CLAUSE 1.—(Power to make advances for the purposes of Colonial development.) (Hansard, 18 July 1929)

Sir HILTON YOUNG
I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, after the word "make," to insert the words "or guarantee."
4.0 p.m.
I must apologise to the hon. Member opposite for not being able to put this Amendment on the Paper, but the time has been very short. I move the Amendment in order to raise the question, which the hon. Member the Chancellor of the Duchy will remember that I put to the House on the Second Reading, that it would be of advantage could we somewhat extend the powers of the Government and give them a more flexible weapon. I will not trouble the Committee with the whole contention over again, because it will be in the memory of hon. Members. Briefly, it would enable the Government to bring certain colonies and territories before the loan markets of the world in order to make them better acquainted with potential borrowers. It would be very valuable to the Government, which I am sure they will appreciate. Our only wish is to assist the Government to get the fullest benefits from, the Bill.

§ The CHANCELLOR of the DUCHY of LANCASTER (Sir Oswald Mosley)
The point raised in the Amendment relates to the very interesting question which the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) raised in his speech yesterday. As far as I understand it, he desires not only to give the Government power to make a loan or a direct gram to a Colony, but also to give power to guarantee. I cannot altogether follow—

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to guarantee the interest or the loan?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
As far as I follow the right hon. Gentleman, he desires to guarantee the loan. Is not that so?

Sir H. YOUNG
If my Amendment were accepted, the Clause would read: "may make or guarantee advances." That might leave it in doubt whether it would be possible to guarantee both principal and interest, but the intention is that the Treasury should have power to guarantee both principal and interest.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
The right hon. Gentleman wishes, in addition to the power given in the Clause, to give power to guarantee, and it seems to me at first sight that the more direct method of approach is of greater advantage to the Colonies concerned. I cannot accept the Amendment at this stage, because I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the word "guarantee" would definitely go outside the terms of the Financial Resolution on which the Bill is based. If the Amendment had not been so excluded, I should have had more to say on the interesting point which the right hon. Gentleman has raised, but as the matter is thus excluded, possibly the right hon. Gentleman will see fit not to press his Amendment at this stage.

§ Mr. SMITHERS
Whereabouts in the Financial Resolution is this Amendment excluded?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
So far as I can remember, the word "guarantee" is not included in it, and it makes no reference to that kind of assistance. It makes reference only to direct loans or grants.

Commander WILLIAMS
On a point of Order. Would it be out of order to discuss the merits of this question, seeing that the Chairman has allowed the Amendment to be moved?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have not the Financial Resolution before me, - but in so far as I remember it, I do not think it would be out of order to discuss this Amendment.

§ Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTE
May we have a representative of the Treasury present?

Earl WINTERTON
May I press what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) has just asked? In view of what was said the other day, and in view of the fact that the Treasury are vitally concerned in these matters, may I suggest that the hon. Gentleman who is in 683 charge of the Debate should ask for the presence of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
He is coining.

§ Mr. DENMAN
I submit that we should be doing far more good in making a definite loan up to the limit of £1,000,000 a year, and should not be handicapping ourselves by having to keep something in hand for possible reserves against guarantees, as we should have to do if this Amendment were inserted.

Commander WILLIAMS
While the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is being fetched, may I back up the request made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), that it is essential, on these very complicated financial questions—

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
On a point of Order. May I direct your attention, Mr. Young, to the Financial Resolution, which definitely says that these advances may be made either by way of grant or by way of loan. There is no mention of the word "guarantee" at all in it. The right hon. Gentleman did not send a copy of his manuscript Amendment, and now that I have had a look at the Financial Resolution again, it is quite clearly not included in its terms. Therefore, it would not, I am afraid, be open to me to accept the Amendment.

Sir H. YOUNG
I have already apologised for the fact that the Amendment is in manuscript, but we only carried the Second Reading of the Bill at midnight yesterday.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I make no complaint.

Sir H. YOUNG
I am in a dilemma, because either the Amendment is in order or it is out of order, and the Chairman, I understand, rules that it is in order.

§ The CHAIRMAN
When I gave that Ruling, I was speaking from memory as to the terms of the Financial Resolution, but I have since had the opportunity of reading the Financial Resolution, and, under the circumstances, I think it would be better for me now to rule the Amendment out of order.

Commander WILLIAMS
On a point of Order. It is a fairly wide Resolution, and there is this point to be considered, that a loan, taking it from the point of view of a loan, means lending the whole of the sum, but obviously a guarantee is a smaller part of that sum in a sense, and the smaller part is clearly included in the whole. From that point of view, and with great respect, I think the Chairman's first ruling on this matter would enable us to discuss the Amendment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I am under the necessity, after having read the Financial Resolution, of ruling the Amendment out of order.

§ Lord EUSTACE PERCY
On a point of Order. This is a very important point. The Chancellor of the Duchy stated that the Financial Resolution covers advances made by way of grant or loan, but surely, if you may make advances, you may guarantee advances. The making of an advance surely, as the greater includes the less, must include the guaranteeing of an advance. If you make an advance, and make it whole, surely if you guarantee an advance, it means a far less charge on public funds than the making of an advance, as the greater includes the lesser.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
On that point of Order. In all Financial Resolutions which provide for guarantees, the word "guarantee" is specifically inserted. All hon. Members who have studied these things are well familiar with that fact. You never see a Financial Resolution providing for a guaranteed loan out of public funds without the expression "guaranteed" being included. Therefore, with this well-known Parliamentary precedent in view—

§ Lord E. PERCY
What is the precedent?

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Financial Resolution authorises the Treasury to make advances, either by way of grant or by way of loan, and that seems to me to limit it to these two words.

Sir H. YOUNG
On a point of Order. Your Ruling, Sir, is, with great respect, one of very great interest. Every Amendment to a Bill must admittedly bring 685 itself strictly within the terms of the Financial Resolution on which the Bill is founded, and that, I understand, is the basis of your ruling, but to make an advance by way of loan must, I submit, include all necessary incidental operations. Guaranteeing an advance may be necessary, and certainly is incidental, to the actual making of the advance itself. To make an advance "by way of loan," if one looks at the true meaning of the words "by way of," includes guaranteeing an advance. I can find no other meaning to attach to the words "by way of." I confess that my anxiety to get past the ruling on the point of Order is because there are real merits in the proposal, as the Chancellor of the Duchy indicated when he told us he would have more to say on it in other circumstances.

§ The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence)
I cannot help thinking that there can be no question but that your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is correct. In answer to the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young), surely there is a fundamental difference between guaranteeing a loan, the commitments in regard to which will take place years after the guarantee has been made, and making a loan. There is no point in guaranteeing a loan if the guarantee can be called on in a few months' time or next year. That is an entirely different proposition from advancing money within the limit of £1,000,000 which is operative either in the actual year of the advance or in the following year. To extend this provision, which applies to a definite amount that may be advanced, either by way of grant or by way of loan, at the time, to providing a guarantee which may be operative years ahead and is only expected to be operative years later, is quite clearly a very wide extension of the power conferred by the Financial Resolution.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
On a point of Order. Is not the real point that no power is given in the Financial Resolution to give such a guarantee because there is no certainty about the future? No power is given in the Resolution to guarantee a future loan.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Now that I have got the Financial Resolution before me, I think I must rule that we are confined to the words in the Resolution. 686 either by way of grant or by way of loan.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "applies," to insert the words: to be expended on works there. I apologise for not having put this Amendment on the Order Paper, but we have been frightfully rushed, and I have sent a copy of it to the Under-Secretary of State, so that he has the material before him. If my Amendment is accepted, the Clause will read: may make advances to the Government of any Colony or of any territory to which this section applies, to be expended on works there, for the purpose of aiding and developing agriculture and industry. People will say that these words make no difference at all, and yet I believe they are necessary -if we want to stop the building of the Zambesi Bridge. I wanted to bring in the question of that Bridge, and it struck me that by insisting that the money which is advanced should be spent on works in the Colonies, we should thereby rule out the possibility of wasting large sums of public money on a venture in Portuguese territory. I wish that we had in this Chamber a large map of South Africa, so that Members could see the position of the railway. The whole object of the Zambesi Bridge, and of rival projects for dealing with the problem of Nyasaland, depend upon the necessity in the eyes of the planters in Nyasaland of getting access to the sea. There are two methods. One is to run their coffee down the lines of five different railway companies and transport it across the Zambesi by barges, getting finally to the Port of Beira. Four-fifths of that route and the Bridge which it is proposed to build are in Portuguese territory, and the vested interests in these railways are considerable. In the interests, of the railway companies which have never paid—at any rate, they have been most unprofitable to the shareholders—and in the interests of the people who have land round Beira, we have these vested interests clamouring for this route from Nyasaland to the sea through Portuguese territory.
There is another method, and I want hon. Members, particularly those on the opposite side, to observe what that method is. It is to tap Nyasaland through Tanganyika. The proposal is 687 to build a railway line from Dodoma to Fyffe, and get the produce through Tanganyika to Dar-es-Salaam instead of taking it to Beira. The project is estimated to cost £2,300,000. The Zambesi bridge is estimated—very much underestimated—at £1,500,000, but, since the estimate was made, they have had the frightful flood, which swept away all the landmarks in the neighbourhood where the bridge was to be. If we must spend this money in order to develop Nyasaland, we should develop it through our own territory, developing Tanganyika at the same time, including those parts of Tanganyika which are higher and where it is possible for whites to live, rather than develop it through Portuguese territory. When this matter was before the House last year or the year before, no hon. Member was more determined in his opposition to the Zambesi Bridge than my hon. Friend who is now, alas, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. Would he had been in the Colonial Office to continue his opposition to this project! He pointed out that one of the chief objections to the Zambesi bridge was that it could only be made to pay according to the report of Sir George Schuster, if a railway of some 50 miles—

Earl WINTERTON
I would like to raise a point of Order, and ask if it is not-usual, when we are discussing a Clause, the first words of which are "The Treasury, etc.," for a representative of the Treasury to be present? I called attention to this matter some time ago, and was assured that the hon. Gentleman was coming. He came in and went out again like—if I may say so without disrespect—a Jack-in-the-box. May I ask whether we are not entitled to have a representative of the Treasury present during the whole of the discussion on a question which so closely affects the Treasury?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I can assure the Noble Lord that the Treasury representative will be in attendance throughout the Debate, and he need have no fear that the representative will not be here. He has gone out for only a moment.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The probable argument in favour of the Zambesi bridge was that it would enable the railway to 688 link up with the Tete coalfields, which are in Portuguese territory. I do not know who owns them, but the capital is probably international. It was estimated that no less than 300,000 tons of coal a year could be got from the Tete coalfields and carried down the railway to the sea, and the objection raised by the Labour party to this proposal last year was that we were spending millions of money of the British taxpayer in developing a new coalfield, which would be worked by black labour, and would put this coal on board at Beira for bunkering purposes at prices which must undercut and bring down still further the price of British bunker coal. I want to know whether in this Bill, which is brought forward primarily in order to reduce unemployment in this country, we are really going to undertake the expenditure of this money in order to develop a coalfield worked by Africans at a price with which we cannot possibly compete. Here we are spending our money to develop this new coalfield, which can only inevitably result in depriving our miners in this country of work.
This matter has been reported upon over and over again. The pressure that has been brought to bear on this question by the vested interests concerned in the various railway companies is marvellous, yet report after report made by Government servants has been against it. Sir George Schuster used to be a member of the Liberal party; he is now a finance Minister in India, and the biggest financial expert on this work. He has twice reported on East Africa, and his report on the Zambesi bridge is pretty crushing. He says: We do not at present feel that we could recommend the provision of funds for so costly a project as the bridge. He goes on to state his reasons, and says finally: We have seen proposals which have been prepared for this purpose on the lines of 'a public-private company' such as was recommended by the Committee on Private Enterprise in British Tropical Africa, which reported in 1924, and, without expressing any opinion as to the fairness of these particular proposals, we consider that an arrangement of this kind n, night be suitable in this case. There we have Sir George Schuster urging that, if this money could be spent, it should be spent in a way which would not solely redound to the benefit of those 689 railway companies which have not paid any dividend at all in the past, and which, directly this bridge is built, will be able to carry the traffic and earn dividends. I do not like the way in which this Zambesi bridge has been pressed forward. When we are bringing in a Bill for colonial development, I think that we might at least prevent money being used for the development of Portuguese territory for the benefit of shareholders in railway companies, and above all for the development of the port of Beira. I admit that a large amount of the land round Beira is owned by British capitalists, but we are not here to develop Portuguese territory for the benefit of British capitalists. We are here to use this money so as to develop the trade and industry of the British colonies concerned. By one scheme you develop Tanganyika as well as Nyasaland. By the other, you develop Portuguese territory as well as Nyasaland, and, in addition, you develop this dangerously competing coalfield, which will still further harass the coal mining industry in this country.
There is another point which should be taken into account. Under the original proposal, and under this proposal, it is inevitable that the interest on the money spent on this bridge should be met by the inhabitants of Nyasaland. The charge for the interest on the loan falls upon the Nyasaland Budget. Nyasaland is a very small colony, and the people there with one accord have emphatically protested over and over again against being saddled with the Zambesi Bridge. The demand for this work does not come from the people who are to pay, or even from the people whose goods are to be transported over the railway. The demand comes from the vested interests concerned in the railroads, the port companies and the land companies round the Port of Beira. If there be any possibility of first consulting the people of Nyasaland, who will have to find the interest, it should be done, in order that we may avoid the charge of having put an unbelievably large burden upon a very small country with a very small budget. It is said that the cost will be £1,000,000. That is one of the difficulties in connection with this Bill. You might spend £1,000,000 on the Zambesi Bridge and not finish it, and you would have to find another £1,000,000 in order to finish it. If you are 690 dealing with a railway, you get so far with your money, but, when you deal with a bridge, and find it costs £2,000,000 instead of £1,000,000 you have to come to the British Treasury again for the other £1,000,000.
The real seriousness lies in the fact that there is a perfect passion in Africa particularly in East Africa, for making expensive improvements, and then leaving the people of the colony to find the money with which to pay the interest on the advance made. Takoradi is a case in point. It cost 50 per cent. more than the original estimate. It is an excellent port, but it can never pay for itself. Here we are doing it over again. The white taxpayers have protested against the Bridge being built and paid for out of their money. I hope that the House of Commons will ask the Government to make this small change in the Bill. I am confident that the Colonial Office have gone into the project without consulting Sir George Schuster who knows all about it. It will mean putting a heavy burden on the taxpayers of Nyasaland, and an unlimited liability upon the Treasury of this country. We ask for this small alteration in the Bill so that we shall confine the money that is advanced to the colonies to work in those colonies, instead of putting it into a foreign country.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I do not rise to reply to the specific Amendment proposed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), but I understand that during my absence the point was raised that I ought to be in the Committee to deal with these matters. I am, of course, perfectly willing to be present to deal with any financial points which may be raised, but I do not think that it is in accordance with the usual practice of this House that the Financial Secretary of the Treasury is expected to be present during the consideration of all Bills and on all occasions when any money matter is under discussion. After all, all the Estimates appear in the name of the Treasury, but it has never been the custom of the Financial Secretary to be in his place whenever they are discussed. Therefore, though I am perfectly willing to come here when the actual needs of the case are such that I ought to be here, I think the Committee will give me this relief, that in view of the 691 very considerable work which has to be done by the Financial Secretary, he should not be expected to be here on all occasions whenever the word "Treasury" appears in any Bill or whenever any Estimate is under discussion.

Earl WINTERTON
The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he did not rise to deal with the Amendment, but to say something else. I do not know whether he was putting his statement in the form of a personal explanation, but I would submit to you that this is obviously a point of Order. I shall venture to treat it as a point of Order, and would like to raise another point of Order on the point of Order raised by the hon. Gentleman. As a member of this House for many years I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I do not for one moment suggest nor, I think, do any of my hon. or right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee suggest, that on every occasion when the word "Treasury" appears in a Clause a representative of the Treasury should be present, though usually one of them is present.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I understood that the right hon. Gentleman was going to make an illusion to the point raised by the Noble Lord and then to pass on to the Amendment. I would like to know what the point of Order is.

Earl WINTERTON
I was informed by one of the representatives of the Government that the Financial Secretary was coming in to the Committee, and I wish to ask whether it is not in accordance with the usual practice of the Committee, and of the House generally, that where we have under discussion a Clause in a Bill giving the Treasury such very considerable rights, obligations and responsibilities as they have under this Clause, a representative of the Treasury should be present. I would call attention to these words in the Clause: The Treasury, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and on the recommendation of the Committee … may make advances. It is the Treasury which makes the advances, and not the Colonial Office.' Further, this Bill is based on a Financial Resolution. When such a Clause is under discussion is it not in accordance with the usual practice that 692 a representative of the Treasury, either the Chancellor himself, or, as is usual, the Financial Secretary, should be present? This is a very important matter.

§ The CHAIRMAN
As far as my experience of the House goes, a representative of the Treasury is expected to be on the Treasury Bench when necessary, but it does not come within the competence of the Chair to see that he is there.

§ Mr. SMITHERS
On that point of Order.

§ The CHAIRMAN
There is no point of Order. I have said that this matter is not within the competence of the Chair.

§ Mr. SMITHERS
May I reply to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
The hon. Member will no doubt have opportunities in the course of the discussion to make any observations on the statement of the Financial Secretary which may occur to him. I submit to the Noble Lord that this is really a matter of ordinary House of Commons procedure rather than a point of Order to be settled by the Chair, and I do not think it is a question which need create any friction between us. It is one which can be settled on a perfectly reasonable understanding. I have been only 11 years in this House, and the Noble Lord has been here far longer, but I recollect very many occasions when I myself—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have already said that this matter does not come within the competence of the Chair.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I bow at once to your ruling, Sir, but as the Noble Lord raised the point—

Earl WINTERTON
No, I did not raise it; it was the Financial Secretary.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I understand, then, that there will be no development of this question, and I can address myself straightaway to the Amendment before us. My right hon. and gallant Friend has put down a manuscript Amendment, one of many manuscript Amendments which are likely to arise in the course of these discussions. I should like to say in connection with all these manuscript Amendments that it may very well be 693 that situations will arise which are difficult to handle on the Committee stage. If there be any such difficulties, and after further consideration, I shall always be glad to do what I can to see that the matter is reopened on the Report stage. Without dealing with the last Amendment which was moved, because it would be out of order for me to do so, I would like to say that in such cases I will gladly reconsider the matter on Report stage if any means can be found of overcoming a situation which on the Committee stage presents some difficulty.

§ Mr. REMER
Is it not a fact that if no Amendment is made in a Bill in Committee there will be no Report stage?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
With that consideration in mind, I was proposing to make provision during the Committee stage for a Report stage to arise. Of course, if no Amendments are accepted in Committee there will be no Report stage, and I had it in mind to accept certain Amendments and so make provision for there to be a Report stage. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has put down an Amendment the effect of which, as he very clearly pointed out, would be to stop work on the Zambesi Bridge. These words, which at first sight appear to be so innocent, would, in fact, arrest one of the very largest schemes of Colonial development which is now under the review of the Government. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman expressed certain fears concerning this bridge which, on my information, will not be realised. He raised the very large question of the Tete coalfields in Portuguese territory, and he asked under what national auspices they were being developed. I understand that a Belgian company are developing those coalfields, which are in Portuguese territory. The fear of my right hon. and gallant Friend was that this coal company could use the Zambesi Bridge without any control from this country in order to compete more effectually against coal produced in Great Britain. I think I can assure him that his fears in this respect are not justified. If he looks very carefully at the map he will see that it is impossible for this Belgian coal to cross the Zambesi Bridge without traversing British territory. I think a line would have to be 694 built over British territory before the coal could be carried to the Zambesi Bridge and enjoy the facilities of the development which we are now discussing.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I deny that. That is absolutely wrong.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I addressed myself to this question some time ago—

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
Did you look at the map?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
My right hon. and gallant Friend can be assured, I think, that this coal cannot get to the bridge—anyhow without making a tremendous detour—unless it comes over British territory. I believe that by making a very great detour it is possible to get the coal to the bridge by another route.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
It might go round the Zambesi.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
We have examined this question, and such geographical obstacles are placed in the way that really it is not a practical or economic proposal for the coal to use the bridge unless the British Government are prepared to provide additional facilities, which naturally it would look into very strictly if there were any question of the coal competing with our own. I can assure my right hon. and gallant Friend that that point has not been absent from our minds. Directly we came into office we looked into this project very carefully from precisely the aspect he has raised, and we were satisfied that such powers would reside in the hands of the British Government that the fears which he expresses are really not justifiable. It is not a new point, but is one which has been present to our minds, and we are more than ready to take every possible step which lies within our power to see that this threat to our own industries will not materialise by reason of the Zambesi Bridge.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman attacked the project not only from the standpoint of a possible threat to the trade of this country, but also approached it from the standpoint of the inhabitants of Nyasaland, and appeared to think that in some way, which I could not altogether understand, they would suffer rather than benefit from this project. Again I am assured that no burden at all is expected 695 to fall on the local taxpayers. We have very clear advice on that subject. I would remind my right hon. and gallant Friend that under the Bill there are powers by which we can assist this project and prevent, if necessary, any charge falling upon a country so poor as is Nyasaland. I am assured that under the arrangements which have been made no such charge is likely to accrue.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
May I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to this extract from Sir George Schuster's Report? This is the official Report on which the Colonial Office have acted.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
What is the date?

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
1920. It says: It is not claimed that the exports from Nyasaland itself are likely within the near future to make the bridge a paying proposition.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I was on the point of the great burdens which, according to my right hon. and gallant Friend, were likely to fall upon the inhabitants.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
But if it is not a paying proposition the inhabitants have to make up the difference.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
No, not necessarily, because powers are given under this Bill to assist the undertakers. If the fears of my right hon. and gallant Friend are realised, then it is quite open to the British Government under this Bill to provide assistance which will obviate the burdens which he fears will be placed upon Nyasaland. All these things are really matters for administration by the Colonial Office. You cannot in advance decide by Statute every administrative matter which may arise in years to come. What we do under the Bill is to take power in such an event to provide assistance to meet the situation. Whether or not the calculations of my right hon. and gallant Friend will be justified remain to be seen, but, if they are justified, then we have the power to prevent the contingency of extra burdens falling upon the local inhabitants. If, on the other hand, his fears that this project will prove uneconomic are not realised, then no burdens need fall upon anybody. In any case, the people who seem to be in clover are the inhabitants. They are having 696 their territory opened up, and if the project proves uneconomic then it is open to the home Government, which is bearing this large commitment, to come to their assistance if their situation will not justify any burden being placed upon them.
5.0 p.m.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has referred to the Schuster Report, and I am dealing with the point as to whether the Zambesi bridge is likely to prove an economic proposition or not. I am informed that Sir George Schuster has recommended that this bridge should be built, and that it will pay in the long run. If it does not pay immediately, power is taken to provide any further assistance that may be necessary. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme has quoted Sir George Schuster's opinion very freely, but I understand that it was on the recommendation of Sir George Schuster that the project was undertaken, and, as a matter of fact, £400,000 has actually been spent on the strength of the recommendations contained in the Report issued by Sir George Schuster. The actual words used by Sir George Schuster indicate that he actually recommended this project and recommended the expenditure of the money which has already been spent. Sir George Schuster is quite confident that in the long run this project will prove to be an economic proposition. In addition, the project is being undertaken by a public utility company. The Government are trying to secure control, and that meets some of the points which hon. Members wish to raise in the Amendments on the Order Paper. We certainly have that in view, and out object is to secure a very effective control over the whole of the arrangements.
I do not think there was any other specific point raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The inhabitants of Nyasaland are safeguarded, and in the opinion of Sir George Schuster the project is likely to be a success economically. If it is not economically successful, then we have power to give assistance, and there is no reason at all why any burden should fall upon the local inhabitants. With regard to the point raised about the Tete coalfield, it lies within the power of the British Government to obviate the danger which my right hon. and gallant 697 Friend has suggested. I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to consider the general effect if the Zambesi bridge project is destroyed. A whole railway system has been built up in Nyasaland and £400,000 has already been spent upon it. Here we have one of the most important projects of colonial development, the result of which it has been estimated will give a very large number of orders to the manufacturers in this country. I think the fears which my right hon. Friend has raised have been met and safeguarded, and it would be a mistake to turn our back on great developments which have already been undertaken, and scrap a project which does present some prospect of giving immediate employment to the workers of this country by opening up a new market. I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to reconsider the Amendment which he has moved, and allow us to take power to proceed with the project.

§ Mr. WALLHEAD
What is the total estimated cost of the bridge and will the steel required be purchased in this country?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
The total is in the neighbourhood of £2,750,000. We have control of the company which is building it, and of course we have control of the source of supply of steel.

§ Mr. HAYCOCK
How much of that total have we guaranteed?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
We have not guaranteed anything.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I now understand that the estimate is £2,750,000.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
It is considerably greater than my right hon. and gallant Friend stated.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The Chancellor of the Duchy has stated that the Government are acting upon the recommendation of Sir George Schuster's report. May I point out that my objections are based on a report made by Sir George Schuster which was issued two years ago, and was debated at great length in the House of Commons. The Chancellor of the Duchy must be referring to a new Report. We have not got that Report, but I think we should have it before us in order to show the changed mind of Sir George Schuster, who has been in India for the last year, 698 and I cannot understand why a fresh Report from him is now available. I think we ought to have an opportunity of studying the new Sir George Schuster as we had of studying the old Sir George Schuster, more particularly in view or the fact that the estimate for this project is nearly treble the original amount. The Chancellor of the Duchy said that the people in Nyasaland ought not to grumble, because the taxpayers of this country are going to find the money, but how does he tell that? Once we make a grant the Treasury fixes the rate of interest, and decides when the loan is to be repaid, and when they have done that the liability of the taxpayers of this country is fixed; but the liability of the people of Nyasaland is indefinite if the project) does not prove to be a paying proposition.
As it is now proposed to enter into this highly speculative business, I would like to ask if the Colonial Office have inquired, as they promised me that they would do, what is the opinion of the people in Nyasaland about this project. I have received protests against these proposals from people in Nyasaland and the Nyasaland newspaper Press has been very emphatic about the question. It may make a difference to those people in Nyasaland now that the British taxpayer is going to provide for five years what the people of Nyasaland thought they would have to pay. I think we ought to know definitely whether we are going to get value for our money. I know it is very difficult for the Chancellor of the Duchy to deal with an intricate problem of this kind which is really a Colonial Office matter. Nobody can deal effectively with this question without having read the vital reports on this subject, giving the views of experts.

§ Mr. SMITHERS
May I request that someone from the Colonial Office who knows something about this question should be asked to give us more information? I do not blame the Chancellor of the Duchy for not knowing more about this subject, but I think we ought to have someone from the Colonial Office present who can speak with authority.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
It is quite true that I have had an arduous task to master all these subjects in such a short time, but I have given all the facts in regard to the 699 points which have been raised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I have looked into all the matters which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has discussed. I have brought extracts from various Reports, and I am quite prepared to deal with any of these matters.

§ Mr. STEPHEN
Is this a point of Order?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico)
It has already been pointed out that it is not within the province of the Chair to dictate to the Government as to who shall or who shall not represent them.

§ Sir HENRY BETTERTON
There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether the total estimate for this project is £1,000,000 or £2,750,000. I would like to know what proportion of this sum is represented by orders for steel to be produced in this country.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I am afraid that there will be unlimited pressure brought to bear to build the spur line from the railway to the Tete coalfield m order to make the project pay, and there will be a great deal of justice behind that proposal. The coalfield will be developed, and our colliers at home will suffer in consequence. The Chancellor of the Duchy has claimed that the Government are acting on the recommendation made in a Report made by Sir George Schuster. I ask that that Report should be brought forward. I have in my hand the original Report, but I am afraid that at such short notice the Chancellor of the Duchy cannot have had time to read that Report, and therefore he cannot deal with the points which I have raised.
I desire to raise two further questions. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Johnston), whose knowledge of Colonial questions is rather exhaustive, opposed this scheme in the House last year, and made an eloquent speech upon it from the Opposition Benches. I want to know what has happened to change the opinion of the Government to an opinion diametrically opposite to that which was then held by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire. Finally, I should like to say a word respecting the alternative 700 scheme of £1,300,000, which was ruled out because it was more costly even than the Zambesi Bridge at £1,000,000. The Zambesi Bridge is now costing £2,750,000. It would be much better to build the railway through our own territory, developing the native lands through which it goes and opening them up for British settlers, than to build it in Portuguese territory.

Sir H. YOUNG
The reports of Sir George Schuster have been criticised by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood), I think somewhat unjustly—

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I have not criticised Sir George Schuster's report for a moment; I approve of it entirely.

Sir H. YOUNG
Then I misunderstood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I thought that he was criticising Sir George Schuster for a difference of opinion between his two reports.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I am very sorry, but we must not have this misunderstanding. I approve entirely of this report of Sir George Schuster, but I am told by the Government that he has now made a different report. Before I criticise that, I must, naturally, see it. I do not believe that he has contradicted his first report. [Interruption.] Let us see it.

Sir H. YOUNG
I speak, of course, not with the perfect knowledge of this subject which will be in the possession of the representatives of the Colonial Office, but, in the course of public duties, I have obtained some acquaintance with the history of the reports upon the Zambesi Bridge, which are, of course, entirely of a public nature; and I believe that the explanation of the difficulty in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's mind is that the matter has been dealt with on two perfectly separate and different occasions by the eminent authority to whom he has referred. In the first place, it was dealt with in connection with the general distribution of the grant of £10,000,000, when it had to be reviewed in competition with other projects. This led to the report which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has quoted. Unless I am wrong, the report quoted by 701 the Chancellor of the Duchy was a report directed to reviewing the proposition of the Zambesi Bridge entirely upon its own merits, standing alone—a special report upon the Zambesi Bridge. The difference apparently is—and I think it is perfectly intelligible and what would be expected—that the first report of Sir George Schuster advised that the proposition would not be immediately remunerative. That is just the sort of proposition for which we are looking—one that would not be immediately remunerative; because if it would be immediately remunerative, it would not want any assistance. In his second report he says that it will be ultimately remunerative, and so it comes within the category of what we want. I believe, also, that historically I am not wrong in saying that his second judgment was passed after a visit to Nyasaland and actual inspection of the site, and so with fuller knowledge than the first.
With regard, again, to the difference-in the estimates for the building of the bridge, these estimates are not the estimates of Sir George Schuster as a financial authority, but the estimates of engineers. On further engineering investigation of the technical problem, it was found that the original estimates were too little, and that the amount had to be increased. These are facts which can be and are known to any careful student of this question, and they make the whole relationship as expressed by Sir George Schuster perfectly intelligible, and also encourage us to think that this is the sort of undertaking for which we are looking with specific reference to the present Bill. I should like to add a word or two upon the actual merits of the undertaking which has been criticised so caustically by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman—

§ Mr. WALLHEAD
When the right hon. Gentleman refers to Sir George Schuster's report that the bridge will not be immediately remunerative, is he referring to the estimate of £1,000,000 or to the estimate of £2,750,000? I think Sir George Schuster said that it would not be immediately remunerative at £1,000,000, but that it might be ultimately remunerative, and I should like to know when is the ultimate going to be reached at £2,750,000?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
The position is perfectly simple. The cost of the actual bridge is only about £1,000,000, but the railway extension connected with the bridge scheme is estimated to cost £2,750,000.

Sir H. YOUNG
I think the hon. Baronet will find, as a matter of historical accuracy, that there was an actual increase in the engineers' estimates for the construction of the foundations of the bridge.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
Not so large as that.

Sir H. YOUNG
No, not by any means the total amount to which the hon. Baronet refers. There is really no ground whatever, as far as I can see, for criticism of Sir George Schuster. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Wallhead), Sir George Schuster's first judgment of the situation was passed, I believe, on the smaller estimate, but I believe his second judgment—I speak subject to correction—that the proposition would be ultimately economically remunerative, was passed upon the increased estimate for the larger amount, and it is that which is of so much value to us to-day.
With regard to the general situation, I do not think the Committe would have got any idea of the general situation in Nyasaland from the observations of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is a great fertile region, with great agricultural potentialities both for its numerous—almost innumerable—native inhabitants, and also for its comparatively small number of white settlers and planters. There is ample room for both in the territories of the Colony. It is, I believe, above all other territories of the British Empire, the one which has been most hampered in the past by bad communications, and of which we have made least as an Imperial asset. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he would present to the Committee an alternative, namely, that we ought not to develop this southern route, but ought to develop the northern route, using Dar-es-Salaam as a harbour. I suggest that there is no dilemma or alternative whatever betwen the two proposals. The first thing to do is to develop the obvious southern route, where the railway is already built, only a bridge being needed 703 to complete it; and then, in course of time, the Northern Lake can be developed by developing the northern route.

§ Mr. CHARLES BUXTON
From the speeches we have heard up to the present, it might be gathered that the question at issue was whether the Zambesi Bridge should be built or not, but, as I understand it, that is not the real question. Hon. Members opposite naturally might enjoy very much discussing the Zambesi Bridge for a long time, but that would not conduce to a rapid passage of the Bill. Some of us, at any rate, on this side, while we are interested in the Zambesi Bridge, do not want to discuss it too long. We are only discussing the question whether, if an expert advisory committee should recommend the making of an advance, it shall be open to the Government to make that advance. I do not agree with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) on the subject of the Zambesi Bridge, as far as I understand the question, but I do not profess to speak with the same knowledge that he does. All that I would say is that it seems to me very desirable that we should, if possible, pass at a reasonably early period to Amendments on the Paper which appear to me to be of very much greater importance. My right hon. and gallant Friend has put his case on the Zambesi Bridge forcibly and fully, and, personally, I should be well content to leave it in the power of the Treasury to make this advance if it be recommended by the highly expert committee which we understand will be set up.

Commander WILLIAMS
I rather sympathise with the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton). We have had a very long speech—in fact, a series of speeches—from the ex-Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, as we all know, has a depth of knowledge on these matters which is not usually found in all quarters of the House. We had also the exposition of the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and we all know that his mind, in regard to many of these matters, if filled with a sweet and perfect innocence, but he has the good fortune to be primed from other places. We now find ourselves, in this very complicated 704 matter, with two totally and absolutely different ideas on the subject; but we were fortunate enough to have enlightenment on wholly different lines from yet a third right hon. Gentleman on this side. I have much doubt in my own mind as to which of the two sides taken by these two very able right hon. Gentlemen I should come down upon if there be a Division, and any of us may have to decide and vote on this matter in due course. As far as I personally am concerned, I do not want to let the question of the Zambesi Bridge outweigh every other consideration in deading with this most important Amendment, and I will not even go into the matter of the opening up of all these coalfields, but will just read the words of the Amendment as they were read out: to be expended on works there. If the Amendment be carried, it means, as I understand it, that a very large part of the money expended under this Bill will have to be spent actually locally in the district, and that is entirely against the whole principle and meaning of the Bill. What we want—

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
In the Colony.

Commander WILLIAMS
In the Colony itself. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has delivered himself into my hands once again. Supposing that we are building a railway in I he Colony, it is absolutely impossible to spend the whole of the money in the Colony, and it is quite clear and obvious, that in many of these cases this Amendment, well meaning and well intentioned though it be, will make absolute nonsense from the point of view of the great principle that we are working out to-day.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The wording of the Amendment means exactly what I want—it means, expended en works there. It does not state that all the work can be carried out in the Colony, but that the works, whether road., railway or bridge, shall be in the Colony which raises the money.

Commander WILLIAMS
I thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for having clarified the meaning of his words, because there was some doubt on the part of people who should know his mind better than I do, as to what he actually meant. I am very glad indeed to have 705 arrived at that point. If his argument is that the bulk or the whole of the money for this work should be expended in joining up these Colonies of ours with other parts of the country such as Portuguese Africa, there is a great deal to be said for his point of view, but I do not think that that is a sound line of progress on the whole. As I understand it, the whole problem of Central Africa is to get the goods which can be produced there by the easiest and quickest and best methods to the sea, and, unless you can do that and give the greatest facility for development in that way, you cannot hope for development to the utmost extent possible. On the whole, considering this Amendment in the whole of its bearings and meanings, the House, as far as I can see, will be very ill-advised at present to accept it, whatever the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite may think.

§ Sir H. BETTERTON
I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy if he can tell us again what proportion it is estimated will go in the cost of steel to be produced in this country.

§ Captain BOURNE
As I understand the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy, I gathered that there were two reports by Sir George Schuster and that he has quoted from both of them. One report the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) said has been issued as a public document. If I am right and he has quoted from the other, does he intend to follow the ordinary Parliamentary procedure and lay it on the Table of the House?

§ Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH
I think the hon. Member above the gangway was too easily satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. "Works there" I took as having the interpretation he gave it, but perhaps this is an occasion on which, we might demand the presence of the Attorney-General to explain the meaning of the words. "Works there," at any rate, limits the purpose of this Amendment in this way, that, say, a Colony wishes to develop a service of river steamers which can go outside its own territory, and which might be most necessary for developing its agricultural products or promoting its industries, that would clearly be outside these 706 words, as these steamers might be built on the Clyde. I hope they would. I understood the whole object of the Bill was to promote work in this country. If we can do that, by all means let us do it. The, right hon. Gentleman in trying to bring down one pigeon, has brought down a whole flock. If he persists in putting in these words, he is hampering the activities which are meant to be promoted by the Bill far beyond anything that was in his mind. He will not be merely stopping the Zambesi Bridge. He will be putting obstacles in the way of all kinds of developments which ought to be open to the Government. Therefore, whatever may be the merits of the very interesting discussion on the Zambesi Bridge, obviously the Amendment is perfectly hopeless, and I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
As the Amendment is in manuscript, it is impossible that every Member in the Committee should know precisely what it is. The whole of the hon. Member's speech has been based on the assumption that the word in the Amendment was "work" and not "works." If you say "works," it means that the actual manufacturing can be anywhere you like, but the permanent site should be in the Colonies.

§ Mr. K. GRIFFITH
I have been present throughout the whole Debate; I am under no misapprehension as to the nature of the wording, "to be expended on works there." If the Attorney-General was here he could say at once that river steamers, let us say, communicating from the Colony outside the territory would come within these words. Why should we use words which would hamper that kind of development? We had a most interesting discussion upstairs during the last Parliament in which one of the greatest experts on aviation told us how much Colonial development could be helped by experiments in the way of aerial communication, specifying Africa particularly as the one place in the world where this would do most good. All that would be ruled out under this Amendment. It is doing a good deal more than the right hon. Gentleman intends.

§ Mr. REMER
I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that we are under a great 707 disadvantage in taking the Committee stage of the Bill the day following the Second Reading, which has been taken so late at night that it is impossible to have anything on the Paper but manuscript Amendments. I came in to-day, having had to fulfil another engagement, half-way through the Debate, and have the greatest difficulty in understanding what this is all about. The Chancellor of the Duchy a few minues ago said he was armed with all the facts, but, instead of making it clearer to me, he has made it far more difficult, and I am sure the whole Committee have found it far more difficult to understand what it is all about. I do not know whether his communications with the officials of his Department mean that be has been indulging in what on the Treasury Bench is called "thinking." It would be a very great advantage if we could adjourn the Debate and see the Amendments on the Paper, so that we could consider them in the way they ought to be considered.

§ Sir ROBERT HAMILTON
I should like to say a word with regard to the unfortunate limiting effect these words will have on the Bill, and ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment. I will call attention only to one particular aspect in which these words would limit the purpose of the Bill. While the Resolution was under discussion, a considerable amount of attention was directed to the importance of scientific development. If we are to limit our grants in money to be expended on "works there," what would be the position of grants for scientific research? The Committee will see, from an example like that, how impossible the working of the Bill would be if the words remained in.

§ Lord E. PERCY
I should like to reinforce the appeal that we should come to a decision. We are looking forward to a long series of other jolly little Amendments waiting for us, and I think we might come to a decision on this.

Sir H. YOUNG
I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, after the word "applies," to insert the words: or to any public utility company operating under general powers in the said colony or territory. 708 The effect of the Amendment would be to enable the proper authority under the Bill to make advances, not only directly to the Government of the Colony or territory, but also to a public utility company in the territory. It has two objects. The first is to give more elasticity to the Government in making use of the powers of the Bill, and the second is that it tends slightly to achieve the desirable object of making closer the apparatus of Parliamentary control, because instead of there being two steps between Parliament and the use of the Fund, that is, a step from the British to the Colonial Government and then from the Colonial Government to the actual undertaking in the Colony, the step in appropriate cases could be shortened to one, straight from the British Government to the undertaking in the Colony. It is impossible to foresee cases, and it may be worth while slightly to increase the flexibility of the instrument.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
This is a manuscript Amendment, the object of which it is very easy to understand, and which will not even necessitate, as some Amendments have done, that submission to official advice which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) so deprecates. Really the hon. Member cannot expect us to go through the whole Bill in Committee, taking scores of manuscript Amendments, without ever submitting to the advice of the Department concerned questions so suddenly raised. He raised an extraordinary objection to our procedure. This Amendment cuts out the Colonial Government. That is our fundamental objection to it. Under the Bill every advance is made through the Colonial Government. The next Subsection provides that the Colonial Government may advance this money to any person or body of persons they think fit. That Sub-section entirely covers the point he has in mind. The only effect of accepting his Amendment would be to short-circuit the Colonial Government—to cut it right out—and that, of course, would be a derangement of the whole existing procedure and, from an administrative point of view, might lead to complications and overlapping which, I am sure, he would be only too anxious to avoid. As the power of the Colonial Government to advance money to such person or body of persons is contained in the Bill, I trust 709 the right hon. Gentleman will not insist on cutting out the ordinary machinery of the Colonial Government.

§ Mr. REMER
I would not have intervened but for the extraordinary reply the hon. Baronet has made to my complaint that these Amendments are discussed in manuscript. That is entirely the case I tried to put forward a little earlier this evening, that if the Government had arranged that the Debate in Committee should take place to-morrow, all these Amendments would be on the Order Paper and the hon. Baronet would be able to consult his officials in the morning, consider their real effect and be able to impart that information to the Committee. Now it is obvious that he knows very little about a good many of these Amendments. I really must strongly protest against the way the Debate is being conducted.

§ Mr. BOOTHBY
I thought, when the right hon. Gentleman was moving his Amendment, that he must necessarily cut out the Colonial Government, and I was very much struck with the argument of the Chancellor of Duchy against that. I cannot think the right hon. Gentleman really intended to cut out the Colonial Government altogether, and I should very much like to hear from him, or someone else, whether any good reasons could be adduced for making this rather remarkable exception, and for what reason he wishes to do it. I think that we ought to have some more information upon it either from my right hon. Friend or from the hon. Member opposite before we come to a final decision upon the Amendment, which, on the face of it, does not seem to be a very good proposal from the administrative point of view. In the meantime, I am very much impressed by the arguments which have been put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Sir H. YOUNG
My hon. Friend must excuse me. Such reasons as I had to give I gave to the Committee in moving my Amendment. On this matter I think we might prefer acceptance to perfection by leaving it alone.

Dr. MORGAN
I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, after the word "industry," to insert the words "and 710 for benefiting health or labour conditions."
The Chancellor of the Duchy, on the Second Reading of this Bill, in answer to a question from the other side, stated that he thought that health matters were included in this Bill. The word "health" is not mentioned in the whole of the Bill. The question of health is a very important subject in the Crown Colonies, and especially in the West Indian Islands. The only possible reference in the Bill which can be included under health is the question of the drainage of land and swamps for the removal of malarial conditions. The disposal of sewage in many of these islands is very primitive at present. I want to make it possible for sewage schemes to be brought within the scope of the Measure, as the question of sewage- affects tourist traffic and trade and general health conditions. I also want to make sure that if a company starts a new industry or wishes to develop the fruit industry such a company, if it operates in Great Britain or outside the country concerned, should make proper housing and working conditions for the people engaged in the industry. I hope that my Amendment will be accepted. It does not destroy the effect of the Bill in any way, and is, I think, a reasonable Amendment.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
Since the Debate took place in the House, I have looked closely into the question of whether this matter is covered in this Bill. My impression, which I gave to the House yesterday, is quite confirmed by a subsequent reading of the Bill, namely, that in fact health is included in the way I indicated yesterday. I am quite prepared, however, if hon. Members desire it, to consider the inclusion of specific words at a later stage to cover this point. Before we get to the appropriate part of the Bill, which I think will come a little later, I hope to have some words to suggest to my hon. Friend. This cannot be done to-day, but it can certainly be considered on the Report stage. I have no objection in principle to the inclusion of some words to cover the point which has been made.

Dr. MORGAN
In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, at the end, to insert the words: having due regard to the possibility of recovering for the public revenue any increase in the purchase price or letting value of the land affected. I am trying to get this Amendment put into this Bill because the ex-Colonial Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) were jointly assuring the House the other day that, if one went to certain Colonies he would discover pure and unalloyed Socialism in being. That new enthusiasm for Socialism is making me rather suspicious. The land out there is Crown property, and any development carried out by the expenditure of public money will enhance its value, but we are told we need not be apprehensive as the people there being Socialists owning and controlling the land the benefit would redound to their credit. As I say, I am a little suspicious of these statements from the other side, especially from my knowledge of the developments in certain Colonies. It is for that reason that I desire, if possible, to secure the insertion of these words. In reviewing the whole of this Clause, one might say, that everything put forward under its provisions would have the effect of enhancing the value of the land. If we improve or carry out health facilities or enable the virgin soil to be put to better use, such developments are bound to enhance the value of the land. It is in order that the enhanced value of such land shall accrue to the benefit of the people in the Colonies concerned that I am moving this Amendment. The other day the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton) expressed this very point more eloquently than I am able to do. It is incumbent upon the present Government to see that the enhanced value accruing from the expenditure of public money in these matters should accrue to the people concerned.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
The Amendment which my hon. Friend has moved raises a subject which is very dear to his heart, and is a very important subject, indeed. I would suggest that such a matter really concerns Colonial Office administration, and that we cannot in a Bill of this kind deal piecemeal with the fiscal policy of a Colony. It is open to my hon. Friend 712 to press the Colonial Office on appropriate occasions, such as Colonial Office Votes, to revise the fiscal system of the various Colonies to meet the possibility of unearned increment or other catastrophe which may arise from this Measure. It is really impossible in the body of the Bill to secure safeguards of that kind. I think that to insist upon it would be equally as unreasonable as insisting, in a Bill to deal with the production of roads in this country, upon taxes being placed upon any values which might arise out of the building of these roads, The proper occasion to consider any values thus created is in the general fiscal, system of the country thus affected, and the way to deal with this matter is by general Colonial Office administration rather than by dealing with it in the body of the Bill which we are now discussing. I would appeal to my hon. Friend to divert all his eloquence, force and persuasion to the Colonial Office on the appropriate occasion, and I am sure that Lord Pass-field will be as moved by his arguments in the future as I have been in the past.

§ Mr. LEIF JONES
Those of us who are not Socialists should be allowed to say that the argument of the Chancellor of the Duchy is a most surprising argument to come from the benches opposite. Why is it impossible for the Government in making advances in respect of the Colonies to have due regard to the possibilities of securing for the future revenue the benefit of any increase in the value of land? It certainly seems to me to be one of the points which should be in their minds. I do not see any reason at all why our Government in dealing with a Colonial Government should urge the Colonial Government to modify their fiscal system. You are, by this Bill, definitely going to interfere with the fiscal system of the different Colonies in the sense that you are not leaving them to manage their own business and carry out their own developments according to the extent of their resources. You are going to urge them to make expenditure which they would not otherwise undertake, and urge upon them developments which they had not hitherto been able to carry out. I think there is more in this Amendment than the Chancellor of the Duchy appeared to indicate and that care should be taken in making advances to see that 713 the value which accrues to the expenditure of this money shall go to the Colony affected and not exclusively to private individuals. I think that it is a very reasonable Amendment to come from anyone. I know that this is a Liberal and not a Socialist principle, and ever since the days of John Stuart Mill I have been urging it upon the attention of the House though not with very great success. I thought that now we might have looked for a recognition of the principle, and I am very sorry that the Government should turn down the Amendment so summarily.

§ Mr. WALLHEAD
I think the answer we have had from the Front Bench is rather an unfavourable one. After all, we have been told by the Lord Privy Seal that this is a small Bill. We now see that it may easily cover expenditure up to £40,000,000 guaranteed from public funds and may lead to an enormous amount of development, particularly in regard to land. We presuppose that the spending of enormous sums of money will increase, to a very large extent, the value of the territories of the countries in which the money is expended. We have experience of what has taken place in other countries where land has been bought at very low prices, and has then soared enormously in price. I understand that even in regard to the recent development in Kenya, land which a short time ago was of prairie value, is now sold at hundreds of pounds an acre. If this Amendment were favourably regarded there would be a chance of starting the development of some of these Colonies on sounder financial lines. If this Amendment were accepted it would apply to the whole of the newly developed areas and would at once affect the fiscal policy of the respective Governments of those areas. If the Government cannot accept the Amendment, on the ground that we cannot in this Bill interfere with the whole fiscal policy of the Colonies concerned, surely it is possible for us to take what we can get in a provision of this sort. I should have been very pleased if the Government had seen their way to accept the Amendment, and to put it upon record that this party stands definitely in favour of the policy of obtaining at the earliest possible moment for British Colonies in any part 714 of the world the full value of any communal expenditure upon social developments.

§ Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS
I would appeal to the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) to withdraw the Amendment, for the reason that it would be almost impossible to administer it. How should we know what was the value of the land before the particular developments had taken place? There has been no valuation made up to the present time, and it would be absolutely impossible to know what improvement in the value of the land was due to any particular development. Another point, which the hon. Member may have forgotten, is that a great deal of this land at the present time consists of native reserves, and belongs to the natives. I do not know whether he suggests that the natives shall be subject to an increased tax, in the form of a hut tax, possibly on their kraal, so as to pay for these improvements.

§ Mr. C. BUXTON
I should like to suggest to the Government that they might reconsider the question of accepting an Amendment on this point, if not precisely in the terms of the Amendment before the Committee, at any rate in some alternative form. Possibly some suggestion to that effect might be made on the Report stage, to cover the main principle of the Amendment which has been moved. The Amendment is very cautiously, I might almost say very modestly, framed. It does not demand a tax. In regard to the native reserves referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) it would be perfectly possible for the authorities concerned to see that the conditions relating to the native cultivated lands and the public revenues were broadly interpreted, and that in the general economic standpoint the native reserves should gain as a result of the expenditure, and that the benefit should not go into private pockets. In most forms of native tenure nothing is easier than that, because the land is not held by individuals and there is no question of an individual profiting at the expense of the community. It is the community as a whole which is affected. Therefore, the problem is very much simpler in the case of native agricultural holders, as compared with individualist and capitalist agricultural planters. I think the Chancellor of the 715 Duchy will find, on reflection, that an Amendment framed in such exceedingly-broad and general terms as the one now before the Committee could be reasonably accepted and applied to the broad general advantage of the public revenue. I hope that he will keep an eye on the possibility of framing an Amendment so as to render the matter administratively simple.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
Perhaps it may facilitate matters if I tell my hon. Friends at once, although it is not strictly relevant to this part of the Bill, that I have drafted words for an Amendment, to be inserted at a later stage, which I hope will cover the point raised by my hon. Friend, and I trust will also be acceptable to hon. Members opposite. If the words which I shall suggest do not cover the point raised by my hon. Friend, it will be open to him on the Report stage to reopen the matter. As my hon. Friend has, quite rightly, pointed out, in many cases, in most cases, the land is owned by the Government. In the case of Kenya, for instance, there is an arrangement by which land is leased to settlers for a term of 30 years, and the rent which they are paying comes under review at the end of that period. Therefore, although it is true that considerable increases in land values can take place for some years, yet in the end the benefit is bound to accrue to the community when the leases in question come under review. I hope that the whole of this question will be met by the words which I shall suggest later, but if my hon. Friend thinks that they are not satisfactory, we can discuss the matter again on the Report stage.

Earl WINTERTON
I think it necessary at this point to utter a word of warning and a word of advice, if I may be permitted to do so, to the hon. Baronet. We are prepared on this side of the House to assist him in every possible way in getting this Bill through. We have done that so far this afternoon. My hon. and gallant Friend has already appealed to the hon. Member opposite to withdraw his Amendment. We are not going to be unreasonable. We realise that the Chancellor of the Duchy must do his best to meet the views of his own supporters to a certain extent, but, if 716 he thinks that this Bill is going to be made the battleground for fighting out the subject of land values, he is very much mistaken.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
No.

Earl WINTERTON
I am glad to hear that, because if we are to deal with the question of land values in the way suggested by this Amendment, it will raise a much bigger issue, and the whole Bill might be in jeopardy. I know from my personal experience in Kenya that there are leases such as those to which the Chancellor of the Duchy has referred, and the holders of those leases would not be entitled to protest if, at the end of 30 years, it was found that the general value of land had risen so much in Kenya that they were asked to pay higher rents. But that is quite a different point from the point raised by the Amendment. The hon. Member below the Gangway, in a rather uninstructed speech, dealt with the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe, but I do not think that he disposed of it in the slightest degree.

§ Mr. WALLHEAD
Is the Noble Lord referring to me?

Earl WINTERTON
I am not dealing with the hon. Member, who is always very vocal. I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman who sits below him, the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton). That hon. Member did not in the least dispose of the point which was made by my hon. and gallant Friend. The point made by the hon. Member for Elland was based on the question, who owns this land; but the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend, in speaking on the subject of the hut tax, was this, and I am sure that the representative of the Government will be the first to agree with it, that there would be not only great administrative difficulties, but you might have very serious feeling aroused amongst the native population, if you went to these same natives, these indigenous Africans—to use a term which I hope will become more common—and you said to them: "The Government have carried out what they regard as improvements, and, therefore, we propose—

§ Mr. W. J. BROWN
Put your point, Winterton, and do not be so patronising.

Earl WINTERTON
If the hon. Member does not know how to behave himself, perhaps he will kindly leave the House.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think the only person who should suggest that is the Chairman.

Earl WINTERTON
Might I, on a point of Order, call your attention to the exceedingly offensive interruption by the hon. Member.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I quite agree that the hon. Member made an interruption which he ought not to have made.

§ Mr. BROWN
On a point of Order. Will you inform me whether there is any constitutional way open to an hon. Member of this House to prevent the offensive patronage of the Noble Lord?

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There is one way not to do it, and that is, not to refer to an hon. Member of this House by name.

§ Mr. WALLHEAD
On a point of Order. May I draw your attention to the fact that the Noble Lord was rather offensive to me. At any rate, I have not been very vocal for the last four or five weeks, not nearly so vocal as he has been. If I am vocal, I can keep as much to the point as the Noble Lord. It is exceedingly offensive that he should make remarks of that description. As a matter of fact, it seems to have become the practice of the Conservative party to be as offensive as they possibly can, perhaps because they are very sore at having lost the General Election.

Earl WINTERTON
The point that I was making when these interventions occurred, was that I did not think the hon. Member below the gangway had disposed of the point that was made by my hon. and gallant Friend. What my hon. and gallant Friend said, was that where you have a system of native tenure, such as you have in Africa, it would be almost impossible to apply the principle which the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) have so much at heart. Far be it from me to sneer at the views so sincerely held; but I think it 718 would be impossible to carry them out. The hon. Member for Elland endeavoured to dispose of my hon. and gallant Friend's point by saying that in many parts of Africa there was communal tenure. That is true, but it is not as extensive as he thinks. There is individual tenure by indigenous Africans, also. The hon. Member has experience of these things and he must know that there is no subject on which the opinion of the indigenous Africans is so susceptible as that of taxation, either by means of a hut tax, or in any other way.
Assuming that certain operations were carried out, and certain improvements effected. Let us submit, for the sake of argument, that certain improvements had been effected by the Government, such as reclamation, drainage, and works of that kind and, as a result of the adoption of this Amendment, it was held that there had been an increase in the purchase price or the letting value of the land, and some Government official went to these indigenous Africans, and said to them, "We hold that the value of your land"—it is not laid down in the Amendment how this value: s to be arrived at—"the purchase price and the letting value has been improved through the action of the Government. Instead of you paying a hut tax of 10s. or 12s. a, year, you shall pay a hut tax of 15s. instead of 10s., and a tax of £1 instead of 12s." In that case, it does not make the slightest difference whether the land is held by one indigenous African or by the village community. They would be taxed in exactly the same way.
When the hon. Member talks about communal ownership, what he really means is that a group of people in a village, perhaps 30 or 40 Africans, hold the cultivated land in common; they hold grazing and agricultural land in common. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that all the land in the village is held in common by the natives. It does not make the slightest difference whether you are taxing one individual African or 30. Whether you tax those 30 persons as a community, or whether you tax them as individuals, you will cause exactly the same sense of ill-feeling. I am speaking from my own knowledge and experience, and I cannot conceive anything that would be more dangerous and more unsettling— the late Under-Secretary of State for the 719 Colonies will agree with me in this—to these people than to feel that their land, which they value above everything else—their regard for their land is only equalled by the regard of the French peasant for his land—their native reserves, are subject to the condition that they never know when the Government will come along and carry out irrigation and reclamation schemes which may result in increasing the purchase price or the letting value of the land and, therefore, they must pay more tax. That would be a most serious thing. When the Chancellor of the Duchy says that he will give consideration to some of the points raised by his supporters, I do sincerely beg of him not for a moment to accept a proposal which would have disastrous results.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
The Noble Lord is no doubt aware of the conditions in India and must know that when land drainage or reclamation work is carried out that the cost is raised by increased revenue from the people who use the irrigated land. It is a familiar policy over the whole of India, and when he says that it is an impossible policy then all I can say is, that in India, which he has ruled for the last 10 years, it is the universal practice when dams are laid and irrigation laid on to the land for rents to be raised on the increased value due to the water supply. It is a common form in India and also in the Sudan. When a Government carries out irrigation works the normal thing is to increase rents to the people using the water. The Noble Lord perhaps does not know East Africa quite so well, but in Nigeria all the land cultivated by the peasants belongs to the State and they pay a yearly rent which varies with the value of the land. Does the late Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies shake his head?

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
Yes, I do.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I would call his attention to the Native Rights Proclamation Act, which we carried some 20 years ago, under which all land in Northern Nigeria is held under the Crown by variable rents depending on valuation, exactly as we want to have in this Amendment. In East Africa we also impose the Nigeria system upon 720 Tanganyika. There the native owns the land subject to a variable rent, or, shall I say, owns it subject to a variable tax.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
The point is this, that the variations in rentals, only take place at long intervals; in Tanganyika it is 66 years, and that is quite a different thing to taking power to immediately raise land taxes on this agricultural land.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I believe in Nigeria it is once every seven years, and in Tanganyika, although he and I recommended that it should be once in seven years, it is once in 33 years.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
It is not done in Nigeria.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
No, because the land does not change in value, but we have taken power in the Ordinance to do it, and we want the same power here so that the people will have the value of any reclamation, schemes. It is the normal practice in almost every part of the Empire and ought to be certainly embodied in this Bill where drainage and reclamation work is carried out.

Commander WILLIAMS
If I understood my Noble Friend the right hon. Member for West Sussex (Earl Winter-ton), he does not object to some increase from time to time as the land increases in value, but that is a wholly different thing to what is laid down in this Amendment. The point in the Amendment is that whatever the increase and any increase, which means all increases, must be taken away from the indigenous occupier of the land. Long before he has benefited in any way he is to be taxed in this manner. In a civilised country like ours with people of various kinds of thought and curious ideas, you can occasionally put these curious ideas into practice and nothing much will Happen, but these people will not understand these intricate taxes which will take vast sums of money out of their pockets without their knowing what it is for, and before they have profited at all. Surely the hon. Member does not mean that by his Amendment. Surely the object of the Amendment, to initiate this or that, or the other idea—

§ Mr. MacLAREN
I should like to tell the hon. and gallant Member that he is mistaken, and I hope that he will believe 721 me when I say that I am the last person in this House to take an opportunity for advancing a "stunt." The Amendment has been put down genuinely and seriously and not merely with the idea of discussing the question of land values.

Commander WILLIAMS
I absolutely and entirely accept the explanation of the hon. Member. We all know that this is a matter very dear to the heart, and that he would never do anything but what was genuine. I am sorry indeed if I have imputed motives to him. I would not do that to any hon. Member, and certainly not to the hon. Member, who quite thoroughly believes in his point of view on the subject. Having apologised as fully as I can, and I am sure he will accept it, let me say this, that it is very unfortunate that these things, very carefully thought out, get on the Order Paper. I appeal to hon. Members opposite. We on these benches realise that there is some good in this Bill and we want to get away from these little sidelines to the really important Amendments of the Order Paper. I hope hon. Members who have taken practically the whole of the afternoon so far will withdraw the Amendment so that we can get on to the really important part of the Bill; that is the constructive effort which is made.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has given a promise, and in view of that promise I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment. If, however, his Amendment does not fulfil my desire, then I reserve my right on the Report stage to discuss the question again.

§ Mr. DENMAN
I beg to move, in page 2, line 13, at the end, to insert the words: (h) The production, distribution, and supply of electricity. This is intended to supply what is an apparent omission, and if it is accepted by the Government then I need not occupy the time of the Committee with any arguments.

§ Mr. REMER
On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Chairman. I gave notice of a manuscript Amendment in line 7—

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I called on several hon. Members but no one rose.

§ Mr. REMER
I thought the Amendment with which the Committee has just dealt was an Amendment to line 5.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I am afraid it is the hon. Member's own fault that he did not rise to move his Amendment.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
It may be held that the words of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) are covered by the Bill, but it is one of those points upon which there is a slight doubt, and therefore I think it would be helpful to have these words inserted. I shall be pleased to accept the Amendment.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I beg to move, in page 2, line 18, at the end, to insert the words: (k) The promotion of public health. This manuscript Amendment meets the point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) on the Second Reading of the Bill, and it also goes a very long way towards meeting the point of the Amendment supported by several hon. Members on this side of the House, to insert the words: promoting the education and health of the native community by the building of schools and hospitals. It may be convenient to discuss these Amendments together, because they really deal with the same thing, and if I am in order I will explain why I think the words of my Amendment are more appropriate than the words of the Amendment of my hon. Friends. In the first place, the Amendment of my hon. Friends contains the rather unfortunate expression "native community," and although neither they nor other hon. Members in the House would in the least object to being called natives of England there are people who object to being called natives of a territory which they inhabit. In addition the Amendment of hon. Members deals not only with health but with education, and education does not really fall within the scope of this Bill. The Bill is to develop the Colonies agriculturally and industrially and to provide employment in this country. Education is a most important matter, but it falls under the ordinary colonial administration, and if we are deficient in that respect 723 pressure on the colonial administration can achieve the end which my hon. Friends desire.

§ Lord E. PERCY
I suppose paragraph (i), the promotion of scientific research, etc., will be included.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
Technical education, in so far as it relates to industry, is not excluded from the scope of the Bill, but the words of the Amendment of my hon. Friends are altogether too wide. I did not include in my Amendment any words which specifically relate to the public health of the indigenous inhabitants for several reasons. Not only would white settlers be excluded, but Indian settlers and Arabs would also be excluded, and we want to give the widest application to the question of public health. Indigenous inhabitants will be included in the words of my Amendment, and all of the forms of settlers will also be included. I hope my hon. Friends on both sides of the House will be satisfied with my Amendment which definitely establishes the principle of public health.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "in whole or in part."
There is a consequential Amendment to insert words which will provide that half interest be paid instead of the whole interest. It does seem to me that we are going a bit far in paying the whole of the interest on any loan for 10 years instead of asking the colony concerned to pay that interest. At the present time, on nearly all the loans that the Colonies raise, the Colonies pay interest at once, so that there is no burden on the British taxpayer. It is true that some years ago, for certain specific loans in Kenya, we took the charge upon our own shoulders of paying the interest, but it was for a period of only five years, if my memory serves me right, or it may have been for only two years. In this Bill we are taking the burden of the whole interest for 10 years. Observe what that means? It means that practically half of the money is advanced as a free gift to the colony at the expense of the taxpayers of this country. That seems to me to be an enormous step in advance of anything that has been done before. I call in aid the speech of my right hon. Friend the 724 Lord Privy Seal on Tuesday last. My right hon. Friend referred to half the interest being paid for 10 years. I do not know whether he meant that that was the average, but I think we might put a provision in the Bill that half the interest for 10 years should be the limit of what the British taxpayer has to find.
In this Bill and in other Bills that we are passing, I think that we are rather running away from the old Treasury traditions of this country. I ask the Committee to remember that the Treasury has not a bottomless purse, and that all these schemes for making work by taking money from some people and spending it in employing people in Africa or in England, merely mean that the people from whom you take the money have not got that money to spend in employing people to make the things that they want. I am sorry to go back to this old-fashioned but still correct political economy. We should be very cautious about engaging in purely wild-cat schemes with the idea that we are improving employment in this country, when, as a matter of fact, we are endangering employment here and adopting unsound finance. But there is more than that. If you make all these schemes so very attractive to borrowers, you will have an enormous number of borrowers in the market. The Colonial Office and the Committee will be surrounded by various Colonies and private interests, as in the case of die Zambesi Bridge, begging for money on these cheap terms. The competition of the different borrowers will he enormous. I think that it is putting a very dangerous weapon into the hands of the Committee or the Colonial Office to give them the power of deciding between two Colonies or a number of private interests as to who is to get this great present. If Kenya has to compete with Tanganyika it will mean that each Governor will be at the Committee or at the Colonial Office trying to get the £1,000,000 a year for his own colony.

§ Lord E. PERCY
£1,000,000 is the maximum.

Colonel WEDGWOOO
If there is a gift of £1,000,000 going as a maximum, you may be certain that there will be a great number of people who can make use of that £1,000,000, and the two Governors will be competing for it. You are bound 725 to have heartburning and jealousy. For us to pay the whole of the interest for 10 years, although a business may start paying its way in five years, seems to me rather a startling fact, and I feel as though I had got into rather a new world. I hope that there are enough economists and lovers of the Treasury present to press the Government to reduce this maximum gift by one-half and to make half the interest for 10 years the maximum that can be given. I would draw attention to a leading article in the "Times" to-day which deals with this very danger.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
The purpose of the Amendment is to restrict the Government in developing the objects which it has before it. My right hon. Friend said that he was speaking from the standpoint of a sound and ordered economist. He was, but some years behind the times. The real trouble about this Bill, in the mind of my right hon. Friend, is that a Measure which is warmly supported from the benches opposite is a little too Socialistic for him. Here we have the State by direct action undertaking a very big concern. We have substantial grants and advances made by the community for the development of these territories under the auspices of the State. All this is precisely that communal activity and drive which the individualist of the last century so strongly objected to, and my right hon. Friend has ever in this House been one of the most strenuous and able advocates of that individualist system upon which the conditions in this country nearly a century ago were built up. Really every argument of his has been in support of those sound and orthodox economic principles. May I appeal to him? If the sums to be spent on these schemes pass a business committee, if they pass the Treasury officials, will they really be such wild-cat schemes that my right hon. Friend cannot support them? Are our business Committee and our Treasury people such irresponsible folk or so void of any sense that we cannot entrust them to spend even so small a sum as £1,000,000 a year in the promotion of Colonial development? No, Sir. The whole purpose of the Amendment is to restrict developments which on principle my right hon. Friend strongly dislikes. As he said, he feels that he has got into a new world. I think he is right. It is 726 a world in which the State and the community are looking after themselves.

§ Mr. MacLAREN
I am rather surprised at the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy. If we dare to stand up and defend the rights of natives, we are told that we are out of date, or, in this case that we are holding economic views that are 50 years old. The Ten Commandments are much older than that, but they are still true. I would suggest to my hon. Friend that a little training in Scottish logic would help him in these matters. Instead of this being Socialism I have a strong suspicion, from the evidence of the attitude of the Front Bench opposite on land values, that it is not so much a scheme for watering the Colonies for the benefit of the Socialist community in Tanganyika or Timbuctoo, but that there are vested interests which stand to gain from the free interest guaranteed for 10 years. I do not mind whether the Bill provides for payment of interest for 10 years or even 15 years as long as anything that comes out of the growth of land value as a result of this expenditure of public money comes back to the community.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, to leave out the word "ten," and to insert instead thereof the word "five."
This is practically the same Amendment, and I do not propose to detain the Committee by discussing it at any length. I would merely say that the last Labour Government made it five years. This Government makes it' 10 years. I suppose the next Labour Government, or perhaps the next Conservative Government, will make it 20 years. This may be Socialism, but it is also very good Conservatism for Conservative interests.

§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out the words "(including surveys)."
I move this Amendment in order to raise a question of drafting. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will remember that the ex-Under-Secretary for the Colonies during the general Debate raised the point that these words might 727 have a limiting effect. I myself should have thought that the words any other means which appear calculated to achieve the purpose aforesaid would be quite enough and would include surveys without their special mention. I am afraid that the mention of these words may have the effect of limiting these operations to something which is of the nature of a survey, and I feel sure that such is not the object of the Sub-section and not the desire of this Committee. Therefore, I move this Amendment in order to ask whether the hon. Baronet has considered this point and whether he is, in fact, satisfied with the present drafting of the Sub-section in this respect.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I have looked into the matter and consulted the draftsman, and I agree with the view which the mover of the Amendment takes. Anyhow, a reference to surveys would be more appropriate in another part of the Bill, and it is proposed to move these words from this part of the Bill and insert them elsewhere in the Bill. Possibly the best procedure would be for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to withdraw his Amendment and put it down for the Report stage, and I will then put down an Amendment to insert the words in another part of the Bill.

§ Captain BOURNE
Why not leave them out now?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes to proceed with his Amendment now, I will move on the Report stage for the insertion of these words elsewhere in the Bill. That, possibly, would be the more convenient course.

Dr. MORGAN
I beg to move in page 2, line 28, after the word "means" to insert the words "including settling people on the land."
I move this Amendment in order to make sure that in those Colonies where there is no land available for the native-born population, opportunities should be afforded for those individuals to settle on the land, either by means of lease or letting. The conditions in the Colonies vary. In some Colonies there are native reserves and therefore there 728 is land available for the native-born population but I am thinking of Colonies where no land is available for the native-born population, most of the land being held by settlers in large estates. In such cases, the native-born population have no opportunities of getting land and have to work as labourers on the estates. I want them to have the opportunity of getting leases of land and being able to work small holdings of five, 10, 15 or 20 acres. It would lead to the betterment of the local population in certain areas—I have in mind especially a certain island—and I hope the Amendment will be accepted.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I think the insertion of any words here would be inappropriate for the reasons which led me to accept the last Amendment. If it is desirable to insert any such words, it would be better to select another part of the Bill in which to do so. On the merits of the words proposed in the Amendment I would only say that my hon. Friend is really trying, within the scope of a Bill which deals with Colonial development and with unemployment in this country, to insert a matter which is, quite evidently, a subject of general Colonial Office administration. I cannot, within this ad hoc Bill, devoted to two quite clear purposes, accept or embody the whole great range of possible Colonial developments which must come under the survey of the Colonial Office. The point which my hon. Friend has made can be raised with great force on the Colonial Office Vote, and to some extent the purposes which he has in view are actually met in the Bill. In Sub-section (1 a), for instance, there is a reference to the preparation of agricultural produce for the market, and under some of the other Sub-sections of the Bill something might be done in this direction, but I am not going to suggest to my hon. Friend that the full purposes of his Amendment can be met under this Bill because quite obviously that cannot be done. Something can be done to assist the people whom he has mentioned, but it clearly cannot come within the scope of a Bill the purposes of which are very definitely limited.

Dr. MORGAN
Doubtless the authorities who are in charge of the Bill know its scope better than I do, but I thought that its object was not only Colonial 729 development, but also the stimulation of trade and employment in this country. If you start wealth distribution in the Colonies among those who have, at present, no opportunities of getting on to the land it will increase the trade of the Colony and will increase the importation of goods into that Colony from Great Britain, thus assisting trade here. It seems to be a suitable Amendment which might be accepted and I hope the hon. Baronet will see his way, at a later stage, to insert some phrase in the Bill to meet this reasonable request.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I venture to ask the hon. Baronet if he is not in error in saying that this proposal could not properly be brought within the scope of the Bill. Sub-section (1 a), for example, refers to encouraging the preparation of agricultural produce for the market and the adoption of improved machinery, and Sub-section (1 f) refers to the reclamation, drainage and irrigation of land. Are we to understand that we are spending money to make things more profitable for the people already in these Colonies, and to enable them to become prosperous, but are ruling out the possibility of unemployed people going from this country to the Colonies and there becoming prosperous? The interpretation which the hon. Baronet puts upon the Amendment would indicate that we are thinking solely of the prosperity of existing colonists. In the Bill we have already a reference to the reclamation of land. For what are we going to reclaim land, if not to put people upon it? We have already in the Bill the possibility of money being spent on mass colonisation—on getting people, not as individuals but in bodies, to go out to places like the parts of the highlands in Tanganyika which have not been settled and where there is land on which white people might settle. I would like to see some of this money devoted to equipping these people and establishing them on land where they might add to the prosperity of the community there where directly relieving unemployment here. Unemployment can be reduced in all sorts of ways—among other ways, I suppose, by ordering goods here instead of ordering them elsewhere—but obviously you reduce unemployment, if people who are now unemployed here become useful productive workers in the 730 Colonies. I would like to see a part of these monies applied directly to creating new successful productive workers in the Colonies.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just made a very extraordinary speech. He wants this money used for the promotion of white settlement in East Africa. There is already ample money under the Overseas Settlement Act for the assistance of migration within the Empire and the essential thing to be considered here is equipping the existing population in these Colonies. Whatever the right hon. and gallant Gentleman may say it is extremely expensive to settle right away in the heart of Africa a European, and particularly an unemployed European, with no knowledge of tropical agriculture and no previous experience in the management of African labour. It would probably cost £1,000 at least to do that. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has advanced a very surprising theory in suggesting that money which will be required to promote the development of pubic utility services—for that is the main object in view here—should be diverted to the purposes of overseas settlement.

Dr. MORGAN
This is not meeting my point. The discussion has now gone round to the settlement of white migrants from this country, but my Amendment was devoted to the case of the native-born population in places where land is not available for them. I can give numerous cases of Colonies where there is no land available for the native-born population, and I have in mind an island in the West Indies where white settlers have bought up all the land. In Trinidad there are some Crown lands mostly held under licence by oil companies, but in other islands there is no land available for the natives. I want the native-born population to have a chance to get on to the land and to grow their native produce, and if you arrange for the marketing of that produce, you will be increasing the consumption of British goods and increasing trade and employment in this country.

§ Mr. REMER
I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at the end, to insert the words: (m) "The marketing of British manufactured goods. 731 7.0 p.m.
This raises an issue which I raised on the Financial Resolution and to which I received no reply. There has been for a long time in the textile and other manufacturing centres of this country a feeling that the Empire Marketing Board and this Development Fund should apply equally to manufactured articles instead of being as at present limited to agricultural produce. I move this Amendment, because I believe there should be the widest possible opportunity for advertising and marketing British manufactured goods in the same way that agricultural produce is advertised by the Empire Marketing Board in this country. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
This is also an Amendment which goes beyond the scope of the Bill. We cannot do everything, however good the suggestion may be, in one Bill. This Bill really relates to the development of agriculture and industry in the Colonies, and in the process of that development we assist in the problem of unemployment by securing orders for our own products. To embark on all these suggestions, admirable as they are in themselves, would reduce the Bill to a sorry spectacle. I hope the hon. Member will realise the limitations of the Bill and withdraw his Amendment.

§ Mr. REMER
I was afraid I would get that answer, but I hope the hon. Baronet will remember the point and on some future occasion find means of accomplishing what I have proposed.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, after the word "may," to insert the words "subject as hereinafter provided."
The Amendment which I am now moving merely governs a longer Amendment that follows, and it would perhaps be convenient if we were permitted to discuss now the longer Amendment. If this Amendment be carried, I shall subsequently move to insert, at the end of line 37, the following words: Provided that the Secretary of State shall satisfy himself that fair conditions of labour are observed in the execution of all works, the cost of which is to be defrayed 732 in whole or in part out of the advance, and the Treasury, in making such advance, shall have regard to the desirability of securing as far as possible that the colony or territory, to the Government of which the advance is made, shall participate in any increase in values directly attributable to the advance. I am particularly anxious that this should be an agreed Bill. We have had on the whole such a very pleasant passage that I shall strive to draw together both sides of the House in agreement on an Amendment of this nature which covers points raised not only by hon. Members behind me but also to some extent by hon. Members on the benches opposite. It is perfectly clear what are the two main considerations to which my suggested! Amendment relates. In the first place, we want to ensure by statutory authority that the Secretary of State shall be satisfied that fair conditions of labour are observed. I know very well that hon. Members opposite would not dissent from such a measure. In fact, it is ordinary Colonial Office practice to impose such a condition, and the only novelty is that we are embodying it in the Bill. The second half of the Amendment may give rise to more interest, but I do not think hon. Members opposite will object to the words which I have read. Their purpose is, within the widest possible elasticity of administration, to secure as far as is possible for the community concerned the advantage of any communal betterment which may accrue from the expenditure of State money. Earlier I asked my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment which laid down specific methods by which this object should be achieved. Here, in far more general terms giving a wider latitude in administration, I am striving to secure a purpose, from which no hon. Members, I think, will dissent—that, so far as it can be done within existing legislation and practice and without the disruption of the whole of the relationships on which this great administration rests, we shall strive to secure for the community any advantages that may accrue from the expenditure of public money and strive as far as possible to exclude merely profiteering interests arising from the expenditure of public money. In broad principle, I do not think there can be any great difference between us upon this score, and I hope that the words I have proposed may be 733 acceptable as an equitable solution of the question under the two heads of labour conditions and of reserving to the community in question the advantages of the expenditure of public money which is proposed in this Bill.

§ Lord E. PERCY
The hon. Baronet will realise that it is rather difficult to deal with an important Amendment of this kind when it is only in manuscript. I may say at once that we on this side of the House have no objection whatever to the first part of the Amendment. When we come to the second part, there are one or two comments which I would make. In the first place, the Committee will observe that it is the Secretary of State for the Colonies who is to satisfy himself about the labour conditions, but it is the Treasury who are to satisfy themselves about the participation of the Colonial Governments in the increase of value. It has been quite clearly pointed out in preceding Debates on this subject that obtaining for a Colonial Government a share in the increased value is a political question of the greatest delicacy fraught with the most far-reaching consequences if it means the taxation of African village communities. It is a political question of Colonial administration. It is not a question of finance for the Treasury to decide. That is what strikes one at first blush.
Secondly, I would ask whether the Government are quite sure that, if these words are inserted, the Treasury is not to give preference to those projects where, in the opinion of the Colonial Government and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Colonial Government can obtain a substantial share in the increased value, and that other cases, where the increased value directly resulting accrues to African communities, to lands reserved for the Africans, where it is more difficult and highly doubtful whether the State ought to increase the taxation because of the increased values, shall be discriminated against. In consequence, it is very possible that preference will be given to those schemes which will benefit the white settler and that discrimination will be exercised against the schemes which will benefit the African community. These are very serious questions. The Committee will observe that I have not touched for one moment upon the abstract question of land values. I 734 have dealt purely with the merits of the Amendment in connection with the Bill itself and its operation in African Governments. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Duchy that he should put this Amendment down for the Report stage when we could really look into it and make observations on it and that he should not press it now. I would also suggest that, when he puts it down on Report stage, the Secretary of State for the Colonies should be substituted for the Treasury.

§ Mr. BROCKWAY
I should like to express very great appreciation of the Amendment which has been moved from the Front Bench. I and a number of others had Amendments down on the Paper which dealt with these subjects. It is quite likely that the form of words which has been read will meet our points in this respect, but I would submit to the Minister whether it is not possible to include more definite words than those which he has read. He has quoted words which were in previous Measures. Since then there has been drawn up a definition of fair conditions of labour with the support both of the employers and of the Government representatives at the International Labour Office, which I suggest would be the fairest form of words to introduce into this Amendment. The definition is as follows: At rates not less than those prevailing either in the area of work or the district of recruitment, whichever is the higher. The employers' representatives and the Government representatives both accepted that form of words in the questionnaire issued by the International Labour Office on this subject. I submit very strongly to the hon. Baronet whether it might not be possible to Include that form of words in his Amendment. So far as the passing to the community of the increased values of land which result from these schemes is concerned, I will reserve comment until I see the Amendment on the paper. I welcome the acceptance of the principle, but I am a little doubtful whether the form of words is sufficiently firm to meet our desires.

§ Mr. MANDER
I understand that this Amendment is put forward as an alternative to some Amendments on the Paper with reference to forced labour. I have one handed in myself, which would prevent 735 any of the money under this Bill being used for schemes where any forced labour was involved.

§ Mr. BROCKWAY
I should like to make it clear, if the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt him, that I did not mean that, so far as that part of my Amendment relating to forced labour is concernod. I should not move that, because I shall hope to do so when the time comes.

§ Mr. MANDER
Then I shall reserve my remarks on that question until my Amendment comes on, which I think will be earlier than that of the hon. Member opposite.

Commander WILLIAMS
An appeal was made that this Amendment should be placed on the Paper for the Report stage. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy accept that suggestion?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I shall be very glad, working under the pressure which is necessary in the case of improvised legislation, if I am so fortunate as to ascertain the general views of the Committee, but I think I am correct in saying that something on the lines of my Amendment, subject to modifications which hon. and right hon. Members opposite may suggest, might be acceptable to them, while I understand that my hon. Friend behind me would prefer something nearer akin to his own wording on the labour question, if he can have it. I will certainly look into those points which have been raised and try to put down a common denominator Amendment before the Report stage, in the hope that we may be able to carry through an agreed Amendment to meet all points of view, which will be in keeping with the discussions which we have had so far. I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. BROCKWAY
I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after the word "conditions," to insert the words as are hereinafter specified or. Since this is a preliminary, textual Amendment to the longer Amendment in my name, and those of other hon. Members, which is at the bottom of the page on the Order Paper—in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert the words: 736 The Treasury shall make grants or loans under this section only in cases where it is satisfied that the schemes to which the grants or loans will be applied do not involve—
(a) the employment of labour at rates of wages or on conditions of labour worse than the standard rates and conditions prevailing in the district;

(b) any work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty for its non-performance and for which the worker does not offer himself voluntarily;

(c) the employment of the labour of children under the age of 12 years.
The Treasury shall also be satisfied, prior to making grants or loans under this section, that any increase in the value of land arising from the use of such grants or loans will accrue to the Government of the colony concerned; that in the case of East African territories at least two-thirds of each grant or loan under this section will be spent in native reserves: and that where a grant or loan under this section is used to assist limited liability company the Government of the colory concerned shall acquire an equitable measure of control of the limited liability company in question by the appointment of directors on the board of the company"— I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt now with the principles involved in that longer Amendment.

§ Mr. MANDER
On a point of Order. My Amendment covers the same point in reference to forced labour, and as it comes earlier than that of the hon. Member opposite, I submit that an opportunity should be given to me to put the case on forced labour first.

§ The CHAIRMAN
I understand that the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) comes after the word "fit," in line 34, whereas that of the hon. Member for East Leyton (Mr. Brockway) comes after the word "conditions," which is earlier in the same line.

§ Mr. BROCKWAY
I am only following the precedent which was set by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench in this matter. If hon. Members will look at my longer Amendment, they will see the substantial principles which are involved in this preliminary Amendment. The Front Bench has already met us very largely so far as the employment of labour at certain rates of wages and with certain conditions of labour is concerned, but they have not met us so far as the 737 prohibition of forced labour and of child labour is concerned. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, when he moved the Second Reading of the Bill, definitely stated that it was not the intention of the Government that any degree of compulsion should be brought to bear on the native populations to furnish the labour necessary for the carrying out of any schemes under the Bill, and I hope very much that that intention, which was expressed in speech, will be accepted by the Government in the actual form of the Bill. The second point is the prohibition of child labour under the age of 12 years. As I said to the House yesterday, I have evidence that children are now employed on public works under that age, and we consider very strongly—those of us who are associated with this Amendment—that under these schemes at least the employment of child labour under 12 years of age should be absolutely abolished.
The next point, in regard to the increased value of land, has been accepted in principle by the Government, and we will await the form of words which they propose on the Report stage, but I want to emphasise the point referred to in that part, of our Amendment in which we ask that at least two-thirds of each grant or loan, so far as East African territories are concerned, shall be spent in native reserves. The Under-Secretary of State suggested that that was not necessary, but we have the experience of Kenya at present, where branch railways have in recent months been extended to the white settlement areas at and beyond Nyeri to Solai and to Kitale, while an enormous population of agricultural Africans round Mumias is totally devoid of railway communication, as well a" the whole of South Kavirondo. I want to suggest very strongly that these railway communications should be developed where the bulk of the population is, and that is in the native reserves. Lastly, we include the principle that where State grants or loans are made, it is the right of the State to secure a control proportionate to the financial assistance which is given. That has been met in the hopes which have been held out so far as the Zambesi Bridge is concerned, but we desire to see that principle laid down as a general rule in this Bill.

§ Mr. MANDER
My Amendment was somewhat less ambitious than that of the hon. Member who has just spoken. I wish to preclude any of the money provided under this Bill being used in connection with schemes where any forced labour at all is employed. I understand, from what was said by the Under-Secretary of State yesterday, that there is no intention of doing anything of the kind, and that no forced labour will be used in these schemes, but it is important that that should be stated in black and white in the terms of the Bill itself. In order to point out how far-reaching this question is, I would like to read to the Committee a few words from the Official Report of the International Labour Conference in its 12th Session at Geneva in 1929: It says: The laws concerning forced labour for general public purposes in the British East African Dependencies of Kenya, Nyasa-land, Tanganyika Territory, Uganda, and Zanzibar are, in many respects, similar. It goes on to describe a few examples. Here is one from Kenya: Public works.—Orders may be given for the providing of forced labour for work on the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges; water-works, railways, Government buildings, harbour works, wharves, piers, telegraph and telephone systems, and such other work of a public nature provided for out of public moneys as the Governor may, with the prior approval of the Secretary of State, declare to be a work of public nature. The other example is that of Uganda and is as follows: Public works.—Forced labour is permitted in the building of railways, the making or repairing of roads, bridges and telegraphs, the building or repairing of public buildings, and services necessary for the maintenance of public health. I do not know if there is anything left. It seems to me very far-reaching and very sweeping, and I submit to the hon. Member in charge of the Bill that he should consider most carefully whether he cannot, in the agreed Amendment at which he is trying to arrive, insert words definitely forbidding the use of forced labour in connection with these schemes. If they are not put in, there will be a very great temptation to those out there to make use of forced labour, in view of the fact that I believe they can do very little without the use of forced labour. I appeal to the hon. Baronet carefully to consider whether he cannot meet our 739 views and those of the hon. Members behind him on this very important matter.

§ Mr. AMERY
I am sure there is no essential difference between the two sides of the Committee in regard to the standard of administration which we wish to see established in any of our Colonies or Protectorates but I wish to submit for the consideration of the Chancellor of the Duchy that this is not a Bill for the better administration of our Colonial dependencies. Such a question as that of forced labour is one where the Powers concerned are discussing the matter, and have discussed if, at Geneva, and where it is the primary duty of the Secretary of State for the Colonies and of the Governors of all the various Colonies to carry out the principles agreed upon in the whole of their administration, and at the same time with due consideration of local conditions. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) quoted a statement which would imply that the field for the use of forced labour in Kenya and Uganda is very wide. It is, in theory, but in fact there has been no use of forced labour in either of those territories for a considerable time past. On the other hand, if you take the peculiar circumstances of a Colony like Sierra Leone, where there are no white settlers, but where the whole tribal conditions cause a certain amount of forced labour in the construction of roads to be recognised by the people themselves, and probably by Geneva, as convenient, there surely the right thing is for the Governor of that territory to interpret the principles laid down by Geneva in accordance with local conditions. But for us to lay down our particular version of the Geneva conditions and place it in this Bill, which is meant for an entirely different purpose, and make it the rigid test by which any finance can be given, seems to me to mix up and confuse two entirely different objects.
The same applies to such questions as the employment of the labour of children. There are in certain parts conditions where the workers on roads bring their children with them. That may or may not be a good thing—I am not arguing the merits of it—but it is a thing which the Governments of the Colonies should 740 determine on its merits, and which we ought not to pre-judge as a condition of giving assistance to those Governments; and I think the same applies really—again I do not argue the merits—to these questions of land values and limited liability companies. Surely this House ought, on this issue, to confine itself to the main principle of this Bill, which is to promote the development of the Colonies for which we have responsibility, and in connection with that, incidentally, also to promote the trade and industry of this country. Side by side with that it is the responsibility of this House and of the Secretary of State to watch over the various Colonial Governments and to see that the principles which we wish to see maintained in our Government in every part of the British Empire shall be effectively enforced as regards all labour and all development, and not merely as regards development which takes place incidental to Treasury help. This Amendment is also subject to the same difficulty which my right hon. Friend pointed cut in regard to the Amendment of he Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; it makes the Treasury a deciding factor in actual details of administration in a Colonial Dependency. That, I am convinced, is quite unworkable, and from that point of view I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy will not accept this Amendment, but will meet hon. Members opposite by something of quite a general nature which would be a general guidance and instruction to the Colonial Office and to the Government;, concerned, and not attempt to intervene directly in the ordinary course of Colonial administration.

§ Mr. C. BUXTON
I should like to express very strong disagreement with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the late Colonial Secretary. He seems to think that there is no necessity for making a provision against the possible use of forced labour or child labour in connection with work which may be initiated under this Bill. I do not know whether the objection which he has put forward to safeguards of this kind also applies to safeguards in regard to fair conditions of work. I do not know whether he draws a distinction between laying down the restriction as to fail-conditions of work and laying down a 741 condition in regard to forced labour and child labour. I do not see where the line is to be drawn. As a matter of fact, the right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the Palestine and East African Loans Act in 1926, and in that Act there were provisions in regard to fair conditions of labour.

§ Lord E. PERCY
Perhaps the hon. Member was out of the House when I stated on behalf of this side that we had no objection, and supported the proposal.

§ Mr. BUXTON
What I am asking is how the right hon. Gentleman, the late Colonial Secretary, draws a distinction between laying down this particular restriction as lo fair conditions of labour, which I understand he approves, and laying down conditions as to forced labour and child labour, which I understand he disapproves. I want to know why he approves the one thing and does not approve the other.

§ Mr. AMERY
A quite general guidance or indication to the Secretary of State may be used to express the general views of the House, but to go into a number of detailed points—and anyone who followed the investigations at Geneva knows how detailed and complicated these matters are—to go into details of administration, and to try to get through this Bill what you ought to get through the general survey and criticism and control of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, is what I object to. I am not differing on the merits from the hon. Member opposite, but the things which he wishes to be achieved ought to be done by the Secretary of State controlled by this House through the Colonial Estimates, and not brought into the framework of a Measure which is meant for an entirely different purpose.

§ Mr. BUXTON
I understand that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that so long as the provision is of a sufficiently vague and general character, it may be accepted, but as soon as it comes to anything really precise, to which you, can pin anybody down, he objects to it; otherwise, the distinction which he draws between a general limitation and a specific limitation seems to me to be very difficult to explain, and only leaves me more confused than ever. Forced and child labour are important general matters, just as much as fair conditions 742 of labour are. They are not specific definitions. If you get a specific definition of forced or child labour, I do not deny that you get into many complications; exactly the same thing applies to fair conditions of labour. If you define that specifically, and lay down that you have to have fenced machinery and so on, you get into complications, but all these cases seem to me very much of the same nature. I do not want to chop logic. I merely rise to urge that it is not merely a mistaken policy to lay down any conditions with regard to forced labour and child labour; it is also a dangerous policy, because it is not enough to say, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that forced labour and child labour will be provided for by a proper conduct of the administration of the country.
Forced labour and child labour are not merely processes which are in danger of arising at any one time as much as another, but they are processes which are in danger of arising in connection with the particular works which are provided for in this Bill. When you get work and enterprises stimulated and encouraged by this Bill, it is precisely at that moment that the supreme danger of forced labour and child labour arises. The terms suggested by the hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench covered the ground very adequately on the points with which they dealt, that is to say, fair conditions of work and the participation in increases of value; but I think that it is of the utmost importance that forced labour and child labour should be referred to as well. When forced labour is dealt with, we should not confine the restriction to forced labour in the sense of forced labour carried out by the central administration, but we should use terms which will also cover the local, communal forced labour, which is a matter of a quite different kind. I am not saying that we should simply prohibit the use of local, traditional, communal labour altogether; it is a thing which has its roots in history and local necessity, and I am quite willing to admit that you must have some broad general words which will not at all times prohibit a local community from going out and repairing roads, and cleaning out ditches, and things of that kind.
743 Some of the gravest abuses arise, not only in connection with forced labour by the central administration on a railway or something of that kind, but in connection with local communal forced labour, which is an old and traditional thing. It is utilised by the administration itself, and not merely ordered, according to the ancient traditional custom, by the head man of a village; it is often practically enforced upon that head man by the officials of the Government. Under the Native Authority Ordinance in Kenya, powers are given to the head men to order out the able bodied men on certain specific works, but in addition there is the power to go to the district officer to direct the head men to issue these orders. That may be used in some cases to produce results which are very deplorable, and a good deal of evidence has reached this country to show that in some of these cases you have not merely the able bodied men and women but very young children, called out under this local system of communal labour, and there are abuses which have to be provided against. I suggest that words should be found, not of a very concise character, but of a more or less general character, to specify forced labour, whether local or central.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
I should like to say a word as to the attitude to be adopted towards this Bill in regard to the question of including words dealing with forced labour. I am the first to recognise, and anybody who has been at the Colonial Office will recognise, that there is room for bringing the legislation of some of the colonies, protectorates and mandated territories more up-to-date in regard to the terms under which labour for various purposes may be secured by the administration. It is recognised that a good deal of the legislation is old and obsolete, and not put into practice. Some of it undoubtedly should be changed. It has not been done before because the International Labour Office some time ago gave notice that they wished this matter to be settled, as it should be settled, on an international basis. For at least two years, there have been various stages in the drawing up of an international convention to be applied to all colonies, protectorates and mandated territories, governing the conditions under which tribal labour should be used.
744 I hope that, as that convention is reaching its final stage, no attempt will be made in this Bill to pick out particular articles of the draft convention, and put them in piecemeal into a Bill of this kind, but that the matter will be dealt with, as it should be dealt with, by the Government of this country ratifying and putting into force the international convention when its terms are finally settled. That seems the only comprehensive and satisfactory way of dealing with the subject. We have been waiting two years for the final production of the Geneva work, and representatives of the Governments and of employers and employed, have been at Geneva going into these matters and doing this work.
May I say a word as to what I think would be the effect of the words proposed by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander). The sole effect would be that while every other dependency could get on without recourse to any form of communal labour, there would not be any possibility of any of this money being used in the protectorate of Sierra Leone, or in the Northern provinces of Nigeria. In both these eases, the people are in a state of civilisation where there are practically no wage earners over a large part of the undeveloped portions of that territory, and there are even places where there is not yet money, and where the whole population consists of a purely tribal peasantry living in very communistic and high socialistic conditions. All public services are invariably discharged by the form of farced labour, that is to say, the whole village turns out to do it, if there are villages there—in Sierra Leone admittedly there are villages—at any rate the people of the area perform the public services of their area. There are no European enterprises, they are living in primitive social conditions; for example, there are practically no roads. The only way in which anything can be done—work" of sanitation or the like—is to take the organisation as we find it, using the traditional communal spirit and organisation of the country, using their machinery. If there is a total prohibition of all attempts to use what is called in this House "forced labour" for these public works, there will be two areas of West Africa which will be effectually debarred from these benefits, 745 although we could make that prohibition in the case of all the more or less developed areas.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
This has been a very useful discussion, which has enabled the Government to obtain a concensus of the opinion in the Committee. I suggest to the hon. Member that he should withdraw his Amendment now, and I will put down for the Report stage the Amendments which I have drafted in order to attempt to meet him, and I will see what can be done to meet the other points which have been raised from both sides.

§ Mr. BROCKWAY
I think the Government ought to know, so far as many of us are concerned, that our attitude towards this Measure will be determined by the extent to which we are met in this respect. We cannot possibly vote for schemes of public works, to be paid for out of British taxation, which are to employ either forced labour or child labour in the Colonies. In view of that I cannot see any possible means of reaching agreement with the hon. Gentlemen on the other side.

§ Mr. MANDER
In view of the fact that my Amendment is also affected, I should like to say that I entirely agree with what hon. Members on the Government side have said. I very strongly dissent from the views expressed by hon. and right hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench. I think it is fair to say of them that they are willing to go on with the works projected under this Bill by means of forced labour, whereas many of us on these benches think this Measure provides an opportunity for initiating reforms in this respect.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I have listened very carefully to every speech which has been made from this side. As my hon. Friend the Member for Elland (Mr. C. Buxton) has observed, in general terms the words which I have read to the House cover practically all the points which have been raised, but I will certainly examine those words again to see in what degree they can be made sufficiently specific to cover the points which have been raised. I suggest to my hon. Friends that they might at least await the wording which we can produce, as it is within their competence to move any Amendments they 746 like upon the Report stage. I shall do my very utmost to meet them, and I hope we shall be able to come to some agreement; but if we fail to do so, it is still open to them to take whatever steps they desire. I think two main points have Been made clear in this discussion. On the one hand, there is a determination on the part of the Committee, with which I entirely agree, to see that the expenditure of public money in any part of the world shall not be used for debauching the conditions of native labour, and I shall do my very utmost, by wording as precise as can be adduced, to safeguard that standpoint.
There is another point of view to which consideration must be attached. It is absolutely impossible for me, in an ad hoc Bill of this kind, to do all the work which' should be done, and no doubt will be done, by the Colonial Secretary. Hon. Members cannot expect the Government, in a Bill of this kind, to reform the whole great range of abuses which have their roots deep in those Colonial countries. It is impossible to cover that whole range in one Bill promoted for an entirely different purpose. I think we can get some measure of agreement on some points. We can get agreement on the two main principles that labour conditions must be safeguarded when public money is provided for these works, but at the same time it will be recognised, in fairness I think, that it is impossible to go into every detail of Colonial Office administration in a matter such as this. I can assure my hon. Friends that I shall do my very utmost to meet all the desires they have expressed in regard to these views, which we have held in common.

§ Mr. BROCKWAY
On that understanding, I am quite ready to withdraw my Amendment. Perhaps I may express the very great appreciation of myself, and I am sure of my colleagues associated with me in this matter, of the way in which the Front Bench has dealt with the points which are before them, and I hope there was no impression that we did not feel such appreciation.

§ Mr. MANDER
I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, after the word "fit," to insert the words: 747 provided that no advances under this Section shall be made in respect of any purpose which involves the use of forced labour. This is a manuscript Amendment. The whole issue was raised on the Amendment we have just discussed and the hon. Baronet showed himself very considerate towards those behind him, but he completely ignored the similar point of view which I had ventured to put.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
Oh, no.

§ Mr. MANDER
It was not done intentionally, I feel sure, but at the same time I would like him to assure us over here that he will do his best to find an Amendment which will meet our views.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I am very sorry that I did not allude specifically to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, but it was a manuscript Amendment, and I had not a copy of it. I can assure him that in framing the Amendments which I have in view I will keep in mind the views which he shares with hon. Members behind me. I by no means meant to ignore the Liberal Benches; I was intending to refer to the speeches which have come from all sides, of the House.

§ Mr. MANDER
lam very much obliged to the hon. Baronet.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?

§ Mr. MANDER
Yes, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Viscount WOLMER
I beg to move, in page 2, line 37, at the end, to insert the words: Provided that any sums of money expended in the purchase of materials, machinery, or goods shall be spent upon goods manufactured or produced within the Empire. This is a manuscript Amendment, and I am moving it in order to get a statement from the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill. One of the principal objects of this Measure is to help towards the solution of the unemployment problem in this country, and as this money is to be advanced at the expense of the British taxpayer I think it is desirable that it should be laid down in the Bill that the money should, as far as possible, be spent in the purchase of British made goods. If hon. 748 Members will look at the Bill they will find that that stipulation is nowhere included. The Chancellor of the Duchy may tell us that under the Bill the Treasury have power to insist upon that condition, but I suggest that it may possibly be a great convenience to the Treasury, and an assistance to the Government in trying to ensure that the maximum of orders under this Bill are placed in this country and other parts of the Empire, that this condition should be definitely laid down in the Bill. I am not in the least enamoured of these particular words; I have merely raised the point in a manuscript Amendment, because I think it is one which ought to be put forward, and if the Chancellor asks me to withdraw the Amendment I certainly will do so. But I would like to have an assurance from the Government as to what it is proposed to do in the matter, and to know whether they will consider the insertion of words to this effect on the Report stage. I am sure it is the intention and determination that this money should as far as possible be spent within the Empire to help our unemployed problem.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
The intention of the Noble Lord is very germane to the object which we have in mind, but I think the words which he has proposed are unnecessary, because there is a specific instruction to the committee which considers all these propositions that they should be calculated not only for developing the Colonies but also for promoting industry in the United Kingdom. The committee have also definite instructions to keep in mind the providing of employment in the United Kingdom. While they are not absolutely bound by the provisions of the Bill, they are very strictly instructed by the Bill, and they must always have as a primary consideration the carrying out of the objects of the Bill. If the Noble Lord can see his way to withdraw the Amendment, he may rest assured that his object is already achieved by the Bill.

Commander WILLIAMS
In passing a Bill of this kind, which in all probability will run on for a considerable number of years, there will arise difficulties in regard to individual contracts. Therefore, I think it is very important that we should lay down as clearly as possible on this 749 occasion that the materials and goads used should come from within the Empire, and Empire productions ought to be encouraged. I wonder if the Chancellor of the Duchy, between now and the Report stage, will be able to see his way to work out a form of words which will carry out what I am sure the Committee desires, namely, that practically no goods or materials should be used except those which are actually produced within the Empire. That is a reasonable request. We have been trying to make this a common consent Bill, and, if a provision of the nature I have described could be inserted, I am sure it would give us a very great deal of satisfaction.

§ Mr. SANDERS
I would like to repeat in this discussion the very sound maxim which was put forward by the Chancellor of the Duchy, that you cannot include everything in one Bill. I am strongly in favour of all the expenditure under this Measure being made not only in the Empire but in the United Kingdom. That is what I should like to see, because primarily we want to help the unemployed workpeople in this country side by side and equally with promoting the development of the Colonies. I would not like the Committee which will be in charge of the administration of this Measure to be hampered by an Amendment to the effect that under no circumstances could any contract be given except to those who would give a, pledge that every item of material and every hour of labour used in its production should come from the United Kingdom. Just as we are on this side prepared to stay our hand in this respect as regards the United Kingdom, I think the other side might leave it to the good sense and patriotism of those who will have charge of these matters, and I do not think we ought to pass any proposals which would bind their hands in the way suggested. There might be a ease where it would be advantageous to buy or procure something from outside the British Empire as part of the scheme, and that scheme might be stopped altogether by an Amendment of this kind.

§ Viscount WOLMER
I beg to ask leave to withdraw by Amendment. I do so in view of what the Chancellor of the Duchy has said. I hope he will think the matter over again and consider whether it would not be of assistance to 750 the Government in carrying out their policy that it should in some way be clearly laid down that the goods will be British made as far as possible.

§ Viscount WOLMER
I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 37 and 38.
The point of this Amendment is to make the Bill applicable to Iraq. As the Measure is now drawn, it is not applicable to Iraq, because the mandate which has been accepted by the Government in respect of Iraq is not being exercised. Therefore, unless these words are struck out, the Bill will not apply to Iraq. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government, because we all desire that the Bill should be applicable to Iraq, as well as to the territories in which we are exercising the mandate of the League of Nations. Under these circumstances, it seems absolutely necessary that the words should be struck out. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Duchy has considered these points, but I think he will agree with me that, unless these words are struck out, the Bill will not be applicable to Iraq, and we desire to make the Bill as wide as possible.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
Iraq is excluded from the Bill, and the omission of the words, as suggested by the Amendment, would bring Iraq within its scope. May I point out that Iraq is not technically a mandate exercised by His Majesty.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
But Transjordania is included.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
Yes, Transjordania is included because the mandate there is being exercised by His Majesty.

Sir H. YOUNG
It seems to me that Iraq is a very favourable field for the application of this Bill. In the first place, there is great need in that country for the development of railways which would result in valuable orders coming to this country. The application of the provisions of this Bill to Iraq would tend to increase the productive power of that country. Then, again, there is the question of irrigation works which would be very much to the benefit of Iraq. In the third place, there is a much needed extension of the Iraq railways. It appears to me that the only reason why Iraq is not included is a mere technicality. 751 This omission may have taken place out of some special regard for susceptibilities, but I think they could be overcome by inserting some safeguard.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
After the discussion which has taken place I have concluded that this Amendment does not come within the terms of the Money Resolution, and, therefore, it is out of order.

§ Mr. ORMSBY-GORE
Then any Amendment having for its object the inclusion of Iraq will be out of Order.

§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I think I must so rule, owing to the fact that the Financial Resolution is limited to mandated territories in respect of which His Majesty's Government are exercising a mandate.

§ Captain BOURNE
I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out Subsection (11).
I move this Amendment more with the intention of getting an explanation on this point than with any desire to press the Amendment. Sub-section (11) reads as follows: In this Section the expression 'colony' means a colony not possessing responsible Government. I suggest to the Government that the expression "Not possessing responsible Government" is extraordinarily vague and unsatisfactory. The Lord Privy Seal, in the course of the Debate on the Financial Resolution, said the object was to exclude Southern Rhodesia. In the Easter Act, 1928, the following list is given of His Majesty's Dominions in which, it was then considered, His Majesty could not legislate by Order in Council: British India; the Dominion of Canada; the Commonwealth of Australia; the Dominion of New Zealand; the Union of South Africa; the Irish Free State; Newfoundland; Southern Rhodesia; Malta. I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Duchy that it would be much more satisfactory, on the Report stage, to take this Sub-section out of the Bill, and attach to the Bill a Schedule stating those of His Majesty's Dominions to which this Measure will not apply.
I will give him a concrete instance. There is at the present moment the Colony of Ceylon. As I understand the 752 Constitution of Ceylon, it has not at the moment responsible Government, but, as the hon. Baronet knows, there is a suggestion now before the Ceylonese Government, based on the recommendation of the Donoughmore Committee, which, if accepted, might produce something which would give responsible Government to Ceylon. If this Sub-section remains in the Bill, and Ceylon obtains what I believe might be held to be responsible Government, would it mean that, while Ceylon would be able to get loans under this Bill for one year or two years, yet, when that Colony attains responsible Government, it would then become excluded? I am not quite clear how far the Governments of the West Indies are regarded as responsible: I do not know whether they are or not; bus she question I want to ask is, what is the definition of "responsible government." because it is rather a vague expression? Does it mean a Government where the Crown has not the power of over-riding Bills, because, after all, that power is possessed by every Dominion or Colonial Government. Does it mean a Government in which one portion or certain portions of the legislature includes official members? After all, that is a condition which may change, and does change in different parts of the Dominions, and it might result in this very inconvenient position, that the Government of a Colony which at one moment has not responsible Government might in a few years' time become responsible, and it seems to me that, if that arises, at it has arisen in recent years with regard to Southern Rhodesia, it may have a great effect on the working of the Bill.
I suggest that it would bester conduce to smooth working if the Government would consider this point between now and the Report stage, and see if they cannot produce a Schedule of those Colonies to which this Measure will not apply, on the understanding that it will apply to all others. I do not at all like this expression "responsible government," because it is too vague to apply to the innumerable Governments that we have in the Empire. There is the case of British Guiana, which, I believe, has just had a new Constitution. I am not certain whether the new Constitution yet applies or not, but I am equally not certain whether it is not something very 753 near to responsible government. The old one was not. I remember that we had some discussion in the House on the subject. As I have said, I think that the phrase is too vague a one to use for an Empire such as ours, in which every form of government, from almost absolute autocracy to very wide representation, exists in the different Colonies, and that, if we are to exclude any Colonies from the operation of this Bill, it should be done by a Schedule showing which Colonies are not included, rather than by some vague phrase which may be applicable to-day but possibly not applicable to-morrow.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
; I hope that the Government will not accept this Amendment, because the position is perfectly clear. A responsible Government is one which is responsible for paying its debts. The real point here is that this Bill applies, so far as we are concerned, to those Colonies whom we in this country can force to honour their obligations. We cannot force Australia to honour its obligations; we cannot force New Zealand; but we can force all those countries which have not responsible government. Directly they have responsible government, we cease to be able to coerce them. Southern Rhodesia, for instance, is excluded. Southern Rhodesia has responsible government, and the only matter in which we can interfere in Southern Rhodesia is that of native questions. If they refuse to pay their debts, we cannot coerce them.

§ Lord E. PERCY
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says that this matter is very simple, but his definition does not enlighten us. He says that a responsible government means a government which cannot be made to pay its debts, and that Governments which can be made to pay their debts are Governments which are not responsible governments. I do not see how that helps us.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I did not mean to suggest that as a definition to be embodied in the Bill. The responsible governments are responsible for their own taxation, and the irresponsible ones, with whom we are dealing in this Bill, are those whose taxation is fixed by the House of Commons or by the Colonial Office. I object to the suggestion of a Schedule, because, as time goes on, 754 further Colonies may become responsible, and, directly they become responsible, they automatically cease to have rights under this Bill. It is only so far as we can be sure of our security that we ought to lend money in this way. I propose to raise this question on the next Amendment, relating to mandated territories, but I think that that is the point.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
It is quite clear what Colonies are affected by this Sub-section. Only Southern Rhodesia and Malta are excluded by the term "responsible government." The point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has been present to our minds. A situation may before long arise which would, under this definition, exclude Ceylon from the operation of the Bill. Whether the exclusion of Colonies owing to the development of responsible government is a more disadvantageous situation than their remaining on a permanent Schedule and subject to the conditions of the Bill long after they have attained responsible government, is a matter for consideration. Our purpose in this Sub-section was to place Colonies with responsible government in the same position as Dominions, that is to say, outside the purview of the Bill. They are really analogous to Dominions rather than to ordinary Colonies, as far as their financial arrangements are concerned, and it appears to me that the best definition available is the term "responsible government," which divides into two clear categories the Colonies with which we are dealing. It is perfectly certain that, as things are, only Malta and Southern Rhodesia are excluded. As to the Ceylon case, which may before very long arise, in my opinion it would rather vitiate the purpose of the Bill if, after achieving responsible government, Colonies still remained under a Schedule which made them susceptible to the Bill, but I will certainly give every consideration to the interesting point which the hon. and gallant Member has raised, and possibly, although I cannot give any undertaking to-day, we might discuss the matter on the Report stage.

§ Lord E. PERCY
Would the Chancellor of the Duchy consider this point? When a Colony attains responsible government, it is no longer able to go to the Treasury and ask for advances under this Measure; 755 but will the effect of retaining Subsection (11) as it stands be that a Colony which has secured grants covering the payment of interest on loans for 10 years, and which during the course of the 10 years gets responsible government, will then cease automatically to have any right thereafter to receive grants from the Colonial Development Fund? That would be a very queer result. Perhaps the hon. Baronet could say whether that is the actual effect?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
That is not so much the difficulty with which I have to contend. Clearly, a Colony would have the right to assistance from the Development Fund up to the moment when it assumes responsible government. Clearly, it would not have a right to further assistance. The only point which, to be quite frank, is rather troubling me, is the control which the home Government would have over the money which it has advanced after the Colony becomes a responsible government. Suppose that the advance is made before the Colony becomes a responsible government. What control over the situation has the home Government after that? That is a material point into which I will look closely, but I do not think that the rights of the Colony are in any way adversely affected.

§ Lord E. PERCY
If the hon. Baronet is going to claim the right to say to the Colony when it attains self-government, "Any contract I had with you for the payment of interest on your loan is null and void," then I certainly think the Colony might very well reply, "In that case I shall not recognise any right of control by you over loans already made."

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
Surely if we said, when the Colony became a responsible government, "We will wipe out all the money you are owing us," the Colony would have no ground of complaint. It would be in a very good situation. But that is precisely the reverse of what I meant. I meant, "What security have we that the moment when the Colony becomes a responsible government is the moment when we lose the measure of control that we previously exercised?" I do not anticipate any very great trouble on the point. On the whole it might put us in a greater difficulty to put the Colonies 756 in a permanent Schedule, as is suggested, but I will give the matter close attention before the Report stage.

Dr. MORGAN
I think the important point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle - under - Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is the question of finance and taxation. It does not matter whether the Colony has responsible government or not in the ordinary case, from the point of view of a representative Government of fully elected members. Take the Island of Barbados. It is a Crown Colony. It has a fully elected representative Assembly, but still its finances are under the Colonial Governor, and they are responsible to the Colonial Office, which can still veto, through the Governor, any action of the elected representative Assembly. The important point is whether the Colony is responsible for its own finances or not. In the case of Barbados, it still has its finances under the control of the Governor and the Colonial Office. I hope the Government will stick to the Clause and not amend it in any way.

§ Colonel WEDGWOOD
I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, after the word "colony," to insert the words "or mandated territory."
I want to apply to mandated territories precisely the same principle that we have applied to the Colonies That is to say, as long as the mandated territory has its taxation fixed ultimately by the Colonial Office, so long should it be entitled to get its loan, but directly a mandated territory gets responsible government and fixes its own Budget, that mandated territory also ought to cease to have any right to claim loans under this Bill. The Sub-section says: In this section the expression 'Colony' means a Colony not possessing responsible Government. That should be followed by something like this. "In this Section the expression 'mandated territory' means a territory not in the possession of responsible Government." I want to make certain that we do not leave the door open for a mandated territory, on becoming responsible, getting a loan.

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
The preceding Section says "The territories to which this 757 Section applies are territories in respect of which a mandate on behalf of the League of Nations has been accepted and is being exercised by His Majesty's Government." If a mandated territory has achieved responsible government, the mandate is not being exercised by His Majesty's Government, and that is why these words exclude Iraq, which has achieved a measure of responsible government. So I think the purpose my right hon. Friend seeks is really secured by these words, "is being exercised," in the previous Sub-section.

§ Lord E. PERCY
I should like to ask one or two questions about points I raised on the Second Reading, when the Financial Secretary to the Treasury promised that he would try to comfort me if I so desired. In the first place I want to ask a perfectly specific question on which there is a great deal of doubt on this side of the House. Is or is not any balance remaining from the Colonial Development Fund at the end of the year surrenderable to the Treasury? Then on the Second Reading I alleged that the Treasury occupied a position as a spending authority in relation to this Fund which it did not occupy in relation to any Government Department or any existing Government activities. The Chancellor of the Duchy, in a very fair retort, said that was not the case, and if I compared this Bill with the Act creating the Development Fund in 1909, I should find that that Act proceeded on precisely the same lines. It is quite true that the Act begins much in the same way as this Bill—"The Treasury may upon the recommendation of the Committee make advances," and so on. But what was the Development Fund? It was financed out of such moneys as may from time to time be provided by Parliament, but it was also financed by moneys completely outside any discretion of the Treasury. It was financed by funds issued automatically out of the Consolidated Fund, that is to say, a sum of £500,000 a year. Thirdly, the Development Fund received any funds received by the Treasury by way of interest on or repayment of any advance made by way of loans under this part of the Act.
758 Therefore, the United Kingdom Development Fund set up by the Act of 1909 received money from year to year. Parliament, looking ahead, provided that it should have a certain income in addition to any money that might be voted by Parliament from year to year, and the function of the Treasury was to decide how beat that money should be paid out of the Fund and what was the best objects on which it could be expended. But this Fund, while it receives any money that may be voted by Parliament year by year, has no income charged on the Consolidated Fund and it is specifically provided by Clause 1 (8) that any sums received by the Treasury by way of interest on or repayment of any advance shall be paid, not into the Fund but into the Exchequer. The relation between the Treasury and the Fund is really this, that the Fund will contain in any given year moneys voted by Parliament to the extent that the Treasury want to spend money in that year. In fact, the Government would estimate for their Colonial Development Fund the money which was necessary to make advances and to pay grants to which either the Government are already committed or to which the Government definitely know that they are going to commit themselves during the next few months. It is really not a fund at all. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, in his opening remarks yesterday, said that into this Fund was to be paid £1,000,000 a year. It is nothing of the sort. Into this Fund is going to be paid any money which the Treasury may recommend Parliament to vote, not exceeding £1,000,000. It is not a fund in any sense of the word. That is my criticism, and my questions are these: Is not my statement correct, and is there any precedent for the Treasury acting in this way as a spending Department, not in relation to a fund with an independent income, which income it has to spend, but in relation to a Department which has no money except what the Treasury may allow it to have from year to year? We ought to be perfectly clear on this point. The Committee know that I have not adopted a fractious attitude on this Bill at all; on the contrary. It is not a £1,000,000 a year development fund Bill. It is a Bill saying that the Treasury may from year to year, on the recommendation of the Committee, spend such sums 759 as it may recommend Parliament to vote to it under the Act. Is not that rather an unprecedented position for the Treasury to adopt?

§ Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE
The Noble Lord has put the case exceedingly fairly and in the main, on the facts which he has put forward, he is perfectly correct in his interpretation of the meaning of this Bill. The grant is not a fixed sum of £1,000,000; it is such sum as Parliament may determine. In that respect, it corresponds to the ordinary Estimates that are laid before the House. But the grant will be guaranteed in a technical sense in that any grant issued or unspent at the end of the year will not be surrendered to the Exchequer but carried forward to the Fund. The Treasury, however, retain the right to short issue a grant if it should appear that the amount likely to he spent in a year is less than the amount originally voted. That is a constitutional right of the Treasury.

§ Lord E. PERCY
Take the case of the Empire Marketing Board. Where Parliament has been asked to vote a certain sum to the Empire Marketing Board, has the Treasury the right to short issue the sum of money which Parliament has voted to that Board?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
No, the Empire Marketing Board Fund is on an entirely different footing. The Empire Marketing Board has a definite vote of £1,000,000 a year, and the Treasury has no right to short issue it. That is not on the same footing as a measure devoted to Empire development. It is not a clear million every year. It is such an amount—not more than £1,000,000—as Parliament shall determine, but, if the amount of the Estimate is not wholly spent, the balance will not be surrendered, but will go into the Fund.

§ Lord E. PERCY
Does the hon. Gentleman mean that if the Treasury short issue in any one year the amount by which it is short issued will still remain in the Fund?

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
I am sorry if I have not made myself clear. There are three points. In the first place, it is not £1,000,000 but such sum as 760 shall be determined. If a certain amount has been estimated, and the Treasury do not short issue, and there is a balance, that balance will not be surrendered. But the Treasury can short issue., and in that case the balance will not be so large. I hope that I have made the matter clear.

§ Lord E. PERCY
A balance is hardly likely to occur.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
It is not likely to be very large, but, if there is a balance, it will not be surrendered. I now come to the next point which was made by the Noble Lord, that this turns the Treasury into a spending Department. I do not know whither he has misstated the facts, but I think his description of the facts is incorrect. I do not admit for a moment that this makes the Treasury a spending Department. It places the Treasury with regard to this Colonial development on the same footing as the Treasury with regard to the ordinary spending Departments of this country. They present a Estimate. The Treasury exercises a supervision over these Estimates, and technically the Treasury comes to Parliament to ask for the money. In this case, the Committee, together with the Colonial Office, decide upon certain schemes. They have to get Treasury sanction. When Treasury sanction is given to these schemes, the money is asked for from Parliament, and, if the Estimate is agreed to, the money is voted. The Noble Lord is perfectly right in thinking that this is on a different basis from the Empire Marketing Board £1,000,000. It is quite different from that. But I do not think that he is right in thinking that it makes the Treasury a spending Department any more than the Treasury is a spending Department with regard to any of the Estimates which are carried through this House every year. It places the money on precisely the same footing.

§ Lord E. PERCY
I grant that it will depend to a certain extent upon the Government Department which has its Estimates passed by Parliament. The Treasury has no power to say to a Government Department, "You shall not spend the money Parliament has voted to you under the various heads mentioned," unless the Treasury remains responsible for spending or not spending the money which Parliament has voted.

§ Mr. T. WILLIAMS
Was not the Noble Lord present when the Lord Privy Seal explained the difference between this Fund and previous funds? The object of this Fund is ostensibly to provide employment, and if the Fund remains, as the Noble Lord suggested, only partially expended in one year, the balance will be handed over to the next year. Otherwise it might have a tendency to hold up for next year, or the year after, or some future year work which might be put in hand immediately. The Lord Privy Seal explained that that was definitely provided for in the Bill to which he referred. If the Noble Lord had read that statement, he would not have made the, remarks which he has just made.

§ Lord E. PERCY
Perhaps the hon. Member was not here on the Second Reading of the Bill?

§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Yes.

§ Lord E. PERCY
I did hear the Lord Privy Seal make that statement, but he has made a totally different statement. He has said that the Government intended to set up a Colonial Development Fund, to which £1,000,000 would be voted, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be able to raid it. "What I want to know is, which of the two statements remains the policy of the Government?

§ Mr. DENMAN
In the Bill, as it stands, the process appears to be perfectly clear. Parliament begins by providing an amount not exceeding £1,000,000. Then, under Sub-section (4), Treasury control comes in: All sums issued on account of moneys provided by Parliament under this section shall be paid into a fund to be called 'The Colonial Development Fund'" … I understand from the Noble Lord and the Financial Secretary that it is intended that the Treasury shall issue to the Colonial Development Fund less than Parliament votes. If the sum issued docs not amount to less than Parliament votes, then I am correct in contradicting the Noble Lord. If Parliament votes money and that money is transferred to the Colonial Development Fund, no power can take it out of that Fund, except it is to be spent on objects provided by the Act. When it is once there, it is safe.

§ Lord E. PERCY
When the Treasury is kind enough to pay it in, certainly.

§ Mr. DENMAN
If the Financial Secretary tells me that the Treasury will not pay into the Colonial Development Fund an amount less than Parliament votes, it is essential that we should know that. If we vote a definite sum of money, we ought to be sure that the Treasury will, in the course of that year, pay that amount into the Development Fund. If we are not told that, then we do not know where we stand, and how much money we are going to spend. Moreover, under Sub-section (7), the Treasury has power to invest any moneys standing to the credit of the Colonial Development Fund in any Government securities. Therefore, if we vote £800,000 and it goes to the Fund and is not all spent, we shall be earning a little interest for the Fund; but if, on the other hand, the Treasury is to short issue, then the Sub-section will never effectively come into operation. I hope the Financial Secretary will give us an assurance that, whatever may be the language of the Act, the Treasury will pay into the Development Fund the sums which we vote.

Sir H. YOUNG
I confess to some sense of disappointment as to the way in which the Fund will work out, according to the statement of the Financial Secretary. We received the impression that this was to be a true grant-in-aid, and that we were to vote a sum, not necessarily £1,000,000 every year, to the Colonial Development Fund. We are, I gather, to be slightly disappointed in that regard, because it is not to be a Vote to' the Fund, but a Vote for the specific purposes for which the Fund is to be employed. Therefore, unless these specific purposes can be fully advanced in the year, there may be a short issue. That takes the gilt off the gingerbread from the point of view of the possibilities of the future development of the Fund. It may be that, in practice, owing to the grants being made in the form of block grants to Colonial Governments, that there will be no difficulty in actually making the full expenditure in every year. That is what we trust the administration will do. I do, however, want to feel more happy about the rotundity of the scheme. If it were to be couched in the common form of the 763 annual accounts it should be a grant to the Fund, and should not be limited in a given year to the specific purposes for which the Fund is to be employed. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will give some consideration of that point. That procedure might be adopted by the Treasury under the wording of the Clause. If it is impossible to adopt a more generous procedure in the wording of the Clause, possibly it may be thought advisable to give some reconsideration to the Clause on Report.
The only other point which seemed to me appropriate to raise, is to ask whether the Chancellor of the Duchy has been able to give any consideration to the suggestion made during the previous stages of the Bill that it might be better to divide the maximum sum of £1,000,000, and allocate it definitely between the two very different purposes for which the Bill provides. A sign of the hasty preparation of the Bill is the way in which it lumps together the provision of financial assistance for objects which are not revenue earning, such as scientific research, which must be specifically by grants, and assistance to other objects which may be revenue earning, such as transport, whether by grants or by loan. This money will have to be administered by different organisations, and they will have no practical way of coming together, co-ordinating their policy and deciding how much money is to be given to each. Therefore, what one must be afraid of is a sort of dog fight between the two interests, which will be decided by no principles of administration but by the activities of the leaders on the two sides. To provide against that, would it not be much better to divide the £1,000,000 between the two specific purposes, either in the Act itself or in the annual Votes of Parliament?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
I agree with the hon. Baronet that it would be better to divide the research and the development side, but the best time to do that would be at the moment when we dovetail together the machinery of the Empire Marketing Board and the machinery of the present Bill. Admittedly, the present proposals constitute an interim arrangement. The Lord Privy Seal stated that at a later stage we shall have to amalgamate or 764 dovetail together the machinery of the Empire Marketing Board and the present Bill. The Empire Marketing Board is almost wholly concerned with research matters, and when we dovetail the two pieces of machinery together, it should be possible to divide the research from the development aspect, in the way suggested by the hon. Baronet. Any division which it may be advisable to make, should be made not under the present Bill but under the subsequent Measure.

Sir H. YOUNG
I am obliged to the Chancellor of the Duchy, but I must ask him a definite question. Are we to understand that it is the intention in the future to introduce legislation to coordinate the organisation of the Empire Marketing Board with that which is now being erected?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
Most certainly. That was the specific statement of the Lord Privy Seal.

§ Lord E. PERCY
There is one further point which I should like to raise. There is no reason why, if you have a Fund like the Empire Marketing Board Fund, to which £1,000,000 a year can be voted, that you should in any given year come to Parliament for the full million. For two or three years the late Government did not ask Parliament for the full £1,000,000 for the Board, or the understanding that the Board would have a claim on that money in future years. It is perfectly possible to follow the same procedure in regard to colonial development. That course is not being taken; and the only explanation is that the Treasury definitely mean to use its power of short issue and definitely intend that in ordinary circumstances no balances shall be carried forward from one year to another. I do not want to catch the Government out at all; I just want to find exactly what is the intention. And the intention of the Treasury is that there shall not be carried forward any balances from one year to another.

§ Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE
The intention is to give greater control to the Treasury over this expenditure; and as it is expenditure in some remote parts of the world there is a need for somewhat greater control. It also gives greater security to the taxpayers of this country if the Treasury is given this control.

§ Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE
I shall be obliged if the Chancellor of the Duchy will give me an answer to one aspect of the question which has not yet been raised. This Clause, which is really the operative Clause of the Bill, says that the Treasury may make advances for the purpose of aiding and developing agriculture and industry in the Colony. I like the order in which these two words are placed—agriculture and industry; agriculture is given priority. That is not quite the order in which we have been accustomed to consider industry and agriculture in this country in the past. The question I want to ask is this, that in so far as the agricultural development of a colony may succeed will it not have an inevitable reaction on employment in this country? This Bill is to fulfil two definite purposes. The first is to bring a measure of relief in connection with unemployment in this country; and this is to be achieved by an extension of agriculture and industry in our Colonies and Dependencies. Supposing it is successful, as everyone desires, will not this be the result, that for every two men of the native community who find increased employment in the Colonies in agriculture owing to the effect of this Bill you may put out of work at least one agricultural labourer in this country? The markets of this country are the Mecca of the world. They all send their agricultural products to this country; and we still have several hundred thousands of agricultural workers. I want to ask what measures the Government have taken to safeguard the position of the British agricultural worker and prevent him being displaced from his labour if the project of this Bill becomes a success? Can the Chancellor of the Duchy tell me what plans the Government have in mind to counteract the possible effect on agricultural labour in this country which a success of this Bill must inevitably entail?

§ Sir O. MOSLEY
The hon. and gallant Member has introduced what might become a very extensive argument into the discussion of this Clause. The economic argument he has advanced, like many other arguments, may be answered by pushing it to its logical extreme; and if the hon. and gallant Member's argument was taken to the extreme then all colonial development would be damaging to this country; the 766 opening up of any great new food-producing country would be fatal to the health and well-being of these islands. One only has to state the argument in that extreme form to see the danger into which we fall that in taking the narrow view of trying to preserve employment in this country we try to stop developments in other countries. In point of concrete fact the products of these tropical areas will not in very many cases conflict with the products of these islands. They will be sending in many cases the raw material of our industries, and in other cases fruits and products which we cannot produce. The fact of their sending them to this country and finding a market here will enrich them to the extent that they will become yet larger markets for the goods which we send to them. Develop their agriculture, give them prosperity, give them an outlet in the British market, and then they are rich enough to take the products of our great industries in return. That is the process of world trade which has been built up, and to that process we hope to give a substantial fillip by this Bill when it is in operation.

§ Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE
I am entirely in favour of colonial development. That goes without saying, and the argument of the Chancellor of the Duchy is perfectly right so far as increasing the prosperity and purchasing power of the people in the colonies. My point is this, that it is all right so long as that money is expended in this country in our industries but that when you get an extension of agriculture in a colony it might conflict directly with one of the largest industries in this country.