HC Deb 14 November 1947 vol 444 cc683-712

11.6 a.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "sixth," and to insert "fourth."

The purpose of this Amendment is to select a date which is desired by the authorities in Burma. I do not think there is any particular matter arising out of the date.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. R. W. Low (Blackpool, North)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert: or such later date as may be specified by His Majesty by Order in Council being a date not earlier than the date upon which the Secretary of State shall be satisfied that arrangements have been made for the equitable treament of such civil servants not being servants of the Secretary of State as shall suffer loss or diminution of employment and emoluments consequent upon Burma becoming an independent country. The object of this Amendment, as the Prime Minister will have appreciated, is to raise the question of the position of the non-Secretary of State's civil servants, to whom some small reference was made in the Second Reading Debate, but about whom I think the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air implied that there was still more to be said. The Committee may not know that there are, between 31 and 50 of these European civil servants—servants of the Government of Burma but not of the Secretary of State. Out of these—I think the number is nearer 31—no fewer than 21 have already been informed that they will not be re-employed under the Government of Burma. That is the position as I understand it. But though, by reason of the fact that they now have no chance of re-employment under the Government of Burma, their position is exactly the same as the Secretary of State's civil servants, their position vis-à-vis compensation and future pensions is not the same. I believe arrangements have been made for proportionate pension, but no arrangements have been made for compensation. Compensation is payable to the Secretary of State's civil servants under the terms of the White Paper, about which the Committee knows, because, first of all, the Secretary of State acknowledges his legal obligation; secondly, it is clear in the case of Burma civil servants that the Burma Government will not give them further employment; and, thirdly, which is only an extension of the first reason, Parliament has always accepted responsibility for those civil servants in Burma, as in India, who were recruited by the Secretary of State.

It would seem that the same arguments can be applied to the non-Secretary of State's civil servants, except that there is no legal responsibility, and except that—

The Chairman

The hon. Member is not entitled to discuss the pensions of these civil servants on this Amendment. The only question before the Committee is that of the appointed day.

Mr. Low

With great respect, Major Milner, this Amendment refers specifically to the position of the non-Secretary of State's civil servants, and because from the statements made by the Government it appears to us on this side of the Committee that their position is not properly safeguarded, this Amendment suggests that, before the final hand-over is complete, their position should be properly safeguarded. I would, therefore, submit that my remarks are very much in Order.

The Chairman

The question is chiefly one of the date—the date as set out in the Bill which is before the Committee, or the date as proposed in the Amendment— or such later date as may be specified by His Majesty by Order in Council being a date not earlier than the date upon which the Secretary of State shall be satisfied that arrangements have been made— and so on.

Mr. Low

I would submit that the line of argument I was putting to the Committee is in Order. I was trying to show that the arrangements at present made are not equitable, and we want them improved. That is the purpose of the Amendment. I think my argument is in Order.

The Chairman

I do not think the hon. Member is entitled to discuss the arrangements but the point is a rather complicated one. Perhaps, the hon. Gentleman had better proceed for the moment.

Mr. Low

The position of these men is very similar to the position of the Secretary of State's civil servants, except from the purely legal point of view. This matter was put to the Secretary of State for Burma when he was out there in August. I see from reports which I have had and reports in the Press that he stated that no compensation was being given because it was open to these men to be re-employed by the Government of Burma, and he expected at that time that these men would be given employment by the Government of Burma. In fact, I do not think it is too much to say that he said that his main argument against compensation at that time rested on that expectation—that these men would be given employment by the Government of Burma. The Committee have seen since then many reports of statements by members of the Provisional Government of Burma that they not only do not need, but will not have European members of their Civil Service once independence has been granted. Therefore, surely, the whole argument upon which the Government rested their case then, and, I think, the argument upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Air tried to rest his case at the Second Reading, falls completely to the ground.

The Committee may think that, since I have acknowledged that there is no legal responsibility, there is very little in my case. But surely this Committee accepts responsibility other than strictly legal responsibility? Surely, we accept moral responsibility? I say, as I have said before, that the argument that we are morally responsible for the livelihood, and for the general standard of life in the future, and for the opportunity for careers in the future of these men, is, at least, as strong as the argument that we are morally responsible for helping the future Bur-man Government financially. We have admitted the latter. We have cancelled £15 million of debt. I would say that before we cancelled all this £15 million of debt, we should have seen to it that these Britons, who have served Parliament, served this country, and served the Government of Burma in Burma, for many years in many cases, were safeguarded; and it is on that moral responsibility that I rest my case.

11.15 a.m.

I would point out to the Committee that in the majority of cases there is practically no difference between the work which the civil servants, not being servants of the Secretary of State, are doing and the work that the Secretary of State's civil servants are doing. I think I am right in saying that in one department of the Government of Burma there are two civil servants of whom one is a servant of the Secretary of State and the other is a civil servant not a servant of the Secretary of State; and I believe I am right in saying that the senior of those two, the more experienced, is in the latter category—not a civil servant of the Secretary of State; and he is the more valuable to the Government of Burma; and yet he is being treated in this shabby way. His interests are not being safeguarded by His Majesty's Government and not safeguarded by the Government of Burma This is a case of moral responsibility.

I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the present Secretary of State for Air, who is, presumably, to reply to this case, could get up and say that this is not a matter for us but a matter for the Government of Burma. But the trouble has been that His Majesty's Government here have never pressed the Government of Burma to give compensation to these men. They took up the same line as they took up in the case of the Government of India. They said there was a hard and fast line. Of course, if the Government of Burma are not pressed they are not going to take special steps to look after subjects of His Majesty.

I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look into the matter again, even if he cannot give a satisfactory answer today, and accept the argument that we in this House and in this country have a great moral responsibility for these men. I would ask him, also, to remember that this is not likely to be an isolated case; to remember that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies may well be facing the same sort of problem one of these days. I say the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but as I do not expect that he will be there long, I had better say that I mean that his office may be facing the same sort of problem in the future. I predict that, because there will be cases in the future of men who are recruited by local Colonial governments who will want to know that their careers are secure, or, if their careers are not secure, that, at least, their position will be safeguarded. This is a matter of more than incidental importance; more than a matter relating only to Burma; it is a matter of confidence in Colonial and, for the time being, subject countries, in the measures which will be taken to look after the interests of Britons who have served them.

Mr. Gammans (Hornsey)

I do not think that this Committee can rest content with the statement made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman on this point on Second Reading. It is not in any sense of the word a party matter, and I sincerely hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will support us in this Amendment. As the regulation now stands, this is a shoddy and shabby way to treat loyal servants of the Crown. So far as I know, it has been the invariable rule for British Government servants, whether at home or abroad, that if a man in the service of the Crown has his service interrupted or terminated for reasons which are not dishonourable to himself—

Mr. Wyatt (Birmingham, Aston)

Is the hon. Gentleman talking about servants in the service of the Crown or servants in the service of the Government of Burma?

Mr. Gammans

I am talking about Europeans who have served the Crown in Burma but who do not happen to have been recruited by the Secretary of State for Burma. Those are the people about whom I am talking. They are as much servants of the Crown in Burma as if they served the Crown here or elsewhere. I say that it is the invariable rule, so far as I know, that if a servant of the Crown has his service terminated half way through his service, then he shall receive, not merely a proportion of the pension that he has earned, but compensation as well. It has been the invariable rule, as far as I know. It has been accepted in the case of one branch of service. It is perfectly outrageous that it should not be accepted in the case of these 20 or 30 men as well. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) said, I think the Secretary of State for Burma hoped at one time that these men would be kept on by the Government of Burma. It is quite obvious that they are not going to be kept on. Therefore, we have to do one of two things, either offer them alternative employment under the Crown elsewhere—and perhaps that is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is prepared to do—or, if we are not prepared to do that, surely we must do what we have always done in the past, and that is to give the unfortunate individual compensation for the loss of his employment, quite apart from the pension which he has earned.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Arthur Henderson)

The hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) stated, quite rightly, that whatever other common ground there was between us, it was certainly common ground that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom had no legal responsibility for the engagements of those who come under the category with which we are dealing in this Amendment. Perhaps I might put to the Committee, quite shortly, the general picture. Those who are employed by the Government of Burma fall into two classes. First, there are those belonging to the Secretary of State's services, who are Burma civil servants—Burma Police in the main—and they, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, are catered for in the general scheme of compensation which was announced to the Committee some months ago. Then there are what are called the non-Secretary of State's services, which include two categories: those who belong to Class I are, in the main, Burmans, but 60 to 70 of them are Europeans; and there is another strata of subordinate officers composed almost entirely of Burmans. The object of this Amendment as I understand it, is to deal with those Europeans who belong to Class I of the non-Secretary of State's services.

It is quite true, as the hon. Member indicated, that the problem with which we are concerned today covers only a proportion of the 60 to 70 Europeans belonging to Class I of the non-Secretary of State's services. Of those, 25 have, in fact, been offered re-engagement by the Government of Burma; they are mostly technicians belonging to the engineer and railway services. But there remain the 30 to 40 who are to be dealt with, as suggested, by way of proportionate pension. The great majority of these men were engaged before the war. As the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton)—who has occupied the same post as myself—well knows, they were not engaged through the Secretary of State for Burma. In this sense, the Government of Burma is an employer, a separate entity, and lays down its own terms of service. They were not approved by the Secretary of State for Burma; nor, indeed, were these men engaged through the medium or agency of the Secretary of State for Burma, but were enlisted direct through the High Commissioner for India, who at that time acted on behalf of the Government of Burma.

I can assure the hon. Member for North Blackpool, it is not the case that we have not sought to do everything possible to secure that these men should be well looked after. We would, of course, as he indicated, have preferred that the same terms should be offered to them as were offered by the leaders of the parties in India, namely, that they should have been kept on and guaranteed their existing terms and conditions of service. But the Government of Burma, in spite of what we had sought to do, have, after very long and careful consideration, decided that they wish to terminate these engagements. In the result they have agreed that they should be given proportionate pensions.

I realise that it is a serious position for a man of 40 or 50 years of age to have his career terminated prematurely, as is being done in this case. But at any rate we are able to point to this fact, that under their existing pensionable contracts they are not entitled to receive their pensions until they have served their full time. In some cases they had to serve until they were 55 years of age before they were entitled to draw their pension. Now they are being given proportionate pensions based upon the number of years they have served. That would mean that a member of the Forestry Service, who might have a maximum pension after 15 or 20 years' service of, say, £600 a year would, under the proportionate pension rules which are to operate, receive, after, say, 10 years' service, £300—half of his maximum of £600; and he will draw that proportionate pension of £200, £300 or £400 a year, as the case may be, from the time he leaves Burma and for the rest of his life. That may not be as much as some of us would have liked to see them receive, but I think we must take that into account in deciding whether or not they are receiving, broadly speaking, equitable treatment.

I cannot say that His Majesty's Government will automatically provide a post for every one of those 30 men, but we are endeavourig to give every assistance possible to enable them to obtain reasonable employment. The hon. Member for North Blackpool, who has taken a great interest in these matters, knows that we have established various agencies. There is the India and Burma Service Re-Employment Branch of the Commonwealth Relations Office, which has been set up to deal with applications for appointments in permanent Government service, and appointments under the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)

Is that the one at Tavistock Square?

Mr. Henderson

I could not say what the address is. Then there is the India and Burma Service Section of the London Appointments Office of the Ministry of Labour; that is another agency. In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), I have just been given to understand that the office to which he referred is at Tavistock Square. The India and Burma Service Section of the London Appointments Office has been set up to deal with business appointments in quasi Government agencies and associations, public corporations, and temporary appointments in the home Civil Service. Another agency is the Technical and Scientific Register, again under the auspices of the Ministry of Labour, which deals with technical appointments in the field covered by the India and Burma Services Section. Finally, there is the high level unofficial committee, presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), known as the India and Burma Services Employment Liaison Committee. That has been set up to discover openings in business firms or companies, and in trade or other associations for officers from both India and Burma.

I do not intend to mislead the Committee; that is a thing I never do. I will be quite frank and admit that I am not in a position to say that at this moment any one of those 30 to 40 officers has actually received a satisfactory appointment. They will make their applications, and it will be for one or more of these agencies to do everything possible to secure that they receive employment.

11.30 a.m.

Vice-Admiral Taylor (Paddington, South)

If they do not receive appointments where they are, will their passage home be paid?

Mr. Henderson

The question of passage money depends on the particular contract of the individual. They are not all under the same contract. In some cases—and I think it applies in the Forestry Service—they are on a three-year short-term contract. In other cases, they are on a pensionable contract, with no limit to their service except the age limit of 55—

Vice-Admiral Taylor

But these contracts have been broken, and that alters the situation very much. If they have to come home to earn their living the Burmese Government should pay their passage.

Mr. Henderson

The rules provide that the great majority, certainly all those under pensionable contract, when they retire prematurely, with proportionate pension, will have their passage paid home. Their wives and dependent children will also have their passages paid. These rules will be applied to the special category of railway officers on short-term contract. In other words, the Government of Burma will pay for the passage home of a man, his wife, and dependent children.

Mr. Gammans

Will the rules apply to all of them?

Mr. Henderson

I am dealing with the 30 to 40 officials whose services are being terminated. While we could wish that other arrangements could have been made it is only fair to say that the Government of Burma have agreed to pay these proportionate pensions, and it cannot be argued that this Bill should be held up on the ground that these men are not receiving equitable treatment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

The Committee has listened to the right hon. and learned Gentleman with a considerable feeling of disquiet. It appeared to me, and I think it was obvious to many of us, that he himself did not think that this small number of European persons were receiving justice under the arrangements which have so far been made. The Minister spent a little time in pointing out the distinction between their engagement and the case of those engaged in the normal way by the Secretary of State for Burma. In my view, the obligation towards these people is just the same no matter how they were engaged. For the non-Secretary of State's services people were enlisted direct through the High Commissioner for India, acting for and on behalf of the Secretary of State for Burma—

Mr. Henderson

No, for and on behalf of the Government of Burma—a very different thing.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

The position is similar in this respect: It cannot be denied that they were servants of the Crown. Although there may have been technical differences in the manner of their enlistment, the moral obligation of His Majesty's Government must be much the same. Although we welcome the assurance that after a long—and we wonder how long—investigation, and careful deliberation, His Majesty's Government have secured some concession, some recognition of the obligation, from Burma, we are left with the feeling that the moral obligation towards this small number of men has not been discharged. It is not discharged by saying, "We shall do all we can to provide these men with further employment." The obligation to look after this small number of people, to provide for them what they are entitled to, and what His Majesty's Government have not been so far able to secure, rests fairly and squarely on the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. Unless he can hold out more hope of securing proper treatment for these few Europeans we shall have no alternative but to divide the Committee as an indication of our dissatisfaction of the arrangements which have so far been made.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just given to the Committee what I consider to be a very disappointing reply. It cannot be regarded as fair by anybody if a man retires at, say, the age of 45, on a proportionate pension of £300 a year, and His Majesty's Government fail to find him suitable employment in this country. I think that goes without saying. If a man is to be thrown on the scrap-heap in middle age, without suitable employment being found for him, then we as a nation have failed in our moral obligation. I am sure that every Member of the Committee is with me in saying that.

This problem has cropped up on a far larger scale in connection with India. The multiplicity of committees and bureaux to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred have, so far, not been particularly successful. I was talking to a constituent of mine last night—and I am giving this purely as an illustration—who was a police officer in one of the Provinces of India, in the Secretary of State's service. He registered at the Tavistock Square bureau, and has been so registered for some time. The only thing they could tell him was that there were police vacancies in the British Control Commission in Germany. They told him to apply to the Foreign Office, but the Foreign Office answer was, "There are no vacancies of this sort, and there never have been any." My constituent was also told to advertise in his local newspapers. That is all that has been done for him. They have not put him into touch with any business organisations, or any organisation where his knowledge of how to deal with men and his knowledge of administrative work might be put to proper use.

I am left with a feeling of uneasiness that, as far as India is concerned, our obligations to men like these are not being discharged. As far as I can see, there is no prospect that they will ever be discharged. There have been bad breakdowns in that sphere. In the light of our knowledge of what has happened in the case of India, if, with our eyes open, we allow a similar state of affairs to arise in connection with the much smaller number of men in Burma, we shall be failing in our duty. It will be a bad blow to the reputation of the Government as a whole without regard to its particular political complexion. I beg the right hon. and learned Gentleman to think again. We have no wish to hold up the Bill 00 this point; that is not our object in moving this Amendment. Our object is to obtain remedies for what evidently may be failure to discharge a moral obligation.

Sir Ronald Ross (Londonderry)

I have heard the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak on many occasions and while he has spoken frankly today I have never seen him more embarrassed than he was just now at the Despatch Box. He knows that this is a mean piece of dealing with old and faithful servants of the Crown, who have done their best to serve the Crown and the people of Burma. They are being fobbed off with the most technical of all excuses I have ever heard—the distinction between one class of servants of the Crown and another. We have been told, "If the man has been engaged by the Secretary of State he is all right, he will be compensated. But if he was engaged by the Government of Burma we shall wash our hands of him." I do not think that I have ever heard a more pettifogging distinction than the one made in these circumstances. These men are a very small body, and it has been cynically said that the justice of a case in this House is sometimes conditioned by the number of votes it commands and that when there is a small body like this, an injustice can be done to them with impunity. During the time I have been in this House, I have always done my best to fight that principle. The first speech I made was to attack my own side on the question of compensation for a small body of people. I shall always fight for the rights of people when I think that they have served the country to the best of their ability and have been shamefully treated, as I think these men have been, because to give them a proportionate pension for the time they have served is not compensation.

Pensions are generally so constructed as to induce a man to fulfil a longish term of service; otherwise it is a very bad bargain for the Government employing him. That is the purpose of an increasing pension according to the period of years, and a proportionate pension to a man whose time and service are arbitrarily stopped through no fault of his own, is insufficient to support him and his family in any comfort. I think that is a most unsatisfactory way of treating these men. The Government might, when they intended to give the Government of Burma a substantial sum of £15 million, have thought of those servants who are to be dependent apparently, as the Government of this country wash their hands of their future, on the generosity of Burma. But no bargain was made. The bargaining asset was given away. I think that we should all be encouraged if the Government of Burma acted generously towards this small body of men who have tried to serve Burma, and some of whom have served Burma at great personal cost and suffering.

Mr. Nicholson

And risk.

Sir R. Ross

And now their occupation is gone. They are a small body. Therefore, it does not matter. There are only 20 to 30 of them. They do not count. Therefore, we can treat them with injustice. We make the distinction between the established civil servant engaged by the Secretary of State and the poor fellow doing very similar work engaged by the Government of Burma. I think that this is one of the grossest injustices I have heard for some time, and that it is unpolitic. If a Government treat old servants in this shape, are people likely to enter the service of a Government with any confidence? I do not think that they will. I think that they will be very careful about the terms of engagement and what might happen to them if there is a sudden change in a Dominion, territory or Colony where they are serving. They may find that their whole plan of life is completely ruined, and they and their families, instead of continuing to serve as they had hoped, are thrown on to an overstocked labour market, because it has not been suggested that it will be easy to find work for these people. I think that it will be very hard to find work for them.

I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman because I think that, in his heart of hearts, he sees the injustice that is being caused to this small body of men. I appeal to him to reconsider the attitude which the Government have taken. This is not a matter involving vast sums of money. It is a pettifogging economy at the expense of a small class of faithful servants of the Crown, and we trust that this injustice will be remedied.

11.45 a.m.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)

I should like to reinforce what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) has said, and to appeal to hon. Members opposite to support us, not on any party question, but on this moral issue, because I think sincerely that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman finds that the Committee is unanimously in favour of reversing this decision, he will be only too glad to have an opportunity of doing justice in this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that he recognises what could be done in this matter. He told us how he endeavoured to get the Burmese Government to treat these people in the same way as comparable people in India have been treated by the India and Pakistan Governments. He failed so to do, and having failed on the moral issue, he then fell back on the legal liability. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not want to do that, and he would be very glad to have the support of the Committee to strengthen him and enable him to enforce the moral issue.

What does this really amount to? They are being granted already one breach of their legal right in getting their proportionate pension. They are not legally entitled to that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has recognised that there is a moral issue involved, by granting them proportionate pensions in breach of their agreement. Therefore, he has recognised one half of the issue. Cannot he, with the support of the Committee, recognise the other half as well? He has gone even further than that. He has recognised, as he told an hon. Member, that, other than the moral issue involved in the payment of the passage money home, there is no legal liability there, in many of the cases, at any rate. In order to meet that moral issue, he has waived the legalities which presumably technically precluded him from making the very proper and right payment of passage money on the earlier determination of these contracts. Why cannot he recognise that there is still a gap to be filled on the moral side between what he sought to require the Burmese Government to do on a par with the India and Pakistan Governments, and what in fact they are prepared to do in accordance with what he has told us?

It is all very well for him to inform the Committee of various steps taken to try to arrange for these people to obtain employment elsewhere when they come home. The Committee, I am quite sure, share with me the painful knowledge of the difficulties of men—ex-Servicemen particularly—who have retired at the age of 45 in obtaining reasonable employment, whether through the appointments board or elsewhere. Time and time again, particularly with men of the age of the Crown servant for whom we are appealing in this case, we have found that it has only been possible to operate in conjunction with or through the appointments board, and they are quite incapable of providing opportunities for men of that age, and men who have not the experience required by modern industrial concerns operating in this country in present circumstances. The hope, therefore, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman held out of being able to place these men in reasonable employment in this country, really is very remote indeed at the present time.

I therefore urge that the Committee should give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the strength and moral encouragement to do what we know he believes to be right. He has, on the financial side, already accepted an obliga- tion of £15 million, and the amount involved in this matter is trivial in comparison. On the other hand, the principle involved is very big indeed. It is the principle of doing justice to Crown servants when the Crown, through circumstances into which we need not go, has to breach agreements with Crown servants, and it will be a very far-reaching decision, as an hon. Member behind me said just now, if the Crown's dealings with its servants should perpetrate an action which not only involves a moral injustice to the servants, but which it is perfectly evident the Crown itself knows to be a moral injustice.

Mr. Wyatt

Quite frankly, I have considerable sympathy with the motive behind this Amendment, and I think it is right that it should have been brought up, although I think it is couched in somewhat extreme terms. I am certain that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not seriously propose that if satisfactory agreement cannot be reached the independence of Burma should be held up, because they know perfectly well that this is largely a local government matter. I hope, however, that the feelings that have been expressed this morning, particularly by those hon. Members on the other side who were good enough to go into the Lobby and support the Government on the Second Reading of the Bill, will be considered, and that there will be general unanimity in the Committee that something more ought to be done by the Government. I hope that they may represent to the Burmese Government that even those who wish that Government more goodwill than others are most anxious that they should try to go further towards meeting the representations that have been made in this case.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

I frequently disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt), but I think he has made a most fair and temperate statement which we on this side of the Committee appreciate. I very much hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will rise in response to that statement, because here quite clearly is a case where this Committee are disturbed about a matter. We shall have to vote for our Amendment in any case, but I do not think we ought to vote before a further statement has been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope he will tell us that he will have regard to the feelings of the Committee, and that" he will convey those feelings not only to His Majesty's Government, but also to the existing Government in Burma. With great frankness I say that no Government in this country, and especially a Government with whom we are going to be in friendly relations, can ever fail to have regard to the feelings of a Committee of this House when it has been consolidated, as it has been today.

Mr. Henderson

Before I reply to what has been said just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. Wyatt) I want to place on record the constitutional basis of this problem. With all respect to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), the initiative does not rest with His Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly true to say that the employees of the United Kingdom are employees of the Crown. That would apply to employees of the Government of Burma, of the Government of Australia, of the Government of South Africa and so on, but for the purposes of contracts that employment is their responsibility, and, indeed, as I indicated to the Committee in my first remark, the terms and conditions of service are entirely a matter for the Government of the Dominion or Colony concerned, with the one exception of the Secretary of State's service.

Therefore, it is not a question of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom not facing up to their moral responsibility, or of seeking to economise at the expense of men who have rendered very fine service to the King in Burma under the Government of Burma. I certainly would not like to put it on the basis that there has been any reluctance on the part of His Majesty's Government to look after the interests of those officials. All I am saying is that the initiative rests with the Government of Burma. I would certainly be prepared, in response to my hon. Friends and to hon. Gentlemen opposite, to go to this extent—I am quite sure the Government of Burma will be well aware of the views that have been expressed on both sides of the Committee in this matter—to take upon myself to give an assurance to hon. Members that we will ask the Government of Burma to look at this problem again. I cannot go beyond that.

Mr. Low

Would I be right in saying that the total compensation would come to not more than £150,000, that is, one-hundredth part of the gift which His Majesty's Government have made to Burma? Could not His Majesty's Government out of that satisfy their own moral responsibilities in this matter and not put it on to the Government of Burma?

Mr. Henderson

I am quite sure the" hon. Member for Blackpool North, who made such a very helpful speech the other night from the point of view of the Burmese people, would not suggest that we should commit a breach of our treaty in order to meet this moral obligation. That is, in effect, what he is suggesting, and I cannot think that that is what he means.

Mr. Nicholson

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a very good Parliamentarian. He must see the significance of the unanimity of opinion that there is in the Committee. I know he is in a jam about it and I sympathise with him. It is quite useless for him to get up and stress again the absence of any legal obligation on the part of His Majesty's Government. That does not get us any further at all. He may make all the representations in the world to the Government of Burma—and I trust and hope that the Burmese Government will respond—but he must admit that in this fallible world there is an element of doubt. Because there is an element of doubt, is he prepared to say on behalf of His Majesty's Government that these men will get suitable compensation or proper employment in this country? That really is the issue. I will not proceed with any of the arguments I made before or that other hon. Gentlemen have made, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go a little further.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

I want to say one word on the point that the initiative does not rest on His Majesty's Government. We are asking His Majesty's Government to take the initiative on this and to discharge their moral obligations. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us that he will convey the views expressed today to the Burmese Government. I have no doubt that they will be considered there, but what we would like from him is an assurance that if the attitude of the Burma Government is not altered, at least the Government of the United Kingdom will treat these people properly by securing for them adequate compensation. That assurance has not been forthcoming, and His Majesty's Government have given no undertaking to discharge an obligation which rests upon them, if not a legal certainly a moral obligation. In those circumstances we have no alternative but to show our dissatisfaction.

Mr. Henderson

I could not possibly accept the contention that there is a moral obligation upon His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. We have an interest in the welfare of all our citizens, whatever may be the position or whatever the country may be, but I could not possibly accept the contention put forward by the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller).

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr)

I should like to put this question to my right hon.

and learned Friend—could he assure the House that in any case he will make approaches to the Government of Burma on the matter under consideration this morning?

Mrs. Leah Manning (Epping)

He has already said he will.

Mr. Davies

I think my right hon. and learned Friend should make it clear to the Committee, for it would help considerably the hon. Members on this side of the Committee, that he will make the necessary approaches to the Government of Burma with regard to the compensation to which these people are entitled.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 61; Noes, 162.

Division No. 23.] AYES. [11.59 a.m
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Nutting, Anthony
Beamish, Maj. T. V. H. Gammans, L. D. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Bennett, Sir P Grant, Lady Osborne, C.
Birch, Nigel Grimston, R. V. Raikes, H. V.
Bower, N. Hare, Hon. J H. (Woodbridge) Ramsay, Maj. S.
Boyd-Carpenter, J A. Head, Brig. A H. Rayner, Brig. R.
Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon Sir C. Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T Hollis, M. C. Ross, Sir R. D (Londonderry)
Bullock, Capt. M. Howard, Hon A. Sanderson, Sir F.
Butcher, H. W. Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow. C) Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Carson, E. Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W. Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)
Challen, C. Low, A. R. W. Studholme, H G.
Channon, H MacAndrew, Col. Sir C. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E A. (P'dd [...] S.)
Clarke, Col R. S. Macdonald, Sir P (I of Wight) Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G MacLeod, J. Wakefield, Sir W. W.
Cooper-Key, E. M Manningham-Buller, R. E Watt, Sir G S. Harvie
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F C Maude, J. C. Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)
Crowder, Capt. John E Mellor, Sir J Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Dodds-Parker, A D Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T Winterton, Rt. Hon Earl
Duthle, W. S. Nicholson, G
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter Noble, Comdr A. H. P TELLERS FOR THE AVES:
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.
NOES.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Bowden, Flg-Offr. H. W Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Deer, G.
Attewell, H C. Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Delargy, H J
Austin, H Lewis Bramall, E A. Diamond, J.
Awbery, S. S. Brook, D. (Halifax) Dodds, N. N.
Ayles, W H. Brooks, T J (Rothwell) Dumpleton, C W
Ayrton Gould, Mrs B Brown, George (Belper) Ede, Rt. Hon. J C.
Bacon, Miss A. Bruce, Maj. D W. T Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Balfour, A. Buchanan, G. Evans, A. (Islington, W.)
Barstow, P G Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Evans, John (Ogmore)
Bartlett, V. Castle, Mrs. B A. Evans, S N (Wednesbury)
Barton, C. Chater, D Ewart, R
Bechervaise, A. E. Chetwynd, G R Falrhurst, F.
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Cooks, F. S. Fernyhough, E.
Benson, G. Collick, P. Field, Capt. W. J.
Berry, H. Collindridge, F. Foster, W. (Wigan)
Beswick, F. Colman, Miss G. M. Freeman, John (Watford)
Bing, G. H. C. Corlett, Dr. J. Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Binns, J. Corvedale, Viscount Goodrich, H. E.
Blyton, W. R. Daines, P. Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Boardman, H Davies, Clement (Montgomery) Greenwood, A. W. J, (Heywood)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) Morley, R Stubbs, A. E
Gunter, R. J Moyle, A. Swingler, S.
Guy, W. H. Naylor, T. E. Sylvester, G. O.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Neal, H (Claycross) Symonds, A. L.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R. Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill) Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Hardy, E. A. Noel-Buxton, Lady Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Hastings, Dr Somerville Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury) Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Henderson, A (Kingswinford) Parkin, B. T Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Holman, P. Pearson, A. Thomas, George (Cardiff)
House, G. Perrins, W. Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Hudson, J. H (Ealing, W.) Poole, Cecil (Lichfield) Titterington, M. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr) Popplewell, E. Tolley, L.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.) Proctor, W. T. Turner-Samuels, M.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool) Pursey, Cmdr. H Viant, S. P
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.) Randall, H. E. Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Jay, D. P. T. Rankin, J Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester) Rees-Williams, D. R. Warbey, W. N.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools) Reid, T. (Swindon) Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin) Ridealgh, Mrs. M. Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Kendall, W D Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire) West, D. G.
Kenyon, C Rogers, G. H. R. White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Kinley, J Royle, C. White, J. B. (Canterbury)
Leslie, J. R. Sargood, R. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Levy, B. W. Segal, Dr. S. Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. B.
Longden, F. Silverman, S. S. (Nelson) Wilkes, L
Lyne, A. W Skeffington, A. M. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
McAdam, W Skeffington-Lodge, T. C Williams, D J. (Neath)
McGhee, H. G. Skinnard, F W Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)
Maclean, N. (Govan) Snow, J. W. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Manning, C (Camberwell, N.) Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Wills, Mrs. E. A
Middleton, Mrs. L Sparks, J. A. Woods, G. S.
Mikardo, Ian. Stamford, W. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mitchison, G R. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins.

Question put, and agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

12.6 p.m.

Earl Winterton

The integral and inherent part of the Clause is in the first subsection, which states that, upon the appointed day, Burma shall become an independent country, etc. I think we are entitled, and that it is within the Rules of Order for us, to ask one or two questions before the Clause is passed, about the position of special communities whom, after the appointed day, we shall no longer be able to protect in any way or, indeed, to ask questions about or raise any Debate about in this House. In the confident belief that this point is in Order, I desire to raise questions relating to the position of the Anglo-Burman community.

I should like to say that this community has been of some importance in the life of Burma. As hon. Gentlemen who are familiar with the country will know, the community is composed mostly of the descendants of unions between European men and Burmese women, though it also includes a certain number of domiciled Anglo-Indians and a very few domiciled persons of pure European stock who have been settled in the country for two or three generations. As in the case of the Anglo-Indians, the Anglo-Burmans take a special pride in the strain of European blood in their veins and they take a pride also in their European culture. They are a class apart from the Burmese. They have rendered, in many walks of civil life, good service for many years, out of proportion to their numbers; that is to say, a very large proportion of them have served the Crown in one capacity or another, or have been in important business positions. They have been clerks, skilled artisans, doctors, nurses, and teachers, and they are specially good in the police. They are also very peaceful and law-abiding citizens.

Their complaint has been that the Burmese Government already started to dispense with their services in the Civil Service some time ago, and they fear that the wave of nationalist, anti-European feeling which has swept through Burma will result in their being denied a chance of making their livelihood in the positions in which they have shown themselves well fitted. This they fear if the Clause as it stands is inserted in the Bill without any special action being taken. I should like to point out that their loyalty to the Allied cause during the war was undoubted, for the volunteer forces, which I remember from the days when I was at the India Office and which existed in Burma, contained very large numbers of Anglo-Burmans, a much greater proportion in relation to their numbers than of Burmese. The units charged with the task of maintaining order were largely composed of them.

Therefore, we have the position that here is a community which did very fine service both in the Civil Service and in the Defence Services of the country, greater service in proportion to their numbers than did the Burmese. That fact in itself should commend their cause to all persons. I hope that applies to everyone in this Committee, whether in the Chamber or not, and to all who are—to use an old-fashioned term—of patriotic intention and belief. The fact is that these men did spendid service for the Crown. They suffered. They did very fine work in the resistance movement. Commanding officers of forces whose members were dropped by parachute behind the lines testify to that, and every British officer in Burma spoke in the highest terms of the Anglo-Burmans and said that they had no finer officers than the Anglo-Burman officers. They suffered very great hardships during the war and many were cruelly tortured by the Japanese. Many more lost their houses and all they had in the retreat from Burma.

That is my reason for hoping that even at this eleventh hour we shall have some statement before we part with this all-important Clause which settles the date of our complete evacuation from Burma; in other words, our Burmese Dunkirk. The Government of Burma Act, 1935, as I well remember, gave special representation to minorities, and, in accordance with its provisions, the Anglo-Burmans held two seats in the Legislature. That was the situation. Under the new Constitution, to which we cannot refer in detail but only in general terms, because it is not before the Committee, there will be no separate representation of the Anglo-Burmans, who politically will become submerged. Let the Committee realise, even though it is a Friday afternoon with a scant attendance in the Chamber, that this Committee of the House of Commons, unless something is done, is about to pass a Clause of a Bill which will remove from these people who have done such splendid service for Burma and ourselves, all the safeguards which they have hitherto had. That is no doubt a very small matter to many, but it is of great importance to these very loyal subjects of the Crown, and it is important from the point of view of the example of good or bad which it will set to people in other parts of the Empire in the same position.

I need not go into the many details which I have in this brief which I have had prepared for me on the subject of the position of the Anglo-Burmans. No doubt the Government will say—I can predict the answer in advance; indeed we had it on the Second Reading—that the leading representatives of the Anglo-Burmans have thrown in their lot with the Burmese. What else could they do? What else could any minority loyal to the British Government do when that Government scuttles from a country after making friends with those who were formerly the enemies of that country and themselves? They cannot do anything else. Of course, they were ready to do that. We have a very poor reputation as an institution, that is, the House of Commons, in the treatment of loyal minorities. We treated the United Empire Loyalists, who were loyal to us in the American Civil War, very badly. I will quote, until I am told that I am out of Order, a statement made in the Nova Scotia Legislature by a Member about the treatment of minorities by the British Government of that day. Somebody had spoken of the position of the Union. It was said: What else can you suppose would happen? The British House of Commons has always paid more attention to successful rebels than to devoted loyalists. I would apply that observation very much to the action of the Government this afternoon. They are paying every attention to successful rebels and precious little to devoted loyalists.

12.15 p.m.

I do not suppose that anything can be done for these unhappy people. I would only ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether, even at this late hour, before we pass this Clause, he could ask whether there is anything which the Government can do to safeguard the position of the Anglo-Burmans. It would help if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say to the Burmese Government that His Majesty's Government regard their obligations of the past to the Anglo-Burmans as still existing, at any rate in the form of moral obligations, and if he could represent to that Government the need for safeguarding for those people the special rights which by virtue of their position they have always had in Burma. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be in a position to say something of that kind and will send out some word of hope to the Anglo-Burmans. I hope he will make it clear to the Burmese Government that this is the position of His Majesty's Government. I would like him further—I ask him to make no expression of opinion on this because he would probably think it improper to do so—since I have never believed in kowtowing to any Government outside this country, to represent to the Burmese Government that the British Government are still pretty powerful and that the Burmese Government are not, and that the future of the relationships between the two countries will to some extent depend upon whether the Burmese Government treat the people who have been loyal to us in the past, as they should be treated.

Mr. Gammans

I feel very worried about this community and I sincerely hope that the Committee will share my anxiety. The relatively small Anglo-Burman community are all our own kith and kin. They would never have existed if the British had not been in Burma. Now that we are leaving Burma, surely this is one section of the community for whom we must have some special regard, quite apart from the fact, as the noble Lord has said, that they have always been an example in good times and in bad of unswerving loyalty to the Crown. In other words, it is one of our residual responsibilities when we are liquidating the Empire to look after the people of our own blood who have been loyal to us.

Are these people, in fact, being abandoned? Is the situation satisfactory? I know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is about to say. He has said it already. He will say that they are not being abandoned. He will say that the Chairman of the Anglo-Burman Association, Mr. Rivers, is quite happy about it. Can we accept that at its face value? If we can, then I admit that there is nothing to worry about, but quite frankly, I do not accept that declaration at its face value. For a start, I have had too many representations the other way round and what is more, as the noble Lord quite rightly said, there was an element of duress in the circumstances under which that statement was made. When we turn round to people and say, "We are going to clear out anyway, we are going to abandon you; make what arrangements you can," it is no good for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to quote the statement of Mr. Rivers and say that everything is fine and is quite all right.

Let us understand what will happen and, if we are abandoning these people, as I believe we are, let us be under no illusions as to what will happen to them. Burma today is suffering from raging nationalism—that is perfectly clear—even more so than India. The Government of Burma have far less experienced servants to work for them than either the Government of India or the Government of Pakistan. Nevertheless, as an indication of the extent of the nationalism raging in Burma today, they have declined to employ any European servants in large numbers. What hope is there, therefore, of these Anglo-Burmans really playing an effective part in the life of the country? The Anglo-Burmans can exist only as individuals in so far as they cease to exist as a community, and if they are prepared to give up all they have regarded in the past as the signs of their national culture and of their background. Only to that extent can they exist at all. I venture to predict that if the Anglo-Burman is to live, even physically, in Burma, one of the first things he will have to do is to give up his language because, let us be under no illusion, English will be a secondary language in Burma from now on. He must give up his way of life. He will also be forced, I believe, in the long run to give up his religion. In other words, the fate of the Anglo-Burman is to be submerged entirely in the life of the native Burmese community.

That is what we are doing. Do not let us have any high-falutin platitudinous talk. It may be inevitable, but do not let us have any unctuous hypocrisy about it. I do not feel happy about this, and I sincerely hope that no other hon. Member, on whatever side of the Committee he may sit, will feel happy about it. I do not know whether we can do anything by constitutional safeguards. After all, the Karens, who are also a minority, have constitutional safeguards under the new Constitution. These people have none. Can we turn round and say to the Anglo-Burman who wants to leave Burma that we will do everything we can to find him a home in some other part of the British Commonwealth? Australia is asking for immigrants. There are other parts of the Empire. Have the Commonwealth Governments been approached? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to approach them or any part of the Colonial Empire? Are we going to try to find them jobs, or are we just going to wash our hands of them and say, "We are very sorry, you must make whatever arrangements you can." If we are going to abandon these people, let us do it with our eyes open and without any hypocrisy.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson

I, too, know something of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say in reply to this Debate. He will say that it would be wrong and misleading, and, ultimately, detrimental to the interests of the Anglo-Burmans themselves if we attempted to persuade them that their interests lie outside Burma. He will say that they must make their valuable contribution to the future Burmese State. Of course, there is a great deal in that. But I believe it is incumbent upon us in this Committee to make it known in Burma that we take a particular interest in these people. We do not wish to detach them from their future country, but we have a heavy responsibility towards them. I know there is a lot of cant talked in the House about moral responsibilities, but there is no cant in what I am saying now. We have a tremendous moral responsibility towards these people.

I do not believe that even now in this country people realise what that community went through during the war. I should not have known it except for the fact that nearly two years ago I went to India with a Parliamentary Delegation and happened to come across some of the literature of a small committee which was trying to do something for the Anglo-Burmans. I do not mind admitting that what I read brought tears to my eyes—the ghastly way in which their women were maltreated, misused and cast aside by the Japanese, those women who are often of great beauty. I think the least His Majesty's Government can do is to let the Burmese Government know in the most friendly fashion that we shall always take an abiding interest in this community. I think they should pursue the line suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans), that is, approach the Dominions and, particularly, the Colonial Governments, to see whether settlement schemes cannot be arranged for them, for instance, in places like British Guiana. Could not a settlement scheme be arranged for such Anglo-Burmans as wish to emigrate?

As the Committee knows, I supported the Government on this Bill. I am not withdrawing that support, but I cannot hide from myself that, inevitably, much of the contents of a Bill, like this, must strike deeply at our consciences, and nothing strikes more deeply at mine than the way this community must, to some extent, be abandoned. Let us try this afternoon to mitigate some of this. Let us try to discharge those obligations as honourably as we can. It must be a compromise, of course, but do not let us err against this most unfortunate, most sadly treated community who, as my hon. Friend has said, are our own kith and kin.

Mr. Wyatt

I understand the sincerity and genuineness with which the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) always speaks on these matters but I feel that, with the best will in the world, he is tending to make the position of the Anglo-Burmans a little more difficult than it need be. What is happening really is that the leaders of the Anglo-Burmans themselves are doing their best to persuade their own community that their place lies in Burma, and that they cannot look for any special protection or privileges from outside.

Mr. Nicholson

I am not asking that.

Mr. Wyatt

That is a perfectly right attitude on the part of the leaders of the Anglo-Burmans. If there is any suggestion in Burma that the Anglo-Burmans are still looking to us for some kind of extra support, what might happen—as does so often happen to minorities—is that they will get an accumulated hostility from the majority of the communities in the country, who will feel that this minority is in some way trying to put itself above them.

Mr. Nicholson

If I have given that impression to the hon. Gentleman and the Committee, I have failed in what I tried to do. I do not want the Anglo-Burmans to feel that they are in an in-between position and looking to us for special protection. I want the Burmese to know, however, that we regard this community with particular affection, that they are very near our hearts. I am not asking for any extra rights, but that we shall watch with particular affection and anxiety the fate of this community.

Mr. Wyatt

That is an unexceptionable attitude. Naturally, the Burmese would expect us to feel rather more kinship with the Anglo-Burmans than perhaps with any others and, as the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) stated, if it had not been for us, they would not have existed at all. However, I hope we can keep out any suggestion that we want to give them special privileges, or special protection, but encourage Mr. Rivers, the leader of the Anglo-Burmans, to continue with his good work. He has had considerable success in that, and already quite a number of the higher administrative posts have, for the first time, been given to Anglo-Burmans.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Henderson

I must confess that I feel that the note upon which my hon. Friend has just concluded is the right note: in other words, that we should do everything possible to encourage the Anglo-Burman community to appreciate the fact that their future lies in Burma and not in other parts of the world. Indeed, that is the view they have taken themselves. In so far as it has been possible for us to obtain information as to what they desire, as far back as 1944, the Anglo-Burmese Conference which took place in Simla passed a resolution to the effect that they should identify themselves, as a community, with Burma, and only recently a meeting was held which was attended by about 300 members of the community in the City Hall at Rangoon which reaffirmed the content of that resolution.

In addition, the four members of the Anglo-Burman community who were elected at the Election to represent them in the Constituent Assembly, did not oppose the Constitution which, as the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), I think, very correctly said, does in fact provide for the removal of the two Anglo-Burman constituencies which at present exist under the provisions of the 1935 Act, and provides for general constituencies irrespective of race or religion. As regards their future, I think that, individually, we would always be interested in people of our own kith and kin, whether they are in Burma, in India, or elsewhere, but it would be most undesirable for His Majesty's Government to make some pronouncement that a particular section of the population of Burma was to be the special responsibility of His Majesty's Government, and that is not what we could do.

As regards the possible treatment of the Anglo-Burman community, I would, of course, remind the Committee that the draft Constitution which is to be set up does provide for religious toleration, and I see no reason to anticipate that any attempt will be made to prevent individuals practising a particular religion. Only recently the Home Minister has stated that in the view of the Burmese Government the Anglo-Burmans in the future will be a welcome and a valuable element in the composition of the new Burmese nation. That may be what the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) may have called a platitudinous misstatement, but I can only refer to that as an indication of the approach which the Burmese leaders have made to this community, and I have no reason to anticipate that they will fail to live up to that.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.