With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make the statement promised to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) yesterday, about overseas officers serving in Nigeria.

I am glad to tell the House that after consideration of Sir John Martin's recommendations following his visit to Nigeria we put forward proposals to the Nigerian Governments designed to encourage overseas officers to remain in their service. These proposals, with the exception of certain minor details, are acceptable to the Governments of the Federation of Nigeria and of Northern Nigeria. The Governments of Western and Eastern Nigeria, while not accepting the proposals, have put forward alternative suggestions which I am considering.

Sir John Martin summarised the reasons which were causing overseas officers to tender notice to retire from the Nigerian services as partly political, partly the attractions of lump sum compensation and partly dissatisfaction with the remuneration offered by the Nigerian Governments. He expressed the view that the Special List proposals negotiated last year with the Nigerian Governments had proved unsuccessful because overseas officers were unwilling to surrender their freedom to retire with lump sum compensation if they felt that conditions in Nigeria were becoming too difficult, and because the assurances in regard to unemployment pay and further employment on their leaving Nigeria were not sufficiently attractive.

In the light of this analysis of the problem, which Her Majesty's Government accept, we have proposed to the Nigerian Governments modifications of the compensation schemes so as to provide financial inducements to encourage overseas officers to continue in their service. Briefly, the proposals are that officers should receive interest-free advances of 90 per cent. of their entitlement to compensation, half the cost of which would be met by Her Majesty's Government; that increased use might be made of the device of freezing an officer's entitlement to compensation at the point in his career when it is highest and that Her Majesty's Government should meet any additional costs of compensation resulting from this proposal; and that the advances on account of compensation to younger officers who would not benefit from the freezing arrangements should be abated by 20 per cent. of the officer's annual salary for each year he remains in the service of the Nigerian Government after the introduction of that Government's compensation scheme.

Officers who wish to take advantage of these benefits would be admitted to a Special List "B" and the compensation and pensions due to them on their ultimate retirement would be paid by Her Majesty's Government, who would be reimbursed by the Nigerian Governments concerned.

It is estimated that the cost of these measures to Her Majesty's Government would be £1 million in the present financial year, if all the Nigerian Governments participated in the scheme, and £1½ million next year with diminishing sums for subsequent years. I am not yet in a position to say what effect the modifications proposed by the Western and Eastern Regional Governments will have on these estimates, but a Supplementary Vote to cover the expenditure will be submitted to Parliament in due course.

A summary of the proposals in more detail is being published in a White Paper today.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how these proposals compare with the decisions which were reached in Ghana and Malaya? Would it be possible to have model proposals so that there would not be any anxiety among members of the overseas service and that any conflict with Colonial Governments as they reach independence might be avoided?

There was no comparable scheme in Ghana. I think it would be unwise to assume that the circumstances of a huge territory of over 32 million such as Nigeria would be necessarily applicable elsewhere. Of course, we learn as we go on, and we can profit by experience here.

In expressing my appreciation at the generous and imaginative approach to this problem shown in this statement, and which, I am certain, will be very warmly welcomed by the overseas officers serving in Nigeria, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether the proposals advanced by the Eastern and Western Governments differ very radically from the proposals just announced?

There are substantial differences, but I am examining them, and I will make a statement in due course.

It has long been recognised that there are certain difficulties in the arrangements about the Special List, and, therefore, the Secretary of State has been obliged to face up to the problem and find a way out of the difficulties which members of the administrative and technical services in Nigeria have been experiencing. I think that it is indispensable, if the country goes forward to independence in the coming year, or 1960 or whenever it may be, that there should be an administrative service that is well organised inside a suitable framework so that that administration can play an effective part.

We would seek time, of course, to study the proposals which the Secretary of State has put forward. I take it that we shall be having the benefit of a White Paper, but, at first sight, the proposals seem generous, though I think that one must reserve one's judgment until one has had an opportunity of studying the proposals now made.

While joining in the view which has been expressed that these are very generous terms, may I say that I am sure that the Secretary of State will agree that it is desirable to remove whatever difficulties there may be, so that these experienced officers can stay in Nigeria in the very difficult transitional period. I take it, therefore, that he will continue to ensure that these officers are allowed to stay at their posts to help Nigeria through the difficult period of transition to independence?

I can say to both my right hon. predecessors that I agree throughout with what they have said. Nothing has worried me more, personally, over the last four years than this matter, and I believe that the announcement I have made today represents a substantial step forward.

It has been said that to share an Adjournment Motion in this House with a Member of Her Majesty's Opposition is quite unique. However, I am sure the House will accept the fact that we are today to discuss a unique event—the golden jubilee of the Territorial Army. It must be fitting that, before we rise for the Summer Recess, some tribute should be paid to the Territorial Army by this House, which has an abiding interest in and admiration for it.

Perhaps some of my constituents will wonder why I have chosen to raise this subject and not some other matter which they might consider to be more important to them. I would remind them that Colonel Baldwin Webb, their late Member, was a Territorial Army officer who died in rendering a great service to this country in taking children to America in 1940. This, therefore, seems to be a suitable subject for the Member for The Wrekin division to discuss.

Perhaps also some account should be given of the events which have led up to this debate today. On Wednesday, 25th June, I was talking to the former hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) about a debate in another place, and I am sure that we are all glad to congratulate him on his elevation to that other place. We were discussing the debate there, and we decided to try to draft some form of "early day" Motion, which eventually took the following form:

"That this House notes with pleasure the golden jubilee of the Territorial Army and congratulates them on their splendid service for Queen and country in both peace and war and wishes them success as an important part of Great Britain's national defence."

The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) accepted my offer to share the debate, but he has unfortunately been called out of London. However, we are fortunate enough to have the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), who will take his place. I am sure the House will realise that there is no idea in this debate of becoming involved in party politics at all. It is essentially a House of Commons debate, and it is one which is deemed to be useful to allow hon. Members an opportunity to pay tribute to the Territorial Army and to Britain's volunteers.

The occasion is also made happier by the fact of an expected contribution from the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward), and I look forward in anticipation to her speech, although I expect that the Minister will probably do so in trepidation. I should also like to say that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Colonel Glyn) has expressed his regret that he cannot be here; he is, of course, a serving member of the Territorial Army on the Brigade Staff.

The other hon. Member who was very interested in the work of the Territorial Army was the late Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh, and I myself admired him, not for his political views particularly, but personally as a man of great courage. I think the House suffered a great loss when he was taken away from us in a tragic accident, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members will agree with the sentiments I have expressed on this matter.

Over the centuries the spirit of the volunteer has been inherent in the freedom-loving people of these islands. It has been a constant source of support for the Territorial Army, and it is the same today. We are fortunate in being possessed of people who do not say "What can I get out of it?" or "Where is the fiddle for me?" but, on the contrary, "What service may I give to my country?", without any question of loss of time, money or benefits. These people are always present in our community, and it was therefore very remarkable and very wise of Lord Haldane in 1908 to harness this national charactersitic for the benefit of the country's national defence. It is that same spirit of the volunteer which has sustained the Territorial Army for half a century in both peace and war.

Perhaps it would be appropriate today for us to recall that during two wars the Territorial Army has always been the first line reinforcement and the second line of defence. We would also remember with grateful hearts the acts of bravery and devotion by members of the Territorial Army in two wars, and we should not forget the nursing sisters of the Q.A.R.A.N.C. and the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry.

It is not my purpose to discuss interdepartmental rivalries or battles that have taken place concerning the Territorial Army and Civil Defence. Neither am I interested in indulging in a long history of the movement, because there must be other hon. Members here who are far more qualified than I am to talk about the history and traditions of the Territorial Army. I simply cannot talk about what happened between the wars because, at the age of 21, I went to the Battle of Alamein and started my service with the Regular Army and the Territorial Army.

I should prefer to deal with the subject from my own practical experience as a serving Yeomanry officer in both the Warwickshire and Shropshire Yeomanry and to refer to annual camps and squadron training. It should be realised that the No. 1 dress recently issued to most Territorial Army bands has been an enormous success. It has helped recruiting and the Territorial Army in many ways. In Shropshire, no social occasion of any size is really complete without the band in full dress of the Shropshire Yeomanry or the K.S.L.I. I suggest, therefore, that No. I dress must be a priority call for the Territorial Army, but if the Regular Army is not yet fully equipped we are of course prepared to wait, though I hope not for long.

Out-of-camp training is almost as important as annual camps, because it is at these drills that we do the basic training which makes the camps so valuable. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary of State for War will tell us a great deal about this matter. This training is popular in the Territorial Army, whether it takes place once a week or once a month, and, of course, it provides another opportunity for drawing Army pay.

The recruiting figures which the Territorial Association have kindly supplied to me show that the volunteer strength in Shropshire in August, 1947, was 80 officers and 450 other ranks, while on 30th June, 1958, it was 83 officers and 651 other ranks. The recent financial measures announced by the War Office coincided with the celebration of the golden jubilee. Although Territorials are quite understanding people and appreciate the need for saving, they were rather surprised at this coincidence.

The effect of the announcement has already been felt in the Territorial Army and perhaps could be best illustrated by my reading the orders which I received three days ago from the Yeomanry Headquarters. They were as follows:

"Expenditure on out-of-camp training.

1. During the period 1st July to 30th September, 1958, expenditure will be restricted to £1 per head per month.

2. There will be no training this coming week, 20th to 27th July.

3. In view of the restrictions, it will not be possible to compete in either the Territorial Army rifle meeting at Llansilin or Altcar."

The last paragraph is the most interesting:

"From information received, this restriction in its present form would appear only to be a temporary one and as this will be reviewed in October a serious view of restrictions on future training need not be taken at this stage."

This offers the Minister an opportunity to give us an answer. Perhaps he will tell us whether we may now not take a serious view of restrictions on future training and out-of-camp expenditure.

Every effort has been made throughout the country to obtain volunteers during the jubilee celebrations. I remember speaking in two open cattle markets, at Wellington and at Newport. It is from both town and country that we draw our volunteers. I thought that the timing of the announcement of financial restrictions was a little inept, but I am sure that the Territorial Army will manage just the same. We have had celebrations in Shropshire and a drumhead service took place at Shrewsbury at which all mayors and chairmen of urban and rural district councils and clerks were present and also the Bishop of Shrewsbury. We are very fortunate in Shropshire in that the Lord Lieutenant, Viscount Bridgeman, gives such wonderful support to and takes such wholehearted interest in the Territorial Army with which he has had a very long and honourable connection. We are also fortunate in having such an effective auxiliary association which has been of very great help to us all.

In the course of these celebrations the Lord Lieutenant pointed out that the volunteer spirit had come back to the Territorial Army again and that we were relying 100 per cent. on volunteers. Later in the evening there was a celebration in the town and the brewers decided to give a present of 600 pints of beer, but as almost all Shrewsbury was present the beer did not last very long. The recruiting in Shropshire improves, but, of course, much will depend on the Government's decision in allowing the new T.A. centre to be built at Sundorne Road, Shrewsbury. I am convinced that those who have so willingly done their training in the battered nissen huts at Camp E, Trench, must long for the day when this new centre is in operation. To maintain camps like Camp E is to my mind largely a waste of public money.

As to the Territorial Army on a national level, it is the Government's duty to help the country and to understand the need today for a strong and efficient Territorial Army. There seems to be an extraordinary idea in the country expressed in the words, "What is the good? We shall be atomised. What is the point of the T.A.?" It is that sort of attitude that we must try and counter.

Why?

Unless, of course, the hon. and learned Member believes it.

Since the hon. Member puts it to me, I must say that I find it more and more difficult to discover the T.A. function and what the Government think it is.

I think that the Territorial Army makes a very valuable contribution.

I can never understand the point of involving the Territorial Army too much in Civil Defence. After all, there is a Mobile Defence Corps. If that needs support by way of wireless communications or some other help the Territorial Army would of course give it, but I believe that the Territorial Army should be considered to be more of a fighting force and to be more concerned with national defence. It seems also that the Territorial Army is not ready and is not preparing itself for a Regular Army rôle. Besides being the first line of recruits, surely the Territorial Army must be prepared to make itself more efficient and to be ready to be an efficient fighting force at brigade level. Is it not possible for the Territorial Army to do some training with R.A.F. Transport Command? Have any of the units any idea of how to load their vehicles and equipment into heavy aircraft? Ought not the training to be more realistic? If we cannot do some training with the R.A.F., why not do it with Combined Operations?

The need for up-to-date equipment, drill halls and camps remains paramount. If there is a camp, the one thing we ask for—we do not mind whether the tents leak—is that there may always be plenty of hot water and a drying room. Whatever difficulties come the way of the Territorial Army, it will certainly manage with what it has got.

I can think of certain aspects of pay which the Minister might care to consider. Sometimes it seems to me that the pay of senior officers is too much and that fresh thought should be given to pay scales in the Territorial Army. The person who has reached the level in civil life of a major or commanding officer is in a better financial position than the new officer joining the Territorial Army. Therefore, I hope the Minister will look at officers' pay rates with an open mind.

As other hon. Members wish to speak, it is now my privilege and duty to commend to the House again the words which appear on the Order Paper in an early-day Motion:

"That this House notes with pleasure the golden jubilee of the Territorial Army and congratulates them on their splendid service for Queen and country in both peace and war; and wishes them success as an important part of Great Britain's national defence."

The Territorial Army certainly has all my good wishes and, I am sure, those of all hon. Members.

Before we are interrupted, which is the usual custom in this House on certain occasions, may I put on record that I think the House is indebted to the hon. Gentleman the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) for raising this important subject? It is a great pleasure to me to be associated with him in this Adjournment debate and I want to make it clear that I am speaking not for myself only, but for my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House in joining him in some of his tributes—

I was saying, just before we left the House to go to another place, that this is a non-party debate on the Territorial Army, in the sense that there is no party acrimony. I am most grateful, as are my right hon. and hon. Friends, to the hon. Member for The Wrekin for raising the matter so that in this great House of Commons we are able to pay our tribute to the Territorial Army on the celebration of its golden jubilee.

I am not qualified to talk about the glorious past of the Territorial Army which can be read by all those who are interested. The work of the Territorial Army down the years has been something in which anyone who has the slightest claim to be British can take the greatest pride. The trouble is that the British are too undemonstrative at times. We will always concede the right of Arabs, Indians, Russians and everybody else to feelings of nationalism, and we understand their claim to national pride. Yet in some respects we almost deny it to ourselves.

Patriotism is a very great thing and although, when considering Britain's history, one can easily emphasise those times when Governments and even sovereigns have done great harm, we can all agree that whenever the British have been called upon to fight for and help their country in time of stress vast numbers have been ready to take up arms and to fight for what they believe to be right.

The Territorial Army represents the very finest of those people. It is criticised in peace time, when everybody wants to forget the Territorials and to ignore them, but when war comes the British people expect and usually find that at the beginning of any war there is a nucleus of people trained and ready to fight for their country and for the things in which they believe.

I hope that I shall be forgiven if I refer to the local Territorial unit in my constituency, since it is a unit of some note. It was originally formed in 1798 as part of the old volunteer Army. It was disbanded and reformed several times and, like many others, it was reformed once again in 1908 when it became known as the 22nd County of London Battalion, The Queen's.

The unit's story is typical of many such units. It received very little support in those days, but when war broke out in 1914 it served in France, taking part in the battles of Loos, the Somme and Arras. Two Victoria Crosses were won by members of the unit, Lieut.-Colonel Barton and Private Jack Harvey.

In the last war, the unit had a record of which we have every right to be proud. It took part in the evacuation of Dunkirk, going from there to North Africa and fighting from E1 Alamein to Tunis, and then on to Salerno. The unit then went to France and to North-West Europe. It had a brilliant record, although receiving but little publicity, and I count it a great honour to be able to refer to those men today.

One other feature of the unit's story is that for a number of years its honorary colonel was our distinguished Serjeant at Arms, Major-General Hughes. That was an honour for Bermondsey and the unit and I want to place on record how grateful we are for what he did at that time.

The Territorial Army invokes the best sense of patriotism and loyalty in the best of our people who believe in the best of the things for which the British stand. We had a ceremony today which interrupted our debate. I remember that when I first became a Member of Parliament, nearly twelve years ago, I used to find some of these interruptions rather a bore. They seemed to me to be unnecessary. However, the longer one is a Member the more one understands and appreciates these ceremonies, recognising that they represent an age when people had to fight hard for democracy and all that it means.

Although I do not care for the way in which the present Government are handling matters, we can all agree that we have the finest democracy in the world, and it is to those people who have always been ready and able to defend what we believe to be right that we should give thanks.

It is impossible to say how the next war will be fought, but we know that one of the primary purposes of the Territorial Army will be home defence. However, that does not preclude the possibility of the Territorial Army having to fight anywhere in the world. In name and in fact it is the reserve army of Britain. The more we reduce our Regular forces, the more important it becomes to have efficient reserves.

The Territorial Army has been called a very cheap insurance policy, but its rôle is now so important that I hope that there will be no cheeseparing, an attitude which would be penny wise and pound foolish. It might be argued that today we are under-insuring with our regular conventional forces. The Territorial Army is our only conventional reserve land force and the Government would be making a fatal mistake if they tried to under-insure twice.

At present, the morale of the Territorial Army is very high, following the jubilee celebrations earlier this year. Recruiting is going very well, since the suspension of part-time National Service. I am glad to put on record the fact that many employers today recognise their duty in allowing their employees to have time off—in many cases with pay—to become part of the Territorial Army. I would emphasise that we need a lot more employers with the public spirit to do that, and I would add that we also need help from the trade union movement, in encouraging its members to join the Territorial Army.

It would be a good thing if this were officially notified to every branch of the trade union movement, through the T.U.C. The Territorial Army belongs to all of us; there is no politics in it, and it is right that the trade union movement, which is such an important part of our economic way of life today, should play its part in making certain that the Territorial Army gets as much support as possible.

Recruiting for the women's Service is not as good as it ought to be, and I believe that it has very great problems. It, too, needs every encouragement, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us what can be done to encourage women to join their part of the Territorial Army.

Territorial Army recruiting depends upon the population and the age group in the locality, and one of the things that we have to remember is the problem of the new towns. I ask the Under-secretary for a straight answer on this question: why have not we found the money to start Territorial Army units in the new towns? Is it not ludicrous that we should build a new town with a population of 60,000 or 70,000, the vast bulk of whom are under 40 years of age, and then fail to do anything to attract those people to join the Territorial Army? It is about time the Government decided to do something about that, and I hope that we shall get a sensible answer today.

The country must be prepared to spend money upon attractive Territorial Army centres. Let the centres match up with other buildings, and provide comparable amenities. Let us get away from the idea that the worst is good enough for the best soldier; that the roughest of accommodation is good enough for the man who is prepared to give up all his time in training in the belief that he may be called upon by his country in an emergency, and that while he is doing it we can let him train in what is almost a barn. Let us give him decent training conditions.

Let local architects of imagination produce buildings which, in addition to fulfilling military requirements, can also provide first-class clubs, because we must get it on record that the function of the Territorial Army is not just a question of training men to kill other men; it is a means by which men can get together and spend one or two evenings a week in first-class enjoyment.

The hon. Member for The Wrekin mentioned that this matter was discussed in another place. I see that Field Marshal Lord Harding asked whether there was an overseas rôle for the Territorial Army in conditions short of an all-out war. Reading through that debate, I find that that question was not dealt with by the Minister who replied, and I ask the Under-Secretary whether he will answer it today.

Here again, I believe that the reduction in our Regular forces underlines the importance of the Territorials. Much of our debate has been taken up by the interruption which took place, and I know that other Members want to speak, and that the Under-Secretary must reply. Since I have been a Member of Parliament I have had the privilege and honour of going out of this country quite a bit on one or two tours. I have seen many other parts of the world. I had six years in the Army most of which I spent in the Far East. This much I can say today: I think that Britain is the greatest country in the world. The more I go abroad the more I become convinced that our way of life and our people are worthy of the highest praise. No matter how great the hardship, somehow there is in the British people the courage to face it. They are not emotional.

I am different from the average Briton in that I get emotional. The average man is not emotional, but he has guts and courage, and on issues of this kind the Government should give him all the support he deserves. I believe that the Territorial Army is worthy of the very best we can give it, and that it would be a very poor Government which found an excuse not to give it those things to which it has a right.

I join with my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) and the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) in paying tribute to the Territorial Army. The hon. Member for Bermondsey referred eloquently to the unit in his constituency which took part in the last war. I had personal acquaintance with that unit during the war and I can confirm what magnificent soldiers were in it. In saying that, I do not wish to yield pride of place to any units outside my own county. The Gloucestershire Yeomanry and the Gloucester Regiment fulfil their part, as do all the Territorial units, in the difficult days which come their way.

In 1914, when the Territorials were called up and had to go abroad at short notice, they were ready to fight expertly in about three months, but as arms have become more complicated and training more difficult it has become impossible for them to be first-line troops in a European war of the type for which we are training the Regular Army in so short a time. Under conditions of modern warfare it is clear that a period of six months or perhaps more is needed before the Territorial Army can be brought up to the full efficiency required.

Although the Army has become more complex, the spirit in which the Territorials serve is just as important; perhaps even more important. If it is not fit to fight a European war, there is one type of operation for which it is fitted. I join with the hon. Member for Bermondsey in asking my hon. Friend to deal with the question whether the Territorial Army has a rôle to fill overseas at present. It would be a very good thing for the morale of the Territorials if some kind of rôle could be laid down for it.

The training for Civil Defence is no doubt a necessary training. It is the sort of thing that in the last war consisted of gas drill once a week, on Saturdays, when the commanding officer could not find anything else for the men to do before they went on leave. But it is a nuisance, and it is boring. Although the Territorials loyally take part in it and become expert in the drill, I believe that we must regard the Territorial Army as a first-line reserve. Training takes up a large part of the Territorial Army's time, and it is necessary that the men should enjoy it.

At one time, in the South African War, we had the Imperial Yeomanry, consisting of volunteers from the Territorial Army who were all put into one unit when they got abroad. Would it be possible for a proportion of a large Territorial unit to enlist in the Territorial Army on a slightly different engagement, namely, one which would make them liable to be asked to serve abroad without the whole Territorial Army being embodied, and without all the alarms and Foreign Office difficulties which might otherwise be involved" Could these men be sent abroad during peace time?

Not everybody would be able to do this, but there are some men who, through business or family circumstances, would be able to undertake to go abroad; they could drop their businesses for three or six months and disappear, as it were. Not everybody would be able to do that, but perhaps one-third of a large Territorial unit might be, with the proper compensation. If suitable arrangements were made they would probably be willing to go abroad for a limited period.

They might be employed on duties which have to be carried out from time to time in Colonial Territories and also in European territories, when the Regular Army had to go elsewhere. They could quite adequately discharge the duties required. They are all well-disciplined Territorials, who can command the technique necessary to use the more modest inventions of present-day armaments. They can use the ordinary armoured car, tank, and infantry weapons. They would be a valuable help to the reserve of the Regular Army. This idea would provide a great deal of interest for each unit. A squadron, a company or a sub-unit might be made available to go abroad.

I now wish to mention the question of the amount of the training grant, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend. None of us wishes to see any cut in the grant to Territorial units, but in defence of my hon. Friend—if he needs defending—I would point out that there is a point of diminishing return in regard to the amount of money which can be spent. If a unit has a large amount of money to spend it can go driving armoured cars round the country, get rid of a great deal of petrol, and do a lot of training instruction—all of which is not a very great improvement upon what it could do with less money.

It may be that there is room for a more flexible application of the grant, so that the rising unit, which has to have two drill nights a week to fit everybody in, can have more money than the unit which needs to drill only once a week. That is a matter of administration, but I feel that it is necessary, because limits are put upon the amounts of training grants and we must see that good use is made of them. I join with my hon. Friend in hoping that the Territorial Army will continue to grow in spirit and in numbers.

I attended the last Territorial manœsuvres, and I do not think that anybody could feel that they were very convincing. Since then the Territorial Army has been treated by the Government as a kind of adult extension of the Boy Scout movement. I would be interested to know whether it has any other function. In the First World War the Territorial Army was scrapped in favour of a new division. In the Second World War, more rationally, we sent Territorial battalions to Norway, where those very gallant but quite incompetent troops had a disastrous experience. From that point onwards we learnt sense, and, apart from name, the Territorials have lost their identity in the new armies that we have formed. Most of the officers concerned with Regular troop training that I have come across have said that they would much rather form a unit out of new troops, because there are less bad habits to get them out of.

As for sending the Territorial Army abroad, I do not think that its record or performance provides a very hopeful outlook. Nevertheless, there is a tremendous function for it at home. In an atomic war it is probably the only form of force which will be of any real use to us. Almost its first function in such a war would be to take over the government of the country, because there would be no civilian government. After an atomic war we would have to go over to military government, and I should think that in the Territorial organisation we would have the one thing which could provide that government.

I would like to see the Territorial Army take over the civil defence function of the Home Office. I should like to see it organised for purely local military defence, in the area which it knows. I would also like to see it trained to be able to run and govern its locality. The civil government would be utterly broken down; it would not be able to exist under atomic bombardment. If we rethink the function of the Home Guard we can give the Territorial Army the task of keeping our defence going and making it impossible, after atomic bombardment, for the enemy to occupy this country cheaply. This would be the most important function of all if the horror of atomic war came upon us.

The affairs of the Territorial Army were debated in another place quite recently and occasion was taken there to pay tribute to the Territorial Army in this its jubilee year. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. W. Yates) for having given us an opportunity today to pay our tribute and to make our contribution to the consideration of Territorial Army problems.

On Monday, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, in our debate in the House, gave some figures which show the encouraging trend in Regular Army recruiting. The House will be glad to know that the picture in the Territorial Army is equally encouraging. Our target, I think the House knows, is to arrive at 50 per cent. of establishment by 1962. This means, in simple terms, raising the Territorial Army from about 73,000 all ranks to 160,000 all ranks in that time.

Progress so far has been excellent. In 1956, we were losing between 450 and 460 men per month from the Territorial Army. These are all round figures. Last year we were gaining about 700 per month. The gain in the first six months of this year has been just under 2,000 a month, which is, I think, a very encouraging figure. June was a record month with an intake of other ranks which topped the 3,000 mark.

As in the Regular Army, though for completely different reasons, there has been a shortage in the recruiting of junior officers. I say for very different reasons. I think that the chief one is that the young man of what we might call officer material tends to get a commission during his National Service and to feel, when he comes out of the Army, that he wants to take a rest from military affairs for a while. So we have had a situation where the older officers have been retiring from the Territorial Army and have not always been replaced in sufficient numbers.

All the same, the position is by no means bad. We have 72 per cent. of establishment of officers already. There has been a net loss of about 500 a year in the last two years, but with the ending of National Service I think that the prospect of changing this trend is fairly good. The new conditions announced by my right hon. Friend, in answer to a Question a week or two ago, are, I believe, already encouraging an upward trend in officer recruiting.

My hon. Friend the Member for the Wrekin, if I understood him aright, recommended more pay for junior officers. As he will know better than I, he being a serving Territorial Army officer, there are already what might be called certain egalitarian aspects of this pay. The bounty is the same whatever a man's rank. The mess grant is the same. His suggestion is, however, an interesting one and we shall certainly have it studied. But I see certain difficulties at first sight. When the Territorial Army goes to camp the junior officers receive Regular rates of pay. Is my hon. Friend suggesting that they should get more than the Regular officers of the same rank serving alongside, them? I think that we should have to look at this matter rather carefully.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) referred to the women's side of the Territorial Army. There was a rather serious drop in strength in 1956 which continued in 1957. But I am glad to say that this trend has been reversed. The first six months of this year show a small but steady increase month by month in the strength of the Territorial W.R.A.C. It now stands at 4,700 which is the highest total since 1955. I should like to take this opportunity of stressing that the Government attach the greatest importance to the recruiting in really satisfactory numbers of women for the Territorial as for the Regular branch of the W.R.A.C.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin stressed the importance of making plain to the country what the Territorial Army was for, what its rôle was. Other hon. Members who have intervened in the debate have made the same point. I will try to make my own contribution on this subject, though it is, I think, always impossible in discussing military matters, whether it be a discussion on reserve forces or active forces, to define quite precisely all the different conditions in which they will be used. Indeed, that is a point which the hon. Member for Bermondsey himself made.

The Territorial Army and the Army Emergency Reserve are the national reserve of disciplined manpower. They are organised on a territorial, a geographical, basis and they are trained to fight. The importance of this reserve has, in our view, been illustrated, and, indeed, abundantly proved, in the last two wars. I do not altogether agree with the strictures which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) made on the contribution of the Territorial Army in the last two wars. I think that without it we should have found it extremely difficult to fight at all.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said the other day, we in this country have a propensity for going to war and then preparing for it. Nevertheless, the Territorial Army was substantially prepared for both conflicts when they came, and it made a tremendous contribution in them. After all, when we remember that we had no National Service at all before the First World War, and only started it just before the Second, we cannot fail to realise that without the Territorial Army we should simply have been brought to a standstill in our military effort within a few months at most.

For some time to come, of course, we shall still have in this country large reserves of trained manpower. Some of these reserves go back to the last war. We also have a very large element which was trained by National Service in the post-war years. This large reserve of manpower would be organised in the Territorial Army if a conflict should, unhappily, come in the period while the reserve was still fit for service. After that, we shall be going back to the old pattern and the Territorial Army will, apart from the Regular Army reserves, be very nearly the only reserve of trained manpower.

I should have thought that the decision to rely on small all-Regular forces threw a very enhanced responsibility on the Territorial Army, and its value in our defence effort will be no less great than before 1914 and 1939. Indeed, it may well be greater. It is not easy to assign priorities to the rôle of any defence force. The unforeseen always happens in war, and I suppose it is logical that when the unforeseen does happen it is the reserve forces which are most affected.

In our view, therefore, the main thing is to train the Territorial Army in modern fighting techniques. Against this general background, we think that the primary rôle of the Territorial Army can best be defined by the phrase, "Home defence in all its aspects." In global war we would see this as being the defence of this country against invasion, which is not impossible, and Civil Defence and aid to the civil power, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton suggested.

It might well be, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the Territorial Army would be the nucleus of any renewed effort for continued national life and, indeed, of resistance to whatever further attack there might be after the initial nuclear exchange. In conditions short of global war and, therefore, of nuclear war, there might be a situation where, with our small all-Regular forces, the primary function of the Territorial Army would be to allow those all-Regular forces to go overseas. The Territorial Army would be holding the fort for them here. We must not forget, too, that though the Territorial Army was created originally for home defence on two major occasions, in 1914 and in 1939, it had to go overseas. We cannot exclude the possibility that the Territorial Army might again have to be embodied in that way.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) made suggestions that went a little beyond the embodiment of the Territorial Army and its despatch overseas, as in the other two wars. My hon. Friend suggested that there should be units of the Territorial Army who would be specially earmarked for tasks of this sort. I have heard a number of suggestions to this effect from the Territorial Army and, of course, the House will know that at the time of the Suez operations, in 1956, quite a number of Territorial officers suggested that they might go and play a part in them. I am not in a position to make any suggestion on that point. But I can tell my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bermondsey that their suggestions will be looked at in the War Office in our general study of these matters.

The organisation of the Territorial Army must clearly be matched to our concept of its role. We proposed to keep the divisional structure because it is probably the one best suited to the regional character of home defence. I think that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton would agree that it is amazing what one can do with a division in terms of the organisation of life in a community in the event of a breakdown of normal facilities.

Surely it is enormously important that the Territorial Army should realise what this function is. I have no doubt that it has not a clue that this would be a part of its rôle

I am coming in a moment to training, which bears upon that point.

Though we are keeping the divisional organisation, the brigade group will be studied in the Territorial Army and rapid reorganisation into brigade groups will be quite possible if necessary. I hope that there will be no major reorganisation in the Territorial Army for some time to come. The main need is to consolidate. But some small changes are inevitable, and I think that the House will agree that we were justified in converting the five armoured regiments to armoured cars. That conversion is proceeding satisfactorily.

Training must be essentially training to fight. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that there must also be a good deal of training in Civil Defence, and for global war. It is our intention that one year in four should be devoted primarily to Civil Defence training. But we believe that about three-quarters of the training must be to fight. Training takes three main forms. There is that at annual camp. Our plan is that units of a brigade—this answers to some extent the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin—will, wherever possible, camp together. The supporting arms will attend camp wherever special facilities are available for the kind of equipment or technique in which they specialise.

This year, the armoured regiments will do firing practice at Castlemartin. The 44th Parachute Brigade will have several airborne exercises. The 21 S.A.S. Regiment will take part in a N.A.T.O. exercise in Norway in September. Civil Defence training will take place at Millom. in Cumberland.

Now for weekend training. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin, and others who intervened in the debate, have spoken of the limitation of the training grant. I would like to make the position on this subject quite clear. There was a limit to the training grant before the war, and again up to 1952. Last year, the Government decided on the major reorganisation of all our Armed Forces, which has since been taking place. One of our aims was to make the burden of defence on the economy less than it was, or at any rate to prevent its growing heavier still.

We thought it right that the Territorial Army should bear its share of the sacrifices that had to be made along with the active Army and the other Services. That is why we decided that there should be some limitation on the training grant. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has shown that there are two sides to this picture and that, while it is possible to criticise the limitation that we made, there are also undoubtedly cases where too much training has been going on, more training than was necessary.

It is our argument that enough money is being provided for all the training that is necessary at the present time. But I should like to put two further points. The first is that the jubilee celebrations are not included in the limitation on the training grant, the second that there is no ceiling on local recruiting. If we recruit more men we shall get more money to train them.

Criticism has been voiced in the debate and I know that there is criticism in some associations. I assure the House that we shall give careful consideration to the representations that have been made to us. If morale and efficiency are in any way affected we shall, of course, review the position. Where evening training is concerned, suggestions were made about drill halls and territorial centres, particularly in the new towns. There is a new hall in Corby and another has just been opened in Crawley. We are actively seeking sites in other new towns.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin spoke about the importance of uniforms. I am sure he will appreciate that the decision on uniforms for the Territorial Army must form part of the discussions that are in process about the uniforms for the Regular Army.

I am sure that the whole House agrees that, apart from the flesh and bones aspect of the Territorial Army that I have been discussing so far, what counts above all is the spirit, especially the spirit of service to which the hon. Member for Bermondsey referred in such eloquent terms. It has never been more necessary than today, with the ending of National Service. If there is one thing I regret about the ending of National Service it is that generations will be growing up with none of the experience of military discipline, initiative and training in leadership that National Service afforded. It will, in the years to come, be the responsibility of the Territorial Army to keep alive among our people those martial virtues of discipline, initiative and leadership without which no people can become or remain great.

I hope that the jubilee celebrations will help to bring home to the nation as a whole the importance of our Territorial Army. No one who saw the great parade, where Her Majesty the Queen took the salute, can have failed to be impressed by the enthusiasm and the bearing of those officers and men of the Territorial Army who took part in it. Many Members of Parliament were present and I hope that none suffered any ill-effects from the rain. The downpour certainly marred the last stages of that parade. Yet, in a curious way, I think that it was symbolic of something really important. It was a reminder that the Territorial Army are no fair weather soldiers.

I desire to raise the case of Mr. N. A. Smith, who is a constituent of mine and whom I consider has been unfairly and inequitably treated by those responsible for administering the affairs of the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board. I tried to get some satisfaction in this case by negotiations with both the Foreign Office and the Home Office. Indeed, I think I have written about a dozen letters in connection with this matter, but I have met with complete failure. Now, therefore, I take the only course remaining open to me.

Mr. Smith and his mother, who is aged 76, were forced to leave Egypt on 7th December, 1956, as a result of the Suez operation. This, of course, is not the time to pass judgment on that policy, or say whether it was right or wrong. Whatever view is taken, however, it is clear that, as a result of Government policy, Mr. Smith and his mother were forced to leave Egypt and to lose all their belongings. It seems to me that the Government's responsibility in this matter is clear and direct, and I regret that it has been necessary to press the Home Office to meet its undoubted obligations in this and other cases.

In fact, this is not the only case I have had. As the hon. Lady knows, there has been some public disquiet about the apparent attempts of the Government to do less than justice to these unfortunate expellees. On 23rd July, there was a short debate in another place, and I note that no fewer than six noble Lords expressed apprehension about the present position and pressed the Government to be more generous. I was glad to note that in that debate the Lord President of the Council said:

"The Government are therefore ready to consider sympathetically a limited extension of the existing scheme and are ready to enter into discussions with the appropriate interests concerned regarding the form which such an extension might take."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 23rd July, 1958; Vol. 211, c. 123.]

I hope that this declaration of policy will make the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department less intransigent than I fear she might otherwise be.

What are the facts in this case? Mr. Smith is now 48 years of age. He has actually lived in Egypt for 45 years, though he is a British subject, being born while his father was a serving soldier at Folkestone, at Shorncliffe Barracks. Mr. Smith has held a position in Her Majesty's Forces for 28 years. During the last war, he was for three years a warrant officer in the Western Desert. His father also was a serving officer in the Forces overseas for about 26 years, so that, between them, the father and son have given over 50 years' service in the British Forces. I should have thought that fact alone would have had some little weight with those considering this matter.

For a year immediately before his expulsion, with other refugees, from Egypt, Mr. Smith was employed—having completed his Army work—by a British firm of contractors at a salary of £720 a year plus a cost of living bonus which, I understand, brought his emoluments to over £1,000 a year. I may add that at his age, and coming when he did to this country two years ago, he has not so far been able to secure a job at anything like that rate of remuneration. Part of Mr. Smith's gratuity, which he received when he left the Forces, was invested in a garage business in Egypt, to an amount of over £700. This he completely lost when he was forced to leave the country in December, 1956.

In addition, Mr. Smith had a home in Cairo, and another in Ismailia, which was chiefly used by his mother. At that time, she was aged 74 when she was expelled, and now she is 76. So these two people have lost both their homes and had all the worry and disturbance of coming to this country, a move which, in the case of the old lady, had to be made at a very late age. In addition, they have lost their personal belongings, their furniture and the fittings of the houses, and matters of that kind; the value being over £1,100.

To sum up this part of my case succinctly, one can say that Mr. Smith and his aged mother have lost both their homes in Egypt as a result of a decision which had nothing whatever to do with them but was the direct result of Government policy. Mr. Smith has lost his job and his invested gratuity and is in an extremely difficult financial position.

Mr. Smith and his mother arrived in this country on 8th December, 1956. I understand that, in common with other refugees, he received a clothes allowance valued at £50. Obviously, this was very necessary, as he and others had to leave practically everything behind. He received a resettlement allowance of £75, which seems to me a small sum. In addition, he received an ex gratia loan of £750, for which he is very grateful. But, of course, it is impossible at his time of life for Mr. Smith to resettle himself with a sum of that kind, or to get a house, or to make any of the normal provisions which are necessary.

In April, 1957, because conditions for the family were so bad, his mother took advantage of an offer made by her married daughter, and went to live in Cyprus. She thought that would be the end of her troubles. For this the Board provided £75 by way of expenses for the voyage and the mother had had the clothes allowance, as had other refugees. Unfortunately, on medical advice, Mrs. Smith had to return. I wish to emphasise that she did not desire to. She had hoped that her troubles were over and that she had found a haven of rest in Cyprus. But, on medical advice, she was forced to return to this country. The authorities have seen the medical evidence, as I believe has the hon. Lady's Department.

One of the distasteful things about this case is that this forced return has been used by the authorities as a means of washing their hands of Mrs. Smith. They say: Because she was helped to go somewhere else once, that is the end of the matter. Indeed, the hon. Lady wrote a short and rather curt note to me on 27th March about Mrs. Smith in which she stated:

"She received this help in place of the resettlement grant payable to people settling in this country. The Board cannot accept a continuing liability for people whom they have already helped to settle here or to emigrate."

That is not a statement of the position. The old lady did go to Cyprus, but she was forced to come back, and I think it extremely unfortunate that the Board and the Home Department ride off on that sort of excuse. As a result, this old lady is at the moment in an institution. It is a pretty poor ending, for one who has been the wife of a serving officer and the mother of another, that she should have to spend the end of her life in some sort of home, because her son is quite unable to provide one, though he desperately desires to do so.

We all know that in addition to the standard help to which I have referred the Board can and does make ex gratia grants. I have the names of six people to whom sums of over £700—in one case over £1,000—have been made. I do not intend to read out their names, I have nothing against them, but I have this information and we know that the Board has a discretion. When I took this matter further, the Home Secretary himself wrote to me on 25th April and stated:

"… the Board are given discretion within certain limits to meet the particular needs of individual people."

I know that a number of individuals have had a grant, and I am not prepared—this is one reason why I have continued with this case—to see my constituent, in such deserving circumstances as in this case, treated worse than other people. His service and the service of his father to the British people may be much greater than some of those who have been helped by loans as well.

Here is a family who have indeed done well for this country. The father and the son both served for 50 years. As a result entirely of Government action, Mr. Smith and his mother have lost their homes. The son has lost his job and his belongings. He strongly and naturally desires to look after his mother. The main obstacle is that the Board refuses to treat Mr. Smith other than as a single person although, in point of fact, his obligations are precisely those of a married person. He cannot now look after his mother because he is only able to live in one room, his mother being forced to be in an institution. I press that the Board should use its discretion and be a little more imaginative and generous in this case. I hope that the hon. Lady can give Mr. Smith and his widowed mother some encouragement so that she will not end her days in an institution.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) has put his case very plainly and slightly provocatively and I hope I shall be able to point out that, far from taking an ungenerous attitude, the Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board has dealt absolutely scrupulously with this case, as with other cases with which it has to deal, and within the general rules that apply to the very differing needs and claims of many of these people.

Mr. Smith and his mother are two of several thousands of Anglo-Egyptian expellees and British subjects who were forced to leave Egypt in 1956. The Government felt very real sympathy with the hardships suffered by these people and accordingly they decided that they ought to be given special help over and above what would normally be available through the social services of this country. The Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board was, therefore, set up to administer schemes of relief under the general direction of my right hon. Friend. The funds of the Board are entirely provided by the Exchequer.

So far, the Board has spent £6¾ million, mostly on loans and grants to refugees. I mention this sum so that the House may see that the total amount of help has been quite substantial, to say the least. The Board has two main functions. The first is to give temporary relief to refugees coming here to settle down to a new life in this country or abroad if they wish it. It is the Board's administration of help in resettlement which the hon. Member has called into question in this case.

There were various ways in which help could have been applied. The Board might have been instructed to give general relief. For example—and here is where I differ from the point raised by the hon. Member—the Board could have taken the attitude, "We will treat every refugee in precisely the same way and give him so many hundreds of pounds and say that that is a refugee sum which he will receive regardless of his needs, or his family claims, or whether he is able to get a job within a short or a long time." That would have been an easy scheme to administer and no one could have said that the refugees were not being treated alike. But that would not have met the type of individual needs which I have mentioned.

I do not think the House would have considered that either a fair or a humane way of dealing with the problem which gave rise to their particular and individual circumstances. As a result, within certain rules which have been clearly laid down, individual consideration has been given to every case and they have been treated on their merits under the scheme which has made provision for all expellees alike within the framework of those general rules.

It was made absolutely clear to Mr. Smith when his mother, of her own volition, had decided to emigrate and live with her daughter in Cyprus, that having been aided by the Board to go there she would thereafter have no further claim on the Board. This is no individual case; 1,400 people have emigrated. Is the hon. Member to suggest that the 1,000 people who have emigrated to Australia, if they do not like it there and do not do well, should automatically come back and be entitled to make claims?

That really is being unfair. This is a case of an aged lady, who was not emigrating for work but to go to the home of her daughter, and she was forced back through ill-health. This is an entirely different case.

The hon. Member says that she was forced back through ill-health, but one of the arguments was that the accommodation there was not adequate. I agree that she was an aged lady and she went out to live with her daughter as she would probably be more able to look after her than would her single son. Having got to Cyprus, Mrs. Smith then made a claim on the Board, which was refused on the ground that the Board had fulfilled its responsibilities by paying for her passage and making the grants which had facilitated her going to Cyprus. In this respect, all refugees in similar circumstances have been treated alike and the hon. Member has no ground for saying that Mr. Smith and his mother have been treated differently from other people, or unfairly.

I believe that the Board follows the right course in giving help according to need. This means the operation of flexible schemes and individual consideration for individual cases. For example, the Board, with the co-operation of the Ministry of Labour, has helped people to find suitable jobs. If they have found such jobs quickly the maintenance allowance has ceased. Unfortunately, some have not yet been able to find employment and are drawing maintenance allowances. To that extent they receive far more than those who quickly find employment.

Those who are married and with dependent families may be given grants to help them to get a house, provided they are able to keep up mortgage payments. It may be that some of the cases that the hon. Member mentioned fall into that category. In other cases council houses are obtained for them by arrangement with the local authorities, but, normally, single men are not given housing grants because they do not need a home of their own.

Again, some of them may have prospects of getting a business of their own and the Board may give help to them for that. Some want to emigate, and about 1,400 have been given the opportunity of emigrating. Every assistance is given them to do so. The Board gets in touch with authorities in countries abroad and gives refugee grants to meet their needs on emigration. In administering the different schemes of assistance the Board inevitably spends more on some people than on others.

I got the impression from the hon. Member that he thinks this unfair, but it is, on the other hand, the inevitable consequence of treating people according to their needs and their classification. Some, as I have said, find employment quickly and others are still being maintained by the Board. The Board works on the principle of giving everyone a good start in his new life.

But it would be a different matter altogether—this is what the proposition of the hon. Member would amount to—if the Board were to go beyond this and make itself responsible for the continued welfare of those people whom they have helped to resettle.

In that case, there would be no end to the responsibilities of the Board. It would have to continue in existence indefinitely and it would be acting, in effect, as a body charged with the job of giving preferential treatment and help indefinitely to a small section of the population and making an invidious distinction between those people and ordinary citizens who may fall on hard times.

Emphasis must be placed on the defined responsibility of the Board, that it gives aid and help only for resettlement in the community and thereafter these expellees are treated on the same basis as any other members of the community. The Board has taken a great deal of trouble to make sure that before any refugees pass out of its hands they have a good chance, so far as can be foreseen, of being provided for or of standing on their own feet. If, in spite of this care, something unforeseen happens and, in spite of being helped to resettle in the way he chooses, a refugee falls on hard times again, he must avail himself of the not inconsiderable social services built up in this country, which apply equally to all residents.

I have dealt with some of the principles on which the Board gives assistance to explain, if I can, why the Board cannot give Mr. Smith and his mother any more help. It is not through any lack of sympathy that it does not do what the hon. Member wants, but because to do so would be to change the entire policy of the Board and that would not be justified. I have looked into the facts of the case very carefully, as has also my right hon. Friend, to see whether there are any grounds for treating Mr. Smith and his mother exceptionally. I am bound to say it would be wholly unfair to do so and, short of altering the whole function of the Board, we could not do so.

The hon. Member left out one or two quite relevant figures in giving his analysis of the case. As he has been very critical of the Board, I should make plain the extent of the help which has been given. Mr. Smith and his mother were helped to resettle here separately in accordance with their own wishes and I do not think that the Board can be expected to treat them on a different footing. After their arrival in December, 1956, and until Mrs. Smith emigrated to Cyprus they received a total of £346 19s. in maintenance allowances. The Board gave Mrs. Smith a personal allowance of £50 and £75 for her passage and travel expenses to emigrate. After his mother's emigration Mr. Smith received £167 by way of maintenance allowance, which stopped in November, 1957, when he was given a single man's final resettlement grant of £75. He had also a personal allowance of £50 and an ex gratia loan, under the scheme announced in the House by the Foreign Secretary, of £758.

Here I should make clear the responsibility which the Home Office has. The task of the Board is to provide for those in need and to enable people to be resettled in this country. The provision of ex gratia loans on assets which have been sequestered in Egypt is administered by the Foreign Office in that the claims are registered and the amount of loan to be paid is decided by the Foreign Office. On that basis, Mr. Smith has received £758, which is about 70 per cent. of the reckonable assets included in the claims he lodged with the Foreign Office. In all, Mr. and Mrs. Smith received £1,522. Mr. Smith and his mother were not left in any doubt about the limit that would be placed on the help given by the Board. It was made clear that if the Board helped Mrs. Smith to go to Cyprus she would not be eligible for further assistance, and that was repeated to her when her return to this country first became a possibility. It is a rule that acceptance of an exgratia loan precludes further help and this was made amply clear to them.

The choice whether to set up as a family unit or to live separately was entirely for Mr. and Mrs. Smith to make. I cannot accept the view of the hon. Member that the Board dealt unfairly with them or in any way departed from the pattern of aid and help it has given on similar terms to other applicants under this scheme.

The hon. Lady said that to give any further help would be to put these sort of people in a privileged position as compared with the rest of the community, but their position is different. As a result entirely of the Suez operation they have lost their homes and their jobs. Following from that, would she not concede that it might be possible to add to Mr. Smith's loan so that his mother, an aged lady, need not live in an institution? Surely something could be done to reunite this family. Will the hon. Lady consider that?

The hon. Member may be more aware than I am of that aspect of this case, but from the facts he has given me it is highly possible that the old lady's stay in the institution is at the cost of the taxpayer.

That is what I should like to stop.

I wish to express thanks to you, Mr. Speaker, and to those concerned in making it possible for us to have a discussion of political problems, particularly in relation to Northern Rhodesia. I also wish to thank particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) who so kindly withdrew his Adjournment subject from the list and enabled this one to be discussed.

I wish to refer briefly to the five countries which were to be discussed. We have a responsibility in this House for some 24 million people who live in Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda, Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. It would be a terrible thing if we were to go on holiday for three months without referring to some of the problems which those people face. I want to refer briefly to four of these countries because the main object of this debate is to draw attention to the constitutional proposals for Northern Rhodesia and the serious danger that the Colonial Secretary will impose constitutional changes during the Recess before Parliament has had a chance really to consider them.

I wish to say a word on our general responsibility to these colonial countries. In regard to all of them we are committed to assist them towards democratic self-determination, but I feel the Colonial Secretary has neglected to guide the dynamic towards democratic self-determination. In Kenya, for instance, he has refused the request of three out of four communities represented in the Legislative Council for a constitutional conference. Three communities representing 99 per cent. of the population have asked for a constitutional conference together with the support of one European, Mr. Cooke. The Colonial Secretary refused that request. In Uganda he has failed to establish conditions for advancement towards democracy throughout the Protectorate and as a result there is a certain amount of tacit encouragement to the conflict between the aristocratic groups around the Buganda Lukiko and the rest of the Protectorate in Uganda. In Tanganyika, branches of T.A.N.U. have been banned in an election year making it very difficult indeed for the election to be fought successfully. We shall reserve comments on Nyasaland because we hope the Colonial Secretary will produce something in regard to that country which is acceptable to us.

I turn to Northern Rhodesia, which is the main subject with which we wish to deal. In answer to a Question of mine last Tuesday, the Colonial Secretary indicated that he would produce proposals for certain changes in the franchise qualifications during the Recess and that the arrangements would be made for the Election to go ahead under the present constitutional instruments.

I submit that we should consider very seriously any constitutional changes before they are imposed. Sir Arthur Benson himself, in the debate in Northern Rhodesia, referred to the fact that the measures which they were then discussing should have full consideration in Parliament before they were implemented, and yet now we have it from the Colonial Secretary that the main proposals will be brought forward while Parliament is in Recess. There could be only one good reason for his doing that, and that would be that all the communities in Northern Rhodesia were united about the proposals which the Colonial Secretary was bringing forward. However, that, of course, is not the case.

In Northern Rhodesia all the representatives of all the groups are against the proposals in the White Paper. The United Federal Party and the Dominion Party, which represent the tiny white minority in that country, have expressed opposition to the White Paper proposals; the Congress organisation, which represents millions of people, has expressed its opposition also. In these circumstances, it would be morally and criminally wrong for the Colonial Secretary to impose his decisions before this Parliament has had an opportunity of discussing them.

If we look at the White Paper proposals we can see how dangerous they can be if they are applied even in part. The White Paper proposals are an excuse for European domination, European domination which is masquerading in the clothes of inter-racial democracy. A lot of liberal phrases are used in connection with the proposals, but those phrases are hypocritical in the extreme, for on other occasions the speakers concerned have spoken frankly and have revealed that their intention is to maintain European domination.

The White Paper proposals are so complicated that one needs energy of mind greater than that required to solve The Times crossword puzzle to understand them. Certainly only a few people in this country would understand our Elections if they were fought on such a constitution.

The arrangements of the rolls is such that it guarantees Europeans in Northern Rhodesia a majority of the elective seats. There will be two rolls, one called an ordinary roll, which will be mainly, almost wholly, European, numbering some 20,000. There is a special roll with a qualification of £150 of income a year or income plus certain educational qualifications, which, according to the White Paper, would allow 24,000 people to qualify.

This figure is disputed not only in Northern Rhodesia itself but in this House. The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations used the figure of 21,000. Mr. Greenfield, in the Federal Assembly, used the figure of 18,000. An independent survey by two European researchers employed by the Rhodesian Selection Trust indicates probably more accurately that the number on this special roll will be about 10,000. That figure is ludicrously small. To allow only 10,000 Africans to participate in this Special roll is absolutely ridiculous and quite unjust.

Even though the number is to be so small the arrangement of the constituencies is such that the Europeans will be guaranteed 12 constituencies and 12 seats. Furthermore, there will be two Europeans guaranteed to be elected from the rural parts of the country. So the Europeans are in fact being guaranteed 14 seats. On the other hand, those candidates standing on the special roll will have only six constituencies with two Africans reserved from the ordinary constituencies, making eight altogether. That is a relationship of 14 Europeans to eight.

If we look at the proportions in the population we can see what a ridiculous state of affairs this is. The 3 per cent. of the population which is European will have 14 elected members. The 97 per cent. of the population which is African will have only eight. That means that 5,000 Europeans will have one representative, but it will take 262,000 Africans to have one. That is a ridiculous proportion and it is quite unfair and quite undemocratic.

Not only will this arrangement of constituencies make sure that the Europeans have a majority but there is an ingenious arrangement to make sure that the Africans who are elected come from the rural areas and do not represent the more vocal and developed Africans who live in the townships. The rural candidates, furthermore, will require to have two-thirds of the chiefs in their area to vouch for them before they can stand. In effect, these candidates will be stooges. There is no doubt about that. If the chiefs have to approve their candidature, they will undoubtedly be favourable to the hereditary chiefs.

Not only that, but there is the arrangement that the Europeans to be elected from the rural areas will be elected by the ordinary and special rolls together, but as the number of voters on the special roll is so large the number is to be devalued to one-third of the ordinary votes used in the election. That means that in the western rural area, for instance, as there are only 300 European electors, 3,300 on the special roll will have their votes devalued, to be worth only 100 votes. This is absolutely unjust.

I want to emphasise to the Colonial Secretary that we are unable in such a short debate as this to analyse all the proposals which have been brought forward. We do not even know what he has in mind. We do not want him to use this debate as an excuse for imposing his constitutional changes during the Recess.

I anticipate one point he will make, and that is that we must trust our kinsfolk in Rhodesia. After the history of the Union, I am quite sure that most people in Britain would not accept that advice, because the European minority in the Union of South Africa have ensured their domination of the majority. This very day a treason trial is taking place in Pretoria and the rule of law is being twisted in order that the doctrine of white supremacy may be imposed. That can happen in Northern Rhodesia if we give the whites their chance to impose their domination on the rest.

We have been fortunate in the last week in having in Britain some of the leaders of the white political parties in Northern Rhodesia. I say "fortunate" because we have been able to hear at first hand some of their opinions on these proposals for constitutional change. These are men who are supposed to be the moderates, and yet these are opinions they have. Mr. John Roberts, for instance, before he left London Airport said, according to the Manchester Guardian, that political power has to be retained in the hands of the Europeans and that democracy can advance only by degrees.

We also have another character from this charade of a political party, Mr. Rodney Malcolmson, who has come here, and who says that he does not believe in the principle of one man, one vote in any country. He comes to this country and attacks one of the basic concepts of our democracy, and expects us to pay attention to what he has to say. In a statement which was published in The Times a few days ago, he said that if we allowed the extremists to go ahead in Northern Rhodesia it would mean that it would become a happy hunting ground for Communism. The reverse is true. If we do not pay attention to the legitimate demands of the African majority in that country, we shall certainly pave the way for dangerous extremism, but the demands now being made by Mr. Harry Nkumbula and the Congress are about as extreme as were the demands of the Chartists in this country. That is called dangerous extremism. Those who are frightened are only those who have a vested interest to maintain.

We have not got the time in this debate today to talk about these proposals in detail, and we do not know what the Colonial Secretary is proposing himself. In view of this, we must at least ask for a delay in the election in Northern Rhodesia and for an adequate opportunity for Parliament to discuss these proposals when we return from the Recess.

There are a very large number of colonial questions, particularly in relation to Central and East Africa, which I and a number of my hon. Friends would have liked to have raised. In fact, we made an approach to the Government a long time ago and asked for time to do this. It is a measure of the shock which we had last Tuesday when the Colonial Secretary said that during the Parliamentary Recess he was going to start implementing profound constitutional changes in Northern Rhodesia that we have, in fact, abandoned a number of the points which we wanted to raise and have instead concentrated, quite narrowly and specifically, on this one point of the constitutional crisis that may face us in Northern Rhodesia unless the Colonial Secretary changes his mind.

I want to emphasise what my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) has just said. We are not debating in detail these constitutional proposals in the brief time that is available to us today. It would be impossible for us to do so, because we do not know whether they have been approved. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has said, we have not even had, before the Parliamentary Recess, a statement from the Colonial Secretary as to his intentions, though I must say that the Chief Secretary of Northern Rhodesia gave the game away in a letter to The Times the other day, when he said in fact that the discussions were nearing agreement. The Chief Secretary can be expected to be the mouthpiece of the Colonial Office in these matters, and I am afraid that this means that this matter is, in fact, "sewn up" already, although this House of Commons has not yet had an official statement placed before it before rising for the Summer Recess.

All we have time to do today is not to exercise our undoubted right, as the British House of Commons responsible for this Protectorate, to examine these proposals; all we have time to do is to emphasise the very grave danger to the whole democratic idea which the Colonial Secretary is creating by bringing up this threat to impose constitutional changes of this magnitude during the Recess. We know one thing clearly and indisputably: all the Africans in Northern Rhodesia are opposed to the proposals which have been made to the Colonial Secretary, to which we very much fear he will give his approval. I repeat the phrase "all the Africans"; not only the "wild men," as they are described, of the African National Congress, the people led by Mr. Harry Nkumbula, against whom I was warned by Europeans when I was in Northern Rhodesia recently.

They told me that the people I should listen to were the members of the African Representative Council, because they are the people who are selected by a very carefully constituted chain of democracy, leading up from the district and urban advisory councils, through the provincial councils, to the African Representative Council as the apex of African democracy and African thought. But the African Representative Council is standing shoulder to shoulder with the African National Congress in its opposition to these proposals. It is true that they differ on some details, but they do not differ on this. They do not differ in believing that these proposals are unacceptable, and, in particular, that section of the proposals which it is the Colonial Secretary's intention to introduce while our backs are turned, namely, the proposals on the franchise. They are united in denouncing them, and these are the people whom, it was explained to me when I was in Northern Rhodesia, are truly representative of the African people.

Here we have a situation in which all the Africans there and all their representative institutions in a British Protectorate are opposing the proposed new constitution. Therefore, and quite rightly, they want to appeal to the one body to which they, as a Protectorate, can appeal. They want to appeal to their protector, and their protector is not only the Colonial Secretary but, in the ultimate resort, the British House of Commons, and it is to this House that they want the opportunity to appeal. Yet, when they want to do that, we find that the Colonial Secretary comes quite casually to the House of Commons, as he did on Tuesday last, and does not even take the trouble to make a special statement, or to get up and apologise and say that the situation was so urgent that he deeply regretted that he would have to proceed during the Parliamentary Recess, and without consulting us, to introduce certain constitutional changes.

It was not until one of my hon. Friends put down a Question from this side of the House asking the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement on this matter and, in a supplementary question, asked for an assurance that these proposals would not be introduced until Parliament had discussed them, that the Colonial Secretary told us as casually as he did that it was very unfortunate but he would have to introduce these changes before we even discussed them. That was his answer to an outcry from this side of the House that the House has had no opportunity of discussing these constitutional proposals.

It was quite clear from the Colonial Secretary's answer that he was relying on one thing—on his automatic majority in this House to railroad these proposals through anyway. He knows he can do it, and he will do it, just as he railroaded the proposal about the federal franchise, ignoring the objections of the African Affairs Board. The right hon. Gentleman has treated the British House of Commons with the same contempt as he did the African Affairs Board, and we know that he has his automatic Conservative majority behind him to support him. What he has been saying, in fact, is: "I am going to decide this without listening to what the Opposition says, and without listening to any arguments."

Therefore, quite obviously, he has made up his mind, and it is with a closed and arrogant mind that he comes to the House of Commons to tell us that he is going to carry this out without even listening to a single proposal or considering a single Amendment which we might propose from this side of the House. I ask him in all sincerity what sort of a lesson in democracy does he think he is giving to the emergent Africans? Does he not realise the peril which is facing democracy throughout the world?

Does he not know that we, all the time, are holding up the British system to the Africans as a system in which men can argue, discuss, amend and compromise, and telling them that this system is infinitely superior to intransigent violence? Yet he gives no proof that in his heart of hearts he really accepts that version of democracy. He comes before us with a form of power politics. If I were an African in Central or East Africa I should be learning power politics at the feet of the right hon. Gentleman. He would give me a very excellent lesson or two. The whole of these proposals, which we have not the time to discuss, are bristling with the mockeries of democracy.

I give one example in passing, and that is the provision for the devaluation of these special or African votes in the ordinary or European constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) has explained that there will be two rolls, the ordinary roll with a very high level of qualifications, which we all know in our heart of hearts will be mainly a European roll, and a special roll with lower qualifications, intended to see that some Africans, at any rate, can get a look in. But as my hon. Friend has explained, in those constituencies designated ordinary constituencies the special votes can never count for more than one-third of the ordinary votes. Therefore, however many Africans may qualify in those constituencies, they will not be able to influence the voting beyond one-third of the ordinary or, broadly speaking, European votes.

What are we saying to the African when we are putting forward a scheme like this and giving him lessons in democracy? We are saying, "If you Africans are good boys and play the democratic game and you co-operate and enrol on the special roll and vote, then, when the ballot is being declared, we will open the ballot boxes and take out your votes and tear up any African votes that exceed in number one-third of the European votes." How on earth can we imagine that the African will believe in democracy?

We have told him to forget the idea of one man, one vote; I think it was Mr. Malcolmson who said the other day that this was a rather ridiculous principle anyhow. But we are not only going to tell the African to forget the principle of one man, one vote, but to forget the principle of one specially qualified African, one vote. It is not enough to say that this is superior to the Federal franchise.

rose—

I am sorry, but I cannot give way now. Many hon. Members want to take part in the debate, and I would remind the hon. Member that this is our only chance.

It is not good enough to say that this is all right because the same thing would happen the other way round and this is better than the Federal franchise because of the criss-cross principle which Mr. John Roberts has praised so highly. This, of course, is an improvement on the Federal franchise to that extent, and it is better to have it working the other way round as well, that is to say, for the ordinary or European votes in special constituencies. But I would say to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that he is overlooking one thing. In the complexity of these proposals one thing is linked with another, and because of the way in which the constituencies are drawn up, it will be found that the value of the criss-cross principle is very largely undermined.

The Europeans can always get back in some other way. Because of the way in which European constituencies have been drawn up, nearly all the Africans who would qualify even on the special roll will find themselves in the ordinary or European constituencies, and there will be very few Europeans in the special or African constituencies, the rural areas which are predominantly African. Therefore, on the criss-cross principle, nearly all the votes that will be torn up will be African and not European.

Here is another example of the way in which we are teaching the African democracy. The proposals provide that although at the outset we are to have this special roll with its lower qualifications, in addition to the ordinary roll, yet within ten years the special roll will be wiped out. The qualifications are to be progressively raised over ten years, so that at the end the special roll will have disappeared. In some cases that means that, unless the African is progressively to fall behind, some Africans will have to quadruple their income or standard of life. It is an assumption of a rise in the standard of life at a rate which no one thinks will be a reality.

How did democracy develop in this country? It was by widening the franchise until increasingly every person, whatever his income and whatever his literacy, was included, but in the Colonies it is the other way round. Democracy is to narrow upwards, and the qualifications are to become steeper and narrower, not easier and broader. The African is bound to say that democracy has two faces, one for the colonial peoples and another, and a very different face, for Europeans. A hundred and one details of these qualifications need examination. In the Legislative Council debates in Northern Rhodesia, an African amendment that a voter should be entitled to fill in an application for a vote in a vernacular language, in his own language, was defeated by Europeans. Even literacy is being defined in terms of the white man's language. How arrogant can one get? How can we wonder that among Africans the idea is beginning to grow that European democracy is merely a device for perpetuating white supremacy and the white man's rule?

The Colonial Secretary is giving another evil lesson to the Africans on how false is our concept of democracy. Why is there so much hurry? Why does the right hon. Gentleman once again have to make the African disbelieve in our democratic protestations? Why has he to do this so gratuitously? I know perfectly well that, under the present constitutional instruments, Northern Rhodesia is due for an election next January. At any rate the Legislative Council must be dissolved. The five-year life of the Legislative Council ends on 19th January next, and three months thereafter an election must be held, and it will take some time to get the enrolment procedure going. I know all that, but we can adapt these procedures when it suits our white purpose. Why, therefore, does the right hon. Gentleman not introduce an Order in Council to extend the life of the Legislative Council in Northern Rhodesia and to enable the protectorate duties of the British House of Commons to be exercised and thereby inspire African faith in us?

The right hon. Gentleman should not tell us that this is a very elaborate procedure. The right hon. Gentleman, or his predecessor in office, has done this before for Northern Rhodesia. Has he forgotten that in June, 1953, the Government introduced an Order in Council giving the Governor of Northern Rhodesia power to extend the life of Northern Rhodesia's Legislative Council from five years to five years and nine months in order that the Federal elections for the newly created Central African Federation should be held before the Northern Rhodesia elections? The Federal elections were due in December, and therefore the life of the Northern Rhodesia legislative Council was extended by nine months in order that the Northern Rhodesia elections need not take place until January, 1954. If the Minister did it then to suit white purposes, why cannot he do it now to give a little of the African's rights back to him?

I warn the Colonial Secretary that all he is doing by once again steamrollering something through against 100 per cent. African opposition is to breed profound suspicion in the African mind about the concept of federation. The African believes it is all sewn up, and all sewn up against him, and that the British House of Commons is being treated by the Colonial Office in the same contemptuous way as the African Affairs Board was treated.

One by one African safeguards are being undermined and devalued, and the African is even losing his faith in the Colonial Office as his protector. I beg the Colonial Secretary in all sincerity to realise the damage he is likely to do, and even at this late hour to stand at the Dispatch Box and promise to introduce an Order in Council to prolong the life of the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia and to turn the searchlight of the British House of Commons on these proposals before they are approved.

The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has pointed out that time is short and that a large number of hon. Members want to speak. Therefore, I hope, she will forgive me if I do not follow all her points. I must say, however, that hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing a disservice to the Commonwealth when they tend to compare the Federation of Northern Rhodesia with South Africa. Very few hon. Members on this side of the House agree with apartheid, but since South Africa is an independent Commonwealth country we can do nothing directly to influence the Union.

However, the Federation is founded on a different concept, one completely opposed to apartheid, the principle of partnership. I recognise that there is division between both sides of the House on how to implement partnership—whether there should be junior or senior partners or whether both should be equal—but I think hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing a great disservice if they imply that what is going on in the Federation or in Northern Rhodesia is comparable in any way with what has happened in South Africa. I am sure that all hon. Gentlemen opposite who have visited Northern Rhodesia agree with the effort now being made in all these new constitutions to make the division one of political parties rather than one of colour. They must know that, whatever criticism they may have of Salisbury, the colour bar does not operate in Lusaka or anywhere in Northern Rhodesia.

The proposals in the White Paper issued by the Northern Rhodesia Government, which we are mainly discussing this afternoon, are not agreed by the members of the Legislature in the Territory. They all have different views, so it would be surprising if the House of Commons agreed with the document. Yet we can agree with its basic provision, which is to cut across racial representation.

We can also agree with the proposal to enfranchise the British protected persons for the first time. I believe I am right in saying that the present number of Africans on the Northern Rhodesia roll is infinitesimal, about 10 or certainly less than 100. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can give me the exact figures and say how many Africans will get a vote under the new proposals. If the House can have an approximate figure, it will be seen that Africans will wield a far greater political power after the proposals become law than they did before. Also, of course, their proportion of representatives in the House will be increased from four to six. There may be doubt on both sides of the House whether that proposal has gone far enough. Personally, I would prefer to see eight Africans, but presumably that is still a matter for discussion.

The basic error of hon. Gentlemen opposite is in trying to compare conditions in the Federation, or anywhere in Africa, with what happens in this country. Two things that are totally dissimilar cannot be compared. If one thinks of the franchise in British or other African Colonial Territories, and compares these with the franchise enjoyed in this country, it will be realised that the conditions are quite different. It must be remembered that in Northern Rhodesia there was no civilisation, as we know it today, seventy or eighty years ago. At that time there was no culture such as existed and developed in India, Ghana or Nigeria, so it must always be borne in mind that we are legislating for a franchise against that background and in those conditions, and not those enjoyed in the United Kingdom.

Therefore, even though one does not pretend that these proposals are perfect, they have great advantages. They increase the number of Africans who will get the vote and, therefore, increase their political power. They increase the number of African representatives and, what is most important of all, give the African a direct say in the election of his representative, which does not happen in Northern Rhodesia today. At present, the Governor appoints the representative after consultation with African organisations, so it will at least be an advantage to have a form of common roll and direct elections by Africans.

At the moment the money qualification for the African voter is £200 a year, which is to be reduced to either £150 or £120 for a person who has a two-year secondary education. I understand that this sum includes the money that would be spent by his employer in giving him free housing and free food. The House will know that it is normal in Northern Rhodesia for the employer to provide these things. Assuming that housing costs £52 a year the money qualification is really far less than would appear. In fact, the new franchise would include the African who earns just above the average of Africans in the territory, and this should put a large number of Africans on the special roll.

There is one other point on the franchise proposals that I wish to refer to, and that is the much criticised question of two-thirds of the chiefs in the candidate's area having to approve his nomination. That has been criticised as being against democratic principles. On the face of it, there is validity in this criticism, but I understand that it is not the chiefs themselves, but the chiefs in council, who sign the nomination papers. It is, therefore, an attempt to try to link the native authority, the chief and the council, with the nomination of the political candidate in order to try to link the traditional chiefly system with modern democratic ideas of elected government. From that point of view, therefore, this proposal is perhaps not as bad as it would appear at first sight. If I am wrong, I hope that my right hon. Friend will correct me, because it is an important point.

My final point concerns the position of the African National Congress in Northern Rhodesia. Is it or is it not a political party?

It is.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and I had an argument about this the other day. I hope he is right.

I want to see the congress represented on the Legislature, but at present it is more a movement than a political party. The hon. Gentleman may say that the Congress has not had a chance to get members elected to the Legislature. That is so, but I am given to understand that unless the leaders of the Congress, in the near future, comply with a provision which registers them as a political party they are not a political party and, presumably, cannot take part in elections. This is a vital matter, and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend will deal with it when he replies to the debate.

I want to put on record that I believe that the African National Congress represents a large section of the African point of view in Northern Rhodesia and in the rest of the Federation and that it should be recognised as a political party and elect candidates to seats in a future Legislature. I would rather see the Congress go about it in that way than by the method of intimidation and other subversive action throughout the Federation which have been led by some—I emphasise some—members of Congress.

Finally, hon. Members will agree that the Governor of Northern Rhodesia has a reputation of being very advanced and a very progressive Governor wishing to bring Africans into the Government and so far as possible to associate them with the Government of that territory. Contrary to what has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, I believe that the leader of the European elected members, Mr. Roberts, has also done everything he can to lead European opinion towards a fuller share of partnership with Africans.

Obviously, this partnership cannot be equal at present. We all hope that the Africans will show that they have advanced so rapidly that it can be much more equal in the future. However, nobody who studies the problem objectively and against the present background of Northern Rhodesia will deny that partnership cannot be equal at present.

In those circumstances, the suggestion of dividing the Bill into two parts, one of which can be passed while the House is in Recess so that the Government can continue the work of the electoral roll and of registration is sensible. It is very important that a message should go from the House asking Africans to register, something which they have not done in the Federation or in Kenya, and which could be a disaster since they have been given a chance to influence political devolopments in their own country and have not taken it.

The second part of the Bill, which will be the controversial part, will deal with some of the problems which cannot be raised today because of the lack of time. Presumably, that will be debated in the House after the Recess. That is fair and reasonable and seems to me to be the best way to get the effective partnership which we all want to see working not only in Northern Rhodesia, but throughout Central and East Africa.

The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) has made an interesting speech, interesting not in content but in form. He reminded me not so much of a back bencher on the Government side of the House as a "feed" man for the leading actor in a play. All of his questions were carefully phrased and I hope that they will all be answered by the right hon. Gentleman, whose replies will, no doubt, be most helpful.

The debate was opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) in a fluent and meaty speech. He set the pattern for the debate. I echo his comment that hon. Members on both sides of the House must remember that many overseas peoples are disfranchised. They do not have members in the House of Commons or in their own Legislative Assemblies, and it is, therefore, our duty to speak on their behalf.

On this side of the House, we are sometimes "fed up" with being chided by hon. Members opposite and others with a lack of patriotism. I should like some of those in the Federation who say that to come here and to find out what the House of Commons climate is and what we think about conditions in Africa. Sir Roy Welensky, after our last official Labour Party statement, made an ill-judged and, to use his own terms about us, "half-baked statement."

It is a pity that he should have spoken in that manner, since he hopes, in 1960, to be the leader of the quasi-Dominion. He will hold high office and it does not help for him to make those comments about debates in the House of Commons. We all speak sincerely and do the best we can for people overseas.

The situation would be much happier if Mr. Macintyre, the Minister of Finance, and Mr. Owen and others holding high office who have not been to London for many years came here to see us, or discussed matters of common interest with a mission sent there. They could then make more helpful speeches in the Federation, instead of scolding us, and if they were to come here they could discover what people in the United Kingdom think about their problems.

I was chairman at a lunch for Mr. Macintyre in the Palace of Westminister about eighteen months ago.

I can only say that when these gentlemen come to visit us, they must have a very narrow circle of acquaintanceship. It would be a big help if they would do what Mr. John Roberts and his colleagues have done, come here to give us their views so that we could talk in an informal, sincere and, I hope, helpful atmosphere. That would be most helpful, because in many cases some people there have only that information which they get from the newspapers, some of it presented in the most tendentious fashion.

I hope that the Secretary of State will regard this debate as a curtain raiser and that much more will come in November and December when he issues the second part of his proposals. I hope that this is just the beginning and that we shall look upon it as the start of a sustained campaign for the Africans in Africa—the black Africans as opposed to the white ones—the Africans who do not have much to say about their own affairs in Central Africa.

Central Africa is the linch-pin of the Commonwealth. We all hope that people of different colours will live there together and we therefore want this partnership to succeed, so that we can show that people can live together, whether they are Asians, Africans or Europeans.

We have to establish some confidence on both sides before we can reach the stocktaking in 1960. I have been blunt and candid in speaking out there about both sides, and I will do the same here, since we must be honest about these matters. When we reach this fateful watershed of 1960, we will have to make an effort, Europeans and Africans, to come together.

In this context, I want to consider the constitutional proposals of Sir Arthur Benson. What is to be the future of this plural society? I hope that the Secretary of State will say what he thinks we are heading for. We have had only vague statements in the past. We on this side of the House have said that we believe in a certain democratic society, but the Secretary of State has never made that kind of statement. He has never said whether he would be willing to accept a majority of Africans in the two Northern Legislative Councils as a result of elections in the 1960s.

We must visualise that by the 1960s there will be a black African elected majority in both Zomba and Lusaka. If we do not believe in that, the present proposals are nonsense, because they will not lead to that form of democratic society which we say must come in this plural community in Central Africa.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury that the proposals are most complex in their mechanics and most subtle in their philosophy. I do not know how the Africans will appreciate the subtleties. They do not understand them at present and I must emphasise that all parties, whatever their colour, in Central Africa reject the proposals. The right hon. Gentleman may say that there is some merit in that, and that if neither side accepts them they must be somewhere in the middle.

However, the right hon. Gentleman must remember what happened when he received the official deputation led by the Governor. What were the recommendations which were then made? It appears to us that Mr. John Roberts and his colleagues do not visualise, as we visualise, that in the 1960s there will be a black majority in this Northern Parliament. The deputation submitted a statement to the right hon. Gentleman saying:

"The U.F.P. plan ensures a good measure of responsible government and the opening of the door to full self-government."

—by a European majority?

I understand that one recommendation was:

"That the delegation proceeds to London next week to be authorised to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Colonies with a view to the Territories being granted an increased measure of responsible government and for entrusting to the Legis- lature and Government of Northern Rhodesia sole responsibility for certain subjects."

The recommendations went on to refer to

"… legislative and executive action which should no longer be subject to questions in the Parliament of the United Kingdom."

We are trying to give confidence to both sides in these negotiations and yet the deputation is asking that responsibility for a Protectorate should be taken out of the hands of the House of Commons and the Secretary of State, a responsibility for Africans which we in this House have had for a long time.

That is not good enough. How we can expect the Africans to maintain confidence and not to become suspicious of these negotiations—as they are becoming suspicious—I do not know. We must be open and forthcoming about these matters, because we all want to see a proper settlement of the problems of Central Africa. No one wants to see anything sensational, such as what has happened in Kenya since 1952. Unfortunately, in 1960, if the Africans do not get what some of them would like to have—a fuller measure of say in their own affairs—there will be some hotheads and others who will be mischievous and who will cause us an enormous amount of trouble.

When I consider the composition of the Legislative Council and the conditions for voting and remember what I saw of the recommendations of Chief Justice Tredgold about qualification for voting and about the Africans taking a fuller share of responsibility for their own affairs, I am bound to say that the whole thing is hypocrisy.

The two-tier system of "ordinary" and "special" voters makes no sense at all. If people are in favour of a criss-cross system of voting, why can there not be seats where white and black have the same qualifications for voting; and where there is not a double-tier system? Such a system would have geographical constituencies with almost equal numbers of black and white voters, and with double or multiple member seats where electors would vote for a man irrespective of his colour.

Representatives would thus be jointly responsible for the geographical area and also be accountable to different races—if one must think in those terms. That would be preferable to this complex and Machiavellian effort where 2,000 or 20,000 votes from Africans may go into the voting box only to be torn up, so that only one-thirtieth of the total African vote can be counted to match the one-third of the number of the Europeans.

The present proposals are hypocritical and a mockery to the people out there when we are attempting to get them to live together. This White Paper is a test of the future and a signpost to where these people will go in the next five or ten years. No wonder we are sceptical and the Africans even more sceptical about the proposals.

It is scandalous that African candidates should have to be vetted and finally nominated by a council of chiefs or elders. Why should that be done when Europeans do not have such a procedure? Why should the black people do it if the white do not do it? We are supposed to have a society of "partnership." Why single out one colour and say that people of that colour must go before a panel, so to speak, before being allowed to stand for election in their own country and on behalf of their own people? I do not understand it and neither do they.

Why do we want a qualitative franchise for Africans voting for Africans? We had this system in Nyasaland. I warn the Minister that a qualitative franchise for communal seats will throw up people with chips on their shoulders and even more anti-white or anti-European than would be the case with an all-African franchise at this time, when the Colonial Secretary is saying that what we want are moderate, sensible and thoughtful African leaders.

Then, when we apply educational qualifications, we tend to got people who have been educated in missionary schools, have mixed with Europeans, and have experienced social slights. We tend to find people voting who have been warped by their past social contacts and, particularly among the people of Nyasaland, we get leaders thrown who are bitter about their conditions and feel bitter towards the Europeans in their territory.

If the right hon. Gentleman followed the policy I advocate he would get Africans who had a more social outlook than some of those whom he has attacked in the past because of their narrow and anti-European behaviour. In a communal division I do not see why Africans must be singled out for vetting if they are candidates, or checked as voters, when they are speaking for their own people and talking about their own affairs.

There has been a fatal tendency for Africans to boycott these elections and constitutions simply because we propose them. That is a mistake. My advice to Mr. Harry Nkumbula is to follow the example set by Mr. Tom Mboya of Kenya. Africans do not like these constitutions, but they must work them. Harry Nkumbula is not seen by the Colonial Secretary because he is not a leader of an official political party. He should become a member of the M.L.C., and lead his party in the Legislative Council. Then he could go to the Minister or the Governor and put his people's point of view.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's advice, but I did see Mr. Nkumbula when I was in Northern Rhodesia. The reason that I have not seen him this time is that on this occasion I asked for delegates from the Legislative Council, and I saw them. It would have been quite wrong, and it would have become very confusing, if I had not regarded them as speaking for the Legislative Council. Nevertheless, I endorse the advice given by the hon. Member.

Finally, I plead with the Minister to tell us what is the Government's policy in Central Africa. Do the Government think, as we do, in terms of a democratic society, where, by means of a liberalisation of the franchise, Africans will have a majority in these legislative councils? The Africans comprise the overwhelming majority of the people, and sooner or later we must accept the fact that they must govern themselves and be the dominating and dominant factor in these plural societies.

The fact that at this late hour of the Session we should be debating this topic illustrates the difficulty in which we find ourselves in raising colonial matters in this House. There are very many subject which ought to be fully debated, but the time is inadequate.

Before referring to Northern Rhodesia, I want to mention one other matter. I want to inform the Under-Secretary of State that when the House reassembles some of us hope to raise the general question of freedom of movement within the Commonwealth. It is much too large a question to canvass today, but in recent months many of us have watched with increasing concern the policy of the Central African Government and of the various East African Governments in the matter of immigration and the issue of passports.

Two things are becoming increasingly evident. First, persons are being declared prohibited immigrants not on any genuine security grounds, but because their political views happen to be distasteful to the authorities in the territory concerned. I have in mind the action of the Central African Government in refusing entry to Commander Fox-Pitt. Secondly, once a man is black-listed by one Government for reasons which he has no means of knowing or answering, he is liable to be black-listed by them all. That raises a very large issue of principle, to which we shall return during the next Session.

I now come to the question of Northern Rhodesia. Here we are in an extraordinary position. We are told that while Parliament is in recess the Colonial Office must proceed to make constitutional arrangements affecting over 2 million people. We have not been told why this haste is necessary, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Why should not it be possible, by Order in Council, to extend by a few months the life of the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia, so that these matters can be fully considered by the House of Commons before any irrevocable action is taken?

We are given no inkling of the views of the Secretary of State, or of the matters which are being discussed between him and the Governor of Northern Rhodesia. The only indication as to the subject of discussion is the Supplement to the Votes and Proceedings of the Legislative Council, of Friday, 18th July, 1958, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). I do not propose to go into details, but there are three points to which I would venture to call attention. First, in paragraph (i) it is proposed

"that all prospective voters shall be required to make a solemn declaration of allegiance to the Queen."

That is an astonishing proposition. These people of Northern Rhodesia are not British subjects; they are British protected persons. They owe no duty of allegiance. Allegiance exists only between the Sovereign and his or her subjects, and the Colonial Secretary will remember that we decided this point when we were conducting the Buganda negotiations which ended in the return of the Kabaka.

Then there is the provision that prospective voters must satisfy the registering officer that they are able to complete in English, without assistance, the form of application to be registered as a voter. That follows the Federal model, and it is a literacy test. I put now the question which I put in the debate on 18th February of this year. Why do we seek to impose in an African territory a test which we have never imposed in this country in the whole of our Parliamentary history? When the electors of Westminster sent Charles James Fox to this House, or when Middlesex voted for Wilkes, the great majority of voters were illiterate. Nevertheless, they made a very great contribution to our Parliamentary history.

Quite apart from any property qualifications, I have never heard any convincing defence why we should impose a literacy test in Central Africa, when nobody has endeavoured to do so in Ghana or Nigeria, where democratic institutions are in full swing.

Another matter to which the hon. Member so rightly referred is the quite extraordinary demand that in future the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia shall be entitled to take legislative and executive action which will no longer be subject to question in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. That can be described only as an impertinent demand, and whatever else the right hon. Gentleman may say in his reply, I hope that he will make it quite clear that that proposition will not be entertained for a single moment. We, as Members of this House, have our responsibility to these people, and it is a responsibility which we certainly cannot delegate to anybody else.

A matter of even greater importance concerns the Preamble to the Federal Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman is very familiar with its terms. One of its provisions says:

"And whereas Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should continue under the special protection of Her Majesty, to enjoy separate Governments for so long as their respective peoples so desire. … And whereas the association of the Colony and territories aforesaid in a Federation under Her Majesty's sovereignty enjoying responsible government in accordance with this Constitution, would conduce to the security, advancement and welfare of all their inhabitants, and in particular would foster partnership and co-operation between their inhabitants and enable the Federation, when those inhabitants so desire, to go forward with confidence towards the attainment of full membership of the Commonwealth."

The test is the same in each case. The continuance of each of the territorial Governments in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and the attainment of full membership of the Commonwealth by the Federation, is made to depend in each case upon what the peoples of inhabitants desire. The questions which I do not suppose will be answered today, but which will have to be answered at some later stage are: how will those desires be ascertained? Who will be consulted, and in what manner? Will there be a plebiscite? If so, is it to be on a basis of universal suffrage?

This matter has a very close bearing on the subject of our debate. It could happen that the views expressed by the Legislative Council would be taken as being the views of the inhabitants of the territories. In other words, the inhabitants may find themselves being committed to Dominion status, that is to say, to a transfer of sovereignty by an unrepresentative body in the choice of which most of them had no opportunity of participating.

It may be said that these are unworthy suspicions, but in Central and East Africa today we have an almost universal atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust. I shall not go into the merits of the dispute of a few years ago, but nobody can deny that Federation was imposed upon the African population. We all know that only a few months ago the views of the African Affairs Board were overridden by this House. I ask for an assurance, if not today at any rate in the not too distant future, that when we have to ascertain the desires of the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in regard to the maintenance of colonial rule and the attainment of Dominion status, the right hon. Gentleman will not be content with the views expressed merely by Legislative Councils, but will find other means of discovering what the people really want.

We have been discussing the most important issue in the whole sphere of the British Commonwealth and Empire. What happens now in Northern Rhodesia will largely determine what happens in Central Africa, and what happens in Central Africa will determine whether there is to be racial co-operation or racial conflict in the Continent.

I am a little reluctant to turn to other subjects, but I do so because there are three issues within the Commonwealth which are of very great importance, and because the team of speakers that we have had, comprising my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) have put the case so convincingly this afternoon. Nothing has made me prouder of belonging to the Labour Party than the effective way in which the voice of Africa is being represented from these benches today.

The three critical issues to which I wish to refer are all economic. The first is the situation in Sierra Leone. I am going to ask questions rather than make a case. A year ago the Financial Secretary in Sierra Leone said that the financial situation in that Colony had never been better in all its history. Yet today, very hurriedly, the Governor and five members of the Legislature came to see the Minister about a financial crisis. Apparently, there is even a shortage of liquid cash with which to meet the costs of the public services.

I hope that when he replies the Secretary of State for the Colonies will be able to give some explanation of that situation, because we are hoping that Sierra Leone will advance as Ghana has advanced and as Nigeria is advancing towards self-government. It will be unable to do so if it remains in these economic difficulties.

The two other areas to which I want to refer are Malta and British Guiana. I think we generally welcomed the statement which the Secretary of State gave to the House yesterday regarding Malta. But there are certain points arising from that statement which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman. The proposals can be divided, broadly, into two sections, one economic and the other political.

Malta has become the victim of our changed defence policy. It was almost entirely dependent upon the naval dockyard, upon airstrips, upon troops in transit and, more recently, the Mediterranean headquarters of N.A.T.O. The indication that the naval dockyard is not to be fully utilised after 1960—indeed, that it may be closed down altogether—brought the widespread fear of unemployment.

We welcome the fact that arrangements are now being made for the dockyard to be used for civilian purposes. I was very sincere yesterday when I paid my tribute to the Governor for the negotiations on this matter in which he has been engaged over recent weeks. I very much hope that no one in Malta will have thought that because the Governor has spent this period in London he has not been contributing to the future happiness and welfare of Malta.

The particular questions which I want to put to the Secretary of State are these. How far will the civil dockyards provide employment in comparison with the employment hitherto provided in the naval dockyard? When the right hon. Gentleman spoke in his statement yesterday of efforts to establish varied industries to supplement the dockyards, of what was he thinking? Was he thinking that Malta should be approached in a way similar to that in which we have approached the depressed areas of this country, as Development Areas?

I was in Malta three weeks ago, and it occurred to me that it might be an admirable site for a trading estate such as have been established in our depressed areas here. When the right hon. Gentleman is thinking of those new and varied industries, could the matter be approached in that big and imaginative way?

I want to make one proposal which goes beyond the statement of the Secretary of State. This island fortress in the Mediterranean has been of great service not only to Britain, a service which was uniquely recognised at the end of the war by the presentation of the George Cross to the whole population. It has been of service to the entire Commonwealth, and, indeed, it has been of service to all the Western allies.

When we are turning the activities of Malta from the naval and military spheres to civilian spheres, it would surely be a very happy recognition of that service if not only Great Britain, but the countries of the Commonwealth, and, indeed, if the United States made some contribution towards the transformation of the island. I very much hope that some voice will be raised asking Australia, Canada, New Zealand and countries in Western Europe and the United States, all to make their contribution in recognition of the great service that Malta has rendered to them and to liberty in the past.

I turn from those economic aspects to the political aspects. I plead with the right hon. Gentleman not to allow the talks with the representatives of the Maltese parties to hang over until November. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will be engaged during September in important conversations with Nigerian representatives, but I would suggest to him that he has very able colleagues at the Colonial Office. He has Lord Perth as his Minister of State. Sitting beside him now is the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to have an exaggerated sense of the importance of his own attendance when these discussions are taking place. Even if he himself is heavily engaged in September in the Nigerian discussions, there is no reason why colleagues of his at the Colonial Office should not be in consultation with the representatives of Malta so that the discussions need not be so long delayed.

The second point I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman on the political side is in relation to the emergency regulations. I put the question to him in the House yesterday, and he replied that the Governor had gone back to Malta and would consider immediately whether these emergency regulations should be withdrawn. Three months have now passed without any disturbances in Malta, and yet regulations still continue under which ten persons are not permitted to meet together in public.

I visited the prison in Malta where over 50 men and women were serving sentences. The only crime when they had committed was that they had been in a meeting of ten persons. If the right hon. Gentleman is to create in Malta an atmosphere which will enable a solution to be reached, he should immediately end these regulations.

My third point is this. During my visit to Malta I was disturbed by what I saw of the judicial system and of the police administration. I visited in prison a man who four months ago was the Minister of Health and a woman who four months ago, was Minister of Education. Everyone in Malta, including political opponents—one can say the Governor, the Deputy-Governor and the Archbishop—all paid tribute to the work which those two Ministers did in the spheres of health and education. One had only to see the organisation of the health and education services, the schools and the technical college, the college for industrial training, arising as a result of their work, to understand the constructive contribution they made. Yet there they were in prison. Their offence was that during the strike they had been guilty of intimidation.

In what other country in the world outside those with Communist totalitarian Governments would two people on their first offence have been sentenced to imprisonment without even the option of a fine, particularly when they had rendered such service to the country as those two ex-Ministers have done?

I was also concerned about the administration of the police. It is important to realise that the conflict which arose between the Colonial Office and the Labour Prime Minister of Malta turned as much upon the issue of police administration as it did on the economic side.

May I say that that is not true? There is not a scrap of evidence of that. I could not let that statement pass, I am afraid.

I am in the difficulty that I could quote to the right hon. Gentleman statements by officials whom he completely trusts, and not only from the Labour side. That is why I made that statement. I was informed that there was every indication of a settlement on the economic issue, but that conflict arose regarding the control of the police and that this brought the final crisis between the Labour Prime Minister of Malta and the Colonial Secretary.

The further point which I would put to the right hon. Gentleman is that there should be an early general election. If the boundaries of the constituencies are to be reconsidered, it should be done by a commission the impartiality of which is beyond doubt. We earnestly hope that this may lead to an election in Malta which will enable the people of Malta to make their own decision about the future of the Island.

We should not regard the proposals now being put forward as a final solution, but must work towards a new constitution. I hoped that Malta might become integrated with this country and that we should have Maltese Members in this House of Commons. I still have that hope. Meanwhile, I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that a temporary solution could be found by granting to Malta all the powers that it would have had under the integration scheme except actual representation in Parliament.

No one could have visited these happy people without being aware of the background of unique service which Malta has given to this country and to other countries, without desiring a solution of their problem, or without welcoming what the Secretary of State said yesterday. I hope that he will add to it today the proposals which I have ventured to suggest this afternoon.

Of British Guiana I have now, alas, no time to speak.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) will forgive me if I do not follow him in respect of certain of the points which he has raised about the problems of Malta. Because of the general anxiety felt by a large number of Members, I want to emphasise the plea which has been made to the Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to the Northern Rhodesian Constitution.

We have urged that the problems of Northern Rhodesia should be discussed. We are desperately anxious that Parliament should have an opportunity of discussing the proposals of the Secretary of State on the future constitution before those proposals are put into Part I of the Order in Council which the right hon. Gentleman proposes should be drafted. Because of the anxiety of Africans and of all liberal opinion and because of the anxiety among Members of Parliament here, there should be the fullest opportunity in this country of considering any proposals which the Secretary of State may make.

We are fully aware that the right hon. Gentleman has had before him the proposals of the Governor and of the Northern Rhodesian Government, and that he has had an opportunity of discussing with representatives of Northern Rhodesia the proposals which the Northern Rhodesian Government have submitted. None the less, the grave responsibility now falls to the right hon. Gentleman of putting forward proposals in the light of those discussions. We sincerely hope that Parliament will have the opportunity of discussing these proposals before they are put into the Order in Council.

Surely it is not outside the bounds of possibility—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has made this quite clear and so have other hon. Members—that by Order in Council the Secretary of State may extend the life of the existing Legislative Council. We would ask him seriously to consider that course before he commits himself to the Order in Council. We should also have a White Paper on his proposals, so that Parliament may have the opportunity of knowing what the right hon. Gentleman suggests should be done.

We are profoundly dissatisfied with the proposals which have been submitted to us from the Northern Rhodesian Government. We gather that they have been received in a spirit of criticism by all parties in the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council. In any case, we feel that these proposals, which the right hon. Gentleman is asked to consider, are couched in terms which are completely illiberal and are unworthy of consideration as a balanced submission of what the country needs in the immediate future. Let me again emphasise what has been emphasised on this side of the House before, that the problems of political development in Northern Rhodesia cannot be separated altogether from the issues of the Federation itself. I would remind the Secretary of State that a solemn obligation rests on this country in regard to Northern Rhodesia as well as Nyasaland.

What has infiltrated into the constitution of the Federation is the declaration of the continued protected status of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. It may be that, by federation, to some extent the protected status of Northern Rhodesia has been diminished. But none the less the duty and responsibility of this country as the protecting Power, and the duty and responsibility of the Secretary of State, is strong and emphatic, even under present conditions. Therefore, I urge that it would be altogether wrong for a political system to be endorsed in which the major predominant interest in that Government is European and not the great majority of the Africans.

I wish again to repeat what I have often said, that when the European entered Northern Rhodesia he was fully conscious of the status of that territory and the position of the Government, particularly of the position of the Government in this country. He was aware that we had solemn obligations to the African people which are not under any circumstances to be transferred to a European minority, many of whom are merely temporary sojourners in the territory, but who, under this proposal, would receive political power.

The right hon. Gentleman should also remember that in recent times there has been an intensification of the feeling of bitterness among the African population because of the manner in which federation was imposed. In the eyes of the African Affairs Board prejudice has been done to them. There has been the continued practice of discrimination. There have been all too few signs of partnership; with the result that Africans are very much more politically-minded than they were, and, through their organisations, are insisting that they should take an adequate share in political responsibility, and that the machinery created should be such as to give them justice and fair dealing.

It is suggested that in 1960 a conference should be held on the future of federation. The Federation Constitution will be brought into review. I urge that the Constitutions of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia should be so amended that the African voice can be adequately heard; that instead of European speaking on behalf of those two Governments, at least fair representation will be conceded to the Africans so that these territories, with a considerable African majority in their populations, may be able to speak as they think and feel regarding the future of federation.

I wish to say a word about the submissions to the Secretary of State by the Northern Rhodesia Governor. Of course, the submission is laudable in every respect. For does not the Governor suggest that what he wants is a system of government which will give confidence, which will rest on consent, which will not imply domination of any one race over another and which in the light of events will prove durable? He declares that he wishes to move away from communal representation because, in his judgment, politics ought not to cut across race. With all these sentiments we would sincerely agree.

The difficulty is that his proposals do none of these things. They do not inspire confidence, hence the African agitation. They do not, and will not, rest on consent, because the vast majority of the African population will not be represented in government. They perpetuate European domination, and the system is not likely to be durable if it involves considerable racial conflict and a great deal of racial trouble in the days ahead. Therefore, there is far too much double-talk in the proposals submitted to the Secretary of State.

All they amount to is a Legislative Council dominated by the European; an Executive Council dominated by the European and a franchise which, again, is heavily weighted in favour of the Europeans. I say that such proposals would consolidate and perpetuate race division. Moreover, the Governor, in the language of the eighteenth century, almost certainly in the language of the time before political democracy was established in this country, says:

"The vote should be given to those who gave the country its wealth and welfare and can exercise the vote with judgment and public spirit."

If we apply any test we like to the proposals of the Governor, the test is entirely a property test and a test of race.

It is just humbug to put forward proposals of this kind. Does not the African miner or the African agricultural worker contribute to the wealth and welfare of the territory? Why, therefore, should he be banned? We know that he is banned merely because his wages will be insufficient and because he has a black skin. Yet the drunk and desolute European is alleged to have the qualities of judgment and of public spirit. He can go on the franchise roll, but not the man whose colour is black and who happens to belong to the African race. I say that proposals of that kind are completely outrageous.

I ask the Secretary of State to note the reasons for our opposition to these proposals. In the first place, we want a balanced Legislative Council. After all, the Legislative Council of Northern Rhodesia is concerned primarily with African affairs, and, therefore, the majority of the population should be adequately and properly represented on that council. Moreover, I feel that morally it would be utterly wrong for the Secretary of State to transfer his own responsibility to that of a minority in the country.

Let me also point out that it is most unfortunate that a great body of Africans have begun to lose confidence in our officials in Northern Rhodesia. It would appear that the Secretary of State himself has agreed with the Prime Minister of the Federation that in future these officials shall look not to him, but to the Prime Minister of the Federation; and those officials will be urged to implement the policy of the Federation. I think it a most unfortunate condition for the Administration to have got itself into.

Why is it that it is suggested that there should be only one African on the Governor's Executive Council? After all, that Council is concerned with political policy, and in is important that the African voice should be heard. If an African puts a point of view which happens to be contrary to the European viewpoint, there is no one to support him or to endorse the view which he is trying to maintain. It is a pity that the Secretary of State, if he endorses these proposals, will be transferring some of his authority for the ultimate responsibility in Northern Rhodesia to an executive which is primarily African, but on which the Africans have only one voice out of five.

We protested against the Federation franchise. The idea of a two-tier system, a first-class and second-class voter, is one which we should most strenuously oppose. My hon. Friends have already expressed the difficulties and the objections to the form which the franchise is taking. But I wish to emphasise that even if we allow that an African has the essential income and property to get on the franchise roll, if he cannot fill up his form in English he cannot exercise the vote. Though he can fill up the form in his own language—he may be literate in his own language—as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) pointed out, merely because, in his own country, he does not know English, he cannot exercise the vote. To all those who are telling us that no fewer than 10,000 Africans can get on the special register I say that if this literacy test is applied experience will show that very many fewer than 10,000 will get on to the register, even though the Africans are prepared to register.

I should have liked to have said something about the constituencies and their construction and how it exposes the whole system of gerrymandering. I should have liked to have spoken about the selection of candidates, and so on, but my hon. Friends have already referred to these things and I will not continue the argument. I urge the Secretary of State to bring a liberal mind to bear on the submissions which have been made to him. I urge him to defer the issue of Part I of the Order in Council, so that Parliament may have an opportunity of examining the proposals which he has to make in place of the proposals which the Governor has submitted. That is the purpose of my intervention in this debate, to urge, on behalf of myself and all my hon. Friends, the Secretary of State to take this course of action.

A number of hon. Members have addressed themselves to the details of the White Paper. First the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) and then the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Foot) and now the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones). Of course, it is not this White Paper, important though it is, which is being debated today in detail as a definite proposition for the House to reject or endorse. That is not the position. I will attempt to deal with the various suggestions which have been made as to how the drill which I outlined two days ago may be improved on.

The fact that this White Paper, presented to the Northern Rhodesian Legislative Council was debated recently in Lusaka, is well known to hon. Members. A series of clauses or sections were presented, as will be remembered by hon. Members who have read the debate. A long list of them was presented to the Council by the Chief Secretary. and at an appropriate moment during the eight-day "marathon", while this was being discussed, votes were taken on each of these sections. A great number were approved, but not all, and one or two important views clearly emerged.

Then the Governor and the Chief Secretary and a party representing the political parties in the Legislative Council came to London to meet me. It is perhaps no secret to say that I had hoped to go there that was my intention. I always regret any loss chance of re-visiting Central or East Africa or any other part of that great Continent, but events elsewhere made it impossible for me to be away from London last week, and so I had to ask them to come here.

We discussed this White Paper very carefully, but it would not be possible for me, as I am sure hon. and right hon. Members realise, at this stage to say to what conclusions my mind is moving, for I have not yet finally made up my mind on a number of very important points. I am afraid, therefore, I am not in a position to answer questions, whether from hon. Members opposite or my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). on the number who might qualify, or whatever the point may be, because that turns on the final recommendations I may make, I say recommendations because, although they will be my decisions, they will be enshrined in Orders in Council for submission to Her Majesty.

The fact that I am not in a position to go in detail into the various points which have been made will not be regarded, I hope, by the hon. Member for Blackburn as further evidence of what she called my closed and arrogant mind. I thought that rather a distressing point on which to break up if she regards my mental apparatus in that way, and I hope that during the Recess she will come to more charitable conclusions. All that hon. Members have said will help me in my thinking, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) who quite appropriately described this as a curtain raiser. I repeat that no irrevocable decisions will be arrived at until the House, if it thinks fit, has exercised its right to discuss the proposals I shall make.

May I go over the reasons why the particular drill I outlined a few days ago seemed wise and prudent? We have to bear three considerations in mind. First, final decisions on the advice tendered to Her Majesty on constitutional changes could not be reached before the House rose. Hon Members will realise that and will also recognise that the talks have only just concluded. They will also recognise that under Command Paper 8753 the discussions leading to federation—there has been no disguising the fact, it is there for all to see—have been laid down. As to amendments on the territorial constitutions, the existing machinery and responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers in the United Kingdom remain unchanged, but Her Majesty's Ministers would naturally seek the advice of federal Governments before advising Her Majesty. That is another reason why it is impossible for me at this stage to tell the House much about my views on the operation of the White Paper.

That is the first consideration I have had to bear in mind, that final decisions cannot be reached before the House rises. The second consideration I have had to remember is that the life of the present Legislative Council expires on 19th January next year. The third is that under the present law there must be a new election in Northern Rhodesia within three months of that date, that is, before 19th April, 1959. Because of those three considerations, there are three courses I can follow. The first would be to let the law take its course and have new elections in Northern Rhodesia under the existing law. I think we all recognise that that is really unthinkable. So I take it we dismiss that suggestion. The second would be to introduce the constitutional changes by Order in Council, but the Opposition, for reasons I fully understand, dislikes that because hon. Members opposite believe that in some way that might prevent them having a proper chance of debate. The third course would be to prolong the life of the Legislative Council for three months.

I propose to meet the difficulties in which we all find ourselves by introducing the changes in two stages. The first would involve making the Order in Council during the Recess to enable the Government of Northern Rhodesia to proceed, firstly, with the registration of voters and with the delineating of constituencies. It would be wrong to give the impression that nothing controversial will be in this first order. It will include provision for the registration of electors, for the qualification of electors and provision for delineation of constituencies. It is not purely a matter of mechanics. I recognise that it raises controversial matters, but it will also include a provision to the effect that it will itself be tied with the second order which will not come into operation unless and until the House has had a debate if it is the wish of the House to do so.

Perhaps that would be rather complicated. That is the first stage, and the second would cover the making of a second Order in Council which would make the remaining provisions, including the actual provisions for holding elections. That second Order in Council would not be made until Parliament sits again. There will be plenty of time to enable hon. Members during the Recess to master the subject. In the meantime, I would publish a White Paper setting out the whole scheme of constitutional change, and hon. Members would have time to consider the whole scheme and to decide whether to press for a debate soon after Parliament reassembles before the second Order in Council is made. The debate, of course, would take place on both stages of the Order in Council which had been made and the second Order in Council, which at that point would not have been made.

rose—

Probably, if I am left alone for three minutes, I may answer the question which the right hon. Member apparently wishes to put. There are objections to this sort of drill. The Opposition feels that no far-reaching constitutional changes should be made without proper discussion, and hon. Members opposite feel that this may in some way imperil such discussion but it would not. The plan would ensure that effect could not be given to the changes at all until there had been an opportunity for debate but, on the other hand, there is the very considerable advantage that if Parliament does decide that this is a good plan and should go forward precious time in the summer would not have been wasted. It would then be possible to proceed with the introduction of the changes without them having been unnecessarily delayed. If, on the other hand, Parliament does not think this is a good plan, the only harm which will have been done will be that a great deal of work by busy people in Northern Rhodesia will have been wasted.

I think it essential for the good government of Northern Rhodesia that I should be able to have the preliminary work undertaken on the assumption that the House will approve the proposals which have been worked out over two years and in full consultation with representatives of all sections. If the House does not approve no harm will have been done, except great harm to Northern Rhodesia, and Parliament will not have lost any control; the whole plan will lapse and have to be looked at again.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is overlooking one thing, that once the Order in Council is made setting up the franchise and the boundaries of the constituencies, Parliament, presumably, could only accept or reject the Order in Council and could not amend it. The whole point is that we want the right hon. Gentleman to listen to complaints before introducing the Order in Council, because once it is introduced it is anything or nothing. It is the possibility of amending the proposals, that we want.

As the hon. Lady knows, Orders in Council are not subject to Parliamentary approval, neither affirmative or negative procedure. That has nothing to do with me, it springs from the parent Act which gives reasons why some orders are subject to approval and some are not. If this comes to the House, as no doubt it should, it will be brought deliberately by the Government to the House, although there is no obligation to do so.

rose—

I have only five minutes in which to conclude. I want to finish my argument. I have sat here from the moment the debate started, and everyone knew that it could last only two hours. The third suggestion—

This is of tremendous importance—

I have a very important point to make, and then the right hon. Member may interrupt me. The third possible course of action would be by prolonging the life of the Legislative Council for three months. A number of hon. Members have asked about this, and I must be sure that I have answered that particular suggestion. In the view of the Government, it is quite unnecessary and to no one's advantage. The sole purpose of doing so would be to enable there to be a chance of debate before irrevocable action was taken, but that chance will be provided now by the suggestion I have made. The second answer is that the Legislative Council has been pressing since December, 1956, to get on with the work and I have been constantly urged in the House to do so. I cannot hold out all the necessary preliminary work merely because the House of Commons is going into Summer Recess.

The hon. Member for Blackburn asked me about the previous opinion, in 1953, when there was a prolongation. I am quite ready to give her the reason why there is a complete distinction between then and now. The reasons are quite clear, and they were in the interests of Northern Rhodesia. The right hon. Member for Wakefield, however, wishes to put a point to me and I will give way to him.

I regarded it as an act of discourtesy when you refused to give way in the middle of your statement. The whole point is that this House wishes to have the opportunity of influencing your judgment in the decisions you are going to make in regard to your proposal. Once they are embodied in Part I of the Order in Council there will be no opportunity whatsoever, except possibly by a "yes" or "no" later on when you issue the White Paper.

I must call the attention of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) to the fact that they are not my proposals and it is not my White Paper.

I apologise Mr. Speaker. I wish to emphasise—

It is not my White Paper.

No, but it will be. I wish to emphasise how very important it is from the point of view of the Opposition that we should have the opportunity of discussing this matter before the proposals are finalised in an Order in Council.

I can see the force of that, but on the other hand it would not be fair to see the next two or three months pass with no preliminary action being taken. I am quite prepared to say that if the Opposition produces arguments which commend themselves to the House as a whole and which seem overwhelming to me, the Order in Council would be replaced. It cannot be amended, but it could be replaced by a successor.

Perhaps in the interests of other hon. Members the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn will allow me to tell her privately afterwards the difference between the position in 1958 and that of 1953 or, as the House is rising today, I will write to her.

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) asked a number of important questions on economic matters. I share with him the belief that this is about the most important matter concerned. I am deeply concerned about the future needs of the Colonial Territories for assistance in development of their economies. As I announced, we are considering questions of colonial development after 31st March, 1960. I added that I hoped it would be possible to introduce the necessary legislation during the 1958–59 Session and, in accordance with precedents, there should be an overlap between the new and the existing Colonial Development and Welfare Acts. I cannot add to that statement, except to say that Colonial Governments have been told that they may proceed on the assumption that the £220 million provided under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, 1940 and 1955, may be extended beyond 31st March, 1960.

The hon. Member asked about Sierra Leone. There is in this country a delegation of very welcome visitors from Sierra Leone. It is headed by the Governor and is having talks about financial needs of the territory. We have their problems very much in mind, but I know the House will understand if at the start of these talks I do not say more than that. I share with the hon. Member a great regard for the people of Sierra Leone and their long record of honourable association with the United Kingdom. We will certainly look at anything suggested by them with sympathy and understanding.

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough said he was going to refer to British Guiana. I do not think he did in detail, for the obvious reason that time was short.

Yes, it was a matter of time.

Some time we shall have, I hope, a chance to discuss the talks I had with Dr. Jagan and the Governor, and I shall be very ready then to listen to anything the House may have to say.

I welcomed also what the hon. Gentleman said about Malta and the generous welcome which, on the whole, he gave to the statement which I made yesterday, and also the well-deserved tribute which he paid to the zeal and devotion of the Governor, Sir Robert Laycock.

I can do little to add to what I have said about employment prospects, but I think I should be justified in giving this sort of general undertaking. With the work at the naval base that Bailey's will have commercially and for the Admiralty, with the help we intend to give, involving, as we know it will, sums of money over and above the dockyard conversion which will cost over £4 million from this country, with the help we intend to give for diversification and in which excellent work has already been done by the Labour Government of Malta on the trading estate, which will play a very significant part, I think it is fair to say that the spectre of widespread unemployment which I know has haunted the minds of many people in Malta in recent months, will now be laid. I think we are entitled to say that. I hope that that will be the message which will go from this House to our friends and fellow members of the Commonwealth in Malta.

The hon. Member for Wednesbury asked me a number of questions about Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, and perhaps I can very briefly answer them.

He asked about a round table conference in Kenya. I did attempt to hold such a thing when I was there last November. I can see no evidence whatever that we should make any more progress than we did then when certain people came to the conference table not prepared to discuss anything unless certain things were conceded in advance. I made then an award which seemed to me to be right and fair. It commanded a wide measure of support in this House as a whole, and, indeed, a number of friendly things were said about it from the Opposition benches. I do not believe that a full-scale constitutional conference would be a good thing now. I have had many talks with the Governor, Sir Evelyn Baring, when he was recently here. There are certain helpful suggestions which could be studied within the ambit of the present constitutional arrangements, and I should be at all times ready to discuss with the Governor what forms those best could take.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about events in Uganda and deplored, I think, the current controversy over the relations of the Kingdom of Buganda with the rest of the Protectorate. Much of the trouble has been brought about by imprudent talk—not here, but there—in recent months. I think the best thing for me to do today is to limit myself to saying that I can reaffirm that the intention of the Government here is to promote self-government and united government in which a strong central government and legislature will command the confidence of all their citizens.

With regard to the banning of branches, of T.A.N.U. in Tanganyika, my hon. Friend and I have for many weeks now answered Questions on this subject. I do not think that any action taken and necessarily taken in the interests of law and order need have any prejudicial effect on elections in Tanganyika.

I am sure the House would like to wish to the new Governor of Tanganyika, who has just arrived to replace Sir Edward Twining, every possible success. I am sure, too, that the House will rejoice that Her Majesty has been pleased to confer a life peerage on Sir Edward Twining, who has given a lifetime of service in Africa and elsewhere. There have been far too few from the Colonial Territories who have been honoured in this way, and I am very glad that the choice should have fallen on Sir Edward Twining.

Finally, I thank hon. Members for the courtesy which they have shown throughout this debate, and, indeed, for many months past.

I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will remember—I am not quite sure whether with pleasure or not—the Second Reading of the Compensation (Acquisition and Planning) Bill which took place on 21st February, 1958, a Private Member's Bill promoted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Captain Corfield). In that very interesting debate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), speaking on what, perhaps, was not technically within the Bill, made this observation, which is the theme of the complaint, if I may so call it, of my constituent, and which I wish to bring before the House.

"There is something odious about compulsorily acquiring land from a man and then, for what are no doubt honest reasons, finding that it is not wanted and selling it to the highest bidder, who is usually not the original owner."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1579.]

I have little doubt that in the course of his exhausting and onerous duties, my right hon. Friend has come across, or has had referred to him, many cases of that nature. Even this morning, apart from the particular case to which I wish to call attention, I was told of the extraordinary occasion when a local authority purchased land from a builder for housing purposes for £100 per acre, and then, finding subsequently that it did not want it, sold it back to the same builder for £1,000 per acre, which, perhaps, is an even worse case than the one which I propose to mention.

Alderman T. Glaister, my constituent, has a family company called D. Constantine and Sons, Ltd., and on 3rd December, 1948, the local authority made a compulsory purchase order, called the Breightmet Hall Estate (No. 2) Order, for the purposes of Part V of the Housing Act, 1936. Comprised in this area were 103 acres, not all of which, but only 84 acres of which, belonged to the company, which was the family company of Alderman Glaister. On 17th December, 1948, in the usual way notice was served on the company of the making of the compulsory purchase order.

It will, perhaps, be within the recollection of the House that this procedure for the purposes of housing is made under Section 74 of the Housing Act, 1936, which enables local authorities to acquire land for the erection of houses and for purposes incidental to the housing estate which they are setting up. It is not, perhaps, so commonly known that, under Section 74 (2), the Minister, when he comes to confirm the order, has to satisfy himself that the land is likely to be required for that purpose within a period of ten years. The House will notice that the compulsory purchase order was made on 3rd December, 1948, so that the period of ten years has very nearly elapsed.

Under that Act, the local authority also has power, and perhaps the duty, to sell or exchange land for land which is better adapted for the purpose. The Housing Act itself excludes some of those provisions which our more careful grandfathers saw fit to put into legislation which enabled compulsory purchase orders to be made with regard to land. As far back as the Land Clauses Act, 1845, in Section 128, there is a duty laid upon the acquiring body to offer to sell surplus land that is not required for its purposes to the original owners, or to the owners of the adjoining land from which that particular land had been taken. Indeed, if they do not do that and do not use the land themselves in ten years, it is automatically vested in the persons who could be ascertained under the Act.

This provision is not quite as archaic as it might seem, going back to 1845, because as late as 1916 the Defence of the Realm (Acquisition of Land) Act provided, in Section 5 (3), for a right of preemption being given to persons whose land had been taken if, in fact, that land was not required for the purpose for which it had been taken.

On 7th January, 1949, objections were raised in the usual way to the making of this order, and it was alleged that these 84 acres were used for grazing, and—and this is not an unusual objection—that there was ample other land available. On 3rd May, 1939, an inquiry was held.

I must make it clear, as I intended to do at the beginning, that this is not some sort of minor Crichel Down episode. There is no suggestion here that a Minister or his advisers had acted harshly, inconsiderately or illegally, and far less any suggestion that the Corporation had acted improperly, illegally or oppressively. The point of my story is to show how, under the existing law, with the best intentions in the world, something which my hon. Friend described—

Order. I am glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said that, because it makes clear a suspicion that was growing in my mind that his grievance cannot be remedied without legislation. If so, this is out of order on the Motion for the Adjournment. If the hon. and learned Member can show any administrative steps that could be taken, the House would be very glad to listen to him.

I have that in mind, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that I am not allowed to suggest legislation, but I have suggestions that I could make within the present provisions which could alleviate this hard case.

I was saying that an inquiry was held on 3rd May, 1949. Witnesses for the objector made the point that this land would not be developed in ten years' time and indeed made a concession, saying, "All we wish to retain is 20 acres of the land". But it was pressed on behalf of the advisers of the local authority that the whole of the land was required urgently for housing purpose, and, in due course, on 16th August, 1949, the order was confirmed. As to price, the compensation for 20 acres turned out to be about £196 per acre. That was owing to the system of valuation under the Town and Country Planning Act, complete with the development charges grant made as compensation for the loss of development rights.

That position remained until 9th April this year, when the local authority came to the conclusion that, after all, it did not require the land for housing and it resolved to apply for an amendment to the development plan so that the land could be used not as originally intended for housing purposes but for industrial purposes. I am assured that that improvement, as it were, in the use of the land would mean a value of at least £1,200 an acre, so that land acquired for £3,800 would probably come to a value of £24,000 if this permission were given. The disappointed company suggested to the local authority that it should be resold to the company at the price at which it had been sold. This, of course, is not possible under the law, nor am I suggesting at the moment that the law should be altered.

I am in the slight difficulty, however, by reason of the fact that the Government, possibly unconsciously, misled people about the position in these circumstances when they indicated after Crichel Down that it was the Government's policy where they released land to offer it back, though not necessarily at the same price, to the people from whom it had been taken. There seems undoubtedly an impression, therefore, among the general public that that should apply where a local authority has acquired land which it finds subsequently that it does not want to use. That is clear from a number of cases which have come before the committee which considered administrative tribunals.

What could be done under the existing law? I suggest this with some diffidence because I suppose, in a way, that since application has been made to my right hon. Friend for permission to alter the user of the land this might be said to be sub judice. But, subject to your direction Mr. Speaker, I should like to implant a few ideas without prejudicing any consideration which my right hon. Friend may have to give to this matter.

I understand that it is possible for my right hon. Friend to refuse permission for this land to be used for light industry. It is possible for him to do that on the ground that that is something in the future, something as vague and perhaps as mistaken as the original idea that it would be used for housing. If he refuses that, it is also possible for him to say, "Let the 20 acres go back to agricultural land, the original user for which it was permitted."

Having done that, having got it back as agricultural land which it was, for which it had been used practically all the years since the order was made; having done that, the duty remains upon the local authority, under the existing law, to sell that land, because the authority is not supposed to hold land as an owner of agricultural land for any length of time or for any purpose except for an immediate purpose of housing. If they did that, in that way only would it be possible for Alderman Glaister's company to come into the market as purchasers. That would perhaps prevent the effect, which is apparent at the moment, of this series of transactions resulting from an exercise of a discretion which, in the light of future events, seems to have been too ambitious.

I conclude by quoting my right hon. Friend in the debate to which I have referred. I quote him with confidence, as follows:

"My desire, like his, is to see justice done. I can promise him that the Government will pay heed to everything that has been said today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1634.]

My right hon. Friend, was referring to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South, who was moving the Second Reading of his Private Member's Bill. I hope, with modesty, that he will pay heed to the points I have had the opportunity of making today on behalf of my constituent

In answering the case which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) has so clearly put to the House I will endeavour to set out the actual matters which are before me at the moment, and then to make some more general observations on the difficulties which he has brought to the notice of Parliament.

At present, there is no question of the future ownership of the land before me, as I think he appreciates. The situation, is that the Bolton County Borough Council is proposing an amendment of its development plan to reallocate to light industry some acreage which was originally acquired compulsorily for housing purposes, having up till then been agricultural land. Any such amendment of a development plan requires my approval. The proposal has to be adequate, objections are invited, objections come in, and then I hold a local public inquiry. The period for objections to be lodged runs until tomorrow week and, obviously, I cannot peer into the future and say what further objections may have been lodged by them. I understand that one objection has been lodged.

My hon. Friend will see, therefore, that the sole question before me at the moment, and on which I may have to take a decision, is whether this land should be reallocated, and that, of course, is not the former owner's grievance. His grievance is whether there will be an opportunity to regain possession of the land at the price, or something like the price, which was originally paid to him.

I must be very careful not in any way to prejudice this question on which I may have to decide in the light of objections which perhaps have not yet come in. However, that is solely a planning question, and in all I say from now onwards I want it to be clearly appreciated that if I take hypothetical examples I am not prejudging which way my decision on that will go.

I had a somewhat similar case, with which my hon. and learned Friend may be familiar, coming to me from the Tynemouth Borough Council a short time ago. That was somewhat less complex. In that case, permission had been granted for industrial use of the land after it had been originally purchased compulsorily for housing. The council very honourably desired to sell the sur- plus land back to the original owner at housing value.

I had, somewhat regretfully, to point out that if the council did that, it would appear to be contravening the law, because when land has been acquired for housing purposes, the law says that if it is subsequently disposed of it must be disposed of at the best price obtainable. Clearly, a better price could be obtained for industrial use than for housing use. I made a suggestion to the Tynemouth Borough Council as to the manner in which it might get over that and might carry out its very reasonable desire without infringing the law. After that, it was for the council to judge.

My hon. and learned Friend probably appreciates that I have no power to compel Bolton to sell this land, whatever may happen to it, and that still less can I direct it to sell to one owner and not to another. Indeed, as I read the law, it would be quite inappropriate for me to agree to the reallocation of this land for industrial purposes subject to a condition that the land was first to be offered to the previous owner at the price originally paid, or something near it.

On the hypothetical supposition that I do agree to the amendment to the relative plan being made, the council will then, as it seems to me, need my consent to dispose of the land if it wishes to sell it, or to appropriate the land—to use the word "appropriate" in the technical sense—from housing purposes to planning purposes if the council wishes to continue to hold it. The council might in that case build factories itself, or lease the land to industrialists.

Should the council apply to me to appropriate the land for planning purposes, I could refuse my consent on the ground that I did not think that the council needed to hold the land any longer, but, of course, that would not compel the council to sell to the former owners at the old price. If I did not allow the council to appropriate the land, it could sell the 20 acres as land with planning permission for industry.

If that happened, not only could the council sell at the enhanced price, but it would be obliged to sell at the enhanced price by the Housing Acts, as my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate. The council would need my consent before it could sell it, but I am inclined to think that it would be a serious misuse of my consenting powers if I were to refuse all applications except one; and that would not get over the difficulty about price.

The position is that I cannot direct Bolton to sell back to the old owners at the old price or something near it, which is the one result which my hon. and learned Friend and his constituent desire to bring about. However, at present, such a question of disposal is not before me and I have only to reach a decision on the planning issue. Clearly, I cannot do that until I have had my inspector's report on the local inquiry. It may be that the council will fail to establish its case for any change. In that event, the position of the former owners will remain just as it is now, which is as it has been for a number of years.

I was not sure from his speech whether my hon. and learned Friend thought that the price which the former owner had received some ten years ago, under the statutory formula which determines these matters, fell greatly below the market value at that time. It may be that it did not. I do not have precise information on that. If there was no great difference in the two prices, it may be that the question at issue is not the unsatisfactory state of the law on the valuation of compensation for compulsory purchase. My hon. and learned Friend said that I had said that this was unsatisfactory. What I said was that this is the matter which should receive careful examination, and it is receiving that from the Government.

If there was no wide difference between the market value at the time of compulsory acquisition and the price paid on compulsory acquisition, then one is thrown back on an old and very familiar question, whether somebody who has had property compulsorily acquired from him at approximate market value should, at a later date, when the market value has changed, be entitled to buy it back at the lower figure which he originally received for it. That issue opens very large questions which my hon. and learned Friend will not want me to elaborate today. I thought that what was in his mind was that it was the planning permission which made the substantial difference in value, and, of course, planning permission for industrial use will make the difference very great, indeed.

All I can say to my hon. and learned Friend is that if, as a result of the public inquiry and my inspector's report on all the facts, I am convinced that an amendment to the development plan ought to be made, and if, in that event, the previous owners ask that the land should be sold back to them, the claim that they are making on grounds of equity to the council is certainly not one which could be dismissed as totally unreasonable. I feel quite sure that the council would give it a careful hearing, just as other councils have done in similar circumstances. But at this stage it would be quite wrong for me to take sides. I have no idea what the council's attitude will be, or what reasons it can produce to support whatever attitude it may take.

In those circumstances, I cannot go further than to say that if I decide to amend the development plan, and if the former owners press the claim that the land should return into their possession, and if the local authority is unwilling to agree to that claim, I will certainly take the matter up with the local authority and thoroughly inform myself on the case that each side can make before giving the necessary consent either to the disposal of the land or its appropriation for industrial purposes.

When I say that I will thoroughly inform myself I am not for a moment slighting my hon. and learned Friend, or suggesting that he has not given a full statement of the case. But I think that he would wish the whole matter to be examined at greater leisure than is possible in a half-hour's Adjournment debate.

I must ask my hon. and learned Friend to understand clearly that, as Minister, I have no power to compel the council to resell the land at the original price. I will certainly do my best to use my good offices, if circumstances suggest that it might be possible for me to help in any way, by thoroughly informing myself of the position. It is too early to say yet whether the circumstances will develop in that direction, but I would say that my hon. and learned Friend has performed a very admirable constituency duty, and perhaps more than a merely constituency duty, by bringing to the notice of Parliament the substantial difficulties which arise over these disposal cases. They are matters with which I am by no means unfamiliar, whether in general or specific cases.

It is not easy to see a way through the difficulties. What I hope my hon. and learned Friend will accept from me is that I am seized of the facts of this case, as at present known to me, and that I shall be still better informed after a public inquiry has been held into the proposed amendment to the development plan—as it will be—and I have the inspector's report in my hands.

The subject that I am raising this afternoon is unique. It has to do with two young constituents of mine who are identical twins. I am sure that the House will respect my desire to shroud their names and addresses in anonymity and also that the Minister, when replying, will respect that desire. But since this subject appeared on the Order Paper I have been pestered by the Press for the history of these two young lads, and especially for their names.

I was also interested to find that the newspapers all asked me the same question—was I a twin? ft is true that my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Idwal Jones) happens to be my brother—

A very good brother.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that remark—but I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, never suspected us of being twins, especially identical twins. I wish you had, because on many occasions he has been called in preference to me. I am not complaining about that; let brotherly love continue.

Before I refer to the details of the case, I should like to describe its most pathetic domestic background. The twins' father has been an inmate of a tuberculosis sanatorium. He is still suffering from tuberculosis, and is about to undergo an operation. There were two other sons, who died of chest trouble, and were obviously victims of this wretched disease. There is also another son, aged 18, who has been in a sanatorium. Having stated those bare facts, I am sure that no words of mine are necessary to impress upon the Minister the sympathy and encouragement that this home deserves.

Identical twins were born to the family. I do not suppose that the Minister can understand this strange biological phenomenon any more than I. As laymen, we can only accept the fact that there is a very pronounced difference between ordinary twins and identical twins. In the case of the latter, we simply know that in every respect the two are one and the one is two. When one becomes ill the other is also stricken, and when one is in pain the other simultaneously suffers from the same pain.

Identical twins, I understand, are always of the same sex and are inseparable. The two youths to whom I am referring this afternoon have always been inseparable. They have slept together, attended school together, worked together and spent their leisure hours together. When they came of military age, they appeared before the National Service Medical Board. One was passed fit for service and the other was rejected.

It was at this stage that I was approached by the parents, and on 4th January this year I wrote to the Minister of Labour and National Service requesting that the accepted twin should be re-examined in the light of information which I gave the right hon. Gentleman at the time. On 16th April I received a letter from the Minister stating that this man had been re-examined on 30th January, as a result of which he had been downgraded to Grade II, but was still fit for service. The Minister concluded his letter with the following remarks:

"He must, therefore, be regarded as available to do his National Service. I should perhaps explain that in a case where both twins are fit we take every care to post them, wherever possible, to National Service on the same day and to the same unit, but when, as in this case, one of them is unfit I am afraid we cannot regard that circumstance as relieving the other of his obligation."

In the case of identical twins, that last sentence could be regarded as a very callous observation indeed, but let me hasten to add in fairness to the Minister that I was not able to inform him when I wrote to him that these men were identical twins. It was after the one had been called up for National Service that I received the testimony of their doctor. He wrote:

"I have always regarded them as identical twins. I cannot tell them apart, and they were always together. Certainly if one was ill the other would follow suit. Since one has been called up for military service the other has obviously been suffering from the effects of the parting. He is dispirited and off his food. I am sure if you could check up that the other is not much use to his unit. I certainly hope that you can help these young lads."

I want to make a strong plea to the Minister on behalf of these young men, and I can only hope that it will not be made in vain. I am very glad that it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service who is replying to this debate because, if I may be allowed to say so—and this is no flattery—there is no hon. Member of this House who is held in more affectionate esteem than is the hon. Gentleman. We know, too, that no hon. Member of this House has suffered in the manner in which the hon. Gentleman has suffered, and that when pleas of this kind are made he is always responsive to them.

These two men are victims of an inexplicable biological phenomenon. I do not know whether the Minister can explain to us this afternoon—if he can, he will be doing something which I have been unable to find in any book—just what accounts for something of this kind in nature. These young men cannot help being inseparable and no psychiatric treatment can rectify the position.

When a murder is committed our passions are aroused and we stop at no expense to find the culprit and to avenge the death. To separate those two men—I am using my words quite advisedly—is to commit a slow murder. Indeed, if anything fatal should happen to one of them as a result of this separation—I do not know whether I am covered by Privilege, in view of what happened a week or two ago—I say that someone on the Government Front Bench must be charged with murder. To separate these two men in the circumstances which I have described is simply nothing but slow murder.

I am making an appeal in the best manner I possibly can to whomsoever is in a position to bring these two together. They are not men who are dodging Army service. Had the two been accepted I would not be speaking here this afternoon on their behalf. Both submitted themselves readily for examination. One was accepted and the other rejected. In the light of the circumstances, and particularly in the light of the background that I have described, I believe that these two men should not be with others in the Army, if only because of their medical history. Their grandmother died of tuberculosis.

I am sure that the British Army will not fall because one of these men has been released on compassionate grounds and brought out of the Army. That is my plea, and I hope that the Minister who is to speak will not give a reply, if it is not favourable, which is irrevocable. Yesterday, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs gave me very pleasant, joyful news. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will follow his example. Surely it is not too much to ask. We hear a good deal in these days about "Honey in the morning, honey in the evening"—how does it go? I am asking the hon. Gentleman to give me news this afternoon that will bring hope to this family in its plight. It is a family of pure Welsh people. If I were making an appeal for someone in Uganda I am sure that every effort would be made to deal with it, but these people are from Wales. I will not give their address, but they are good constituents of mine.

I was very glad that the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) made it clear at the beginning of his speech that he had no personal interest to declare. I feel that after the announcement yesterday to which the hon. Gentleman referred about Trawsfynydd his standards are naturally set extremely high. I hope that I have something to say to him which will not be altogether disappointing.

He has transported me for a few minutes into that lovely constituency of his which, I am ashamed to say, I had never seen before I visited it this last June. When I first arrived at it I remember thinking that, given a good storm and lots of thunder and lightning, it would not be an unsuitable setting for some great drama of the world. The subject to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention of this closely-knit, united family and these rather peculiar circumstances is one which raised deep issues, as he has pointed out, and which might perhaps find their way into that great drama if ft is ever staged among the hills and valleys of the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

I ought to explain why I am replying to this debate and not my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War. In many ways that would have been rather more suitable, because the hon. Member has been pleading for a compassionate release of this twin, whom perhaps I should refer to as the military twin. Naturally that is a decision which only my hon. Friend can reach. Another advantage enjoyed by my hon. Friend is that he happens to be the father of twins. I do not know whether they are identical. But my hon. Friend would perhaps be better able to understand some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.

My hon. Friend and I agreed a few days ago that this discussion would turn largely on our decision a couple of months ago to call up the military twin for National Service. I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the points he had in mind to raise. It is obviously right that, as the Minister of Labour and National Service is responsible for that decision, I should try to give the reasons which led us to it. The hon. Gentleman told us about the call-up and about the medical board and grading. I do not think I need go into very much detail about that, except to say that it was after the hon. Member had written to my right hon. Friend that it was decided to re-examine the military twin. Although reports from two consultants showed no abnormalities in his physical condition, the board thought it prudent to put him into Grade II, which meant that he was liable for call-up but would serve under less exacting conditions than if he had been placed in Grade I.

This military twin enlisted in the Royal Artillery about two months ago. I believe that he has since transferred to the Royal Engineers. In this connection, I think it is relevant to point out that the Army medical authorities did not disagree in any way with the National Service medical board's assessment. Naturally, I have given careful thought to this case, and my right hon. Friend gave careful thought to it when the hon. Member wrote to him, and we have both considered the medical evidence.

I must admit that this sort of case is even more interesting than some other cases which one has to consider. In this case we had to consider two things. Firstly, we had to consider whether the medical evidence and the grading of both the civilian and the military twin could have been wrong. I cannot find any medical evidence to suggest that the military twin was not rightly placed in Grade II as fit for service and the civilian twin was not rightly placed in Grade III and, therefore, unfit for service. The conclusion is therefore that, other things being equal, the military twin should be called up and the civilian twin should not.

Now we get to the main point raised by the hon. Member, which is whether in the case of identical twins other things are equal. The hon. Member rightly pointed out that only those who are identical twins can fully understand the peculiar relationship which exists. Those of us who are "laymen" and not identical twins can understand that twins have particularly close ties. Unlike other members of the family, they pass through the various stages of life together. They are therefore likely to have more in common with one another than with other members of the family. Where twins are identical, it can be suggested that those ties will be even closer. But we come up against something which I think the hon. Member ignored in what he had to say. In the case of most identical twins there will come a time when separation is inevitable.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as we all know, a great many identical twins get married and live quite separate lives. I do not think, therefore, that one ought to overstate the case, or suggest that identical twins will never be, or want to be, separated during the whole of their lives. Here again, I am told that identical twins are often more attached to other members of their family than to each other. That is an opinion which I have received from a doctor, and I can only place it against the opinion expressed by the hon. Member.

I am advised that they do not differ medically from other brothers and sisters of the same parents, and any stress of separation between identical twins can be compared with the stress of separation between them and other members of the family. There is nothing biologically different between the two, but there is a further point. We have to call up a great number of young men who are already married. If we were to do what the hon. Member suggests and not separate identical twins by calling up one if only one happens to be fit for National Service, it would be very difficult for us to make a case for separating a man from his wife. I think there would be a great many difficulties in adopting the general lines of the suggestion of the hon. Member. Apart from my right hon. Friend not having power to exempt the military twin in this case from call-up, if we allowed the exemption because close ties existed between a man called up and some member of his family at home. I should think almost everyone might claim very close ties with someone, and, I am informed, some might well be found with even closer ties than exist between these two brothers.

That is the reason why we took the decision last May to call up the military twin even when we knew that his brother was not fit. The question the hon. Member has raised is whether this military twin should not now be released from the Army in order to be able again to live in the family and remove the difficulties which the civilian twin is said to be facing. I understand that the military twin was interviewed by his commanding officer last Wednesday and on that occasion applied for a compassionate release from the Army. As the hon. Member probably knows, the machinery to be followed after this is that an inquiry is made into the circumstances of the family. That inquiry will take place, and a report will be given to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War as soon as possible.

I am bound to admit that I have not heard, either in the hon. Member's correspondence with my right hon. Friend or the letters which he passed on from the father of the twins, about the other two sons who have died. If that is so, it is no doubt something which the inquiry into the family circumstances will take into account. I am sorry I cannot give the hon. Member an answer today, even on behalf of my hon. Friend, because, as I say, this inquiry must take place. Directly it has taken place the letter which the hon. Member has written to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War will be answered saying whether or not a compassionate release is possible. There is nothing I can usefully add at the moment, and I have no wish to prejudge this matter which, as I hope I have explained, is not at the moment within my field of decision.

I should like to make two points, however, because I think they are relevant in this case. The first is that the standards which the Armed Forces adopt in deciding questions of compassionate release are, for obvious reasons—and must be—similar to the kind of standards which are laid down by the umpire in deciding the question of whether or not on hardship grounds a man should have his call-up for National Service postponed. The second point is that, even if compassionate release were granted to this twin, it would remain the duty of my right hon. Friend and the Ministry of Labour to keep the case of the twin under review with a view possibly to having to re-enlist him at a later date. I wanted to make those points quite clear so that there should be no misunderstanding.

Finally, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Member to some psychiatric advice which was given—not in this case—I wish to be perfectly honest—but in a similar case of identical twins. This is the advice we were given. The doctor who was asked to advise in a very similar case to this said:

"The situation will not, of course, be improved if the parents and doctor continue to emphasise the emotional and sentimental features of the separation, but if they can all he encouraged to take a mature view and to concentrate their attention on the fact that these twins are already different and that the final maturity of their personalities must come through the development of their differences as well as their similarities, then there is little likelihood that permanent harm will result."

It is a principle such as that which we believe justifies the original decision to call up this military twin.

I do not want to prejudge in any way what the answer of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War may be about his compassionate release, but I would repeat that the separation of these young men must happen sometimes in their life if they are to live normal, healthy lives. Probably they will marry and go different ways. I am only anxious that harm should not be done by emphasising the dangers of separation too much so that the chance of normal development and each living a healthy mature life should be as great as possible

I fear the matter I am obliged to raise this afternoon is such that I shall not be able to deal with it in the calm and philosophical spirit displayed by my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones). Once again, I am compelled to draw the attention of the House to the irresponsible actions of the British Transport Commission and—it is not too strong a thing to say, having regard to the circumstances—the slaughter of the train services in South and Mid-Wales. On more than one occasion in the recent past I have had to protest against the closing of railways, contrary to the public interest in my constituency or in the localities connected with my constituency. On the last occasion—

On the last occasion I was forced to charge the British Transport Commission with having deliberately manufactured a deficit, in one instance, so it said, of £59,000. The figure was given on another occasion as £30,000, because the Commission was at that time very uncertain of what the figure was; but that this figure was manufactured in order to justify in the eyes of the public the closing of the Merthyr to Abergavenny railway, I have no doubt. This was a case where the Commission spent large sums of money on the railway when its extinction was already threatened. The Commission went out of its way to pile up this deficit by relaying over eight miles of permanent way, by improvements to the stations, which were repaired and repainted. Substantial sums were spent on other repairs, too.

Fictitious spot tests were supposed to have been taken to show the number of passengers carried. In any case, it was admitted that these spot tests were taken in the autumn and winter when the number of passengers was naturally at its minimum, because this railway runs in parts at 1,500 ft. or 1,600 ft. up and is exposed to all the possible bad weather we have to suffer in South Wales.

The Commission, in its recent Annual Report, referred to the closing of this railway, but although I had made my charges no reference at all was made in that Annual Report to those charges, which I, and of course many others, had made. They have been made by responsible persons and by local government bodies when they were doing all they could to prevent the closing of this railway. Once again the Transport Commission has treated not only my constituents but the people generally of South Wales and Mid-Wales with the utmost contempt, and without consultation with any body or person, and without even informing its own staffs engaged in the railway service of the changes to be made in South Wales. This I shall be able to prove.

The Commission has slashed our train services in the most reckless and irresponsible manner. I have here a recently published booklet which tells us that the Western Region of British Railways announced that on and from Monday 30th June, 1958—I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will take note of that date—a number of very lightly loaded and unremunerative train services would be withdrawn. The number is just over 200, about 30 of them running in and out of my constituency.

The overwhelming proportion of these trains go out of existence, but a few, I must admit, may run on a day or two during the week. Some of them will now run only part of the journey. Others will leave terminal stations such as Merthyr Tydvil early in the day and never return—a mystery this. I may be told that passengers on these trains may return along other routes. I have examined a few instances in which this may be done. There are other trains which have been run and have been very considerably used, not only by ordinary passengers, but by hundreds of miners. To take the case of the railway that runs from Merthyr Tydvil to Swansea, what has been done here? Swansea enjoys a considerable measure of popularity in my place as an important shopping centre.

The Minister went there.

I hope the Minister will pay a little attention, because he is known to us in Wales as the Minister for Welsh Affairs, and I hope that he will try to help us to answer some of the questions put to us about the loss of passenger trains in South Wales.

This railway has been subjected to the most stupid treatment. We are now told by the British Transport Commission that the alternative route from Swansea to Merthyr Tydvil after about 5 p.m. is now first to Cardiff and then to Merthyr Tydvil; that is, a 28 miles comfortable journey has now become a 63 miles journey through Swansea and Neath to Cardiff and then to Merthyr Tydvil. From the Merthyr terminal, we now have one train at 9.28 in the morning and another at 4.16 in the afternoon leaving Merthyr for Mid-Wales, but they do not come back. The British Transport Commission has said, "Oh, yes, but they can get round another way." People who are trying to get round these hills and valleys of South and Mid-Wales are finding that it takes a great deal of time and trouble. They can get round by train, but the poor passenger will be deposited somewhere miles from his destination in Merthyr Tydvil.

May I now draw the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to facts like the following? Within the last few days, passengers have booked their tickets from Barry, which is on the South coast of Glamorgan, to Rhayader in Mid-Wales. When they got to Merthyr and had travelled 32 miles to get there, they were told that the train from Merthyr Tydvil to Brecon, another 20 miles of the journey, was no longer running. That is to say that the staff at Barry station knew nothing about the cancellations which had taken place, and these passengers were left with no alternative but to engage taxis in Merthyr to cover the other 20 miles to Brecon.

Passengers from other parts of Glamorgan who had booked at their local stations to other stations in Mid-Wales were allowed to travel the route as far as Merthyr Tydvil, and it was only when they reached my constituency that they were told that the one and only train to Mid-Wales had left early that morning, though these people themselves were there early in the day. Those who wish to travel from Merthyr Tydvil to a very charming little place in the country in Brecon called Talybont-on-Usk, a most popular inland pleasure resort and a heaven for the angler, can get there by the 9.30 a.m. train from Merthyr Tydvil, but they are warned that there will be no train to bring them back and they will be left to find their own means of transport.

I should like to read a paragraph from a letter which a very knowledgable constituent of mine sent me a few days ago in which he says:

"On Sunday, 27th July last, an excursion train was run from Merthyr to Weymouth."—

that is a very considerable distance indeed—

"Merthyr passengers having to change at Quakers' Yard"—

a small junction eight miles away in my constituency—

"on the return journey. Instructions were given that a diesel unit, with driver and guard, was to bring the passengers to Merthyr; also the signalman and staff were to remain on duty. These arrangements were cancelled."

The extraordinary thing about it is that no one knows who gave authority for them to be cancelled. Although all these members of the staff were on duty, the passengers were then taken to a valley to the west of Merthyr Tydvil and from there had to find their way home to my valley by means of any kind of conveyance that they could obtain.

I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary noticed when I read from the little pamphlet issued by the British Transport Commission that these drastic cancellations of trains were made on Monday, 30th June, by a Commission which justified its action in sweeping away 200 trains on the ground that they were losing money. But this was done at the very beginning of the holiday season, at a time when more people than ever take their holidays and when innumerable excursions with packed coaches are normally run to our seaside and inland holiday resorts. Why in heaven's name did not the Commission let this matter wait until the autumn or winter months if it is money it wants?

I say that this is a deliberate effort to destroy our train services and to concoct excuses to justify that action. The British Transport Commission, showing a total disregard of its own interests and a contemptuous indifference to the needs of passengers, has reduced train services in many parts of South and Mid-Wales so that travel on those railways now is near anarchy: we can go, but often we cannot get back.

It should be stated that in South Wales the attitude of the British Transport Commission is now being increasingly regarded as a rigid and soulless monopoly, with not a grain of sentiment; anti-social and overweening in its pride because of its splendid isolation from this House, and of public control and general accountability. This is the growing conviction of the people in those Welsh valleys, down which in the past thousands of millions of tons of coal have travelled on these railways to many parts of the world.

We are convinced that the policy of the British Transport Commission is to cut, and continue to cut, railway services in such areas as ours, and in such a little country as ours too. Its policy is to drive, and continue to drive, traffic from our railways on to the already dangerously congested roads. This is the only conclusion I can reach. Our main lines will be transformed into beautiful shop windows, showing lovely little trains deluxe running, if the British Transport Commission is left to its own devices. Before this disaster overwhelms us, I hope and pray that the chaotic and incompetent administration of the Commission will become a subject of public inquiry, and that very soon indeed.

Just before the August Bank Holiday we are all thinking about travelling in trains rather than of talking about them. I was alarmed to hear from the hon. Gentleman about trains that start off and disappear into thin air. I hope that it will not be the fate of any hon. Member of this House that this should happen to him, including the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies).

I could have wished that the last word spoken in this House today might have been on a note of harmony, but after the crashing discords of the hon. Gentleman it will have to be the reverse. I have to say to him in all seriousness that his attack on the British Transport Commission, and on the Western Region in particular, is unfair to the railways and, what is more important, unhelpful to his own constituents, because it clouds the atmosphere in which the railways must work. Therefore, I must categorically reject the charges which the hon. Gentleman has made this afternoon.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to see this problem in perspective. I can imagine him coming here and making an eloquent plea for the lifting of the weight of taxation resting on the shoulders of his constituents and about the difficulties which they suffer. He might make out a very good case to show that they have to bear the burden of the deficit which the Transport Commission is making every year—£63 million last year, representing about 5d. on the standard rate of Income Tax. I can hear him making a tremendously passionate plea on that count, and an even more passionate plea about the wage levels of the railwaymen.

Yet the Commission has no scope to increase the general wage level of the railwaymen unless it can bring its accounts into solvency and generally make its affairs economic. I ask the hon. Member to see this thing in perspective. I ask him to use his judgment as well as he uses his eloquence. What a result that would bring!

The Government are not without responsibility for this deficit because of what they did about road transport.

That is a marginal affair.

I have no responsibility for the detailed management of the railways. That is for the Transport Commission. I am, therefore, not concerned this afternoon to reply to the points of detail about what times trains start and finish, to which the hon. Member directed some of his speech. I want to say one or two things about the general policy of the Commission, for which my right hon. Friend and I are responsible.

The Commission is now engaged in the massive double task of modernising its services and, at the same time, lifting its financial position out of a grave deficit—£63 million last year—to a condition of solvency. The Transport Act, 1947, enacted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, specifically required the Transport Commission to manage its affairs on the basis of solvency. It has a duty as a commercial organisation. It is not a social service. By the Transport Act, 1957, we provided up to £250 million to finance the deficit until such time as the Commission could bring its affairs into a state of solvency. That has already been heavily drawn upon. Parliament has laid upon the Commission unequivocal responsibility for achieving financial solvency and that must therefore be one of its primary concerns.

The railways were laid out 100 years ago, when they were virtually a monopolistic form of transport. There was no other reasonable wheeled transport for the community. Today, not only is there a comprehensive system of public road transport, but there is an increasing number of private motor cars and motor-cycles to carry private individuals about their recreation and business.

There are more than 7 million licensed vehicles on the roads today, a number increasing at the rate of half a million a year, and this year looks like being one of record increase. The reason for this is that everyone of us would like to have a motor car or a motor-bike, if we could afford it. We have the highest standard of living which we have ever had in these islands and the result is that the motor car is no longer a luxury article. It is becoming the property of Mr. Everyman and Mr. Every Welshman, too, and I am very glad of that. But it inevitably means that on many of the rural lines where, in many cases, the passenger loading was light, the number of passengers has dwindled to vanishing point, with ever rising operational losses.

Those services must be cut down to economic levels if there is to be any economic future for the railways. This situation applies not only in Wales, but all over the country in difficult rural areas. In practice, the railways have been far more open to the criticism that they have not cut down these loss-making services fast enough, than that they have cut them down too soon. Its whole disposition and tradition is to keep its lines open and to run its services. It has been most reluctant to cut down any of its services. One reason why the deficit is so large is that it has kept these lines open till the eleventh hour.

I can assure the hon. Member that his charge of the Commission's having fabricated a deficit is complete moonshine. It wants to keep these lines open if it possibly can, and it does not want to make any cut unless it has to. Where a section of line is to be completely closed, or a reduction of services is very heavy, the matter is referred to the Consultative Committee. The hon. Member and I had debate about this matter a year ago, and he knows how the machinery works.

In passing, I want to place on record our appreciation of the devoted labours of the public-spirited men and women who serve on these consultative committees. Heaven knows, it is a thankless task. The 30th June was chosen as the date for issuing the pamphlet and making these cuts because the Commission was driven to accelerate these measures. As well as its current deficit it had the additional burden of the wage award, made in order to settle the wage dispute in the summer, and it felt obliged, despite the timing, to push on and make economies where it could.

But it would be quite wrong to create a picture of the Commission sitting down under its losses and slashing services all round. It has been doing the exact reverse. It has been conducting with enterprise and vigour a campaign to improve its passenger services and to win new customers. It now has in operation over 2,000 diesel vehicles, many of them in rural areas and in Wales.

Despite all the difficulties of the time it has stopped the fall in passenger services. One sign of the increase is shown in the fact that the figures in respect of passenger loadings for May of this year are no less than 15 per cent. up on those for May last year. These actions are not the actions of a body which is negligent of its customers' interests. They are the actions of a body which is working as hard as it can to win new customers and to please them better. In rural areas it is trying, with light diesel cars, to solve the difficult problem of economic running where light loading occurs. It is a most intractable problem, and the Commission is doing all that anyone could do to meet the difficulties in the rural areas.

The attack by the hon. Member cannot but discourage and handicap it in its work. It is bound to shake the confidence of the travelling public when strictures like this are made in Parliament. I would ask the hon. Member to use his eloquence and influence constructively to help the railways to do the job that they are doing. The stronger and better they can make their modernised system, and the better their revenues are coming in, the more capacity they have to carry some rural lines where the loadings are light and the lines are not making a profit. But when they are beaten about the head and shoulders by the remarks and the Welsh eloquence of the hon. Member they are bound to be discouraged.

The men and women working on the railways are doing their best to improve the service. The hon. Member should give them the same considerations as he gives his constituents. They are doing their best to give us a first-class modernised railway system, and I would ask the hon. Member once again to give them a fair crack of the whip. They are doing their best to serve him and his constituents.