MALAY STATES

HC Deb 25 July 1946 vol 426 cc237-82

4.12 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall)

It will be for the convenience of the Committee if I make a short statement on the present constitutional situation in Malaya. The origin and purposes of His Majesty's Government's constitutional policy were fully explained by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in the Debates which took place in this House on 8th and 18th March. For that reason, it is only necessary for me to touch on a few of the matters which have a direct bearing on the difficulties which have arisen in Malaya in that endeavour to bring the new policy into operation. It will be remembered that this policy was fully considered for a long period, and we were convinced that, in all the circumstances, it was the most suitable for Malaya, and that at the conclusion of military administration, the time was most opportune for instituting such changes as were deemed desirable for the future progress of the peoples of Malaya.

The rapid growth of national consciousness fostered during the war, and in the postwar period in these areas in the Far East, made it imperative not only to reconcile the conflicting claims of the indigenous populations and the peoples of alien origin, but also to bring about constitutional unity with a more liberal constitution under the authority of a strong central government, representative of all interests and all peoples, and with control over all matters of common interest and of importance to the welfare and progress of the country as a whole. I know that the criticisms which have been made, both in Malaya and in this country, are not against what are the fundamentals or the main lines of policy, as was indicated by so many hon. and right hon. members in the last Debate. During that Debate my hon. Friend the Undersecretary pointed out that the Order in Council then referred to, was but the framework of the policy, and that if was quite possible to meet many of the criticisms and suggestions—indeed, many of them have since been met, and suggestions have been made whereby many of the points which were mentioned in the Debate could be dealt with. It was also agreed during the Debate to postpone the important question of the qualifications for Malayan Union citizenship, until such time as consultations could take place in Malaya, and the views of all communities had been fully heard. That was the approach which His Majesty's Government made to the criticisms. Notwithstanding those promises, there is still some misunderstanding and opposition to the policy.

The Committee will know that since the Debate, civil administration has been resumed, and the Governor and Governor-General have taken up their posts with a view to inaugurating the new regime. Their first duty was to make contact with Malayan opinion, Rulers and people, to bring them into free and friendly conversations, so that a settlement of the difficulties could be effected. I must say that the Governor-General and the Governor—two men of high standing and great ability—have been, during the past few months, most untiring in their efforts to bring about a settlement, and I am pleased to say that on the Malay side, which is represented in the discussions by the leaders of the United Malay Organisation as well as the Sultans, there is full appreciation of the broad policy of His Majesty's Government for the development of citizenship and representative institutions as the basis for eventual self-government. Discussions have been and are now taking place between both parties, and I wish to assure the Committee that I will be as helpful and as forthcoming as possible, and meet many of the points raised within the broad lines of policy on which His Majesty's Government are convinced the future progress and happiness of Malaya depends. These discussions are continuing in a keen but friendly atmosphere and I am pleased to say that the old good will for Britain still exists.

There is a very strong desire on both sides for a settlement, which I hope will bring that measure of cooperation which is essential to the success of any plan for the good government of that country. In these circumstances, I ask hon. and right hon. Members not to press me at this stage for any detailed statement of the proposals, since that might well prejudice the discussions which are at this moment proceeding. I am also confident that in the Debate, hon. Members, in their speeches, will refrain from making statements which will in any way be unhelpful to those who are charged with the heavy responsibility of conducting the negotiations.

In a sense, I would have liked it had the Debate taken place some time later, when a definite statement could have been made. But I fully understand the desire of the Committee to be informed of the happenings in that important country, and I am very glad of the opportunity of pointing out again the policy of His Majesty's Government in connection with this matter. We will certainly, let me repeat, do all we possibly can to bring about a settlement, and to work out a policy in full consultation with the leaders and representatives of the people of Malaya. We will ensure that full opportunity is also given to all interested com- munities in that country to be consulted before decisions are reached. The Committee will be glad to know that the negotiators met yesterday. They are meeting today and I am hopeful that in the course of a few days, or at least a week, I shall have from them some proposals which have been submitted for consideration.

The Committee will be interested to hear something of how Malaya is rehabilitating itself after the long period of Japanese occupation during which the population of Malaya suffered great hardship in many ways, particularly with regard to food and the treatment meted out to them by their Japanese oppressors. During the occupation the population had to live largely on tapioca, which as a staple foodstuff is unpopular and nutritionally inadequate. There are very few of us who would like to think that tapioca was the basic food upon which we had to depend, and I must say that the people of Malaya suffered considerably as a result of having to make this to a very large extent their base food. Today, Malaya is suffering, as most other countries are suffering, from a scarcity of food. Rice, flour, sugar, salt and tinned milk are strictly rationed and I am afraid that the rice ration which has been allocated to Malaya by the International Emergency Food Committee has, so far, been much below the requirements of the people, and the supplies had to be supplemented by flour, and not too much flour at that.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

May I ask a question? The right hon. Gentleman said the allotments had been inadequate. Can he tell us whether the actual supplies have been much below the allotments?

Mr. Hall

The supplies have been, to a certain extent, below the allotments. Offhand, I should say they are about 80 per cent.

Mr. Pickthorn

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean 20 per cent. below?

Mr. Hall

Yes, the difficulty has arisen mainly because of the difficulties in Burma and Siam. Some of these difficulties are being overcome and I hope that there will be a slight increase—I will not put it any higher than that—in the very low rations of rice and wheat which have prevailed in Malaya for some time. Malaya as a food producer has a considerable potentiality, though in peacetime it was not self-sufficient. Malaya imported quite a considerable amount of rice which was required—again, mainly, from Burma and Siam. To meet these difficulties a food production committee has been set up, having as its main objective the task of organising all possible measures to increase the local supplies of food. Large financial provision has been made for the purpose of increasing the production of rice particularly, and the large scale mechanical cultivation of rice in suitable areas is taking place. Other assistance is also being given. The fishing industry also has received special attention. We are conducting an expert survey and we hope that the supplies of fish will be increased considerably.

The importance of the speedy rehabilitation of the tin and rubber industries was fully recognised by His Majesty's Government. We are doing all we possibly can to bring this about. Soon after the liberation of Malaya, a well-known expert on base metal mining visited Malaya, and reported on the measures necessary for rehabilitating the tin raining industry, from which the country derived about 20 per cent. of its revenue before the war. As a result of this report, the industry was offered loans by the local government for improved programmes of repair. The loans will be the first charge on the repair assets, and will be set off against a compensation for war damage. The repayment of any of the loan or interest will not commence until a decision has been reached on claims to compensation for war damage, or until 1st January, 1950, whichever is the earlier. Loans on these terms will be available, not only to European tin producers but also to the Chinese. Applications for loans amounting to over £2 million have already been received from the European companies and figures are not yet available of applications from the Chinese. The European companies have placed orders in this country for dredging equipment amounting to £772,000. Eleven dredgers are already in operation and up to 30th June the Ministry of Supply Tin Ore Buying Agency in Malaya, which is at present the sole purchaser of tin, has purchased over 8,000 tons of tin concentrates, and 3,700 tons have been smelted in Malaya itself. A revision of the tin prices is now under consideration, and I hope that a favourable decision upon this matter will be reached shortly.

The Japanese occupation in Malaya resulted in much less damage to the rubber industry than was anticipated. Some 5 to 8 per cent. of the total planted acreage was destroyed, though damage to buildings and equipment was very severe. Much of the equipment which was removed from the estates and factories is being recovered gradually. Personnel suffered most heavily, and only about one-third of the effective labour force on the estates is now available. Rehabilitation of the industry is being organised by the industry itself through a company which was set up some time ago. This company is open to owners of estates of over 100 acres, whatever their nationality. The industry was given assistance in obtaining the release of trained staff from the Forces and granted the highest priority for passages for them to the Far East.

Mr. Walter Fletcher (Bury)

When the Minister referred to the rubber producing industry, he appeared to be referring only to the European-owned plantations. In view of the fact that 50 per cent. of the industry is contained in small Asiatic-owned estates, it may create a wrong impression if he continues to use the word "industry" for the large estates only.

Mr. Hall

I was not using the word "industry" to apply to the large estates only. I was coming to the present production of the smaller estates of below 100 acres or indeed those worked by the peasants themselves. As a matter of fact, I think I can give figures to show that the recovery of the smaller estates has been very much quicker than that of the larger estates. I pointed out that equipment work over £1 million had been ordered on behalf of the company from the Ministry of Supply. The Ministry has ordered equipment of about the same value for the smallholders in Malaya. As a result of the energetic steps taken by the industry, with the assistance of the Government, the production of rubber is rising rapidly. It is estimated that it may amount in the second half of this year to something like 160,000 tons. Estimates for 1947 necessarily are tentative, but it is thought that the production of smallholders will reach prewar levels, that of Asiatic estates will reach about 75 per cent. of their prewar level, and European estates about 60 per cent. The United States of America have undertaken to buy as much rubber from Malaya, the Netherlands East Indies, and French Indo-China as is allotted to them by the Combined Rubber Committee in Washington at a price of not less than 1s. 2d. a lb. f.o.b. for No. 1 ribbed smoked sheet. His Majesty's Government have undertaken to buy all the rubber required for this country from Malaya at the same price.

Mr. Gammons (Hornsey)

When the right hon. Gentleman uses the expression "no less than," does he mean that, if necessary, according to the laws of supply and demand, it can go higher?

Mr. Hall

As far as purchases by the United States and ourselves are concerned, they will be at 1s. 2d. per lb.

Mr. Gammans

A fixed price?

Mr. Hall

Yes, a fixed price of 1s. 2d. per lb.

Mr. Walter Fletcher

Up to what date?

Mr. Hall

I will get the date for my hon. Friend. I think it is for a very short period. Other countries are free to buy as much as has been allotted to them at any price they like to pay from the countries named, but it is clear that those countries will have to pay at least as much as His Majesty's Government and the United States. It has been argued that it is extremely short-sighted of His Majesty's Government not to hold out for a higher price, but they were in close contact with the representatives of the rubber producing industry during the negotiations. It was quite clear that it was not altogether in the interests of the rubber producers themselves to hold out for a higher price, in view of the fact that the synthetic rubber industry in the United States is producing large quantities of rubber at a price of about 10d. per lb. at the factory door, while natural rubber will be on sale at 1s. 3d. per lb. at the port of entry in the United States. It is, of course, rightly argued that the natural rubber is much superior to the synthetic rubber. We hope that that is so, but the main question is whether American manufacturers will be prepared to pay this extra amount for natural rubber in view of the fact that they are, at the present time, producing about 600,000 tons a year of this rubber of ordinary quality plus an extra 100,000 tons of special processed rubber. It is said that, for certain limited purposes, the latter is better than natural rubber. I am not an expert, but that is the advice which I have had given to me. We are hoping that the United States will reduce production in synthetic rubber and purchase more of the natural rubber, but it is the fact that natural rubber is in competition with synthetic.

I was very interested to read a report recently made by a special correspondent of "The Times," who, after travelling some 500 miles in Malaya, from Singapore to the Siam border, and talking to the Sultans, district officers, local leaders and the people, said that the two main impressions with which that journey had left him were, firstly, the rapid return to comparatively normal living conditions, in spite of the present economic stress after more than three and half years of stagnation under the Japanese; secondly, the general relief at the return of the British, felt by all sections of the people in Malaya—Malays, Chinese and Indians —and their consequent friendliness to the individual Briton. The correspondent said that this sentiment is a priceless asset which must not be lightly dissipated. I do want to assure the Committee, that His Majesty's Government do not desire to dissipate that sentiment, for, indeed, British policy, in the words of one of the White Papers recently published, is to bring about a political adjustment which will offer broadly-based institutions in which the whole of the community can participate, and assist in the development of Malaya's capacity in the direction of responsible self-government. Something more than a return to pre-war conditions must be achieved. There should be no going back to the parochialism of the past, which prevented greater progress being made. It is not the intention of the Government that the interests of the Malay people themselves should be overridden. That is why we hope the discussions now taking place will bring about a settlement. If that is so, it will enable the Government and the people to go forward and consider the bringing about of a wholesale reform of Malayan economy in their important industries, while preserving an indigenous landed peasantry.

There is immense scope for improvement in agricultural methods and further development of the cooperative system. A wider education would be a medium by which a greater sense of unity and common purpose could be engendered in the young people, while technical education would be an effective way of bringing the Malays into commerce and industry and also enable them to play their part in the political development of their country. We want an agreement which will bring about the required political adjustments so as to extend the representation of the people and abolish any racial prejudice and bitterness fostered during the war. That is the aim of the Government, and, I am sure, of all hon. and right hon. Members of this Committee and of anyone interested in Malaya, wherever they are. For that reason, may I say again that the discussions now taking place must lead to a settlement which will bring greater happiness and prosperity to the people of Malaya than they had before the war.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. Gammans

Anybody, I think, who knows the real position in Malaya today will have heard the words of the right hon. Gentleman with a certain amount of disappointment, if not dismay. He has had to confess to us that the misunderstanding between the Government and the Malay people still exists. As I mentioned in this House a short time ago, months have now gone by, and as time passes a situation of this sort deteriorates. The danger which I foresee, unless the Government can get a settlement within a reasonable time, is that the more moderate elements which are today in control may be in control no longer. I would agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said that nothing we may say in this Committee today should do anything to, make the task of the negotiators more difficult, but I would point out to the Committee that, at the moment, the points of difference are not, perhaps, so much points of substance as of atmosphere.

I understand, from what he has just said, that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to go a very long way to meet the legitimate wishes of the Malays and prove to them what the Under-Secretary said in this House on 18th March—that the Malay States are still Protectorates and not British Colonies is in fact true. The trouble is that the negotiators are faced with an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion which is the inevitable result of treating a proud Eastern people in the way in which the Malays have been treated. The Malays today are alarmed that their civilisation and way of life may be endangered, and they have been hurt. I think the trouble is that they are no longer prepared to accept promises or statements by the Government at their face value. The Malays are a people who are staunch in their friendships, but they have very long memories for slights and injuries. I think that they feel rather like a businessman who, for many years, has had a loved and trusted partner and who on coming home one day finds the partner with his rand in the till. It is no good for that partner to say, "I did not mean to do it, and I will put the money back." Something has been broken and only time can heal the breach.

The task of the right hon. Gentleman and the negotiators in Malaya is, first, to create the atmosphere in which our word will be accepted and our promises taken at their face value. At the same time, I would say to my Malay friends in Malaya that I hope they will not worry about the shadow if they succeed in. getting the substance, and that, once they have got these assurances and guarantees from the right hon. Gentleman, they will take them at their face value. Secondly, I would say to them that I hope they will not dwell too much on the injuries which they feel have been inflicted upon them and their racial pride, by this Government. I hope that they will remember the long succession of British Governments during the last 80 years whose word they have learned to trust and whose good will they have never doubted.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman for one definite assurance, and I hope he will be able to give it. It is that, when this new treaty has been signed, it will be laid before this House of Commons in a way in which it can be debated. The Malays do not want any more Orders in Council. Considering that this crisis has very largely arisen from the way in which the negotiations have been carried on, I should have thought that the least the right hon. Gentleman could say to the Committee this afternoon was that the new treaty will be laid before the House and that we shall be given an opportunity to debate it. After all, the House of Commons is the only safeguard which Colonial people have against arbitrary acts of government. If that safeguard is removed, the right hon. Gentleman cannot expect the atmosphere which he wants, and must have, if the new treaty is to be successfully accomplished.

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to certain questions of economic rehabilitation. I wonder, therefore, if I might ask him once more the questions which I put to him a few weeks ago during the Debate on Colonial affairs and which, I am sorry to say, were not then answered. The first is: Can he say anything about the reduction in the size of the military garrison and when it will move out of people's private houses, clubs, office buildings, and all the other buildings which it is at present occupying? The present situation can do no good either from the point of view of military training or from that of the civilian population. The conditions are intolerable.

The second question is: Can he yet give any report on the petition which has been sent to him by the Junior Civil Service Association? As the right hon. Gentleman knows, what they have asked for is back pay during the Japanese occupation. All they have been given is three months' pay, ex gratia. Has he managed to solve that very delicate and thorny question of the four European Government servants who were not interned, but who were, nevertheless, given full pay for the complete period of the occupation as if they had been interned? What is the right hon. Gentleman doing about that? I asked him about it in a Question some weeks ago, when he said that he would look into the matter but, so far as I know, nothing has been done.

The right hon. Gentleman ought to say something from the point of view of the junior civil servants and the cost-of-living bonus. The cost of living is rising, but is the bonus adequate to meet that rise, especially for the lower paid people? What, too, has happened about the pensions to the widows of Chinese and others who were in the Civil Defence Service and who were killed at the time of the siege of Singapore? My last information is that these unfortunate women have, to this day, never been paid a penny, nor has there been any compensation paid to men who suffered injury. Can he say something about rewards and honours to men and women of all the Asiatic communities, who stood by our own civilian internees and prisoners of war at the risk and often at the loss of their lives? When I looked at the Malayan honours list, it seemed to me to be a very meagre reward for that wonderful loyalty to our own race, when our fortunes were at their lowest ebb.

What has happened about war damage generally? We heard a little this afternoon about war damage on mines and estates, but what about the war damage of ordinary individuals? I am always getting letters, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, because I pass them on to him, from individuals who have lost everything. They put in their claims, but they get neither acknowledgment nor money. Cannot a partial payment be made? Months go by, and nothing is done. To an individual, this is a catastrophic loss.

The right hon. Gentleman has said something about food. I wish he had said something about inflation, because the food position and inflation go together. He has told us that the rice ration is already below what it should be, but I was not clear whether it was going to get better, or whether it might even get worse. I should like a more categorical assurance than we have had this afternoon that the Government feel that the situation is, in fact, in hand, because Malaya, like this country, is largely dependent on imported foods, and today the rations which many people are getting are not enough to enable them to carry on. Can we have some assurance that the situation is likely to get better or, at any rate, will not get worse?

The right hon. Gentleman said something about rubber. I hope he is not labouring under the delusion that the people of Malaya are satisfied with the bargain he has made at 1s. 2d. a lb.. When they look round, they see that the people of Ceylon are getting 1s. 6d. a lb. The Government have decided to assume the responsibility for selling Malayan rubber and, therefore, they must accept the liability for the price at which it is sold. I do not know whether this Committee realises what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) said just now, that 50 per cent. of Malayan rubber comes from Asiatic estates and smallholdings. When negotiations were going on with America and with His Majesty's Government, were the Asiatic producers represented in any way, or was this bargain made in London behind their backs, without their having any say in the matter? It is no good the right hon. Gentleman paying lip service to the ideal of self-government, if vital decisions of this sort, which affect the daily life of these people, are made behind their backs.

I do not wish to repeat what I said the other day about State buying and selling, but I think that all of us in this Committee, unless blinded by political prejudice, should very carefully examine whether the virtues attaching to State buying and selling, which some theorists suggest, really exist. Superficially, there is a great argument in favour of it. It guarantees a fixed price to the producer and user, but there is an overwhelming objection to it—that, in transactions between Governments, political considerations cannot possibly be avoided. I am quite sure that when we tried to sell the Americans rubber, matters like the American Loan, the situation in Palestine and the food position throughout the world must have come into those negotiations, if only indirectly. Therefore, I hope that the Government, when dealing with the question of the livelihood of the Malayan peasants and others, will not view this matter from the point of view of doctrinaire Socialism. They have no mandate whatever to try out Socialism on the Colonial peoples. They may or may not have a mandate to try it out on us, but certainly not a mandate to try it on the peasants of Malaya. What the Malays want is a proper price for their rubber.

In these circumstances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us an answer to the question, which he was unable to answer just now, on how long this present agreement will last and what is to take its place when it expires. Does he anticipate that the rubber situation will be such, that a free market can soon be established and that synthetic rubber and natural rubber can come into the competition which must, sooner or later, inevitably be faced. The only thing I would say about the right hon. Gentleman's figure for the pro- duction costs of synthetic rubber, namely 10d. a lb., is that, frankly, I do not believe it. I believe that is just a statement which has been given out by the Americans in order to justify this price of rubber to ourselves.

I suppose all hon. Members realise that this Debate must necessarily be of an interim nature. We hoped that the Colonial Secretary would have been able to report the successful termination of these negotiations. I hope that as soon as the House reassembles, we shall have a full-dress Debate, not only on political matters but on economic matters as well. For example, many long-term questions will have to be decided, which the right hon. Gentleman either did not refer to at all, or else merely touched on. Perhaps the greatest of all is the question: What is to be the Government's policy towards immigration? What are we going to do to make up the deficiencies in the labour force on our estates and in the mines? He has admitted that the labour force on the estates today is only one-third of the prewar figure. Whom are we going to encourage to emigrate to Malaya—Chinese, Javanese or Indians? What is the long term policy with regard to food supplies? It has only been touched on this afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about large-scale experiments in food growing. I am sure every hon. Member would like to know a little more of what that statement means. What is the long-term policy for giving Asiatics a greater share in the administration of the Government? Lastly—and this, perhaps, is the most thorny question of all—what is to be the Government's education policy? If we are to try to build up a sense of Malayan unity, are we going to continue the system of separate schools for Chinese and separate schools for Indians? All these problems presuppose a solution of the political difficulty. Without that, Malaya cannot devote itself to the urgent and vital tasks of reconstruction, and there will be no hope of a contented and happy Malaya.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams (Croydon, South)

I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) considers that he carried out the advice of the Secretary of State for the Colonies not to say anything which would upset the negotiations now pending, but to my mind he made statements which can have nothing but unfortunate repercussions. In the first place, he has likened my right hon. Friend to a defaulting partner, who robbed the till and who now wants to be taken back in a white sheet. The hon. Member also said, "You must remember our many years of good government and you must excuse this rotten Government for what they have done." The fact is that this plan was drawn up and started by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) when he was in office, and my right hon. Friend has carried on that plan. So that if there is a fault at all, it is a fault of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol as much as of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I think that, in the main, it is a good plan. I believe it has been put over in rather an unfortunate manner, and it was put over by a person who was a very poor choice.

Mr. Oliver Stanley (Bristol, West)

I suppose the hon. Gentleman is aware that immediately on his return from this mission, the Secretary of State for the Colonies selected him again for one of equal importance.

Mr. Rees-Williams

That may be, but in another part of the world. He may be an excellent person in some parts of the world, but we are now discussing his eligibility for Malaya. I am saying that he was not a great success in that part of the world. I only wish that in this respect one's tongue were free, and that one could go fully into all the circumstances which have arisen in Malaya. It is by no means as simple as the hon. Member for Hornsey would have us believe. Malay opinion itself is not at one in this matter. At the beginning of this month the Malay Nationalist Party walked out from the conference which was then being held with the United Malay Nationalist Organisation. The Malay Nationalist Party is a republican party, and it has as its aim the joining up of the Malays in Malaya with those in Indonesia into one large Malay republic. That is an entirely different state of affairs from the United Malay Nationalist Organisation's policy, which is a Conservative policy, to go back to the old system as far as possible. It is certainly very different from the policy of the Rulers. Nothing of this has come out in the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey. One would think from his speech that there was a united feeling among all the Malays in Malaya. That is not so.

Mr. Gammans

As the hon. Gentleman is quoting me, may I ask if he would not agree that whatever they may be disunited about, one thing which they are united about is that they detest this policy? There is no disunity about that.

Mr. Rees-Williams

I do not agree. I will read something of the proposals of the Malay Nationalist Party. They say their aim is: To unite all classes of Malays, imbue into the hearts of the Malay people the national spirit, and to work for the establishment of a Malayan Republic as a part of the Republic of Indonesia. Further on, they say: The Malay Nationalist Party suggests:— The nine Malay States and the Settlements of Singapore, Penang and Malacca as men. tioned above, should be embodied under one central Government, 'The Malay Union'. Surely, that is a direct opposite to what is desired by the United Malay Nationalist Organisation. This is the policy of the two right hon. Gentlemen who now sit facing each other If they have one set of supporters in this world, it is the Malay Nationalist Party who are supporting them for very different reasons from those for which we on these benches support them. They supported them because they feel that a strong central Government and a Malayan Union will, in time, turn into a republic of Indonesia for which they hope. I would point out, too, that there are other peoples to consider. We talk about the minorities, but, in fact, there are more Chinese in Malaya than there are Malays. The Indians are a very large minority, too. When one adds them all up, the Malays themselves are in a definite minority.

Sir John Barlow (Eddisbury)

Could the hon. Gentleman give us the figures?

Mr. Rees-Williams

Yes, I can. The estimated figures are for 1941, because the last census was taken in 1931, as the hon. baronet knows. These are the estimated figures prepared by the War Office, which was concerned with this matter for a time.. The total population for the whole of Malaya in 1941 was estimated at 5,511,313. The Chinese population was estimated at 2,379,211. The Malay population was estimated at 2,278,588, and the Indian population was estimated at 744,276. There were others, including Eurasians and Europeans, and so on, and the total of those is just under 100,000. I suggest that the best course we can take at the moment is, as my right hon. Friend suggests, to leave it in the hands of the very experienced administrators who are out there, and to hope that they will be able to come to a satisfactory settlement with representatives of the Malays and of the other races. I feel sure they will be able to do so now. With that blessing, we can turn to other and, to my mind, equally important matters with regard to Malaya.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his economic policy in Malaya. Before the war, all the eggs were in two baskets: rubber and tin. When rubber and tin were at high prices the coolies had full rice bowls, the Europeans had a very satisfactory standard of living, and the Chinese had, in many cases, a very luxurious standard of living. When there was a slump, the big companies in Malaya, and the Government themselves, were absolutely ruthless with their employees. These employees were flung out, without any regard to their own personal requirements; it did not matter whether they were European, Chinese, Malay or anything else—out they went. I remember very well that the 1929 slump hit Malaya very hard in 1931. People were actually dying of starvation in the streets of a British Colony, namely, in the Strait Settlements. That is a most scandalous blot on our history, and that at a time during the 80 years about which the party opposite are now talking, when there was such a wonderful feeling of confidence between the people of Malaya and the people of this country. They had freedom then—they had freedom to starve, and they did starve; in many cases they committed suicide rather than starve. I can vouch for that myself.

Mr. Gammans

I do not want to contradict the hon. Gentleman to his face, but would not he accept from me the assurance that that is not so, that people did not starve in the streets, that people did not commit suicide? It so happens that at that time I was registrar of the cooperative societies in Malaya, and also chairman of the unemployment fund. Will he accept my assurance that that is not so?

Mr. Rees-Williams

No.

Mr. Beverley Baxter (Wood Green)

May I point out that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a period when a Socialist Government was in office, or immediately following?

Mr. Rees-Williams

I said the slump did not hit Malaya till 1931. That is the year we went out of office. I am talking now about the end of 1931. I do not accept the assurance of the hon. Member for Hornsey. I will tell the Committee why. I personally, came into contact with this sort of thing. On one occasion I defended two people who were pulled out of the sea, and charged with attempted suicide. It was admitted generally that they had attempted to commit suicide because they were starving. There were many cases of that kind. There was another case reported in the Press, which I read with my own eyes, where a man had actually died of starvation on the sidewalk in Penang. These facts cannot be denied. If the hon. Gentleman wishes it, I will look it up and give him the actual names of the persons concerned. I have the Press cuttings. He will see from those cuttings that the judge commented upon the fact that starvation had driven people to those lengths.

Mr. Gammans

Is the hon. Gentleman giving odd cases, which might happen in any country, and, in fact, happened in this country? Or is he trying to make the Committee believe that in 1931, or any other year, there was general starvation in Malaya? Of course, it is possible to take odd cases. What impression is he trying to convey to the Committee?

Mr. Rees-Williams

There is no possibility of even odd cases of starvation in this country now. There were many cases of starvation in Malaya, and many cases of suicide. I was challenged by the hon. Gentleman, and I say there were cases of that kind. I am now giving, from my own experience, actual cases with which I came into contact. If I came into contact with some, obviously there were many more. Not many people were fished out of the sea, because most of them remained there. These people about whom I am talking were fished out of the sea because the police came along in a boat and fished them out. The ones who were not fished out remained in the sea, and were never charged. with attempted suicide.

It is admitted by my right hon. Friend that there was too much dependence on rubber and tin. There was that dependence on rubber and tin because it suited the big business firms of New York, Amsterdam and London that it should be so. They had very little regard for the people of the country. I am very pleased to see that my right hon. Friend has appointed an economic adviser to Malaya. As soon as that economic adviser's foot touched the shore of Malaya, he made a statement such as I am making today, namely, that in future in Malaya there will be a more balanced economy, and no longer will rubber and tin be the only products, to any large extent, which come out of that country. The fact that so much rubber and tin was produced had an unfortunate effect upon the food produced in the country. Out of the 6,000,000 acres available for plantation, of one kind or another, 3,480,989 acres were planted for rubber. Therefore, well over half the total amount of land available for plantation was planted for rubber. Only 793,340 acres were planted for rice. In other words, only 34 per cent. of the rice consumed was produced in the country. According to a statement of my right hon. Friend yesterday that figure has now dropped to 25 per cent. Thus, every year Malaya has to buy 75 per cent. of its staple food from elsewhere. I suggest seriously to my right hon. Friend that one of his primary tasks is to get the production of rice up to a more economic level. It is possible to do so, because there is still in the country quite a large available acreage which is not under cultivation, for rice, for rubber, or for the third largest crop, copra. There are still 1,000,000 acres available for cultivation. I think he should try to get production up to at least 50 per cent. of the requirements of the people.

Another matter which, to my mind, he is dealing with very ably is the question of the trade unions. It is all very well to say, as the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) said yesterday, that the Chinese have been running trade unions for 3,000 years. The object of Chinese trade unions is very different from the object of our trade unions.

Mr. W. Fletcher

Much more practical.

Mr. Rees-Williams

Whether or not they were running for 3,000 years, the result of that 3,000 years has not meant that the ordinary coolies get very much of the results of their labours. I remember in Singapore, about 1932, when the Daylight Saving Bill was introduced, the Chinese coolies petitioned the Government, saying they could not possibly agree to one hour more of daylight being added to the day; they were already working from dawn to sunset, and if another hour was added to the day, it would be more than they could bear. That, in itself, shows that these Chinese trade unions, about which we have heard, were not able to do very much for the unfortunate Chinese coolies. We know as a fact that they were often victimised. Unfortunately, they were victimised more often by their own people than by the European companies. Quite often the standards of employment by the European companies were higher than they were among their own people. However that makes no difference. Indeed, it is an added reason why there should be trade unions, properly organised on Western lines.

I turn now to the cooperative societies. I believe the thrift societies have done very well. The hon. Gentleman the Member tor Hornsey is the great expert on this subject. He was concerned with it in Malaya for many years. I think he will agree that the trading side has never been developed to any large extent. It is quite possible that that is a field to which my right hon. Friend might direct his attention. The one matter in the speech of the hon. Member for Hornsey on which I agree with him is the treatment the civil defence workers have had from the Government. This admittedly is rather a scandal. Several of the people I knew in the old days have come to me and expressed great concern because these people have had no pension, no money whatsoever, from the Government in spite of the fact that they had been very seriously injured in the first bombing of Penang, which, as we know, took place a good many years ago, right at the start of the campaign in Malaya.

Mr. Stanley

Is the hon. Member referring to people who were subsequently interned, or to people who escaped, and were either in this country or Australia during the rest of the war?

Mr. Rees-Williams

The people I am referring to are Asiatics; they were neither interned nor did they escape. One particular case I must give, because I cannot make large general statements all the time to suit hon. Members opposite. It was the sad case of a sergeant who served in my company in the volunteers many years ago. He was in the fire brigade in Penang, and one of the bombs that fell blew off his leg when he was on duty. He has never had any compensation whatsoever, he has never even had a wooden leg, and ever since then he has been hobbling about on crutches. I had a very pathetic letter from his wife, who told me that there are many other cases of that kind. I took this matter up with the Governor of the Malayan Union and he promised to consider it sympathetically, but it may need, the attention of my right hon. Friend before anything is done.

In conclusion, may I say that I believe our aim in Malaya should be the development of the country for the people and by the people? We should aim at self-government at the earliest practicable time. This, in my opinion, will necessitate not only an economic revolution such as I have mentioned—a different type of and a more balanced economy—but it will also mean that the actual Civil Service itself will have to be placed on a much more modest basis. The present number of governors, resident commissioners and European civil servants is much too high for the country to bear when it has to pay its own way. There are one Governor-General, two Governors, and Lord Killearn. I do not know whether the last named is in any way chargeable, but at any rate he occupies a good deal of accommodation there, and he is, to that extent, a charge on local funds. There are many other officers and the number, I think, should be pruned, I do not know whether it would be possible, if the Governor of the Malayan Union becomes the High Commissioner, to join this office with that of the Governor of Singapore. It always was joined in the old days, and I do not see why it should not be joined again.

When it is remembered that in Malaya there is one European administrative officer for every 50,000, as compared with one for every million in India, it will be realised that we have been running rather on a Rolls Royce basis up to now. If the country is to have a more balanced economy, it must have a much smaller Civil Service and technical service, especially of Europeans. This will have an effect upon the Asiatic officers, because at the moment, the Asiatic officers' salaries are based not on the salaries paid in the country to other people in other walks of life, but upon the salaries paid to European officers, who are highly paid because they are taken away from their country of origin and sent to the far ends of the earth. That again is a great charge upon local funds, and it is one which cannot be met when the country is really run for the people of the country, and by them.

5.15 p.m.

Sir Jocelyn Lucas (Portsmouth, South)

I want to confine my remarks to the British civilian internees who were captured by the Japanese. In general they were not allowed to leave Malaya if they were between the ages of 18 and 50. Therefore, they were not volunteers, and if they were captured it was not their own fault. If they volunteered to join the local defence corps, which was a military formation, they got full pay during the period of their internment, even if they were actually employed as clerks in sedentary occupations. If, on the other hand, a man went into the civil defence, say the fire service or the wardens' service, he only received three months' pay ex gratia at first, and then, after a great deal of agitation on the part of hon. Members of this House, the Colonial Office agreed, where there were no other reasons, to an ex gratia payment of full pay, less 10 per cent. On the whole, considering that they did not expect to get anything after all this long time, I think the men are pretty well satisfied and do not mind that odd 10 per cent.

On the other hand, there are a great many temporary civil servants, some of whom gave up highly paid jobs at the request of the Government to join the temporary civil service there just prior to the war. They are only paid up to a limit of £1,500 for the whole period of their internment, and that in some cases means a very great loss. Some of these men are very dissatisfied and if the Minister could look into the question again, I am sure it would be a great comfort to them. It is extraordinary that the women are being treated on an entirely different basis. If a woman joined the V.A.D. and wascaptured and interned, she received full pay for the whole period of the internment, and in addition was awarded the Overseas Medal. In fact, I think she got two medals. If, however, she was in the Civil Nursing Reserve and was called up or joined up before the war, she gets no pay at all, unless she was gainfully employed in the period before the war. Some of these special nurses had married a comparatively short time before, and they were, therefore, out of employment for some months. They are technically not qualified to receive their pay. It does seem very hard that, of women doing identical work captured at the identical time, some should get full pay and some no pay at all. In addition, those who are classified as civilians will get no medals at all, as they cannot count their period of internment for the three years' qualification for the Defence Medal.

A part-time mortuary attendant at Blackpool, or some place that never saw a bomb, will get the Defence Medal if he did the job for three years. A nurse, who had volunteered and was nursing under fire, who was captured and suffered all the hardships of internment in Japanese hands for a period of years, is not allowed to have that medal. I understand that the matter is under consideration again, but I should like to quote from a letter I received this morning. It said: They will give me the medal, perhaps, eventually, but I shall only be in uniform for another three months and I should like to wear my ribbon while I have still got a chance. The V.A.D.s have got their medals; cannot the Minister put down his foot, or lift his hand, or whatever he does on these occasions, and say that they can wear their ribbons now?

There is one other point I want to mention, and that is about some of the women civil servants. I am not talking only about white people. One came to me the other day and showed me her form of engagement. She was engaged for the duration of the war, and was not allowed to resign during the war; and although she was offered another job, with the American Red Cross, she could not take it. There are two interpretations of the term "duration of the war." One is, the duration of the war with Germany; and the other is, the period of the continuation of the war with Japan. It is true that when they joined up, we were not at war with Japan; but they were captured by the Japanese, and held in internment, and some were tortured. Yet they are not allowed to count that period of internment for pay. Surely, the Colonial Office should take a rather broader view. If the Colonial Secretary would look into these matters, and see what he can do to help, I know that all those people would be very grateful.

5.21 p.m.

Sir John Barlow (Eddisbury)

In accordance with the custom of the House, I take the earliest opportunity of declaring that I have certain interests in Malaya, which have taken me there periodically during the years before the war. It seems to me that, since Malaya was released from Japanese occupation, the period of conversion has been a very sorry story. There was the MacMichael visit, that has been discussed at length in the House. Then there was the Order in Council proposing the Malayan Union, which was also discussed at considerable length in this Chamber I do not propose to go over that again. It is old ground that has been covered. It has been discussed almost ad nauseam. But there is a great lesson to be learned from it. Apparently, the Government wish to adopt a certain line of policy which, on a broad view, I think, we are all agreed is beneficial to the country. But they took two very wrong steps, which antagonised the country when it was in a very delicate state of mind after the Japanese had left. I should like to ask the Colonial Secretary a question before I leave this. I should like to ask him if at the time when he was considering the imposition of the Malayan Union and the Order in Council, he asked advice from the high officials in command in Malaya at the time, and especially of the Commander-in-Chief S.E.A.C.—and, if so, what the reply was—as to whether the imposition of the Malayan Union, in the terms in which it was issued, would be satisfactory to the country.

I pass on to the question of rehabilitation. The Secretary of State has already made reference to the help which the Government are giving to the tin mines in starting up their machinery again, which is all-important from the point of view of the economy of Malaya. I should like to refer, very briefly, to the rubber plantations. As is well known, when the Japanese armies were advancing many plantation managers were told they had to destroy their buildings and machinery, and, in some cases, to flood the territory, in order to try to stop the Japanese from advancing faster. A great deal of destruction was done to the estates in the way of flooding and destruction of buildings. A war damage committee is about to be set up in Malaya, but, as far as I know, they have not begun to consider evidence yet. I should like to know when the right hon. Gentleman expects this mission really to get under way and to start work, and when he expects some damage payments to be made; and, also, in particular, why such damage payments should not be made when the Government are pressing for quit rent on the rubber estates at the present time. It is probably well known to the Secretary of State that most of the rubber lands out there are rented from the Government at what they call "quit rent," which is payable at so much per acre; and the local government are demanding that quit rent as from 1st January last. Now, many companies have great charges to meet in putting their buildings and machinery right. They are also called upon to pay this quit rent, in some cases from a period before they were in beneficial occupation of their estates again. In some case, I suggest, there is considerable hardship in that direction.

I should like to refer to the figures relative to the population which the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) gave, because I think they were rather misleading. He said that in the country of Malaya there were actually more Chinese than Malays. I could not quite understand his statement at the time, but now I think I understand it. Taking the Straits Settlements, which have a population of about three Chinese to one Malay, that is perfectly true; but it gives a wrong impression of the whole. There is in the country districts of Malaya a far higher Malay population than Chinese population. Most of the Chinese are in the large towns, and, especially, in Singapore itself. I believe there was a very serious error of judgment on the part of the Secretary of State, in the method of handling the admittedly difficult period of transition in Malaya; but, in fairness to him, one must congratulate him on his seeing the futility and danger of the former policy he adopted. It seems—or, at least, one hopes—he has abandoned his earlier methods. Apparently, he has had a change of heart, and is approaching the matter with more clearness, justice and common sense. I urge him to pursue his negotiations in this spirit of common sense and justice. Let him recognise the rights and privileges of the Sultans, and, I feel sure, an amicable solution to the problem will be found, so that the country's prosperity and happiness, which existed before the invasion, may speedily be restored for the benefit of everyone in Malaya in the future.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

I do not intend to keep the Committee long, because some of us remember the last Colonial Debate, when many of us sat here for hours and yet many Members on both sides were unable to get in. I shall, therefore, try to confine my remarks to a few points in the next 10 minutes or so. I agree with much that was said by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), but I should like to point out, with regard to the statement that for the past 80 years Malaya had been able to take the word of the Government of Britain, that if, as Lord Hailey said, those Governments here had spoken less with their hands on their hearts, and more with their hands in their pockets, then, maybe, we should not be seeing so much difficulty that we have, at the present moment, in the Colonies. Then, maybe, the economic set-up in Malaya would not rest on the limited basis of two industries, on which the entire life of the people depend. I think the mere fact that we are having this discussion now, indicates that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State and this Committee are approaching this problem of Malaya in a suspended fashion, with a great deal of common sense, and not in any dictatorial fashion at all. If it had not been approached in a dictatorial fashion in the past, we should not have been having this discussion at this moment, with the likelihood of another after the Recess.

I was delighted to hear Members on both sides emphasising the need to get the military out of the way in South- East Asia, especially in Malaya, so that they do not clutter up the place and so that civilian life can carry on. When I was in Malaya, I talked to rubber planters, and I found that they could not get lorries and cars. Some had to ride to their jobs on bicycles, and others had to walk. The military, on the other hand, had plenty of equipment, and I cannot for the life of me understand why some of this equipment could not have been handed over to the civil and economic administrations. I do not think there is any disagreement on this. We hope that we have heard the last of the rattle of the sabre and the stamp of the jackboot—at least I hope we have heard the last of these for a long time, and that the poor civilians in the world will be able to organise the arts and sciences of peace.

Analysing the type of people in Malaya, we find that they fall into three categories. First, there is the old timer, and we raise our hats to him for the work he has done in the past. Many of these people were interned, and after their release they were expected to carry on with their jobs. Among them are many senior Malay civil servants, and I think that the Government have expected too much of them in asking them to carry on straightaway with their work. They are incapable of administering Malaya in this new spirit, and of facing this problem of rehabilitation and reorientation of our ideas about the build-up. They have been accused of delay, and of drift and of deferring decisions. I believe that the Government will have to give local officials on the spot the right to make decisions and stop this game of "Passed to you, please." Unless local officials have the right to make a decision on the spot, we shall kill, stultify and destroy the energetic young civil servants who are going out, because they will be afraid to take any initiative. This Government must put new life and energy into the Civil Service, and must be ready to allow the civil servant who knows the language and the psychology of the people, to make a decision, because then we shall be able to have a more energetic Colonial administration.

Then we have the second type. We have the merchants and the traders, many of whom came back with the Supplies Department of the B.M.A. They were lucky if they found a seat on the plane, and some of them were not allowed to get to work quick enough. These people are not so much concerned about the reorientation of our ideas on the build-up of Malaya, as they are with the rubber plantations and tin mines. It may be argued, if there is to be dialectic, that by doing this they are building up the life of the country. We placed some of these people in good positions, but I think that they are afraid of the new Socialist policy which the Labour Government are trying to hammer out in the Colonies. They are concerned to get their businesses going again as soon as possible, and they have no interest in rehabilitation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I believe that I can justify that statement. I believe that I am justified in saying that they are not interested in the broad plans for rehabilitation, but in the rubber plantations and the tin mines.

A third type comprises the ex-Service-man. He is the young fellow who went out and served in the Far East, and is now given a Colonial Office contract. These men are of good fibre. They may not know the language at the moment, but their enthusiasm proves, if they are given responsibility and the chance, they will make the right type of young official. I found that in their eagerness many of them showed a complete lack of colour consciousness, and for that reason they are worth while.

Maybe the Rulers were given to understand that failure to sign would be some kind of disloyalty to the King, but, personally, I do not believe that, I do not believe that it serves any useful purpose to discuss that point of view. I believe that greater opportunity should have been given for the discussion of details of the White Paper, but the common sense of the House is indicated by the procedure we are adopting at the present moment. In the letters in the Press, and from correspondence I receive from Malaya, a certain amount of bitterness is shown regarding the eligibility of members to the legislative council in Singapore. We find this difference. The Malay Union realise that both Malay and the English languages shall be used, but on the legislative council only the English language is to be used. Some correspondents have written to me that they consider this to be a neat political manoeuvre. There is no reason whatever for maintaining this as a qualification to be a member of the legislative council. A second qualification is that the person to be elected shall not have served a term of imprisonment of more than six months. I can think of some Members of the honourable House of Commons who would not have been elected if this had been one of the qualifications. It all depends on definition. Is imprisonment for political or trade union activity to be a disqualification? The field will be limited by the fact that only spoken and written English is to be used.

How far off in the future can we assure the Malays that some system of a national assembly will be established on universal suffrage? How far have we abolished restrictions of language, educational standards, residential and property qualifications and limitations of sex? These may be controversial issues, but nevertheless Singapore is still regarded as the political centre of this area. Will Malaya ultimately be able, under the policy of the Labour Government, to enter U.N.O. as a unit? Can the States in the Peninsula establish their respective councils by universal suffrage, with ultimate responsibility to some legislative assembly? I see, according to the newspapers, that they are urging the Sultans to put up a fight. I fully realise that we can no longer regard the Orient as an appendage to the Occident. They are very near, but nevertheless Kipling was right when he said: East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet. The most important issue of all is that of education. What is the aim of our educational system to be? It was Ruskin, I believe, who said that gymnastics was a science which seemed to think that the human body had not a skeleton. Why do we want these people to be educated? What methods are we using? From figures which I received from the Colonial Research Bureau, I was delighted to find there was an increase in the number of children going into the schools in Malaya. But there is a certain qualification which we must bear in mind. A Malayan newspaper states that the plea for free education is being put forward, but while the labourer struggles for higher wages and clerks and teachers clamour for higher pay and increases in salary, the Government report that school fees will be increased from 1.20 Malay dollars to three dollars a month.

An analysis which is made of a Government clerk's income in Malaya shows how much it costs him to send one child to school at the present time. The income of this clerk—and he is very, lucky—is 120 dollars a month. Transport to and from the school for his child costs 50 cents a day—10 dollars a month; pocket money and lunches six dollars; paper, pens and ink, 1.50 dollars; school fees, 3.20 dollars a month. A Malay parent with one child at school, in order to get a progressive education, is spending 20.70 dollars a month oat of a salary of 120 dollars.

So Malaya is asking for free education. If they are asking for free education, they must realise that intelligent taxation buys civilisation, and that implies that a taxation system will have to be evolved in Malaya to give them this free education. The Colonial Research Bureau states this week that the time to review and replan the educational system has now arrived. We cannot return to the old set-up. Of course, provision must be made for higher technical education and vocational training, and I believe that the training must be, not so much in educational gymnastics, as in training these people in the qualities of integrity and the qualities of government. The trade union movement that was set up in 1940 said that two-thirds of the officials had to be employed in industry. I believe that we are making a mistake when we try to set up trade unions in these countries, based on the British trade unions. We must approach this issue of trade unionism in the Colonies and in the backward areas from a completely different angle. At the present time, I am pleased to see that a constructive approach is gradually being made to this issue of trade unionism in Malaya.

I am quite convinced that the Malay people will realise that both sides of this House are taking a keener interest than ever before in this issue, and that no longer are we looking at Malaya as a "dollar arsenal" for the British people, but, I hope, as an integral part of the national Commonwealth, ultimately to take its place in the comity of nations.

5.43 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Donner (Basingstoke)

I rise to make one point only, because I said all that I wished to say on the subject of constitutional reform in Malaya during the Debate on 8th March. The truth is that the situation has changed very fast and profoundly in Malaya since Sir Harold MacMichael visited that country. The Colonial Secretary, in his speech, said that discussions were now taking place which he hoped would soon reach a conclusion. Certainly, there is an opportunity to come to a settlement now with the sultans. There is an opportunity now to safeguard the Malay way of life, to safeguard the Malay race, and to restore their confidence and faith in the Crown. There is an opportunity now to make a settlement with the moderate, reasonable elements in Malaya. Unless that opportunity is taken it may be that His Majesty's Government will find that they will have to deal not with the moderate and reasonable elements but with extremists, with men inspired by Pan-Malayan ideas and by a fanaticism of a kind recently exhibited in Indonesia. The time element is all-important. The Colonial Secretary has had the courage to retrace some of the disastrous steps of last autumn and winter. He may rest assured that he has nothing to lose and everything to gain if he presses for a quick and successful conclusion now of the discussions which are taking place, even at the price, as it may seem to him, of superseding the MacMichael agreements.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid (Swindon)

My right hon. Friend asked us not to say anything that would upset the prospects of settlement in Malaya and I shall try to keep to that request. I must say that the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) said one thing at least which would not promote a settlement of the political constitutional question in Malaya. He referred to the action of the present Government as something like that of a partner who put his hand into the till. This constitutional question was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the present Colonial Secretary, and I am certain that there is no one in Malaya or in this country who would think that they were capable of doing a dishonourable act in dealing with the constitutional problem. What has happened is that the present Government have made the mis- take of trying to "hustle the East." They went too fast and tried to get this thing through too quickly. There were good reasons for that perhaps, but, whatever the reasons were, they should have consulted the people more.

At the time, I remember discussing this with people interested in Malaya and I advised what was carried out afterwards, namely, to do the minimum by Orders in Council then and settle the question of citizenship and other difficult questions later on, after further consultation with the people. That is being carried out now. I hope that it will succeed, and from what I hear from friends from Malaya it is going to succeed. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) about cutting down staff in Malaya. I hope that will not be adopted in Malaya. He referred to small staffs in India. I was, some years ago, sent over to South India to investigate the question of animal disease because India and Ceylon were closely connected in that respect. In the large district of Tinnevelly there was one veterinary sub-inspector, while in the city of Colombo alone there were two veterinary surgeons. There was a proper administration in one case and only a scrappy administration in the other. I am not blaming the Government of India, because they had not the money to pay the staff. I have known the case of a single civil servant ruling over two, three or four million people in India, almost equal to the whole population of Malaya. I hop that in a rich country lika Malaya, with an enormous economic potential, a proper staff will be acquired. They cannot have proper administration without the necessary staff. When one thinks of the dirt tracks that often pass for roads in India as compared with the tar macadam roads in Malaya, one will see that one must have up-to-date engineers in Malaya, whereas any person could upkeep the dirt tracks which form the roads in great parts of South India.

One thing which struck me in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was the question of the enormous importation of rice to Malaya. If Malaya is properly administered in the future the country should be self supporting. My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon stated that one million acres of land had been allocated for agricultural purposes and on it anything could be grown, like coconuts, rice and so on. But that is only a fraction of the land in Malaya which is jungle, and if cleared and cultivated could support a population of 30 million quite easily, something like Java, which has a population of 40 million to 50 million. I do not think the Colonies can be administered in detail from this end, but sometimes help can be given by the Colonial Office to those abroad who are inclined, in some cases, to copy the past without alternatives of a different kind.

I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, that in future not a single inch of Crown land in Malaya should be sold outright. Even if one were not a Socialist but had a knowledge of land administration, he would agree that we should not part with Crown land but should let it out on lease with security of tenure. When Crown land is leased to people there should always be a condition attached that the land will be taken away from the tenant unless the tenant puts it to good use. This modern idea is put into force in many places.

There was one remark of the hon. Member for Hornsey with which I agree, that there can be no prosperity in Malaya until there is a proper political settlement. People who have lived and worked in countries where the constitutional difficulties have been long since settled, cannot realise how difficult it is for people in plural societies in various Colonies and other countries who are divided religiously, socially and so on to settle down to practical constructive work. We in this country settled our constitutional questions long ago. We have profound unity without uniformity, but in those countries which are without unity or conformity things are very different. The settlement of this political issue in Malaya is one of the first things that must be done, and the chief item to be settled is that of citizenship. I do not intend to settle it now, because I know how difficult it is, but I think it can be settled and I would appeal to those dealing with the problem and to the people of Malaya to solve this awful difficulty of the plural society. The Malayans are a tolerant, easy going, likeable people; the Chinese are industrious to the last degree; and the Indians who go to Malaya are industrious, hard working people. There is no reason why the peoples of Malaya should not set an example by settling the difficulty in their country which is caused by having plural societies. If the people of Malaya can do that I am perfectly certain that the scheme put forward by my right hon. Friend in regard to the future of Malaya will prove thoroughly sound and will promote the prosperity of a country which has such enormous potentialities.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn (Cambridge University)

I only propose to say one sentence, though there is very much more I should like to say. I hope I may be forgiven for holding the Committee from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). I do hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies is now fully convinced, as I think he must be—because he has shown us the courtesy of sitting here during our discussion—of the extreme urgency of a full Debate on this matter. It has been partly his fault—I do not mean his moral fault—that he has not been in a position, even if for the best reasons in the world, to give us grist for our mill this afternoon. It is partly due to the fact that a Debate of this character is confined to little over two hours, which means a rather dissipated discussion as well as a highly incomplete one. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider it a duty to the House in general to represent to the Leader of the House and to others that we should have a full and proper preannounced Debate as soon as possible.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley (Bristol, West)

I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies will forgive me if I turn, in the first place, to the speech which was made by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams). I do that because I wish to deal first with the only bit of my speech which will be in any way controversial. The hon. Member for South Croydon is not in his place. He has not been in the Committee since he made his own contribution, but I must call the attention of the Committee to the statement he made today, which was only a continuation of the statement he made in a previous Debate, and which I will read to the Committee. No one, I think, could accuse me of trying in any Colonial matter to evade a fair share of the responsibility for what I did when I was in office. I do not want to nor do I need to, because I am proud of what I was able to do. This is the statement: This plan was a Tory plan. It was evolved two years ago. I actually saw it two years ago, and I do not suppose I was the first to see it by any means. Sir Harold MacMichael was sent out before we came into office, and I must say I am extremely sorry for the Secretary of State for the Colonies, taking on a new office of this kind, suddenly in being plunged into this arena, and having to rectify some of the mistakes made by his predecessor. Everyone knows that these are the facts of the situation. No one can deny them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1946; Vol. 425; c. 318.] I can tell the Committee someone who can deny it. I do not know if hon. Members opposite know of a publication called "Empire." It is the journal of the Fabian Society. I should have thought it would have been known to the hon. Member for South Croydon, who sets himself up as one of the Colonial experts on the Socialist side of the House. This is what the "Empire" said about the Malayan constitution in November of last year. It did not say that this was a Tory plan or how sorry it was for the Labour Government having to accept something which was brought into operation before they came into power. It said: The Labour Government has been in power for three months. Already there are considerable achievements to show in the Colonial field. In this short term a plan with revolutionary implications has been announced for Malaya. … This is far from being a complete list of the new lines of activity opened up by Labour Ministers at the Colonial Office. Do not let us have any more of this humbug.

Mr. George Hall

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me but I do not in any way make myself responsible for such views. When he tallks of humbug I do hope we will not have it from either side.

Mr. Stanley

If the right hon. Gentleman puts it that way, I will pursue this question.

Mr. Hall

I am not referring to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Stanley

I have seen no denial of this statement, and it really does appear that if a thing is going well it is a revolutionary achievement of the Labour Government, but when it falls into difficulties, then it is a Tory plan. The hon. Member for South Croydon repeated today what he said before, and it is only right that I should point out, in fact, that what he describes as a Tory plan was approved by the Coalition Government. It was a plan which, before being approved, was submitted to a sub-committee of which the Prime Minister happened to be chairman. I take full responsibility for the plan and for the principles in it, which I believed then to be right, and which I believe now to be right. It is absurd to extend it in this way, and the allegation that Sir Harold MacMichael was sent out before we came into office is demonstrably ridiculous. If he had been sent out before the Socialist Government came into office he would never have signed any Treaty, because until a month after the General Election Malay happened to be in the hands of the Japanese—

Mr. Harold Davies

Is the right hon. Gentleman alleging that my hon. Friend said that he was sent out?

Mr. Stanley

I am reading from HANSARD what the hon. Gentleman said in the last Debate, and which he has repeated in this. I hope we shall have no more of that.

With regard to the political situation, let me say at once that I will join in no charge, or give countenance to any charge, that, whatever misunderstandings there may have been, His Majesty's Government, in this affair, have been guilty of any breach of trust whatever. I do not think it is helpful to give to the Malayans any idea, even a mistaken idea, that the Government have been so guilty. That there have been misunderstandings and mistakes, yes. That those ought to be put right, yes. But that there is, on the part of His Majesty's Government, or any of their representatives, any deliberate intention to deceive the Malayans is something which I repudiate and which, I am sure, the Committee as a whole will repudiate. Naturally, I was disappointed—as the right hon. Gentleman is disappointed— that he was not able to announce today the successful conclusion of the negotiations which are now being undertaken. I was glad, however, to hear the optimistic account of the atmosphere and progress of those negotiations, and the right hon. Gentleman's belief that within a short time it might be possible to announce a satis- factory conclusion. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman realises the great importance of urgency, and that in negotiations of this kind, if they once begin to delay, to stagger along, it may well mean that the psychological moment has been missed. All my information which, after all, is purely unofficial, gives me the impression that, whatever initial mistakes there may have been, the right hon. Gentleman is fully carrying out the pledge which was given by the Under-Secretary in the Debate in February that he would instruct the new Governor-General and the new Governor of the Union, when they arrived in Malaya, to approach the Malays with every sympathy, with every desire to reach a settlement, and with every willingness to make a concession short of sacrificing the basic principles upon which all of us are agreed.

My information is that those are exactly the lines on which the Governor-General and the Governor are approaching this question, as, from my personal knowledge of them, I should have expected they would. It is because I am sure that the Government will not allow small points to stand in the way of a settlement that I am optimistic about the chances. Although I, personally, have every sympathy with the Malays, and want to see all their legitimate grievances met, I do feel that the fundamentals of this scheme will be for the good of the whole of Malaya and, not less, for the Malayans. While I am only too glad to see the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make concessions, and to see His Majesty's Government prepared—it may be at some cost in theoretical pride—to make alterations in their scheme, I hope that will not encourage people anywhere to think that justice is merely weakness, or that desire to reach agreement is merely a wish to appease. We all desire to support the Malays in their legitimate claims, just as we desire to support other communities in Malaya in their legitimate rights, but we do not wish to see the Government pushed, by any of these communities, further than we believe it to be right. I sincerely hope that when the House meets again after the Recess the right hon. Gentleman will be able to announce a satisfactory conclusion to the negotiations, and that we shall be given an opportuity to debate whatever final scheme has been arranged.

I want to turn to some of the economic questions which were discussed by the right hon. Gentleman. On the whole, considering the difficulties, the progress of rehabilitation has been fairly satisfactory. I am sure the food difficulties must have been very great, and that all of us have been sorry to learn of the great straits to which the Malayan people were put during the war. The right hon. Gentleman's description of a nation which had to depend for its basic foodstuff on tapioca was indeed grim. He said, and I entirely agree with him, that we should not like it. We should not, but who knows, a continuance of the present Government may mean that we may have to lump it—and "lump it" is not an inappropriate term to use when dealing with tapioca. One always foresaw the difficulty about food requirements after reoccupation, and in the rice situation of the world, it must take some time before that can be fully restored. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can explain to me something which, I confess, up to now, I have never fully understood. What is the position of Lord Killearn? What is the exact chain of authority as between the Governor, the Governor-General, Lord Killearn, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the Secretary of State for Colonial Affairs, the Minister of Food, and any other stray official dignitary, or Minister, who may from time to time drift, unhappily, into this sphere? I know that the right hon. Gentleman has not much time in which to answer, but I am sure that a few words from him would suffice to clarify that position.

Next could I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the position of imported commodities? One of our great shortages in the period of preparation was in incentive goods. Of all the stock piles, the stock pile of piece goods, cotton goods, was the lowest. I wonder whether it has been possible to increase the supply during the past year? That must have a very great effect on the inflationary tendencies in Malaya, to which attention has been called today. Then, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman about compensation for war damage. In my time, the whole question of compensation for war damage had to be left in an unsatisfactory state. It had to be left until the war was over, to see what damage had been caused, and to see whether any decision could be come to as to what payment should be made by His Majesty's Government towards the damage. The sort of general implication was that the scale should be not less favourable to Malaya than the similar scale would be in this country. I wonder whether it has been possible to formalise that any more, or to get any nearer to fixing the date when payment of such compensation will take place, because many firms and individuals must have suffered almost 100 per cent. loss during the occupation, and must be in great difficulties, apart from any individual schemes of assistance, in finding sufficient capital to rehabilitate their properties or their works.

I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman's short passage on rubber prices. Nothing gave me greater interest than to hear, for the first time—I have never heard it before—not only this price, but any price given for the costs of production of synthetic rubber. I confess that, during my term of office, those were figures which had eluded, or had perhaps been kept away from, my inquiring official, and we were not then in a position to say either with this great exactitude, or with any exactitude at all, what the costs of production were. Certainly, no guess that I have ever heard in an attempt to arrive at this figure gave it anything as low as 10d. a 1b. I was surprised, and, from the point of view of the future of Malaya, frightened, to hear this very definite statement about 10d. a lb. as the cost of production. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman dilating on this point, when I heard that synthetic rubber was 10d. a lb., and that for many purposes it was as good as natural rubber, and for some purposes better, and that here we were offering natural rubber at 1s. 2d., I began to wonder why the Americans bought any rubber and whether they were just giving us a present of 4d. a lb.

I wonder whether the competitive position was not painted just a little too blackly in that picture. None of us wants to see an exaggerated price got from the Americans now. It would not be good business for Malaya in the future. Nor do we want to see exaggerated prices paid in Malaya, because if one is going through an inflationary period, to pay excessive prices for the products of the country, when no goods are available, only ex- tends the inflation. But we do want to make certain that a price is being paid sufficient not only to bring the rubber forward, but to enable the plantation rubber growers to deal with some of the damage that has been done to their plantations. It is true they have not suffered the same damage as the tin people, but the growth of weeds during six or seven years must have been very serious, and it must be a very costly matter to put that right. We want to be assured that the current price of rubber is enough to enable them to do that. We want no excessive profits, but we want a fair price. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to be quite so gloomy about the competitive prospects for the future of natural rubber compared with synthetic rubber.

I am glad to hear that attempts have been made to diversify the economy of Malaya in the future, but do not let us forget, whatever may be said about capitalism in the tin and rubber industries, that it was the income which the Government derived largely from the tin and rubber industries in Malaya which led to social services, hospitalisation and the provision of schools on a scale superior to any other part of the Colonial Empire, where such sources of revenue were not enjoyed, and which, as well as providing for these social services, did provide very considerable economic benefits for Malaya as a whole. Whatever diversification we may attempt and may succeed in getting, rubber and tin will always remain the basis of Malayan economy and the test of Malayan prosperity or depression. I think that, in adopting a policy of very much increased production of rice, we have to be on our guard. The production of rice was low in Malaya before the war, as it was low in other parts of the Empire which were rice-eating, because it was a non-productive crop, and because it could be produced so cheaply in other parts more favoured by climatic or other circumstances. Although a greater production of rice may be essential today purely for the maintenance of Malaya during this crisis, I am not sure that we can count upon a large rice production being really profitable economically for Malaya in the future.

Mr. Rees-Williams

Is it not a fact that the low production of rice had nothing to do with the climate? Was it not due to the fact that it was more profitable to grow rubber? That is an economic matter. There is no climate in the world more suitable for rice growing than the Malayan climate.

Mr. Stanley

The rubber was not largely grown by the Malays themselves. It was grown largely by people imported to do it. It was a profitable crop, and, therefore, from the point of view of the economy of Malaya, it was profitable to import people to grow rubber. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we should import people to grow rice in Malaya as a permanent part of the Malayan economy? I doubt whether that would prove a very satisfactory economic proposition.

I should like the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies to deal with two points. The first is a general one. Hon. Members on this side of the Committee would be very grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would explain, in a few words, what is this new social policy which he has introduced in Malaya, to which the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) referred. It would, I think, be of considerable interest to us to know something about it, and to know how it differs from the old social policy. Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us anything about the present and future prospects of higher education? In what condition was Raffles College found when the territory was re-occupied? Has it been possible to reassemble the staff, and when is it expected that it will be able to return to its prewar standard?

We have had a very short Debate, but I did not think it right that the House should disperse for perhaps two or three months without having a chance to show that it keeps a very keen eye on, and has real interest in, what is, perhaps, apart from Palestine, the most difficult of our present Colonial problems. I am sure it is the hope of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee that when we reassemble—when, as I hope, we may have another and longer Debate on this subject—it will be possible to have that Debate in the knowledge that agreement has been reached, that the constitutional difficulties are out of the way, and that Europeans, Malays, Chinese and Indians alike can concentrate on what to them, in their daily lives, will be of even greater importance, that is, the restoration, first, and the improvement, secondly, of the old economic prosperity of Malaya.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. George Hall

We have had an interesting Debate and one which, on the whole, has been very helpful, and there has been no more helpful speech than that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). I should like to clear up the point with which the right hon. Gentleman began his speech as to who was responsible for sending Sir Harold MacMichael to Malaya. Sir Harold MacMichael went to the East on two occasions; during the period that the right hon. Gentleman was in office he went to Ceylon to survey the field and he returned after obtaining some very useful information, but it was I who was entirely responsible for sending him to interview the Sultans with the intention of obtaining the agreement.

Mr. Rees-Williams

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the visit to Ceylon was not, in fact, intended to pave the way for the later journey to Malaya?

Mr. Hall

Sir Harold MacMichael was sent out to make certain inquiries, which, I think, he was able to do. I am very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman dealt with the constitutional issue. Like myself he wants a settlement of this very important political question and I can again assure him that I shall do my utmost to bring it about. He referred also to a number of other questions; first, he dealt with that of food, and asked me what was the position at the present time, and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) asked me the same question. I am afraid that for some little time the food position will be very tight, but we are hoping that after a short period of some months the situation will become very much easier than it is at present.

Then the right hon. Gentleman asked me what was the position of Lord Killearn? I am not responsible for Lord Killearn, who was sent out to the Far East by the Foreign Office to do what I consider was a very useful piece of work in coordinating various authorities and representatives of certain countries with a view to seeing whether the food situation could be eased. There is no question at all that the Lord Killearn organisation has done a very useful work, but there is a clear mark of distinction between Lord Killearn's duties and those of the Governor-General or any of the governors in the East. For information beyond that point, I would strongly advise the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiries from the Foreign Office.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of the price of synthetic rubber and referred to the fact that during his stay at the Colonial Office it was difficult for him to obtain anything like a price upon which he could depend. Well, the same very efficient official who was unable to give him the information has been able to obtain it for me, although, of course, it is true that this is very largely the result of the lapse of time. We have now been able to obtain very full costings, which have been seen in the United States of America, and, since I take exactly the same view as the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the price we have been able to obtain, and that at which, I am advised, synthetic rubber can be produced at a substantial profit, I regret that I do, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, take rather a gloomy view of the position.

Mr. Gammans

If the Minister considers that 10d. a lb. is the price at which synthetic rubber can be produced at a profit, can he say why it is that the Americans, only comparatively recently charged us 1s. 8d.?

Mr. Hall

Of course, I cannot reply to a question of that kind; I am simply giving the information I have with regard to the cost of production. I really do not know why we paid 1s. 8d. a lb. for it; that is entirely a matter for the Ministry of Supply, but if the hon. Member wishes, I will certainly make inquiries and let him know. The other question put by the right hon. Gentleman asked what was the position of Raffles College. I am pleased to say that the college will reopen on 1st September and that, as far as I know, they will be able to do so with a reasonably good staff. That is the present position and I hope that soon the college will be able to take up its normal rôle. Questions have been raised concerning war damage, and the right hon. Gentleman asked me the position at present. To be quite frank, I am a little disappointed. I hope that the Commission will soon settle down to work; the secretary is already out in Malaya and he is preparing the way for the Commission. Instructions have been given to the Commission that they should deal, as far as possible, with the claims of smaller people, first of all, and I hope that they will get on with the job quickly and bring it to a conclusion as speedily as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that this was a short Debate, and indeed the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) made the same point. I am not altogether responsible for that, but I will certainly put the matter to the Leader of the House and call his attention to the fact that the point was made from both sides of the Committee. I should think that the most unhelpful speech made during the course of this Debate was that of the hon. Member for Hornsey. I really wish he would not be quite as extravagant in his language as he is. I cannot imagine why he should describe me, and indeed the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who has admitted that he was in some way responsible for the policy, as "thieves with their hands in the till." It really does not do the hon. Gentleman any good in Malaya. I heard a speech made by him the other day when he stated that the mantle of the late Sir Edward Campbell had fallen upon his shoulders. I wish he would adopt a little of the attitude always adopted by Sir Edward Campbell. I have here a report which appeared in the "Malay Mail" on 5th of this month with regard to a speech which the hon. Member made about this very same question not very long ago, and this is the comment that is made: Captain Gammans' statement at the Royal Empire Society that Malay might become a second Palestine was deprecated by the 'Malay Mail', which disagreed with his views. If he had not visited this country and studied the question on the spot he could be pardoned for being an alarmist, but for him to suggest that the Malays were capable of indulging in an orgy of bloodshed was not only to do them a great disservice, but to suggest that the authorities here lacked the ability to find a peaceful solution of the problem. There is another reference in the Press which I will not read, but let me refer to the attitude of the hon. Member to the policy he is condemning now, which he condemned in Malaya, and which he condemned in this country when he returned from Malaya.

He made a speech on 8th March, and in the course of it, said on three occasions he was in complete agreement with the policy of His Majesty's Government. Why he should describe the policy in the terms in which he has now described it I really cannot understand. If he is going to assume the mantle of spokesman for Malaya, I would that he had a very much higher regard for the feelings of the Malay people themselves.

Mr. Gammans

As the right hon. Gentleman has attacked me on this point I would say that I was not imputing any bad motives to him or to anyone else for this policy. I was saying that, from the Malay point of view, that is exactly how the policy looked.

Mr. Hall

I am afraid the. hon. Member was a little more crude than that. He definitely referred to "thief with his hand in the till."

The hon. Member raised several points with regard to very interesting matters. He asked whether when the new Treaty had been signed, it would be laid before the House, as that was the only safeguard? At this stage I cannot really make any definite promise with regard to that matter. I should be prepared, when the agreement has been arrived at, that it should be debated here. Indeed, when the Debate took place in March upon this matter, it was then suggested that it would be necessary to have certain supplementary argeements to the then agreement, saying that the question of Malay citizenship had to be taken into consideration. We are hopeful that the agreement will be arrived at and that that can be fully reported to this House.

The hon. Member asked questions with regard to the junior Civil Service Association. The matter has been raised on two or three occasions. I have reported that there is an inquiry dealing with this matter in Malaya. I am hoping to hear almost any day that the inquiry is complete and that something has been done for the people in whom the hon. Member and other hon. Members of the Committee, have been interested. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) for his interesting speech. He referred to civil defence and other workers. I am pleased to say that the local government have now announced that the Personal Injuries Scheme has been authorised for all persons who suffered injury in Malaya as a result of the war.

The hon. Member for South Portsmouth (Sir J. Lucas), who has been very energetic—I am not complaining about the very great interest which he has taken in these people—referred to certain persons, some of whom have a real grievance. He raised two points. The first was about some professional men who went into the Civil Service just before the outbreak of war and were complaining about the compensation which they have received. From many points of view this compensation scheme can be regarded as very generous. It is true that there is a maximum of £1,500, and I am afraid I cannot promise reconsideration of the matter. I will certainly look into the other point about the Defence Medals. A number of other points have been raised, but, the time at my disposal having elapsed, I will consider each of them and will reply by letter to the hon. and right hon. Members who put them to me.

Resolved: That a sum not exceeding £448,752 be granted to His Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for the salaries and expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies.