obtained show that the actual period of the school holiday is not normally a dominant feature in deciding exactly when families will have their holidays in the majority of cases. Here again, local education authorities have complete discretion in arranging the periods of school terms and when holidays shall be fixed, so that it may be possible for local education authorities and firms in particular areas to make sure that the holidays coincide.

The idea of an alteration in the date of August Bank Holiday has been canvassed in some quarters and a date at the end of August or the beginning of September suggested. This is a matter which raises very wide issues, and which I should not like to try to argue this morning. I would merely mention that the British Travel and Holidays Association spends about £4,500 a year in publicity campaigns designed to attract people to our resorts out of the season, or at the beginning or end of the season, in May or September, and do promotional work in favour of staggering holiday periods.

The Association receives a grant from the Government of £800,000 for promoting this work and, in particular, its "Come to Britain" campaign. That is a measure of the importance which the Government attach to this industry. That very sizeable grant is spent, I believe, with economy and efficiency each year and is undoubtedly an important aid in bringing more visitors to Britain and so still further strengthening our tourist trade.

Six years ago I had the good fortune to open an Adjournment debate. The subject I then raised was the question of the continuance of National Service. The House was as crowded then as it is today and I had the same distinguished support as I have now, in the person of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). He and I tried to make our fellow countrymen aware that National Service could not continue on the basis of two years if the other members of N.A.T.O. and the Commonwealth did not face up to their obligations.

What we said then has proved to be right. Nothing was done until the Government took the decision, in the Defence White Paper of 1957 and announced, regardless of the consequences and regardless of the military considerations, that they proposed to get rid of National Service by 1962. That was a leap in the dark, actuated only by political and economic considerations. We were right in 1952 and I believe that we are right again today in seeking this Adjournment debate to make our fellow countrymen aware of the consequences of the joint defence policy supported by both Front Benches.

The situation was highlighted by a conference organised by the Secretary of State for Air with the knowledge and approval of the Minister of Defence. There was a great how-d'you-do in the Press. I ventured to put a Question on the Order Paper, first to the Prime Minister and subsequently to the Secretary of State for Air. Unfortunately, a queue lined up behind me and after I put my Question I was never able to put the supplementary question which I would have liked to have put in order to make the situation clear.

I say again that I am not seeking to attack any serving officer. Once the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Air had taken the responsibility by this conference, those distinguished officers were out of the argument. I go a little further. I express my regret at reading a leading article in the Daily Mirror calling for the dismissal of Sir Dermot Boyle. It was highly improper that such a leading article should appear. This is a free country and we have a free Press, but we have not always a responsible Press. If the Daily Mirror wants to sack anybody it ought to start by sacking the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence, or even the Secretary of State for Air. It has been doing its best, but it could do it a lot more effectively if it were a little more responsible. This was an irresponsible leading article. So far as I am concerned the serving officers are out of it.

I am not even aiming my darts at the Secretary of State for Air and certainly not at the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who has kindly come to the House today to reply to me. Today, the villain—I use the word in the kindest way—is the Minister of Defence. I do not say that he is wicked, but I think that he is incredibly stupid. It is almost difficult to believe that he can be so stupid. Again, I do not want to view this matter in a personal way. These matters are of very great public importance.

It has been said by the Prime Minister that nothing that was said at that conference contradicts or cancels out Government policy. The Secretary of State for Air altered the emphasis a little. He said that nothing said at the conference could be interpreted as being in conflict with the Government's defence policy. Let us see what the Government's policy is, as I understand it. It will take a little time. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will interrupt me if I am wrong.

The two key paragraphs are 61 and 62 of the 1957 Defence White Paper, in which the Government make it clear that they do not propose to go on with the development of the supersonic bomber and that what money was available was to be spent on the production of a missile; first, on the development of the missile and eventually on the operational availability of the missile. The next paragraph is that in which the Government announced that they were not proposing to produce a fighter after the P.I. The Government policy was to be based upon the deterrent and the means of delivering it, which was to be the unmanned vehicle, the missile in some form.

After the abolition of National Service, there was to be the development of a highly mobile strategic reserve, conveyed by transport by the Royal Air Force. The Army was to provide the police force, while the Royal Air Force was to be responsible for its conveyance. If I am wrong, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will interrupt me. If I am right, that is what this Defence White Paper means, what I take it to mean, and what I believe everybody else does, who has studied the problem.

Let us have a look at what the conference was trying to say. This is an important point. Here is a group of very distinguished officers and very able political heads talking about the Air Ministry. As they got near to the consequences of the Defence White Paper they became more and more worried. First, there is no possibility, in my judgment, of the Government's getting the manpower they wanted. I do not say that the Government will be fantastically short but, taking the Army and the Air Force together, they will be 30,000 men short in 1960.

Secondly, will any hon. Gentleman seriously argue at this Whitsuntide, 1958, that we can carry our world-wide commitments on the basis of the 49 infantry battalions which we are to have in 1962? Of those 49 battalions, not more than 20 will be up to establishment. I would remind hon. Gentlemen who wish to face the realities of this problem over the holidays that we have no fewer than 17 battalions in Cyprus at the moment. What passes for a strategic reserve is already committed in Aden. We have even had to take two rifle companies from the Royal Fusiliers, part of the strategic reserve, up into Bahrein. At present, there is in this country only one battalion, the Durham Light Infantry, remaining of the riot force which the Government announced they were going to form to be sent to any trouble spots in the world.

We have to face the problems which were revealed at this conference and put the evidence which is available against the situation as it will develop over the next five years. The evidence is overwhelming that there is room for very serious doubt whether the safety of the country is not being jeopardised by a continuation of this policy.

First, may I quote from Marshal of the Royal Air Force Lord Tedder at the conference. I quote not from a particular newspaper, but from a report from one of the reputable agencies. He said:

"If there was not another V-bomber on the drawing board at the moment, it was unlikely that there would be one at all in ten years' time."

We know that the Government have stated that there will not be a V-bomber on the drawing board at present. We know that the present breed of V-bombers, of which we have ordered 250 to 260, 160 of them having been delivered, will be obsolescent within ten years. Ten years from now, we shall have no effective means of delivery should the missile prove not to be all that is sometimes written about it.

Here I have the gravest doubts. Let me quote from Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Dermot Boyle. He said:

"The Royal Air Force was convinced that manned aircraft would be required as far as they could see to supplement missiles in both the offensive and defensive rôle."

Translated into English, that means in terms of the supersonic bomber and the supersonic fighter. He went on to say:

"It would be much more attractive if they had been able to say that they would get rid of the expensive bombers and fighters and pour all their money into the missile. But they would be absolute hypocrites if they subscribed to such an arrangement."

But that is just the policy which is envisaged in the Defence White Paper. When the first White Paper was produced in 1957 our stupid Minister of Defence had then got caught up with the headlines, particularly in the American Press, because the Americans at that time were perhaps over-persuaded by Mr. Khrushchev's smile and were cutting down on their expenditure in the aircraft industry. There was a school of thought in the United States which believed that it would be possible to produce a missile, to move away from manned aircraft and go in for push-button warfare. But that is not the belief today.

I have been able to obtain a report, published in the last few weeks in the United States, of an inquiry into the satellite and missile programme of that country. It is a report of hearings before the Preparedness Investigating Sub-Committee of the Committee on Armed Services, United States Senate. The hearings of the evidence took place quite recently. This report relates to the period from 25th November, 1957, till 23rd January, 1958. I shall not read large extracts, because the report runs into about a quarter of a million words. I will read a little, starting with the evidence of Mr. Kindelberger, who was accepted by the Commission as a great authority. He is President of the North American Aviation Company.

Talking about missiles, Mr. Kindelberger said:

"I think it is going to be a long, long time before we have what I consider dependable, reliable missiles. I am talking about the ballistic area. They are intricate beyond human belief. They have not been developed."

If we wanted any evidence of that, we have it in the fact that only this morning there is a report of some Nikes having gone astray over New York, killing a number of people, and others having fallen into the sea. I merely mention that to illustrate the point of view of Mr. Kindelberger that we are a long way from the drawing board to operational employment.

On page 1284 of the report, Mr. Kindelberger said:

"If possible, we will go forward with some experimental work. But my belief is that we are going to be using manned aircraft for many, many years, and I think we are going to have to fight peripheral wars and we are going to have to use the type of airplanes that we can project from hereon for a long time."

Then he said:

"I am sure we will be using a manned bomber in 1970, and I think we will be using a manned interceptor for a long while, too."

On page 1289 we come to the key point. Senator Symington asked Mr. Kindelberger a question. He said:

"Let me ask this question. We have now gotten very interested in the glamour of missiles, but wouldn't it be against the best interests of the United Stales, in your opinion, if we began to believe that our only salvation lay in missiles and we forgot about manned bombers or manned units?

Mr. Kindelberger: I think it would be the greatest mistake we can make. I believe we will be using manned bombers for fifteen years easily.

Senator Symington: Fifteen years?

Mr. Kindelberger: Yes, and maybe beyond that. I am sure we will be using them that long, and I think we will be using manned interceptors, too."

We have the considered opinion of the greatest experts available to the American Government that as far as their policy is concerned they will be using manned bombers and interceptors for the next fifteen years. I hope that the Under-Secretary will not attempt to brush it off by saying that there are different kinds of bombers. I am not referring to supersonic bombers at the moment for, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, our V-bombers are roughly the equivalent of the American B-47. They have got the B-52 and the B-58, and they are going on with the WS.110 and the WS.117 and weapon systems even beyond that. I hope, therefore, that we shall not have that produced as an alibi.

I want to tie up the indisputable evidence that the United States is not putting its money on the missile but that the missile is a long way ahead, and I would add that it is the opinion of their experts that there will not be a time when it can be said, "We have the bomber; now we have the missile". The missile will grow out of the bomber; it is a development of the bomber into the missile. If we cut off the bomber as the Minister of Defence has cut off the bomber, if we cut off the interceptor as he has cut it off in this arbitrary way, and as he did in the 1957 Defence White Paper, regardless of the consequences, it means that this country falls out of the race.

I go back to Lord Tedder's statement. He said:

"If there was not another V-bomber on the drawing board at the moment, it was unlikely that there would be one at all in ten years' time".

He also said:

"If there was no supersonic bomber in the future there would be no supersonic civil air transport and we would cease to be competitive in air transport".

The consequence of the defence policy of the Minister of Defence—I use the word "defence" in inverted commas and with an enormous question mark; he has not got a defence policy at all—goes far beyond the scope of the Armed Forces. This is what seriously worries not only members of the Royal Air Force, but all who are interested in the effective development of such defence as we can afford. We are told that nothing that was said at this conference was in conflict with the Government's policy and that, indeed, nothing should be so interpreted.

But I put it to the right hon. Gentleman: who is responsible for the airlift of what we call a mobilised reserve? The Royal Air Force, of course. It runs Transport Command. I am sure that the Under-Secretary would not dissent from that. The Royal Air Force has the responsibility for the provision of airlift. The American report from which I have quoted makes the point that if all the resources of the United States were mobilised they could not lift a division. They could lift just about 0·9 of a division. I do not believe that they could supply it.

I have recently done an exercise on the ability to reinforce in the Gambia, the most accessible and smallest of our Colonies. The Gambia Regiment has been wound up arbitrarily, without consideration of the military consequences, merely to save £50,000 a year. What is involved? I worked out that taking a para-battalion, without its parachutes, and taking the whole of the resources of Transport Command, they could just about lift one battalion and maintain it. I am sure, on the basis of the evidence given before the American inquiry, that the Americans could not lift more than a division. That is just about right, taking the abilities of the two countries.

What was said at the conference? I do not think that the Under-Secretary will dissent, but if he does perhaps he will interrupt me. Air Marshal Sir Edmund Hudleston, Vice-Chief of the Air Staff, pointed out that the Air Ministry was not responsible for Government policy on service transport by air. That is the first time we have ever heard that one. Later in the same conference, we are again told that talks were taking place with the War Office about the possibility of providing a long range, heavy freighter to do these jobs. Either the Air Force is responsible for Transport Command and the air lift, or it is not. On the basis of the evidence and statements made at this conference, the Air Force, of course, is very dubious about accepting responsibility for something which it knows, if the pinch ever comes, it would be unable to deal with.

I do not want to trespass on the time of other hon. Members. I do not want to hog the time, because there may be other points to be made. I sought this Adjournment debate today for the same reasons as I sought the Adjournment debate on National Service six years ago. I believe that there is a logic about these things, that a country as weak as ours, weak economically and militarily, is always living on the edge of things. Sooner or later, a time will come, as it came in Suez, a couple of years ago, when the logic of all that has happened since the Minister of Defence took over will be put to the test. I am not happy in saying these things. I believe that the logical outcome of the Government's defence policy is either a humiliating diplomatic defeat, or an even more humiliating military defeat. That can be the only logical outcome of the way we are still acting.

On bath Front Benches, there is still talk as if we owned unlimited forces, that all we have to do is to call the Chiefs of Staff together and everything will be all right on the day. I have even heard it said by hon. Members on both sides of the House that, in relation to diplomatic dealings with the Russians, we should not rule out the possibility of "going it alone." I do not believe that that is possible. I believe that we have two courses of action open to us. Either we must change our overall policies, in the light of the force which we can deploy effectively, or we must be prepared to spend a great deal more money, and, not only that, but spend it much more wisely and in better ways than we have done in the past. Otherwise, there will indeed be a day of reckoning.

I myself am very glad that this conference was held. I entirely agree with Sir Dermot Boyle when he said that confusion exists in the public mind. There is no doubt at all about that. The overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens have not the least idea of the implications of the defence policies of the Government. The same thing was true between the wars. In 1940, when the truth could no longer be hidden, a Government of all the talents managed to save us from the consequences of our own blindness and our own folly.

I do not believe that that is possible now. I believe that 1958 or, if not 1958, then 1959, will be the year of no return. If we have not a supersonic bomber now and we have no plans for it, if we have no plans for an interceptor, and if we are content to go muddling along in this absurd and fantastic manpower policy, there will inevitably be, by the end of 1959, a hiatus which not all the imagination of even another Churchill will be able to bridge.

For these reasons, I raise my voice today, not that I think it will have any effect. But at least my conscience is clear. I am convinced that the defence policy of the Government is disastrous and I hope that it will not be very long before another Administration will have introduced a wiser and saner policy.

I remind myself this morning of those far-off propagandist days, more than fifty years ago, when I had occasion to address meetings at street corners consisting, for the most part, of five men and a dog. They were not always the same five men. This is an occasion when we have with us a distinguished, but not very large, audience. That is a great pity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is to be commended for having initiated a debate of this kind on the Adjournment, and also, as I think hon. Members will agree, for his remarkable industry and enterprise. Whether we agree with my hon. Friend or not, we are compelled to admit that he succeeds in impressing the House with his amazing knowledge of military affairs.

I should like also to commend other hon. Members who seek to raise local and national matters on the Adjournment. In the preceding discussion, we were debating the subject of the tourist industry and the desirability of providing adequate accommodation for foreign visitors. That is also a matter of national concern, but what has been happening in recent weeks? We have been occupying our time—with very small attendances—discussing on the Report and Committee stages of Bills matters which, no doubt, are of some importance but which, in my judgment, ought to have been telescoped and made far more brief.

For example, during the last few days, when the world is almost in flames, when we have seen what is happening in Algeria and in metropolitan France, when the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is threatened by almost imminent collapse, what have we been debating? We have been debating babies' dusting powders, shopping baskets, Welsh harps, and whether there is a Freudian connection between cosmetics and the fair sex. Very interesting topics no doubt, but it seems to me, after the dreary drip of dissertation to which we have been compelled to listen in the past few weeks, that the time has come to make a protest.

Who is to blame for it? It is no use blaming the Opposition for not initiating debates. I should have thought, in view of the matters of great moment now happening throughout the world, that the Lord Privy Seal, the Leader of the House, would have asked the Foreign Secretary, before the House rose for the Whitsuntide Recess, to make a statement on foreign affairs and to let the House have the views of the Government on those momentous matters so that we might have an opportunity of probing and illuminating the Government's mind on those affairs.

One cannot always expect the Opposition to demand debates, though I think that a certain amount of blame does lie with the Opposition. Yesterday, instead of having a debate on aircraft—no doubt very important—it would have been better, particularly in view of the recent statement by the Minister of Supply on the subject, to have had a statement of the Government's views on foreign affairs.

Some time ago the Lord Privy Seal was asked whether it was possible to have a debate on shipping, surely a matter of some importance. Every time that question is put to the right hon. Gentleman, we are informed that the Government have not the time because the House must proceed with legislation. All I ask is that the House should address itself to the need for telescoping the process of legislation, for however important it may be to many hon. Members, such matters are of less importance than topics of great international moment upon which the public ought to be fully informed. If there is a subject upon which the country and right hon. and hon. Members should be informed, it is defence. That is the charge levelled against the Government by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley.

My hon. Friend has made reference to the defence policy of the Government. Frankly, I do not know what is their defence policy. There is much confusion and misunderstanding about it, and in spite of successive White Papers and successive Ministers of Defence over a period of years this country is not yet adequately informed about the content of our defence policy. We are spending £1,500 million a year. What have we got for it?—a succession of White Papers and a number of Ministers of Defence following upon each others' heels. In view of the controversy that is raging in military circles and, indeed, civilian circles about the present Minister of Defence, before long we may be called upon to debate defence matters with a new member of the Government.

As a result of information conveyed to me from various quarters, sometimes from Government quarters, sometimes from people outside this House, I probably know as much about defence matters as any other hon. Member. Yet, I confess that I am unaware of what is the Government's defence policy. For example, I do not know whether the Government have an adequate number of aircraft in the event of an emergency. Nor whether they have a sufficient number of transport aircraft to convey troops in the event of an emergency. If an incident occurred, perhaps, in the Middle East, or in some Colonial Territory where it is necessary to take what are regarded as police measures, I do not know whether the Government are capable of undertaking their responsibilities.

I think that we ought to be informed of these matters. The only way is to raise debates in the House and to probe and interrogate until we drag out of the Government the information that we require. I would much rather have debates on defence and foreign policy and various other matters of national and international importance than have a repetition of the kind of debates that we have had in the last few weeks.

I hope that when the House resumes after the Whitsuntide Recess an effort will be made on both sides of the House to telescope the discussions on the Finance Bill so that we can find time to occupy ourselves with debates of first-class importance. I think that that required to be said. At any rate, whether hon. Members agree with me or not, I say it, and I shall return to it on another occasion when, perhaps, there is a larger attendance in the House.

I come now to the matter of the R.A.F. conference "Prospect II". I do not disagree with the holding of such a conference. There is a great deal of controversy in military and other circles about the relations between the political chiefs and the chiefs of staff and high-ranking officers—in fact, the military in general. In my view, policy is primarily a matter for the political chiefs, but in so far as one can separate strategy from policy—and to some extent they are interlocked—strategy is a matter for the military chiefs. The one thing that is essential in the defence sphere is that there should be adequate consultation and, indeed, continuous consultation at almost every level, to remove the confusion and make it unnecessary to hold conferences such as we have had recently. But if such conferences are to be held, then I suggest that there should be a much wider audience.

Why should not Sir Dermot Boyle, an excellent officer, Sir Gerald Templer, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, or Lord Mountbatten—who, apparently, has a great deal of time on his hands—come to a room upstairs, or perhaps Westminster Hall, and say what they have to say about defence matters, having gained the consent of the Minister of Defence? Apparently, the consent of the Minister of Defence was given for the recent conference. Of course, that is essential. They have no right to hold a conference or address people outside unless they have the consent of their civilian chiefs. But if they can get the consent of their civilian chiefs, why should not they come and tell us all about it?

Not long ago General Norstad, the Supreme Commander in the West, addressed a meeting of hon. Members in Westminster Hall. General Ridgway, General Gruenther, who was also Supreme Commander, and Admiral Wright, who is the naval chief in the North Atlantic, all did the same. It is desirable that this should happen. Hon. Members ought to be enlightened on matters of this sort, otherwise how is it possible to discuss them freely, liberally and intelligently? How is it possible for hon. Members to say whether the £1,500 million a year is being wisely and adequately spent unless we are fully informed on such matters?

I am not asking that we should impinge on security. The other day I asked the Prime Minister whether we had an H-bomb of British manufacture, and he said, "Yes". I do not know whether we have one, two, or three bombs, or what kind of bombs we have. I had to be content with that answer. I did a little probing on the sly and gained a little more information, some of which I am not allowed to disclose; but I am still dissatisfied, bewildered and confused. When, sometimes, people say, "You have been Minister of Defence and Secretary of State for War; you ought to know something about it", I must frankly confess that, in spite of reading White Papers, I do not know very much. It is a shame that we should be in that position. It is because the Government will not take the opportunity of informing hon. Members about these matters, apart from an occasional debate on a White Paper submitted by them.

Therefore, I do not object to the conference. Let us have a wider and less selective audience. I understand that the arrangements for hon. Members' attendance were made by the Whips. Frankly, I do not care for that system. Unless we can encourage the Whips to take a favourable view of one's activities, sometimes we miss their patronage.

I observe my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Bowden), the Opposition Chief Whip, sitting on the Front Bench. It is seldom that I get the opportunity to say anything in his presence, and I am very grateful for the opportunity today. Sometimes he might look over his shoulder at some of those who are anxious to be recognised. I will not put it higher than that.

No doubt the people selected to attend such conferences have great knowledge of defence matters—or perhaps they were asked to go because they had no knowledge at all and hoped to gain some. It is difficult to say. I would much rather see Sir Dermot Boyle come to Westminster Hall and tell us as much as he can. Then we might have a worthwhile debate.

I should like to dot the i's and cross the t's of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley said about the controversy which has emerged about the need for manned bombers in the future or the provision of missiles and rockets. I ask the Under-Secretary to convey to his right hon. Friend and perhaps to the Minister of Defence—and if not, I hope that the right hon. Gentlemen will read what I have said—that the Government must not put all their eggs into the nuclear basket. In my judgment, that would be fatal. Unfortunately, there is a trend in that direction. If I understood the recent White Paper at all, it denoted the Government's intention to set aside the need for conventional forces, and even the manned bomber, and to express a preference for the provision of missiles and the ballistic rocket.

I venture the opinion that neither this country nor the United States—and, I am beginning to think, Russia—have the ballistic rockets which some people have been bragging about for quite a long time. I do not believe it. For a long time to come we shall require the manned bomber. I do not like the expense that is involved—none of us likes defence expenditure—but if we are preparing for a possible emergency—and God knows we do not want it—and that is the whole purpose of our defence organisation, let us concentrate a little more on the kind of weapons which might—I put it no higher—prevent a nuclear war.

I have ventured to say before that it is far better to use conventional weapons in a limited war, if that is possible, even if it means humiliation and even if it leads to defeat, than to be completely annihilated. If it is completely annihilated as the result of a nuclear war, a country cannot revive. But if a country suffers as a result of conventional war, as Germany and Japan did, there is an opportunity to revive.

I conclude by expressing the hope that in spite of the recent White Paper the Government will reconsider this matter of defence and, in particular, inform hon. Members as frequently as possible of their views about defence matters, their future intentions, and how the money is being spent.

During the war I was closely associated, in a junior capacity, with my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg), although I do not now share his views as I shared them at that time. I was invited to the conference—I do not know why or how—but if my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) thinks that there was any patronage from the Whips Office, he is making a mistake. Most hon. Members on this side of the House, if nominated for a military conference, would regard that more as a punishment than as a reward. As it turned out, I could not attend for the whole time.

What the debate boils down to is the fact that we are not given sufficient time to deal with these problems and, with all respect to the Under-Secretary, we do not have the right Minister to answer the questions which are being asked today. We want to know what is the basis of our defence policy for the future and how we are to tackle the three projected kinds of warfare, all-out nuclear war, limited war, or a kind of brush fire.

The problem is that we cannot do those things by ourselves, for we have insufficient resources, manpower, money and equipment, and we therefore have to shape some kind of priorities. It may be that our priorities are wrong. The Air Ministry ought to indicate what are the priorities for as far ahead as can be seen and to explain that in a conference, possibly of a nature similar to conference Prospect II."

My only comment on some of the play-lets at the conference is that they were extremely puerile and that a second form of a school would have found them ridiculous. Some of them were a travesty. I was not present for the discussion, so I am not in a position to judge, but it seems to me that the speakers were falling over backwards in their efforts to separate politics and defence. That is impossible, for politics and defence are closely intertwined and it is grossly unfair to expect defence experts to deal with politics.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to explain our rôle and our priorities and whether he can give any information on the Russian attitude on these matters and some indication of American future policy. May we be told whether the Russians are concentrating on building manned bombers and manned fighters, or are they going forward with the development of ballistic missiles? If the hon. Gentleman can anwer that without a breach of security, it would help us to decide what our policy should be.

My final comment is to remark that what my right hon. Friend said about the holding of these conferences in future reminds me of the hymn about Greenland's icy mountains and the words

"Though every prospect pleases,

And only man is vile."

I hope that my right hon. Friend will not take that too much to heart.

I thank the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) for introducing the debate, and the other speakers for attending. Like the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), I am sorry that this is such a thin House. That is partly due to the fact that we discussed aeronautical subjects and the future of the aeronautical industry at considerable length yesterday, and partly because we are about to rise for the Whitsun Recess. It may also be because in some ways political squalls and political storms are rather like omelettes—created very quickly, rather difficult to keep and certainly impossible to warm up.

It may be desirable to remind the House of the subject of the debate, because we have gone rather wider than that subject. The subject put down for debate was:

"Manned aircraft in relation to the R.A.F. Conference Prospect II."

The right hon. Member for Easington asked about the manner in which invitations were issued. This is a subject somewhat outside my sphere. In this instance, it was in the hands of the Whips. We issued invitations to twenty-five Members of Parliament. I wish it could have been more, but the number was dictated by the size of the hall available. It was the Whips who passed on the invitation to hon. Members.

The hon. Member says "we issued". Who are "we"?

"We" are the Air Ministry on behalf of the Air Council which organised the conference.

If the invitation is not to be in the hands of the Whips, I can think of only one person who would be in a position to undertake the task and that would be you, Mr. Speaker. I do not know that you would welcome this extra duty on top of your others, but perhaps there will be another occasion for debating that.

The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked me to outline priorities. It would be going rather too wide to try to re-assess and to revive all the debates which we have had through the spring on this matter, but I will say that the over-riding priority of the Air Force is always to have an effective deterrent so that we are not involved in the catastrophe of a third World War.

I think it is also desirable to put on record that this conference, which has been welcomed by the speakers in this debate, was not setting a precedent. In the time of the Labour Government there were three similar conferences. There was "Spearhead", which was an Army conference held at Camberley in 1947 under the direction of Lord Montgomery. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Defence—perhaps it was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington at that time—and other Ministers attended.

That was followed by a Naval conference called "Trident" in April, 1949, when the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of Gloucester and Ministers were present, with American representatives and leaders of civil industry in this country connected with Admiralty work. Then there was also conference "Ariel" held by the Royal Air Force in 1949, but that was on a rather narrower front. The main theme of that was Royal Air Force manpower. In the time of this Government there was conference "Fairlead" which was held by the Navy in the summer of 1957 and which was very similar in its general aspects to "Prospect". It was illustrated by talks and playlets and was forward-looking to the problems of the Navy's future. Then we had this fifth conference, "Prospect".

None of these conferences was identical in form or attendance, but they had one feature in common. They showed defence problems to, and enabled them to be discussed by, circles far wider than those of professional Service men. I was glad to have the confirmation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington that this is desirable. The hon. Member for Dudley endorsed that, too.

It would be a pity if the controversy which has arisen over this conference were allowed to obscure the value of the conference in putting before a large and representative audience problems which the Royal Air Force is at present facing. Those problems fall under three headings: first, its re-equipment, which has drawn most of the attention; secondly, the financial problems involved in this re-equipment; and thirdly, the manpower problems, which, as the hon. Member for Dudley said, are the basis for all defence forces.

I am sorry there has been so much publicity on the hardware problems, because some of the facts about recruiting have not really emerged. What we did say was—and the increase in the first quarter's figures confirm this—that we should reach the target which we aimed to reach in 1962. We had thought at the time of the defence debates that we should fall 10 per cent. short of that target, but the present indications are even more encouraging than that, and it looks as though, from the way we are carrying on, we shall hit it.

However, there are cases where we definitely are lagging. We drew attention at the conference to the need for air crew. We are badly in need of new recruits. Anything we can do in this House to draw attention to the future of manned aircraft will be a help in this direction. Perhaps I could tell the House of some words which I came across last night:

"In an age of swift invention it is frequently believed

That the pressing of a button is as good as work achieved

But the optimist inventor should remember if he can

Though the instruments be perfect, they depend upon the man."

Unless we get the men of the quality and in the quantity we want we shall never be able to use this hardware to its full effectiveness.

I turn to the question of the hardware and to some aspects on which I think there is no controversy at all. There are three new aircraft requirements which are clearly essential and which are being studied at the present time. All of them are at the stage of evolution. In all of them we have to proceed carefully. I fully realise how important it is, and yesterday's debate underlines this point, to place orders with industry as soon as possible, but it is at least as important for us to be certain that the designs we choose are those best able to meet our needs many years ahead.

The first of these new requirements is a replacement for the Beverley. It is not very long since the Beverley entered service with Transport Command and it has made a tremendous increase in the Command's ability to lift heavy and awkward loads. We plan to go on using the Beverley as a heavy freighter until the middle 'sixties. It is with the period after that, some six or seven years ahead, that we are now looking for a successor. Of course, that exploration has to be done in close co-ordination with the War Office because the War Office has to tell us the types of loads which it wishes us to carry and the distances over which it wishes us to carry them.

I think there must have been some misunderstanding about this and I want to make it clear that we in the Royal Air Force are completely responsible for carrying the strategic reserves although we are not solely responsible for saying what ought to be carried. That is obviously a subject for the War Office.

The next new aircraft requirement which is also under study is the Canberra replacement. The Canberra is performing a most useful service in a great variety of rôles but we shall need to find a replacement for it in the strike and reconnaissance rôles in overseas theatres. Last year a general operational requirement was put out to the industry and we have received a number of designs to meet it, and we are now considering them together with, as was explained in the White Paper, the N.A.39 as a possible contender. This tactical strike aircraft may need to have supersonic qualities. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 61 of the Defence White Paper they will see that the decision to stop development of a supersonic manned bomber referred not to a tactical manned bomber but to a strategic manned bomber. I would underline this point because I think there has been some confusion between tactical and strategical.

All the way through I was referring to the same thing. I am not confused about this. There is no confusion in my mind—not the least bit. It is what the Americans are doing. That can be judged by their actions. They are going on with the B52 and B58 and so on.

I confirm everything the hon. Member says. He is not confused, but I think that outside I have noticed, in the Press and elsewhere, some confusion in this matter.

What was cancelled last year was the supersonic, high-flying bomber. It was known in Air Force parlance as "Operational Requirement 330." It could not play a useful part in the time scale. We did not know when we were likely to get it.

Finally, for overseas theatres, we also are looking for a replacement for the Venom. Venoms are doing a first-class job in many parts of the world, attacking ground targets with considerable accuracy. We realise that they will eventually die out, however, and in the coming summer we are going to test for a possible successor in the arduous conditions which exist in the Aden Protectorate. I told the House last week that the Gnat is one of those aircraft which is a contender.

Having got out of the way what, I think, is common ground, I should like to deal with matters about which there may be more controversy.

The hon. Gentleman has been completely fair up to now, but now he is wandering a little. He is talking about the introduction of the Gnat in Aden. He has not said that the reason for this is that the runway is not long enough to take the Hunter.

I do not think I ought to enter into operational requirements, but I would tell the hon. Member that it is not only the length of the runway which is under consideration. The aircraft has to attack ground targets and then has to climb out from awkward, narrow valleys.

That is what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do.

I want to turn to the other subjects which have raised some controversy. There has been a tendency in some quarters, particularly in the Press, to over dramatise the introduction of new weapons. It has been suggested that with the introduction of missiles the age of the aircraft has gone. This was never true and it was never said in those terms in the White Paper.

I do not want to raise any more controversy than necessary because I recognise the need for adequate defence and the last thing I want to do is to quarrel with the Government about that, but I am bound to say that my impression from reading the White Paper was that we were gradually abandoning the concept of the manned bomber in preference for the nuclear weapons.

May I deal with that in two sections, first, the manned fighter and then the manned bomber afterwards. I speak as one trained as a physicist and as an engineer. I want to make the point that occasionally one gets scientific break-throughs in the defence field but they are very rare. What happens far more often is that we get a progressive improvement in a weapon, and it comes in gradually while other weapons go out gradually. There is not a firm line after which there is no use for the other weapon. That philosophy applies not only in this country but particularly overseas, where the operational requirement is somewhat different. One might also say that old weapons are like old soldiers, they never die but they sometimes fade away.

Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply referred to the fact that decisions were taken in the 1957 White Paper to cancel two specific aircraft projects. It is true that the idea of developing an entirely new aircraft as a successor to the P.1. was abandoned last year for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, and this was covered in paragraph 62 of last year's White Paper. May I have the attention of the hon. Member for Dudley for a moment, because these words are important. It stated:

"The Royal Air Force are unlikely to have a requirement for fighter aircraft of types more advanced than the supersonic P.1."

This statement was taken in some quarters to mean that there would not be P.ls. How one can get that belief out of this statement I have found it difficult to understand. I cannot otherwise explain the surprise which followed upon recent decisions to place production orders for the P.1, when we were told in certain quarters that this was a complete change of policy. It follows logically from last year's White Paper, which stated that we were going on with the P.1.

The P.1. is not with us yet, and when it comes it will be with us for many years. I think it has a long and useful life and it will be needed for tasks which contemporary missiles are unable to perform. Manned fighters during this period are required to interrogate any unidentified aircraft within our air space. In passing may I say that as jet civil aicraft come into more general use they will fly higher and faster, and it will be more difficult to recognise the difference between a civil and a military aircraft which is off its course.

They are also required to prevent unchallenged photo and radio and radar reconnaissance of these islands. Of course, they will be needed for many years to deal with the stand-off bomber and the stand-off jammer. Conference "Prospect II" did no more than repeat these arguments in a far more colourful way than I am able to do, and it co-ordinated these arguments. The Government have never said that we can dispense with fighters overseas. Here I will quote what was said by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence:

"… there will still remain a very wide variety of rôles for which manned aircraft will continue to be needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 1764.]

That is categorical and I am surprised that anyone should read it as an intention of the Government not to have any more manned aircraft. Manned aircraft are wanted, as was said yesterday by the Minister of Supply, in the overseas rôle, where they are needed to locate, identify and attack small and difficult targets and, of course, to take advantage of opportunity targets which may show themselves.

The P.1 is not yet in service. It will doubtless be developed during its service, just as many of its famous predecessors were whilst they were in Fighter Command. It has many vital years of life ahead of it, and if operational needs and economy permit, it can be equipped with ever more sophisticated air-to-air weapons, which will make it more effective.

The second criticism which has come up again this morning has been that somehow we were opting out of the manned bomber quickly. I want to go over what we have said about V-bombers. We have said they are good, and I think those in this House who are knowledgeable about air affairs would endorse that remark. We have said that there are Mark II bombers on order and that these will be even better. We have said that their life will be further extended by equipping them with the stand-off bomb. Just as there is a stretch in bombers, there is a stretch in stand-off bombs. We have also said that we are developing flight refuelling so that they can attack their targets by devious routes instead of obvious routes. All this means that the life of our manned bombers—V-bombers—may go on for many years, and they not only have a life of usefulness in hot war as a deterrent, but they can also serve a useful purpose in the cold war as well.

There has been some reference, though not today, to the Assistant Chief of Air Staff's speech about a future successor to the supersonic bomber. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with this fairly fully at Question Time last week, when he made it clear that they were talking in the context of a strategic situation where a counter anti-missile missile might be developed, and if that occurred one would have to go back and consider a manned vehicle which need not necessarily be a bomber. However, we are looking ahead not one but many decades into the future.

Conference "Prospect II" lasted from 10 o'clock in the morning until 6 o'clock in the evening. Large numbers of people spoke from the platform and many from the audience. I have examined the trans-script and I see that more than 50,000 words were spoken. Of course it is possible to select out of 50,000 words one or two sentences which appear to show a discrepancy and which create controversy, but I think there is no controversy about the greater part of what was said at "Prospect II". Many letters my right hon. Friend has received from people who were there suggest that it achieved its object, of giving the audience a better idea of the problems which face us, both now and in the future. A great deal went into and a great deal came out of this conference. Even if there was some controversy, it achieved a great deal of good.

Last year the Government took their decision. Summarising this, it was to stop working on a number of specific Royal Air Force projects. Decisions were taken in relation to the time scale of their development, the cost of their introduction and, above all, the potential threat. The Air Council, of course, was a party to these decisions. It is the duty of the Air Council to consider our future needs. In defence nothing is static and we must constantly endeavour to peer into the future. Decisions on development requirements will be taken not on whether the project has wings or has not got wings, not on whether it has a man in it or has not got a man in it. They will rest on the time scale, on the cost, and, above all, on the contribution which each new project can give to the peace of the free world. A wider understanding of this can do nothing but good and I hope the House will agree that this is why conferences like "Prospect II" serve a useful purpose.

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him if he realises that he has given us far more information than we have as yet had from the Minister of Defence and even from the Minister of Supply yesterday, and that if it had not been that my hon. Friend initiated this debate, we should not have got this information?

May I say "Thank you"' to the hon. Gentleman? I am much obliged to him for giving us this time, and I share his view that nothing is static, not even Ministers of Defence.

I am very glad to have the chance of raising the question of consumer protection. I do not know whether the Minister would agree with me, but I think that the time has now come to take stock of the present position. I think the Parliamentary Secretary also knows that I take the point of view that we shall not get far until we get rid of the present Government, but if the hon. Gentleman is able to give me an excellent reply today he will have a chance to disabuse me of that belief.

I have wondered frequently, during the past few months, whether the Parliamentary Secretary has realised, judging by the type of reply which he consistently gives to my Questions each week, that the public believe that the Government are not on the side of the consumer. If he does not realise that, I hope he will think about it again, because that really is the case. There are many people and several organisations, besides myself, who are anxious to find out whether the Government have any plans for the future of consumer work, whether they intend to make any changes or whether they propose just to drift along as at present.

If we look at the position today, I imagine all would agree that the official consumer organisation is the British Standards Institution. The Institution has been in existence for a long time. Even by 1939 it covered a wide range of products. During the war, we needed standards for certain war materials, A.R.P. goods and utility merchandise. The ending of the Utility scheme, in April, 1952, brought a new demand for standards in furniture, textiles and clothing.

I believe that the Institution has done excellent work on the industrial side. I equally believe that on the domestic consumer side it has been hamstrung by lack of leadership from the Government and also by being denied powers which I think it needs to carry out the job properly. I would go further than that and say that with the support of a Government which really cared about the consumer, and was known to care about the consumer, and with powers to overcome the reactions of vested trade interests, of which there are some among the manufacturers, the Institution could issue many more quality marks guaranteeing high standards for the consumer.

In January, 1955, the Institution established a Consumer Advisory Council. The information given at that time was that the main work of the Council would be to keep manufacturers informed about what the consumers needed. The Council had no power, of course, and for that reason I objected to it from the very beginning. Today, we see the position that, because the Council had no power, it has not proved capable of persuading awkward manufacturers to co-operate with it when they did not wish to do so. On 13th May we managed to wring an admission from the Parliamentary Secretary that complete deadlock had been reached in respect of children's footwear.

I submit that it really was not good enough for the Parliamentary Secretary, when this matter was raised, to try to ride me off and say that he and his right hon. Friend

"… do not consider that compulsory standards would be the best way of serving the consumers' interests."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th May, 1958, Vol. 588, c. 196.]

I am not saying they are; I am asking the hon. Gentleman what he proposes to do in a deadlock like this if he does not have a compulsory standard.

The Parliamentary Secretary must know that for years the Institution has been pursuing the matter of children's footwear with the manufacturers. I am sure he will agree that the Institution is very patient. I think that at times it is too patient. It has pursued every reasonable method of negotiation, but the answer from the industry is a flat and complete, "No".

I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary feels, but I regard this as a test case, and I hope that the Institution does so, too. The Institution is the main consumer organisation in the country, and it receives a grant from the Government. In the interests of consumers, it states that the application of a standard to children's footwear is necessary; but the manufacturers say, "No". I ask the Government—I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not avoid the question this time—what they propose to do in this case.

Alternatively, the Institution may find that it is faced with not such a formidable opposition. It may find itself faced with only a majority of an industry objecting to what it wishes to do. I was always under the impression—I gather that I am wrong—that the Institution needed further powers in this respect.

Is the hon. Lady referring to legal powers?

Yes; I am referring to powers which the Government could give it. I am glad to admit that I was wrong. I am now informed that the Institution does not need additional powers to co-operate with a minority in an industry when a standard is desired by the Institution. If that is the case, then, even bearing in mind the difficulties, I think the Institution could have done more in this respect.

I want to be fair. I know of an example—the Parliamentary Secretary may know of more—where the Institution decided to go ahead with a minority in an effort to produce a standard. All went well for some little time until majority pressure was brought to bear on the minority, and then the minority help just fell by the wayside. I suggest that if, at that time, we had had in power a Government which was known to support the Institution fully in what it is trying to do, the pressure might not have had that result.

If the Institution is to continue as the main consumer organisation, then, first, the Government must enable it to deal with deadlocks such as have arisen over children's footwear. I would say hastily, in passing, that I see nothing else for it but legislation. I shall await the Parliamentary Secretary's viewpoint on that. I know that I should be out of order in pursuing it now. Secondly, I think that the Government must very emphatically support the Institution when it wishes to proceed and when it has only a minority of an industry willing to help it.

Leaving that dangerous ground, I wish to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary something else which, I think, would greatly strengthen the hands of the Institution if it could be done. We all know that the funds of the Institution are contributed equally from three sources—from the Government, from industry and from the sale of its publications. On its domestic consumer side the Institution has its consumer advisory council and its publication, Shoppers' Guide; and currently the Government are giving an additional grant of £10,000 to the Institution for the development of the domestic consumer side. In addition, when I made inquiries two or three weeks ago I learned that about 28,000 people had joined the Institution as associates and were paying 10s. a year to receive Shoppers' Guide and the benefit of advice on consumer problems.

I do not know whether these rumours have reached the Parliamentary Secretary, but I have heard them from various sources. I have heard that we are now reaching the stage when certain manufacturers might be objecting to their goods being adversely criticised in Shoppers' Guide. As the industries of those manufacturers make grants to the Institution, I need not emphasise to the Parliamentary Secretary that a very difficult position might arise. I do not for one moment believe that the Institution would allow what it says in Shoppers' Guide to be influenced in any way by a financial grant—I want to make that clear—but I feel that we cannot leave the matter where it is.

If the rumours to which I am referring are without foundation now, I do not believe that they will be without foundation in the immediate future. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that to deal with this we might consider the possibility of, apparently, separating the domestic consumer side from the Institution itself. I said, "apparently" because there must be links between the two. I shall come to those presently. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that if the domestic consumer side were to be removed geographically from the Institution, if a new Consumer Council were to be set up, if this Council had the job of recommending to the B.S.I. what consumer standards were necessary, if Shoppers' Guide were published by the Consumer Council and if consumer advice and help on complaints came from there, there is no reason why this whole domestic consumer side should not exist on the £10,000 grant from the Government, plus the sale of its publications, plus probably a grant from B.S.I. for its help in the domestic consumer field.

I believe that an arrangement like that would leave the whole domestic consumer section of B.S.I. much freer in dealing with awkward manufacturers. I believe that what I have called this domestic consumer section should affiliate to B.S.I., because it is essential that expert opinion in the Institution could be utilised. Indeed, under it I would still see B.S.I. being responsible for the preparation of standards. That is my first suggestion.

My second suggestion is this. Frequently in the House, many of us on this side have tried to raise day-to-day problems of great importance to the ordinary shopper, not only with the Board of Trade, but with other Departments. Today, unfortunately, we do not have time to go into them all. I will cite only four obvious examples to the Parliamentary Secretary.

First, for example, we have what I call this swindle of "monster", "giant", "extra-large" and "super-packet" descriptions of sizes of packets which bear no relation whatever to the actual content. Secondly, we have the necessity for the actual weight content of packages to be stated on the outside of all packets. Thirdly, we have the advisability of guarantees and certification marks which are advertised to the public being adequately registered and inspected. Lastly—I have not raised this with the Parliamentary Secretary, but I have raised it with the Ministry of Works—we have the possible duplication and the waste of money which is entailed by the fact, for example, that the grant-aided research organisations of the D.S.I.R., of whom there are about 45, the nationalised industries of gas, electricity and solid fuel, are all doing testing and research into consumer problems.

I am quite sure that I am correct in saying that the results of those tests made by the other organisations are not given to B.S.I. I cite B.S.I. because it is the main consumer organisation. The Parliamentary Secretary must be as well aware as I am that public money is being wasted. The D.S.I.R. is doing research, the consumer councils of the nationalised industries are doing research and B.S.I. is doing it. I believe that that research is duplicated and should be done by one organisation or the results obtained by each made available to all.

How are matters like that to be taken care of? I should like to be helpful to the Parliamentary Secretary by suggesting to him how this might be done. We all know that a lot of consumer work has been going on for many years, but that a good deal of it has been loose and disjointed. As Members of Parliament, we well know that some of our constituents do not even know that it exists and there are others who do not have the faintest notion of where to go to get their views expressed in the right quarter.

I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that we—that is, Parliament—might create what I have called a powerful, publicly-financed body, although I do not much like that description, which, not by legislation—I am merely putting the suggestion to the hon. Gentleman to see what he thinks——

It is bound to require legislation.

—might investigate this. It will not require legislation to investigate. This body should deal with consumer protection and education. It should co-ordinate all this general consumer work which is now being done. I am not wedded to the name, but I have called it a National Consumer Centre. I do not mind what the Parliamentary Secretary calls it, but I should like to give him six functions which I think it should include.

The first function is that it would be the national centre for receiving complaints from individuals and organisations about goods bought and sold in shops. Secondly, it would be empowered, in place of or with the Board of Trade, to initiate prosecutions under existing legislation wherever this might be called for. Thirdly, it would advise the Government as to further measures that might be necessary for the protection of consumers, including what quality standards were needed.

Fourthly, it would operate a testing and rating service, making use of the many first-class testing organisations in operation today, and it would make the results known to a mass audience. Fifthly, it would publicise the marks and quality standards already agreed to and make known to the public what legal safeguards exist. Sixthly, it would work closely with the B.S.I., the consumer councils of the nationalised industries and the various voluntary bodies, exchange information with them and help them in general with their work.

One of its most important tasks——

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but in an Adjournment debate one cannot go into a proposal even for an inquiry if the ultimate remedy is legislation. The hon. Lady has trespassed a little in that direction.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.

Any work which is done for the consumer needs adequate publicity. The Parliamentary Secretary would, I think, agree that it is no use having any measures for consumer protection unless they are generally and adequately known. One of the drawbacks of the work of B.S.I. which I hope that the new Centre would rectify, would be to provide much better publicity to a mass audience. I am grateful for your kindness, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I have now almost finished.

If we had this National Consumer Centre, the whole domestic consumer side of B.S.I. would disappear, because that work would be done by the National Consumer Centre, although B.S.I. would still be responsible for standards. A Minister would have to be made responsible, but the main point would be to ensure that the National Consumer Centre had as much power and independence as possible.

I told the Parliamentary Secretary in advance the points that I intended to make, because I was anxious that he would not spend a lot of his time, as he did on the last occasion, replying to points I had not made. That is wasteful when only a short time is available. I thought that if I let him know in advance what I was going to say he would let me know whether he was in agreement and would give me a real answer, but that if he did not agree with me he would offer alternative suggestions. I believe that a step forward must now be taken. Are we to strengthen B.S.I., or to have a new organisation? What do the Government propose?

May I seek the leave of the House to speak again to reply to the interesting and vivid speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton). The hon. Lady referred a good deal to consumer protection, but I am inclined to think that what we need is some form of protection for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade from the hon. Lady's repeated but charming onslaughts on what is, we are all agreed, a most important subject.

I will do my best to give the hon. Lady the direct answers as she requests. She has, of course, displayed considerable agility in skirting round the ban on Adjournment debates being occasions when one may refer to legislation. I may not be quite as skilful as the hon. Lady in similarly skirting round the subject and, at the same time, giving her the direct answers which she requires.

The hon. Lady referred to the question of Government approach. She suggested that the Government had one method of approaching these matters, and that if something was not done about it the consumer would lose faith in the Government and would prefer the methods of her own party.

At the next General Election, the public will remember the Conservative Government as the Government that removed all rationing and controls and restored consumer choice and got the public away from the rationing, controls and allocation schemes of which they were heartily tired. Our present-day policy stems from the concept of housewives' choice and not the concept, which is so dear to the hon. Lady and members of her party, that the man in Whitehall knows best.

The hon. Lady's proposal is simply a proposal for another Government organisation telling everybody how to manage their own affairs. We believe that the public are the best judges of what they want and what they wish to pay. We believe, furthermore, in the principle of free competition, a principle which ensures choice and quality. It is remarkable how quickly the public appreciate changes in price and changes in quality.

Earlier this week the House heard a statement by my right hon. Friend about butter. Only a few years ago butter was rationed. The remarkable thing is that in so short a time there is now so much butter that some housewives are going over entirely to the use of butter. The difference of a few pence in the price of a pound of butter compared with a pound of margarine has resulted in one chain of shops deciding not to sell margarine at all.

The public are much more sensitive and alert to the value it receives for money spent than the hon. Lady appreciates. We take our stand on public choice. We believe that we should create conditions in which the public should have free choice, guided and aided always where necessary by the retail shopkeeper, who himself desires to sell worthwhile goods and to advise his customers, where appropriate, what goods the customer should purchase.

The hon. Lady referred particularly to high standards which the B.S.I. might work out and which should be adhered to. I ask her to consider where that line of thought would lead her if it were put into practice. If it is to be a compulsorily high standard—I presume she is not interested in low standards—a large number of manufacturers would not be able to manufacture to that standard, so the goods would not be available in sufficient quantities in the shops.

If the B.S.I. had power to guarantee high standards for the consumer and the manufacturer was not prepared to manufacture to that high standard, no legislation would secure such a situation. So it is essential that B.S.I. should proceed by agreement in this matter and not consider the proposals of the hon. Lady for more compulsive methods, however tempting that may be.

The hon. Lady made a great deal about the deadlock reached in the matter of children's footwear. I think she would be wrong in saying that because we have one deadlock we have to think out everything afresh. I would remind her that one should never generalise from only one example. The B.S.I. is making good progress with the Consumers Advisory Council on other matters.

Could the hon. Gentleman tell us what is being done about children's footwear?

Yes, I am glad to be able to tell her that the Consumers Advisory Council has referred it to a committee to consider, as possibly she is already aware. I wonder whether the hon. Lady realises that there are no fewer than 172 British standards for consumer goods already and Kite mark schemes are in operation in 45 of them, involving more than 700 licences. I have a list of those standards and Kite mark schemes and can send her a copy.

I have one.

I thought that the hon. Lady might have the information, but it is important that it should be given in the House so that the public should not get a false impression, or an inadequate impression, to what is being done.

There is a very real difficulty over children's footwear in that some manufacturers felt that their standards were much better than the standard which had been proposed. They would not like to see their standard, which they regarded as higher, being denigrated by a standard less high. I think that that is a mistaken view, because the marketing of any product with the B.S.I. Kite mark would in no way detract from the extra quality a manufacturer may care to put into his product. We must not make too much out of one deadlock. I think that it would be quite wrong to suggest that we should make sweeping changes as a result of this one experience. Although it may be unfortunate, this one experience may prove a very valuable one for all those engaged in this work and enable them to work out schemes very efficaciously in future.

The hon. Lady raised so many points that it would be difficult to do justice to them all. I hope that she will not say that I have not tried to answer them all. She referred particularly to certain aspects of consumer goods and what she called "the swindle of the monster packet." We do not regard that as a swindle, nor necessarily as a piece of good trading. This is a field where competition can operate. If one does not like to buy a monster packet one can buy a packet sold by some other producer.

If the hon. Lady says that the advertising makes the price unnecessarily high, it is open to manufacturers to produce moderately-sized packets with greater value. It is open to anyone, the C.W.S. for example, to produce packets unadorned by adjectives such as "monster" or "giant" and to try to persuade the housewife to buy what ought to be better value for money. I suspect that what the housewife actually buys in terms of contents is a very good "buy". My belief is that the housewife is a fairly shrewd buyer and that so long as she has the choice she will decide for herself by personal experience the best "buy" she can get.

We are doing something about the weight content of packets, when pre-packed foodstuffs and quick-frozen foodstuffs are concerned. Regulations are in course of preparation and, in due course, will be laid before the House. We cannot deal with weight content of non-food items without legislation, which, of course, the hon. Lady will not expect me to refer to now.

With reference to grant-aided research organisations, the hon. Lady must please try to learn to appreciate that just because a body is grant-aided that does not—I repeat "not"—mean that the Government should interfere excessively in its day-to-day operation and management. We accept responsibility for answering Questions in the House relating to B.S.I. because it is grant-aided, but, because we make a grant that does not mean that we should exercise day-to-day control over research. The same applies to other grant-aided research organisations. The hon. Lady suggested that this looks like a muddling, overlapping and wasteful system and it would be better if it were co-ordinated into one large national consumer council.

We do not believe in that way of doing things. There are a number of bodies, some enjoying support from public funds and some independent of Government assistance, which are employed on work which, in various ways, helps to protect the public. We prefer this competition, or emulation, between different bodies since it helps the consumer to pick a way for himself or herself in these matters and to pick and choose between advisers, just as he picks and chooses between the goods offered for sale.

My answer to the hon. Lady is that her approach is fundamentally different from ours. Our approach, which is positive, has been successful in the past. I believe that the public will be glad to remember it as a successful policy when the next Election comes.

I wish to raise the question of housing in St. Austell, a town of 23,000 inhabitants in my constituency, which is an urban district, the name town of a rural district adjoining and is the natural centre of the Cornish china clay industry, a very important but highly concentrated industry, the majority of the clay pits of which are situated in the St. Austell rural district and within a mile or two of St. Austell itself.

Cornish china clay has far greater uses than most people appreciate. It not only provides a very large proportion of the raw materials for Stoke-on-Trent and the British pottery industry, but a very great proportion of the raw materials for a vast variety of other British industries, ranging from paint to linoleum, from motor tyres to paper manufacture and from cosmetics to medical preparations. It is also a very big exporting industry as a raw material, both in quantity and in value, and Cornish china clay has a ready sale all over the world, except behind the Iron Curtain, and including the United States of America, where it is a big dollar earner, and where, notwithstanding the American recession, it is still holding its own very well.

In all these circumstances, it is not at all surprising that the small town of St. Austell should be prosperous and growing or that the urban district council, despite its very good housing record, should have been quite unable to overtake the acute housing shortage which was caused during the war. In the last three years, the St. Austell Urban District Council has built 138 houses, and a further 110 have been built by private enterprise, while 52 council houses are at present being built. Nevertheless, in this town of 23,000 inhabitants, there are 1,000 families on the waiting list for council houses. Taking a family as averaging, perhaps, three or four, and on the whole Cornish families are large, that means that something like one-sixth or one-seventh of the total population are on the housing waiting list. That is a high proportion.

We in the Conservative Party have never regarded council houses as the sole or even the most important means of meeting the housing needs of the public. We believe that council houses can be a useful ancillary means of providing houses, but that private enterprise can and will meet the main need, provided it is given reasonable facilities for doing so.

I take it that one of the objects of the recent Rent Act was to encourage private enterprise to play a greater part in meeting the public need with regard to housing, but it is not enough to permit landlords to charge rents which will provide for repairs and maintenance. If private enterprise is to be encouraged to build houses for letting and cheap houses for sale then private builders must be permitted to use sites which they think suitable for the purpose.

The Conservative Party has never been a laissez faire party, and has for many years supported town planning but planning, in my view, should always be tempered with common sense and subject to the needs of local public opinion. It would not do if the gentlemen in Whitehall or in County Hall either, took the town plan and coloured it in pretty colours indicating certain areas of land suitable for housing development, although the local builders were not at all interested in it as a building site, or, on the other hand, indicated land for agricultural use which the builders would have liked for building and which the local farmers thought unsuitable for agriculture. That sort of thing would not be planning, but mere bungling, yet something very like this appears to have happened in St. Austell.

To the east of St. Austell, and only one-and-a-half miles from the town but well within the urban district, there is a property known as Trelawney Farm, which is in the freehold occupation of a Mr. Winstanley. It consists of approximately 23 acres of more or less flat pastureland, not of very high quality. That is rather a small unit, agriculturally, even for Cornwall. It extends from the back of houses built along the road to Bethel in the north to the St. Austell—Lostwithiel—Tavistock main road in the south—a Class I road which is numbered A.390. To the east it is bordered by Daniels Lane, which was recently designated a street by the St. Austell Urban District Council, and to the west by smallholdings which are between Trelawney Farm and other houses.

A trunk sewer actually runs across the farm, and buses run to Bethel in the north and along A.390 to the south, which carries very heavy motor traffic. From the top of a bus or from the main line of the Great Western Railway which crosses A.390 not very far away, Trelawney Farm appears as a vacant lot between the considerable development at Bethel and the main road, and most passers by would look upon that site as ripe for development.

Apparently, this was Mr. Winstanley's idea and in 1955 he prepared plans for a compact building estate in plots of land which he proposed to sell at from £200 to £250 each for the erection of artisan type houses in the £2,000-£3,000 range, and submitted the plans to the planning authority. These plans were turned down, and the rejection was confirmed after a public inquiry in 1956, on the grounds that Trelawney Farm was not included within the area allocated for residential development on the St. Austell town map forming part of the county development plan, and that there was adequate land allocated in the St. Austell area to meet the estimated housing demand.

It is true that at that time, Mr. Winstanley, perhaps owing to the manner in which he had put his claim, had not obtained the support of the St. Austell Urban District Council for his proposals. It is also true that Trelawney Farm is not marked on the plan far residential development, and that there were and are vacant sites in the St. Austell area which are marked on the plan for residential development, but many of these allocated sites are on hilly ground, they are not on bus routes, and they have no trunk sewers, and many are for sale as plots valued at between £600, and £1,200. In other words, many are not sites of any interest at all to builders who want to build cheap houses of a type which would be of any value to the 1,000 waiting families in St. Austell.

At any rate, Mr. Winstanley was not satisfied with the rejection of his proposal, and he would not take "No" for an answer. Ever since, he has been making repeated applications of all sorts to try to get that decision reversed. I think it may be that perhaps his very persistence and his importuning everybody he could think of to support his case may to some extent have prejudiced the reasoned reconsideration of his application in the minds of some of those concerned. Be that as it may, his most recent application was made in 1957 and was supported not only by the St. Austell Urban District Council but by the Central Area Planning Sub-Committee. This application was also turned down by the county council, and the rejection was confirmed by my right hon. Friend on 14th March last, after the consideration of written representations, on the grounds that, he was not

"… convinced that there was sufficient justification at the present time for taking the appeal site out of agricultural use and breaking into the wedge of rural land."

Here we come to the very odd thing about this case. In my experience as a Member of Parliament, it is quite exceptional. Not only is the St. Austell Urban District Council still prepared to say in writing that, in its view, Trelawney Farm is considered suitable for housing development, and to have written to me as recently as 30th April, saying

"The council are of opinion that the site at Trelawney Farm is suitable for housing development."

but no fewer than four Cornish county councillors of high standing, Brigadier Caunter, Mrs. Treffry, Mr. Francis Williams of Penair, and Mr. T. B. Eddy, all took the most unusual course of writing to me as their M.P. expressing the gravest doubts as to the decision of my right hon. Friend and saying that they thought Trelawney Farm should be developed.

What is more remarkable is that the county branch of the National Farmers' Union, through their secretary, Mr. T. W. R. Christophers—who, by the way, is also a Truro city councillor and familiar with housing problems—stating that

"After careful investigation of the scheme and finding that a sewer has been laid through the land, our opinion is to the effect that while loath to see any good agricultural land taken for building, we are of opinion that this farm has been so encroached upon by the sewerage system and by recent building development that we feel it is no use trying to keep it for agriculture any longer."

To sum up, it seems to me that there is an urgent need for housing in St. Austell which the urban district council, under present arrangements and policy, has no hope of meeting, and which can be met only by private enterprise. Secondly, it appears to me that the private builders, for a variety of reasons which they think adequate, have not been attracted by a number of the vacant plots on the town plan but are much more likely to be attracted by Trelawney Farm. Thirdly, I would point out that the local authority most firmly thinks that the farm is suitable for development and has the backing of a number of prominent and experienced county councillors. Finally, the county branch of the National Farmers' Union, which usually is very anxious to maintain in agricultural use every scrap of agricultural land in Cornwall, in this case says quite bluntly that it is no use trying to keep this farm for agriculture.

In all those circumstances I submit that there is here a prima facie case for examining the matter again to see whether, after all, the man on the spot may not be right and know more than the man either in Whitehall or in the county hall at Truro, which is quite a considerable distance from St. Austell; and whether there is a case for altering the St. Austell town plan in the interests of the thousand families in St. Austell on the waiting list for housing accommodation.

I cannot expect my right hon. Friend lightly to reverse a decision already taken nor easily to overrule the views of his professional advisers, whether in London or at Truro. However, I submit that the views of the National Farmers' Union in Cornwall represent a new factor in this matter which has not previously been considered, so far as I know, in any previous inquiry into this matter. I submit that the whole question merits further consideration.

I wish to support the very good recitation of this case given by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) and I wish to draw the attention of the Minister to three points in that speech; the high proportion of the people on the waiting list for houses, the backing of the St. Austell Urban District Council, and the need for private building, which must be acknowledged.

We would all agree that planning should be tempered with common sense. I know this place well. I pass it in the train about twice a week during most weeks when this House is sitting and I agree entirely with what has been said by my hon. Friend about its agricultural importance. What is much more important is that today we have heard the view of the secretary of the county branch of the National Farmers' Union, and if that is his opinion I think that it would be hard to press the agricultural merits of this farm.

In view of the tremendous need for housing, ought we not to look at this matter in this way? In every development plan or idea in this comparatively new part of our life connected with county planning there is room for revision or re-examination or plans after a period of years. Could not we take this as being the time when we should look at this plan again in the light of local circumstances? Cannot my right hon. Friend give us some hope that he may have second thoughts, in view of local housing needs and local support for this idea and in view of what has been said by the National Farmers' Union?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) for having stated his case so clearly and so reasonably. This seems to me exactly the kind of case which should properly be raised on an Adjournment of the House on such an occasion as this, because it stems from an individual appeal and yet raises rather wider issues. I will endeavour to deal with both.

This is a matter to which I have given a great deal of personal attention. I cannot claim the intimate knowledge of the land possessed by my hon. Friends, but in so far as a study of the maps is of any value, I think that I have some mastery of the local situation. At the very outset I want to say that I have great sympathy with Mr. and Mrs. Winstanley in this matter. It is one of those cases where, if one could decide the matter on personal sympathy, one would have no doubt about deciding it in a certain way; yet one has to decide it in another way because the balance of argument lies decisively that way.

I wish to assure my hon. Friend that whatever importunity the Winstanleys may have shown, it has in no way—as he may have feared—prejudiced reasoned consideration. Indeed, if someone makes an appeal which is dismissed, and then makes another appeal and that is dismissed, who is to blame him for feeling strongly about the matter? Certainly it is my desire that all individuals shall be able to express themselves in cases like this, and my hon. Friend has used his opportunity to bring this matter right up to the High Court of Parliament.

I think that Mr. and Mrs. Winstanley had some idea that this had been decided at a lower level, and that the Minister himself was not acquainted with the facts. I should like to say here in Parliament that I did study the papers myself carefully. They received my personal attention on the second appeal—the first, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, was before my time—and I frankly had no doubt about the decision I must give though, on personal grounds, I was reluctant to give it. In their case I think the fact that they knew that the area planning sub-committee had made a recommendation that housing development should be permitted on this land encouraged them to take some action which they might better not have taken. Maybe they did not fully realise that it was not the sub-committee, but the county council itself, which was the planning authority. These are complicated matters and nobody should be blamed if he fails to have a complete grasp of how the machinery works.

I appreciate also that not only did the area planning sub-committee take the view it did, but that it was supported by the St. Austell Urban District Council.

The basic fact which one has to study is the amount of land that is allocated for residential development in the town map under the development plan. In approving the plan my predecessor made a slight alteration; he took thirty acres out of the residential allocation and put twenty acres in. Broadly speaking, the town map is based on the estimate that about 340 acres would be required for residential development in the twenty years from 1951 to 1971. It was originally estimated that, up to the end of 1957, 119 of these acres would be so developed. The fact is that housing development has proceeded more slowly than anyone expected, and the actual housing development over those seven years has been not 119 acres but only 65 acres.

When my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) speaks of the tremendous need for housing and suggests that the meeting of that need is being frustrated by planning restrictions, it is only fair to point out that there are more than 200 acres allocated under the plan for housing where housing has not yet proceeded. There may be many different reasons for this. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro suggested that some of the land was far from bus routes, some of it was not yet adequately sewered and some was likely to command a higher price than would be suitable for the kind of small house that might be built on the Trelawney farm estate.

The fact remains that one must view the problem as it is. If, indeed, there is a powerful demand for housing in the area, and a very substantial acreage allocated for housing development but still unused, yet nevertheless the housing is not going forward at the rate that one would expect, then one is bound to ask oneself whether the apparent demand for housing is a real demand.

I accept the contention of my hon. Friend that there is some unresolved question here. The only point on which I wish to join issue with him is when he says—I took down his words—that the private builder must be permitted to use the sites he thinks suitable. If any Government were to accept that dictum there would be no chance of retaining green belts. My hon. Friend may or may not know that the largest element in the 7,000 planning appeals which come to me every year consists of appeals to build houses on rural land, much of it in green belts. The sites selected are extremely attractive. Many are rendered the more attractive, although the applicants do not always realise this, because frequent applications to build in that area of high amenity have been rejected in the past. Unless we are to scrap green belts, which I am sure my hon. Friend does not advocate, we must exercise control and give guidance where building, whether private or public, shall go forward.

I believe I said in that context that the land, although allocated for houses, was apparently not regarded by builders as suitable. It is no use putting it on the map because, for some reason, they have not taken the land that is there.

That brings me to the suggestion that I want to make. If the St. Austell Urban District Council thinks that the town map is wrong and the sites that have been allocated are inappropriate for housing purposes, and that therefore the town map should be amended, its proper course is to ask the Cornwall County Council to submit to me an amendment to the town map. That can be done at the quinquennial review, which will be due in 1961—I think I am right in saying that the development plan was approved by my predecessor just before I became Minister, in December, 1956—but if it is thought that the matter is one of real urgency, there is power for an amendment to be made earlier, under Section 6, subsection 2 of the 1947 Act.

I must utter the word of advice that even if it should be thought—I cannot possibly prejudge this point—that the town map should be amended, it does not necessarily follow that Trelawney Farm should be selected as land that ought to be added—or ought first to be allocated and then added—to that which is allocated for residential purposes. One has to bear in mind, for example, that there is land to the south-west of Trelawney Farm—I expect that my hon. Friend is familiar with it—which was originally to be allocated for residential purposes. Now a secondary school has been built on part of it. There is further land there which was excluded from the residential allocation.

The question arises whether, in any case, it would be right to develop Trelawney Farm for housing purposes while leaving the land immediately to the west of it, between it and St. Austell, in use for smallholdings as it is at present. The smallholders raised objections on the occasion of the first appeal in 1955. I understand that their objection was maintained at the later appeal. They believed that if Trelawney Farm were developed for housing purposes there would be more trespass on these smallholdings. They complained of the trespass that existed already. Certainly, that acreage of smallholdings would be left as a kind of island surrounded entirely by housing development.

That is a matter which I should think the Cornwall Branch of the National Farmers' Union, and the St. Austell Urban District Council and everybody else concerned, would need to take into account. It is normally considered to be unsatisfactory planning if one retains a relatively small island of land in agricultural use while building all round it, unless there is a cogent reason why that policy should be followed.

That is the best I can say to my hon. Friend. He suggested that it was difficult for me to override the views of my professional advisers. I can assure him that the Minister is quite bold enough to take an independent line when he is convinced, having examined all the facts on their merits, that he should reject the advice of his advisers or the view of a planning authority. In this case, the planning authority—that is to say, the Cornwall County Council—must have gone into the matter very carefully. It was known that there were strong local feelings about the matter and the county council reversed the recommendation of its own area subcommittee, which presumably it would not have done lightly.

I do not think Mr. and Mrs. Winstanley or anybody else ought to be under the apprehension that this has been decided at an insufficiently high level or has not received thorough consideration on its merits. I can assure my hon. Friend that it really has received such consideration, and if there is to be any change here it ought not to be by the Minister allowing an appeal on a particular part of land which would, in fact, if allowed, gravely infringe the provisions of the town map. It would be more appropriate that the urban district council, if it holds very strong views on this matter, should make official representation to the county council and support them with such argument as it can adduce to the effect that the county council ought seriously to consider amending the town map.

My hon. Friend will appreciate, as I have said, that I am not pre-judging at all whether the town map should be amended. It would be wrong for me to do so, as the application to amend it would finally come to me. But the procedure which I have indicated is, I suggest, the machinery which it would be appropriate to use.

We turn from an important administrative problem in Cornwall to some important constitutional matters in a more distant place, in Uganda. It is not very often that we have an opportunity of discussing in this House the affairs of Uganda except in moments of crisis, but I think it is our duty in Parliament to keep in touch with developments in this extremely important Protectorate in East Africa and from time to time to remind ourselves of what is going on there and ask ourselves if there is anything that we as a Parliament with some residual responsibility can do to help.

I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for coming here this afternoon. I know that he has only recently returned from the Caribbean, and it must be very difficult to switch his mind from one part of the Commonwealth to another.

One of the reasons that I asked that we might have this short debate this afternoon was that I have been very interested to hear about the position in Uganda concerning the proposed elections later this year. I have in my hand a copy of the latest news bulletin which is published by the Department of Information in Kampala. This is dated 15th May. It reports that the registration of electors in those parts of Uganda which are to elect their members to the Legislative Council by direct vote has been quite remarkably high. No fewer than 625,000 Africans, estimated to be almost 80 per cent. of the eligible electorate, have taken the trouble to register as voters. This is an extremely encouraging figure because it shows that both the administration and the potential electorate have shown great interest in securing the exercise of the franchise.

It is, of course unfortunate—at least, many of us in the House regard it as unfortunate—that not all the elections to the Legislative Council will be direct. The position of Buganda is peculiar because it was originally at the insistence of the Buganda representatives at the conference which resulted in the agreement of 1955, that this matter of direct elections to the Legislative Council was first brought in. But for various reasons, into which I do not propose to go this afternoon, Buganda has decided not on this occasion, at any rate, to participate in direct elections. There has, therefore, been no registration of electors in Buganda and they are, therefore, not included in these figures.

For other reasons, or perhaps I might say in some cases for similar reasons, neither Ankole nor Bugisu is participating in direct elections, and Karamoja was never included in the proposals for direct elections at this stage, though presumably Karamoja may come in later on.

The situation has arisen in which the existing representative members in the Legislative Council have come together in their Representative Members Organisation and have tried to look at the picture of these forthcoming elections; and in doing so they have come firmly and unanimously to the conclusion that the number of proposed members in certain districts is inadequate properly to represent the people of those districts. They made representations earlier this year to the Governor and they have asked that the Secretary of State should himself reconsider the matter.

That request has been renewed. I understand, and I am not asking that the Under-Secretary should necessarily this afternoon give a definitive reply to the proposals put forward by the representative members. On the contrary, I think it might be better that he should not, because I think there is much to be said for their being allowed to make their representations direct to the Secretary of State.

This is an important matter in the Parliamentary development of Uganda, and I think that any hasty reply given perhaps after inadequate opportunity for consideration of the arguments would be a pity. Therefore, I am seeking this afternoon to emphasise and underline the points which are in the minds of the representative members in order to see that this matter secures the fullest consideration. We all know that the Secretary of State, who is perhaps one of the hardest working Ministers of Her Majesty's Government, has been very hard pressed in recent times. He has Singapore, Cyprus and other places on his mind. We cannot, therefore, expect him necessarily to find time to look at these matters in all their detail and complexity unless one takes such an opportunity as exists today to bring them to his notice.

What I am asking the Under-Secretary to do is to look again at the proposals of the representative members, because to my mind they are fully justified. What in effect they are asking for is that those districts, which with all their own local knowledge they believe would be inadequately represented, should be allowed to have an additional member. The present position in the Legislative Council is that there are 30 representative members, consisting of six Asians, six Europeans, and the remainder Africans.

They are divided in this way: Buganda has five, although there is one vacancy which at the moment remains unfilled; Ankole has two; Busoga has two, and the other districts have one each. Ankole and Busoga secured their extra representation, I think I am right in saying, in 1955 when Sir Andrew Cohen decided that they required some additional representation. But we have at least four other districts which seem to me to be inadequately represented. There may be questions about one or two others, but, as regards these four at any rate, an extremely strong case can be made out.

The four to which I am particularly referring are Teso, Kigezi, West Nile and Bukedi. By courtesy of the Colonial Office, I was supplied yesterday with some population figures. Unfortunately, these figures are based upon the 1948 census, and, presumably, the populations have risen considerably since then. However, these were the latest figures which the Colonial Office could give me. I do not know what adjustments are made for practical purposes, but I shall have to argue on such figures as I have been able to obtain. I have also the registration figures for voters in the four districts and all the other districts where registration took place.

Looking at the population figures, for a start, one observes that in Teso there is a population of 400,000 people, which compares with a population of approximately the same size in Ankole. Ankole, as I said, has two representatives, and Teso has one. Ankole is not participating in direct elections and, therefore, one cannot compare the registered electorate; to do that, one would have to look at the Busoga figures, which is the other district with two members at the present time, where one has a registered electorate of 101,000. Teso has a registered electorate of 152,000, so that in Teso there is a comparable population with the smaller of the two districts with two members and one-anda-half times the registered electorate of the other district which has two members. Looking at the matter purely statistically, so to speak, Teso obviously has an extremely strong case for equivalent representation with either of the other two which now have two members.

Kigezi has approximately 400,000 population, about the same as Ankole. Admittedly, registration in Kigezi is not so high. I do not know what the reasons for that are. Nevertheless, there are about 80,000 registered electors.

Turning now to West Nile, the population, I grant, is not so large, and the number of registered electors, approximately 60,000, is not quite so great, but I am told by those with local knowledge that there are particular difficulties in West Nile, inasmuch as there are virtually two sections to the population in the district. Neither section fully recognises the propriety of anyone from the other section representing it in the Legislature. There are, I understand, some ethnographic differences. West Nile and Madi are both in the West Nile district. I am told that there are distinct local differences and that a person trying to represent both finds himself in a real difficulty.

The present member for West Nile has stated publicly, as I understand it, that he finds it extremely difficult adequately to represent the whole of the district and he feels that it should be a two-member district. In fact, the previous member of the Legislative Council from this district came from the other section of the population. One really does not want to have alternative members every time in order to obtain fair representation. There is, therefore, a strong case for two members in West Nile.

For some reason or other, the Colonial Office was not able to give me separate population figures as between Bukedi and Bugisu, so that I cannot say what portion of the 600,000 population is Bukedi and what proportion is Bugisu. Bugisu is not participating in direct elections on this occasion, but Bukedi is, so that one can, at least, take the number of registered electors for Bukedi, which comes to just over 87,000. That is a considerable number. It is 87,000 compared with 101,000 in Busoga, which has two members. Again, on grounds of electoral strength, Bukedi also has a case to be fully considered.

I strongly support the claim for more adequate representation because I have very strongly felt, for a very long time, from such experience as I have had in different parts of Africa, that it is quite unreasonable to expect men properly to be able to represent so many constituents, many of whom are illiterate, in a country where, except in some parts, there is either no vernacular Press or a very inadequate vernacular Press, where communications are sadly inadequate, and where, very often, the Legislative Council member himself has some other occupation or office. It is not a full-time job by any means; the member has his own livelihood to earn, very often, apart from his duties as a Legislative Council member. The need for political education in every possible sense of the word is extreme. It really is a most foolish policy, in these circumstances, not to grant as adequate representation as one possibly can.

One cannot really expect people both to learn the job of being a legislator—after all, it is only in very recent times that modern legislative arrangements have come into being in Uganda—and, at the same time, to keep in touch in every way with their constituents. There is the ordinary day-to-day work the members must do in serving their constituents, and there is also the need to keep in touch with them in the political sense so that, as a result of the members regularly going round in their constituencies, the people concerned are made fully aware of what is happening and what the arguments are.

I do not want to give a geographical disquisition in addition to a statistical one, but I am assured that in all the districts there are considerable difficulties in communications and that it is really putting a quite unwarrantable strain on a man to expect him to represent these people and ask him to do the job which ought to be done at the present time if he has an entire area in these very large districts to cover.

The representative members have considerable local knowledge. They all got together, Europeans and Asians as well as Africans, and they have looked at the problem as a whole. They have considered carefully the districts they feel to have a claim. Though they have mentioned one or two other districts as well, I think I am right in saying that their strongest views are directed to the ones I have particularly mentioned. The representative members have made it clear that they are not—I emphasise this—by making their proposals, suggesting any alteration in the balance between the Government and the representative side; in other words, they are not suggesting a constitutional change. They have suggested that there should be equivalent members nominated on the Government side to keep the proportions as they are now.

The Government may say that they do not particularly wish to extend the number of members in the Legislative Council before 1961, which is the date when the general review will be held in any case, but I suggest that what is being proposed now is not a constitutional change in the proper sense of the word, but a Parliamentary change, which is a slightly different thing. It is to keep the balance of forces equal, and to secure a much more effective representation of the people concerned. It would also have a subsidiary effect, which would apply equally to anyone appointed on the Government side as to the ones who came in on the representative side. It would give experience to a few more Africans in Uganda of what the Legislative Council stands for and what it means to be a member of a Legislature and part of the Government of the country.

I think that nothing but good could come from having a few more members on the Government side as well as on the representative side. At the moment there are on the Government back benches some very senior and most respected members of society in Uganda, but, after all, they will not be there for ever. It is important on that side, too, to give experience to additional people even if they never come back into the Legislative Council later on. They may not wish to stand as representative members, but they will at least know from firsthand experience what the Legislative Council involves.

In Uganda particularly, where there is in certain quarters a good deal of suspicion of the Legislative Council as well as ignorance of what its true function is, I think that the more people, within reason, who have experience of it and participate in it the better. The Administration is really going against its own best interests if it resists proposals which are put forward in reason and in good faith which would help, as I say, to familiarise the people in their own communities with the importance of the work of the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council is not all that popular in some parts of Uganda and this is a good opportunity to give people on both sides of their House a chance to extend their familiarity with and understanding of it. Therefore, I hope very much indeed that the Government will consider this matter favourably.

I want to touch on two other aspects, which I realise may present some difficulty. One is a purely administrative aspect. I think that it has been suggested to the representative members that to make any change now before the autumn elections would be difficult. I do not think that that is an acceptable argument. The change which is proposed, namely, to put in a small number of additional members if they were agreed, could be perfectly well dealt with administratively between now and October. The registration is not affected. What one has to do is to delimit two constituencies instead of taking the whole district. As the Under-Secretary knows very well, Uganda is divided in sazas and it would not be difficult to put so many sazas into one constituency and so many into another. Although there are some disadvantages in doing so, I observe that the Administration itself is suggesting that if need be polling may be staggered to allow staff to travel in their areas. If necessary, it could be staggered a couple of days longer. I cannot see any serious administrative argument for not having their additional members if they are agreed upon in principle.

Another difficulty which may be raised is one of perhaps greater substance, and that is the position of Buganda. Buganda is, of course, concerned with the number of representative members in the Legislative Council and the proportion allotted to Buganda. If the numbers from other parts of Uganda are increased beyond a certain point, then Buganda, under the agreement, as I understand it, has a fair claim to additional representation for itself. Although it is regrettably true that Buganda at the moment does not seem anxious to fill its full number of places in the Legislative Council, which we hope is only a temporary matter, in equity it might be necessary to suggest that, in addition to the seats I have proposed, there could be perhaps an additional one for Buganda if it was required to bring up the proportion. It is a fractional matter on the suggestions that we have made. Buganda has five members at the moment. Obviously, they cannot have five-and-a-half members. Therefore, it is a question of whether they should have six or not. I would not wish to prejudge that as it would be a question of interpretation of the agreement with Buganda.

However, I hope it will not be suggested that this is something to which Buganda ought in any way to object. Whether or not Buganda wishes to have extra representation for itself, it would be extremely unfortunate from every point of view if it were thought that Buganda in any way objected to other districts having what they believe to be adequate representation. I do not know whether there is in Buganda a proverb or fable which is equivalent to our "dog in the manger", but it would be a great pity if Buganda, which perhaps does not hold the Legislative Council in the highest regard, should object to other districts which wish to have adequate representation in the Legislative Council, because Buganda, at this moment at any rate, is not so enthusiastic. I hope that there will be no dog-in-the-manger attitude by Buganda. I think it is quite unnecessary that there should be.

I hope also that no suggestion will be made that this minor increase in representation, which, I emphasise, does not alter the constitutional balance in the Legislative Council provided that the Government appoint members on their own benches, too, should be considered to be a constitutional change in the sense envisaged in the 1955 agreement. I do not think it is. It is purely asking for adequate represention of heavily populated districts which are not as fully represented at the moment, particularly by comparison with Ankole or Busoga.

For all these reasons, I hope that further consideration will be given to this matter and that the views of the representative members will be taken seriously. After all, although they are not directly elected at present, they are in close touch with the different parts of Uganda. They have thought about this matter carefully. They have had experience of the Legislative Council. They are anxious to ensure that the Legislative Council takes its proper place in the political development of Uganda.

There are one or two other points that I should like to mention. I believe that we have a little more time, because I think that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) does not propose to take his Adjournment debate which was to follow this one. Although on this occasion, having put this special plea forward, I do not wish to go into the whole question of the possible future constitutional development of Uganda, we all recognise that there are some extremely difficult constitutional problems which must be settled within the next three years or so. We know that a great deal of discussion is going on among those who are interested in these matters in all communities in Uganda.

There is the whole question of the common roll and of what is meant by safeguards for minorities, a very contentious matter altogether. Discussions are still proceeding as to whether the official policy of the unitary State in the complete sense of that word is feasible and, if not, what variation of federalism would be practical and would produce a viable State. There is the difficulty that the non-African peoples live mostly in the towns and that the Africans live mostly outside the towns. This makes a town-country division which is in effect on racial lines. There are a number of other problems also which have to be considered.

There are people in Uganda who are looking at other parts of the world. I believe that some have been looking at the Constitution in Malaya, for example. They are looking, naturally, at developments in other parts of Africa and questions of franchise and of a second Chamber. Almost every constitutional problem which one could imagine is relevant in one way or another to the problems of Uganda. Therefore, I make the plea that one should not wait until the moment arrives for a formal negotiating conference, but that steps should be taken to see that as much discussion as possible takes place informally before people have to commit themselves.

I do not know what would be the best way of doing this, but there is something to be said for suggesting that possibly somebody with considerable constitutional knowledge and experience might be asked to go on a fairly prolonged visit in an informal way to Uganda to discuss all these matters and to help people to make up their own minds, so that when the time comes in 1960–61, when these things must be looked at in a more formal way, people will have had some opportunity to inform themselves of the pros and cons of the different possible combinations and permutations of constitutional arrangements.

Things are in a ferment in Uganda. There is every kind of complexity and difficulty between the different parts of Uganda. It is most important for the healthy development of the Constitution that as much friendly and informed discussion as possible can take place before we reach the point of decision, when things will have to be decided, rightly or wrongly, for a long time to come. It is partly because I think that as a useful preliminary to all this, more adequate representation in the Legis- lative Council is extremely desirable, that I hope we shall have a helpful reply from the Under-Secretary of State this afternoon.

I am glad to have this opportunity of following my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who has chosen an important subject for this debate. She has made a powerful case for an increase in the number of elected members in the Legislative Council in Uganda and I hope that the Colonial Secretary will pay heed to her submissions.

Quite apart from the actual numerical points which have been raised, there is also the important question of the relationships between the traditionalist groups, which are still very powerful in Uganda, and the developing political parties, who believe in a broader based democracy.

I believe that the Colonial Secretary must allow the increase in the number of elected members of the Legislative Council to come so that the prestige and power of the Council in the eyes of the Uganda people can be increased and so that the Legislative Council can be the proper basis for the achievement of self-government in Uganda.

I am not one of those who believes in independence for a Colony at any price. It would be a mistake to hand over power simply to any group of people in a Colony. Power must be handed over to a democracy where there are representative institutions on the basis of universal adult suffrage. At the moment, because of the tremendous increase in the activities of the political parties in Uganda and of the growing following that the ideas of democracy are having there, the traditionalist groups, particularly in Buganda, are fighting desperately hard, using all the weapons that they can command—intrigue, threats and manipulation within the Buganda area itself.

indicated dissent.

The Under-Secretary protests, but the events of the last few weeks and months, involving several prominent Buganda politicians, prove beyond any doubt that the clique in the Buganda Lukiko, which is anxious to maintain its power, has been doing its best to intimidate the prominent Buganda politicians, with the result that there is now an alliance between three of the leading Buganda political parties. They have just made a statement in Kampala asking that the Buganda Lukiko should have proper elections and that the present Buganda Government should be dissolved.

It is an amazing development that the three political parties in Buganda can come together in this way. The only reason for them coming together is the reactionary methods that the Buganda Lukiko has adopted in trying to deal with its political opponents.

Recently, the Buganda Lukiko accepted the recommendations of its constitutional committee, but I understand that tomorrow the Minister of Health and Works in the Buganda Administration is arriving in this country to put these demands to the Colonial Secretary. I hope very much that the Colonial Secretary will resist these demands. They include independence for Buganda, separate from the rest of Uganda, and the Kabaka to be proclaimed the king of the whole of Uganda, which is a fantastic demand. It would be quite wrong for the Colonial Secretary to pay any particular attention to these demands irrespective of the other submissions which have been made by the other sections of the country.

I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East that the number of members in the Legislative Council must be immediately increased, but I also feel that within a very short time, possibly shortly after the direct elections are held at the end of this year, there should be a constitutional conference so that these manifold problems can be adequately discussed.

When a country is reaching independence, it is not easy to get the proper balance between the traditionalist groups and the developing political parties. It would be a great mistake if the Colonial Secretary and the Governor of Uganda were to pay too much heed to the traditionalist groups at this time. They must try to establish a proper basis for democratic independence in Uganda and this may mean dealing strongly with the traditionalist groups, particularly those in the Buganda Lukiko, who, by their statements over the past few weeks, have shown that they do not believe in democracy.

I would start by saying how grateful I am to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for having taken this opportunity of affording us a chance of discussing the important constitutional problems in Uganda. Whenever the hon. Lady proceeds to initiate this sort of debate in this House, I have found from my short experience, she is always motivated by sincerity and the desire to take every opportunity of bringing in front of hon. Members the affairs not only of Uganda but also of other areas of which she has great experience, and also the desire to be quite sure that everybody is doing his job properly and that no opportunity is lost of seeing that development is going forward in the territories in which she is interested.

To that extent my right hon. Friend and I always listen or read with the greatest interest what she has to say, and we wish to be as helpful and forthcoming as we are able to be. I do not know that on this occasion I shall be able to please the hon. Lady or that I can go all the way with her, but I would assure her at the outset that I have listened with the greatest interest to what she has had to say.

As the House is aware, in 1954 the Uganda Legislative Council was enlarged from 32 members to 56, of whom 28 were representative members. This change meant an increase in African membership of from eight to 20. In 1955 the Ministerial system was introduced, under which five Ministers were drawn from the public of whom three were Africans. In addition, two African Parliamentary Secretaries were appointed. Changes were also made in the composition of the Legislative Council and on the representative side the number of representative members from Buganda was raised from three to five, and the number of representative members from Busoga and Ankole was raised from one to two each. The effect of these changes was to bring the number of African representative members in the Legislative Council up to 18, or three-fifths of the total representative members, the number of European and Asian representative members being reduced from seven to six in each case. On the Government side the number of official members was reduced from 17 to 10, the balance being made up of unofficial members and Parliamentary Secretaries. The number of back bench members, formerly known as cross-bench members, was increased from 11 to 13. At this stage the Legislative Council comprised 60 members equally apportioned between the Government and the representative sides, of whom 30 were Africans.

Hon. Members will recall that when agreeing to these constitutional changes my right hon. Friend said, I think with some considerable measure of agreement, that no major changes in the Constitution should be introduced for a period of six years from 1955, after which time the position would again be reviewed.

In January this year further minor changes were made and a Speaker was appointed. I speak with great deference when I say "minor changes". I mean within the orbit of what is going on there. I should not like to be misunderstood. A Speaker was appointed to preside over the Legislative Council in place of the Governor, and in order to compensate for the loss of the Governor's original and casting votes two additional African back bench members were appointed. Another change in the Government back bench membership occurred in January when an African was appointed to take the place of the Resident of Buganda, who asked to be allowed to leave the Legislative Council.

The effect of these changes was to bring the total membership of the Legislative Council to 62, in addition to the Speaker, of whom 33 are African. One African representative seat, as the hon. Lady said, remains vacant following the resignation of an African representative member from Buganda who resigned last year.

Hon. Members are aware that Uganda will be taking an important constitutional step forward in October of this year when the direct election of African representative members to the Legislative Council will take place. This is what will happen, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), who tends to suggest that what he calls the traditional attitude is always trying to resist any step forward. I want to make it plain that there are certain things which have already been arranged and which will happen. The hon. Lady was asking whether we could take certain steps in advance of what has been already arranged. It is that to which I want to direct my attention.

Then how does the hon. Gentleman explain this position in Buganda over the African representation?

That is a parochial problem and representations will be made in due course, and I do not want to overshadow them. When the hon. Member speaks he sometimes tends to overstress the power of the traditionalists who, according to his view, try to resist advance. What I was trying to say was that a considerable advance has already been agreed and it will be a great step forward in Uganda and that this will happen anyway.

The system of direct elections followed recommendations which had been agreed to by representatives of the Kabaka's Government and the Protectorate Government in 1957. It was not originally intended that direct elections should be extended to other provinces before 1961, but in view of a widespread desire in the Protectorate that any system of direct elections introduced for the African representative members from Buganda should be applicable to all alike, arrangements were made for direct elections to be extended to those districts in the Eastern, Western and Northern Provinces which wanted them, with the exception of Karamoja, where political awareness is as yet little developed.

It was, therefore, I agree with the hon. Lady, really very astonishing and most disappointing that earlier this year the Buganda Lukiko decided by resolution that Buganda would not wish to take part in the elections to be held in October. The reasons they gave for this change of front seemed to me largely irrelevant to the issue of direct elections, but the Governor decided to suspend the arrangements for such elections in Buganda after making every effort to give effect to the agreed recommendations of the Protectorate Government and the Kabaka's Government.

Elsewhere in the Protectorate, with the exception of Karamoja and the districts of Bugisu and Ankole, which have decided not to participate in the next elections at all, the registration of voters has been completed, and more than three-quarters of the people who were on a rough estimate considered to be qualified to vote have registered. The hon. Lady made a point of this. I think it is very encouraging indeed.

To come to what I think was the central point in her speech, she suggested that the number of African representative members ought to be increased by four. If I divine her aright, I think she might like to up that figure a little. She suggested they should be increased by four before the forthcoming elections, but she recognised that if the African representative membership were to be increased by that number a corresponding increase in the number of back bench members would be necessary to maintain the Government majority. This would mean increasing the total membership of the Legislative Council from 62 to at any rate 70, probably more; that is, if we adopted the hon. Lady's scheme.

I think the House would agree that that could not be regarded as a minor change. It is a pretty big change, and my right hon. Friend would not want this to happen. Apart from anything else, it would involve a considerable alteration of the balance of interests in the Council, a subject which must come up as an important factor to be considered in considering the overall constitutional development of the Protectorate. The satisfaction of some interests would leave others dissatisfied and provoke some others at present quiescent to urge some other changes before the general constitutional problem can be dispassionately considered as a whole. We do not want to tinker with some isolated feature of the constitutional scene at this time and make even more complicated the task of mounting the first direct elections to be held in the Protectorate.

It was in the light of this sort of consideration that my right hon. Friend, after consulting the Governor, reached the conclusion that the increase in membership suggested is neither necessary nor desirable at this stage.

I really want to reinforce the arguments I have already made. One cannot ask for a very large number at this time, for that would be a major change, but an increase only for the districts mentioned, which have the strongest claim on grounds of population, or for other reasons which I have already adduced. I think it would be perfectly within the competence of the Government, if they so wished, to reach agreement on that on the basis of the present number of representative members.

Once one starts this kind of thing it might be difficult to avoid major changes before the time is ripe.

Of course, I am aware that the Representative Members Organisation has requested my right hon. Friend to receive a delegation to ask him to reconsider this decision. The hon. Lady kindly said that she did not want me to give an answer this afternoon, and hinted that we should think it over more carefully. I am grateful to her for making it possible for me not to have to give a substantive answer today, but my right hon. Friend will certainly act on this request when he has been able to consider is against the background of advice from the Governor. However busy he may be with other matters, my right hon. Friend is never too busy to study carefully all these problems as they arise from any territory. Incidentally, I was delighted to hear that Mrs. Saben has been honoured by being elected Chairman of the Representative Members Organisation. This is a fitting tribute to the confidence and regard in which she is held by people of all communities in Uganda.

The next major objective is to proceed to direct elections on a common roll for the representative members of the Legislative Council from all parts of the Protectorate. This will be an important step and before it can be taken many practical problems will have to be solved. It is proposed that these complicated issues should be discussed during the life of the next Legislative Council, when it is intended that there will be full public discussion in all parts of the Protectorate so that public opinion will have every opportunity to make itself known. In these discussions consideration will be given to the extent to which representative membership can be enlarged within the framework of a common roll system, with due regard to the representation of minority communities.

To consider making a major change in the racial and numerical composition of the Legislative Council would prejudice future constitutional discussions during the life of the next Legislative Council, which must devote its attention to a complexity of problems, including the size and balance of the Legislature. I assure the hon. Lady that it is the intention of the Protectorate Government to initiate such discussions early in the life of the next Legislature and to ensure wide discussion and careful consideration of the difficult problems involved.

The hon. Lady raised one or two other points which I will study with care and interest, and although I may not have gone as far as she wanted me to go, I hope she will appreciate that this matter is being looked into carefully and that my right hon. Friend has it well in hand.

I would like the House to turn now from colonial questions in Africa to a Colonial Territory in Asia, namely, Hong Kong. I am sorry that the Colonial Secretary is not here this afternoon, but I understand it is impossible for him to attend and I appreciate that, because what I have to say may be somewhat critical. However, I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for being willing to listen to what I have to say.

I am speaking this afternoon about the hours of work in textile mills in Hong Kong. On several occasions in the last year or two the Colonial Secretary has announced in this House that we have special responsibilities towards Hong Kong, it being a Crown Colony. I agree that we have special responsibilities, but an examination of factory conditions in Hong Kong leads one to the belief that our special responsibilities towards it are confined to privileged sections of the community, namely, the industrialists and the commercial interests there.

Early this year I was privileged to undertake a special mission for the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and the International Federation of Textile Workers Associations to make a survey of the textile industries and the labour conditions of the textile industries of Asia, that report to be one of the items of business of the Asian Textile Workers Conference which will be held later this year.

Within a few days of my return, in March, I addressed to the Colonial Secretary a private report on the disturbing conditions I had found in the textile factories in Hong Kong. I intimated then that in the objective report which I would have to prepare, Hong Kong would inevitably be designated, as a result of my objective survey, as having the longest hours of work of any textile industry in Asia. That is a very disturbing situation. The facts I want to present to the House are based not only on visits to mills, but also on interviews with trade union leaders, on contact with the Department of the Commissioner of Labour and, most important of all, on the Annual Report of the Hong Kong Commissioner of Labour.

In Hong Kong today there are 19 new mills, of which nine operate on three shifts of eight hours each, which is quite satisfactory by any standards in that context. The other 10 mills operate on two shifts of 12 hours each. In addition, there are 149 small weaving mills, some of these relatively old, and nearly all operating on a two 12-hour shift system. These statements are corroborated by the Hong Kong Commissioner of Labour in his Annual Report for 1956–1957 in pages 97 to 104, from which I quote:

"Standard hours per day	…	8–11½.
Standard days per month	…	26–30".

I shall have something to say later about the standard days per month.

These 12-hour shifts are worked in a large number of the mills in Hong Kong. Worse than that, it is not 12 hours a day for six days per week but 12 hours per day for seven days per week. These mills operate all the year round, the only holidays most of the workers get being four days' holiday at Chinese New Year.

Theoretically, in the best mills the operatives are entitled to a day's rest, after working six days, on a rota system. In other mills they are entitled to a day's rest after working 14 days. In other mills there is no provision for a day's rest. As the Report of the Hong Kong Commissioner of Labour states, the standard number of working days per month for some of the mills is 30.

What happens? If the operatives who are entitled to a day off agree to work on that day, they are paid time and a half or double rate. Consequently, most of them sell their days off for double wages. In the first case that I quoted, they then received eight days' wages for seven days' work. But—this shows the viciousness of the system—if an operative has any other day off for any cause, he loses his bonus payment, and that means that he loses two days' wages. That is a very strong incentive not to have a day off and to work seven days per week.

I spent some time investigating conditions in India. Pakistan, Japan and South Korea as well as Hong Kong. Nowhere else in Asia, except South Korea, did I find women working 12-hour shifts. It should be remembered that, according to the Report of the Commissioner of Labour, more than 40 per cent. of the operatives employed in the Hong Kong textile industry are females. Nowhere else in Asia did I find mills working seven days a week. The statement that no mills elsewhere in Asia work a seven-day week is borne out by a statistical statement published by the International Federation of Cotton and Textile Industries about spindle hours in 48 countries which have textile industries.

From these figures, on the basis of a 50-hour week, it can be deduced that Hong Kong mills work 170 hours a week, which is two hours more than there actually are in a week. That reinforces the statement that I made earlier that the mills work not only 24 hours a day but seven days a week and more than 50 weeks per year. Next on this list is Syria, where the industry works 144 hours per week. This supports my statement that nowhere else in the world do textile mills operate regularly seven days per week. I should be obliged if the Colonial Secretary would give attention to this point.

I do not underestimate the problems in Hong Kong. It is one of the most populous places in the world. It probably has more pressing problems than almost any other place in the world because of the pressure of population. However, there are large numbers of unemployed there, and it seems fantastic that in those circumstances women should be permitted to work 12-hour shifts seven days per week when there surely is a need, as nowhere else, to pool the available jobs and thus find employment for more people.

Not only are the hours of work in Hong Kong textile mills excessive in comparison with those worked in the rest of Asia; the hours of work in the textile factories are excessive in comparison with those in other recognised industries in Hong Kong. The Report of the Commissioner of Labour gives particulars of the printing industry, which works 8–8½ hours per day and a 26-day month; the rubber boot and shoe manufacturing industry, which works 9–9½ hours per day and a 30-day month; the paint, lacquer and varnish manufacturing industry, which works 8–9 hours per day and 26–30 days per month.

In the public utilities such as the dockyards, the Hong Kong Tramways and the Hong Kong Telephone Company, and in the public service there is a recognised standard day of eight hours and a recognised standard month of 26 working days. That means a day's rest per week, which ought to be the right of everyone.

I may well be asked what is my especial interest in this matter. It would be foolish to deny that for many years I have been associated with the textile industry of Lancashire and to deny the difficulties to us which emanate from the Colony of Hong Kong. However, my chief purpose in calling the attention of the House to this matter springs from my personal experience. I started work in 1918 in a cotton weaving shed, working 10 hours a day, 55 hours a week. Even today, I well recall my nervous and physical fatigue at the end of a week after working 55 hours in the heat and incredible noise of a weaving shed. I shudder to think of what must be the physical and nervous condition of these women working 12 hours a day and seven days a week all the year round. Those are inhuman conditions to which the House should pay serious attention.

My mother started work as a weaver in 1888, working 10 hours a day, 58 hours a week, and my grandmother worked as a weaver more than a century ago, working 10 hours a day, 58 hours a week. The point I am making is that we have to go back to before 1847 to find factory conditions and the laws of this country permitting women to work in a textile factory for 12 hours a day. The House must gravely view the fact that under our administration and responsibility, when a century has elapsed since women were permitted to work for 12 hours a day in a textile factory in this country, women can do that work in a Crown Coloney for that length of time.

My estimate of the average hours worked in the textile factories in Hong Kong, taking into account all the variables of 8-hour shifts, 10-hour shifts, 12-hour shifts, six-day weeks, seven-day weeks, 14-day fortnights, and so on, tends to be an understatement at 65 hours a week. That is more than has been permitted in this country for over a hundred years.

The hours of work in Hong Kong are the worst in Asia and probably the worst in the world. I admit that I have reason to believe that in some of the small country mills in Japan a seven-thy week system is operated, but that is in breach of the labour laws of Japan. All the conditions which I have enumerated are within the laws of Hong Kong. The labour laws of Hong Kong permit women to work 13 hours a day and the Hong Kong Commissioner of Labour reported, on page 103 of his 1956–57 Report, that women frequently work the maximum legally permitted hours.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to take steps to reduce these scandalously long hours for women in the textile factories of Hong Kong and to see that the factories are stopped for one day a week, which is the only way in which there can be an effective guarantee that the operatives have a day's rest each week. Nothing I have said should be taken as being critical of the Commissioner of Labour in Hang Kong and his senior factory inspectors.

They are trying to do a good job in incredibly difficulty conditions, but unless there is legislation compelling the mills to close down for a day each week, it will be almost impossible for the factory inspectorate to keep an effective check to ensure that workpeople have one day's rest from factory toil each week.

I should like the hon. Gentleman to give serious consideration to establishing a minimum wage in textile factories in Hong Kong. I say quite frankly that the hourly wages paid in Hong Kong fit fairly well into the Asian scene. I should not like it to be thought that I am making these statements because I have suddenly become aware of the difference between Asian standards and European standards. This was my fifth visit to Asia in the post-war period. All these visits have been concerned with examining labour conditions, trade unions, and so forth.

I appreciate full well that there are differences in modes of living and standard of life between Asia and the United Kingdom and that it will be a long time before that gap can be closed. My appeal this afternoon is not based on a comparison between East and West, but on a comparison between East and East. Hong Kong stands condemned on conditions of labour relating hours of work even in Asia. That is something which this House should not tolerate.

I have listened with the greatest sympathy to the most moving speech made by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton). It was all the more moving because we all know of his very long personal experience of the industry and——

The hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary has already addressed the House on the Motion for the Adjournment. He should ask the leave of the House if he wishes to speak a second time.

I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker. I thought I was addressing the House on a different Adjournment debate. I now ask your leave, and that of the House, to address the House again. I will not go over what I have already said, but the hon. Member can take it that I said it with great sincerity and conviction.

My right hon. Friend and I, as well as the Governor, always have very much in mind the need for improving conditions in Hong Kong industries, including textiles, as far as practicable.

However, the consideration of reform must always be done with careful regard to local circumstances. Among local circumstances to be borne in mind in this case is the fact that Hong Kong is very overcrowded. The hon. Member recognised this. Its population is 2¾ million, as compared with 600,000 at the end of 1945, and 700,000 people, more than a quarter of the whole populations, are refugees from China. Consequently, economic conditions are very difficult and, with so many mouths to feed in the territory, and with keen competition to be faced in both local and in export markets, it is far less easy to improve working conditions.

We must also remember that for nearly one-third of its population Hong Kong is "a refugee community" in which the over-riding consideration is that long hours and low wages are preferable to unemployment, and in which the avoidance of unemployment or underemployment is the chief aim of the workers. The difficulties of employment will be aggravated by the closing of the Royal Naval Dockyard, which was announced last November. This is due to be completed in November 1959 and it will throw 4,700 people out of work.

The great majority of those who have been discharged so far have been found new jobs, mostly in Government employment, but I can see no grounds for complacency about prospects of finding jobs for all the rest. Unemployment might well be caused, for example, if shorter hours were made compulsory in the textile industry, because shorter hours would probably mean higher costs and pricing products out of both export and domestic markets.

It would be very difficult to absorb people displaced in large numbers from the textile industry, which now employs a large proportion of the total industrial labour force. The closing of mills and factories would, therefore, have an immediate and very serious effect on the Colony's economy and the contentment of its people.

As to the actual working conditions, I think I should place on record certain facts and figures, which the hon. Gentleman himself knows just as well as any of us, though I hope he will not mind my doing so in order to put the matter in perspective. Conditions in the textile industry vary very considerably from one section to another, but they are good generally by Asian standards in the most modern spinning and weaving sections, which are those chiefly concerned with exports to the United Kingdom. Even if it were practicable to establish statutory minimum wages in the industry, it would almost certainly not affect to any extent wage rates in that section of the industry engaged in exports to the United Kingdom. Wages and conditions in the textile industry are also superior to those in other industries in Hong Kong. Most of the operatives are paid on piece rates, and women receive the same rates as men. Only very few juveniles are employed.

Average cash earnings in the cotton spinning and weaving mills are between £10 3s. and £15 8s. a month, these figures including the cash bonuses. In addition, the majority of workers are provided with free accommodation and subsidised meals. Free medical attention and welfare facilities are also common features. In some factories facilities are very good indeed, and include swimming pool, playing field, free tutorial classes, library and laundry. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman knows these things, but I think it is better that I should place them on record. There are also safety, health and welfare provisions which are regularly inspected by officials of the Labour Department.

Hours of work, usually on a shift system, vary between eight and 11½ hours a day for a 26 or 27-day month in most sections of the industry. With varying methods of rotation, it is difficult to arrive at an average figure of hours of work, but I do not deny that these are long by Western standards. Long hours of work are a traditional feature of Oriental life.

There is a statutory prohibition on the employment of women between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m., and, in addition, the Commissioner of Labour's written authority is required for their employment after 8 p.m. and before 7 a.m. There is no statutory provision for rest days and holidays. In practice, rest days in the spinning mills vary from one and a half to four days a month, and an average of six annual holidays is granted. Some undertakings work three shifts of eight hours each, employing women on the two-day shifts only. In each shift, there is a break of half-an-hour imposed by Statute. Other undertakings work two 12-hour shifts, employing women on the day shift only.

The normal practice among Cantonese employers is to have a one-hour break at midday and a half-hour break in the afternoon if the total hours exceed ten. The Shanghai Cotton Spinning Mills, which operate continuously on the two shift system only, have a half-hour meal break. Permission to employ women for an extra hour up to 9 p.m. is granted only on condition that meal breaks of one and three quarter hours are given. The maximum working hours allowed are thus 11¼ hours.

Arrangements for rest days vary from mill to mill according to the length of shift and the rotation system adapted. Six mills give four rest days a month, six mills give three, and the remainder two or one and a half. Rest days are given without pay, although some mills grant food allowance on such days. Casual leave without pay or food allowance is granted on request. All mills have a system of good attendance bonus, amounting in nine mills to four days' pay per month, in seven mills to three days' pay, and in one to two days' pay. This bonus is paid to workers who work, as the hon. Gentleman said, regularly from one rest day to the next. On the average, six annual holidays are granted, three days at the Chinese New Year being invariably with pay. Rest days are taken as rest days, and are only worked in very exceptional circumstances. A good attendance bonus is paid not to induce a worker to forfeit a rest day, but to encourage him not to absent himself for more than half a shift during working time between one rest day and the next.

I gave those figures to provide a background and before I finish I wish to come to the suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman. In spite of the difficulties of the general situation, the Hong Kong Government are far from being idle or complacent. At present, they are drafting an employment Bill to provide an opportunity to discover to what extent hours and conditions of work can be further controlled by legislation. This is, I think, the crux of what the hon. Gentleman was pleading for. The problems involved will be carefully studied to see whether some further legislation can be made which may later be followed by more stringent regulations, particularly in cases in which machinery is constantly operated.

I think that hon. Members will agree that this sort of legislation would have to be of general application and not directed at the textile industry alone. But I believe that the steps which it is intended shall be taken by the Hong Kong Government will go far towards fulfilling what the hon. Gentleman expressed to the House with such sincerity and emotion. I am pleased to be able at least to forecast what is going to happen in the none-too-distant future, and once again to thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.

I had no intention of intervening in this debate, but as I look round the Chamber I see that by doing so I should not be preventing any other hon. Member from taking up any time allotted to him. I therefore wish to say how much I have been impressed by the great service rendered this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Thornton) in bringing these conditions to the notice of the House. I wish that it had been possible for my hon. Friend to do so on an occasion when more hon. Members were present, but I feel sure that the picture he painted will receive attention throughout the industrial world.

I hope that some newspapers will find space to report it. Certainly, the Lancashire newspapers can hardly fail to do so. I hope that in the rest of the country what he has said will receive attention and I am sure that in the trade union journals his words will be reported and read with great interest. My hon. Friend portrayed conditions which cannot be described as anything less than shocking. The discussion we have had this afternoon reminds one of the debates in the House more than a hundred years ago, when conditions were extremely bad. Then, it was always found possible to say that if they were remedied, if there was any legislative control over the freedom of employers to employ their work people as long as they liked, costs would rise and we should lose our ability to carry on our export trade.

Such arguments were used more than a hundred years ago, but, as time went on, they were proved to have no validity whatever. Parliament decided, in the end, to intervene and to legislate, and the legislative progress went on through the nineteenth century until our own times. Results have proved beyond doubt that excessive hours of work and bad conditions, so far from lowering production costs, raised them. All the legislation limiting the hours of work of children and women, and insisting on good factory conditions, and the imposition of minimum wages through the trade boards and wages councils, have shown that when conditions were remedied costs were not increased but were lowered.

I make no complaint about what the Under-Secretary of State said this afternoon. He welcomed what was said by my hon. Friend and spoke in a sympathetic manner. I am not complaining of what the hon. Gentleman has said, or the way in which he said it. I suggest very seriously that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies and his right hon. Friend, in considering these matters of Hong Kong, should bear in mind the lessons of history in this country. The Under-Secretary admitted that the average working hours were—I think I am quoting him aright11½ hours a day for women workers, an excessive number.

I believe I said that it was the maximum.

That was the maximum which obtained in a good number of plants. The interesting fact, borne out by the information given previously by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth, is that these conditions vary. There are good mills in which conditions are reasonably tolerable and there are others in which they are bad. If the good, well-administered mills can exist, sell their goods and make a profit, I believe—and all British industrial history bears it out—that legislative interference to compel the worst mills to approach the standards of the best would in the end be beneficial to the economy of Hong Kong.

I believe that it would not damage the economy if some of the poorly managed mills in which people work excessively long hours and have little or no holidays and no rest days during the week, were forced by legislation to improve their conditions. Even if one or two, in consequence, went out of business, the people would be reabsorbed in the better mills, which would then have an opportunity of expansion. That is exactly what happened in the trade-board industries, after the Trade Boards Act, 1909. History proves it beyond doubt.

I hope that when this debate is read in Hong Kong, as I am sure it will be, a message can go from this House of Commons, scantily attended though it is. If the Chamber were full I do not believe that the message would be any different. It is a message to say that the House of Commons is seriously disturbed and worried to learn of these bad conditions and feels that they ought not to be tolerated. It recognises that progressive steps may have to be taken and that everything cannot be improved at once, but it feels that a very determined effort to follow the experience, already so satisfactory and happy in this country, of wages and hours legislation to eliminate the worst practices and gradually to step up conditions should be followed in Hong Kong and should be as successful there, and as little damaging to trade and industry of Hong Kong, as it has been in our own country.