§ 11. Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if, in view of the increasing death roll of the Malayan police by ambushing on roads, he is satisfied that they have a sufficient number of armoured cards for patrol work.
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsA number of armoured cars for police use have already been delivered in Malaya, and others will be arriving shortly. The High Commissioner has not expressed any dissatisfaction at the position.
§ Mr. GammansCan the hon. Gentleman say why it is that only now, six months after this insurrection has started and when policemen are being murdered on main roads, armoured cars appear to be sent out?
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsArmoured cars have been delivered, but most of the patrols in Malaya are infantry patrols on foot and not in armoured cars. As the hon. Gentleman knows only too well, the number of places in which one can use armoured cars is limited.
§ Mr. GammansDoes the hon. Gentleman deny the fact that during the past few weeks patrols and police on the main roads in Malaya have, in fact, been murdered? Surely, therefore, there must be a need for armoured cars on the main and side roads?
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsMost of the patrolling is done on foot. As to the number of armoured cars delivered and those still on order, we are assured by the authorities in Malaya that they are satisfied with the position.
§ Mr. GallacherWill the Minister publish a list of those in this country who have drawn big profits out of tin and rubber, and make them pay for the armoured cars?
§ Mr. W. FletcherWill the hon. Gentleman make the position clear? He said in one of his first replies that he had not had any further demand from the High Commissioner. That is not the same as being satisfied with the present position, and does not exonerate him from responsibility for seeing that armoured cars are made available?
§ Mr. GallacherHow much are you getting out of it?
§ Mr. Rees-WilliamsI did not say anything of the kind; the hon. Gentleman completely misrepresents me. What I said was that the High Commissioner had not expressed dissatisfaction.
§ Mr. J. Langford-HoltIs it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for the hon. Member for 362 West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to cry across the Floor of the House to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher), "How much are you getting out of it"?
§ Mr. SpeakerIf there is any personal allegation of that kind, it is certainly out of Order.
§ Mr. Langford-HoltFurther to that point of Order; may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct the hon. Member for West Fife to withdraw that remark?
§ Mr. PiratinFurther to the point of Order. Is it not a fact that a number of Members in this House have shares in various concerns in the Colonies, and should they not declare their interest? Are we not entitled to know who has an interest in each Colony?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member cannot make an allegation that another hon. Member is getting something out of orders placed by the Government. It is quite improper. I am sure the hon. Member cannot have meant to make that allegation.
§ Mr. GallacherIf the hon. Member assures me that he has no financial interest in the Colonies, I withdraw the allegation, but not otherwise.
§ Mr. SpeakerI hate qualified withdrawals. If the hon. Member had any interest, he would declare it. The hon. Member for West Fife must not make his withdrawal conditional. We must trust each other for honourable conduct, and, therefore, one should not withdraw a thing under qualifications. It should be withdrawn without qualifications.
§ Mr. GallacherI asked whether the hon. Member had an interest in this—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Quiet. I withdraw without any hesitation.