HC Deb 24 November 1952 vol 508 cc189-215

Amendment proposed [21st November,] in page 2, line 25, at the end, to insert: (4) To subsection (5) of the said section there shall be added the words: Provided that when the Treasury proposes to guarantee a loan which is the first loan made by the said bank to a government or authority which has been established after the passing of this Act, the guarantee shall not take effect until it has been approved by resolutions passed in both Houses of Parliament:"—[Sir Acland.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

At four o'clock on Friday we were engaged in some interesting, but desultory discussion about the effects of an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). Its import was concerned with the possibility of closer co-operation in Central Africa. It was not denied that there was real importance in the Amendment. The Secretary of State for the Colonies said that, so far as he was concerned in drafting this Bill he had not had in mind the question of closer co-operation.

On the other hand, my hon. Friend made it clear that, so far as he was concerned, he was deeply concerned about the possibility of the imposition of closer co-operation, of the forcing of this domination upon Central Africa; of the utilisation of the proposals for closer co-operation as a method of forcing the proposals through at conferences without the consent of the African population. The right hon. Gentleman is a little surprised.

The Chairman

What the hon. Member is saying does not apply to the Amendment, which only refers to the affirmative Resolution procedure.

Mr. Hale

The Amendment refers to the possibility of the forms of organisation for the Colonial Territories, and suggests that there should be a new form of organisation, and that before this House gives consent to any loans it shall have an affirmative resolution—

The Chairman

Whether there shall be an affirmative Resolution or not is the relevant matter before the Committee.

Mr. Hale

The affirmative Resolution is in respect of a new organisation. Therefore we have to consider, in considering whether this is necessary, what new organisation can be formulated within the next few months, and what sort of new territorial organisation we should sanction. The point which I am putting briefly is that Central African Federation is a possibility. We are told by right hon. Gentlemen opposite that they will force it through without regard to African wishes.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton)

I must say that nobody has ever said anything of the kind.

Mr. Hale

If that had been the only intervention possible I would welcome it. Will the right hon. Gentleman go further and say that he does not intend to force it through unless he has African co-operation? I will give way.

The Chairman

That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Hale

With great respect—[Interruption]—I am sorry, but if the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris), who has an interest in land in Kenya, will make his observation clear, I will reply to it. The hon. Member was himself one of the landowners in Kenya against whom—[An HON. MEMBER: "Now, now."] Well, I will not pursue that.

The Amendment before the Committee is one which causes us to consider whether we should, in certain circumstances, be prepared to give loans to organisations formed after this day. All that I have ventured to say on this Amendment is that it seems to me that Central African federation is one of the obvious and typical organisations which can be formed after this debate in respect of which we may be called upon to give loans. I do not wish to labour the point.

As far as Nyasaland is concerned, it is for the moment a happy territory in respect of which it is quite clear there is a progressive standard of living, and in respect of which it is perfectly clear that, whatever the influence of the white population, there is a coloured population enjoying a higher standard of living. They are bitterly opposed to federation, and they realise that if it goes through they will have no means of expressing their voice. That seems a matter on which we are entitled to express an opinion.

The Secretary of State has ceased to listen. I am much obliged, but he was engaged in conversation. I am trying to put a point to him that is of concern to the African population—that their standards of life—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Croydon, North would repeat his observation.

Mr. Frederic Harris (Croydon, North)

Who paid the hon. Gentleman's fare when he went to Kenya?

Mr. Hale

The hon. Gentleman has addressed a question to me. It was addressed to me on Friday, and I told the hon. Member who addressed it to me that he was misrepresenting the facts to such an extent that it was almost impossible to describe it in Parliamentary language.

Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker (Banbury) rose—

The Chairman

If we keep to the Amendment we shall get on better.

Mr. Hale

I was attacked, and viciously attacked, by an hon. Member opposite. Am I to understand that I cannot reply?

The Chairman

I said that it did not arise on this Amendment, and the hon. Member for Croydon, North was out of order.

Mr. Hale

The hon. Member imputed that I was corrupted by the payment of a fare by somebody who bought my interest. Is your Ruling that I can reply to that, or not?

The Chairman

That cannot be replied to because I ruled the hon. Member who raised it out of order. It does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Hale

I am much obliged, and I appreciate the constant courtesy you always pay to me, Sir Charles. But at this moment you have ruled that I cannot reply to a vicious personal attack. In those circumstances I would prefer to be suspended from the service of the House than not reply to it. The hon. Member made a vicious—

The Chairman

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not misunderstand me. I did my best. If I had known what was going to be said, I would never have allowed it. I ruled the hon. Member for Croydon, North out of order. I hope the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) will not pursue the matter further. It would do no good to reply to it.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)

Would it not resolve the situation if the hon. Member for Croydon, North—if he is an hon. Member—withdrew his remark?

Mr. Harris

I asked the hon. Gentleman a question as to who paid his fare. There is no harm in that.

Mr. Hale

May I ask leave of the Committee to reply to that question? I am sure it would meet the wishes of the Committee if I could. I replied to it on Friday.

11.0 p.m.

The Chairman

It was replied to on Friday, and if the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. F. Harris) looks it up he will see the answer. I am only carrying out the rules. There is an Amendment before us, and that must be discussed.

Mr. Hale

I am infinitely grateful to you, Sir Charles, for your constant courtesy to me; I appreciate it very much. But I have been challenged by a question which is a gross criminal libel, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North knows. I replied to it on Friday; I stated who paid my fare and I gave the facts to the Committee—and this gross and corrupt and villainous gentleman, who owns—

The Chairman

I cannot allow that. The conduct of the debate will get to a low standard if we allow talk like that. I must ask the hon. Gentleman not to pursue it.

Mr. F. Harris

Have I no protection at all, Sir Charles, against being called corrupt and villainous? Can I not ask the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) to withdraw such a remark?

The Chairman

I have already taken notice of it and said we must not have such a remark. I hope it will not be pursued.

Mr. Hale

The hon. Member said rude things about me and I have said rude things about him. We will call it a day and carry on the debate as I hope it started—without desiring to import personal details into it.

These people are deeply concerned about this proposition. They will have two representatives on the governing body. If we are to allow that to be forced through the House, we ought to have the right to superintend the question of the grunt of loans when they are made.

I will dismiss from my mind the vicious things said from the other side of the Committee, because they were said on Friday and I replied then. I want to make a solid proposition about Central African federation, which I believe to be one of the really important matters which concern the House. One of the gravest mistakes which the Committee could make would be to force it through without consultation with the people of Africa, without consultation with the Members of the House and without using the ordinary machinery of democracy to obtain the approval of the House of Commons and the people of Central Africa.

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich) rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Mr. James Griffiths (Llanelly)

(seated and covered): On a point of order. May I ask for your Ruling, Sir Charles? Before the Patronage Secretary got up to move the Closure, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) was proposing to rise to speak from the Front Bench on behalf of our party. Am I to understand that we are not allowed, from the Front Bench, to speak in a debate of this kind?

The Chairman

It is entirely in the hands of the Chair whether it accepts the Closure or not. I thought fit to accept it and I did so.

Mr. Griffiths

Then your Ruling is that the official Opposition are not allowed to put up an official speaker at the close of a debate on an Amendment?

The Chairman

There is no Ruling of that kind. In fact, I remember at one time hearing an ex-Cabinet Minister closured in the middle of his speech.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 174; Noes, 126.

Division No. 18.] AYES [11.2 p.m.
Aitken, W. T. Colegate, W. A. Godber, J. B.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.) Cooper-Key, E. M. Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Alport, C. J. M. Cranborne, Viscount Gough, C. F. H.
Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton) Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Graham, Sir Fergus
Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J. Crosthwaite Eyre, Col. O. E. Gridley, Sir Arnold
Arbuthnot, John Crouch, R. F. Hall, John (Wycombe)
Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.) Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood) Hare, Hon. J. H.
Baldwin, A. E. Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.) Harvey, Air Cdre A. V. (Macclesfield)
Banks, Col. C. Deedes, W. F. Heald, Sir Lionel
Beach, Maj. Hicks Dodds-Parker, A. D. Heath, Edward
Beamish, Maj. Tufton Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA. Higgs, J. M. C.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.) Donner, P. W. Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Doughty, C. J. A. Hirst, Geoffrey
Birch, Nigel Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm Holland-Martin, C. J.
Bishop, F. P. Drayson, G. B. Hope, Lord John
Boyle, Sir Edward Drewe, G. Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead) Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Brooman-White, R. C. Erroll, F. J. Horobin, I. M.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T. Fell, A. Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Bullard, D. G. Finlay, Graeme Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Bullock, Capt. M. Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F. Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Butcher, H. W. Fletcher-Cooke, C. Hurd, A. R.
Campbell, Sir David Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone) Hutchinson, Sir Geoffery (Ilford, N.)
Cary, Sir Robert Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale) Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S. Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead) Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.) Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead) Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Cole, Norman Garner-Evans, E. H. Kaberry, D.
Lambert, Hon. G. Morrison, John (Salisbury) Stevens, G. P.
Lambton, Viscount Nabarro, G. D. N. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Leather, E. H. C. Nicholls, Harmar Storey, S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.) Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield) Nield, Basil (Chester) Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Linstead, H. N. Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P. Studholme, H. G.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.) Nutting, Anthony Teeling, W.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.) Odey, G. W. Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.) O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.) Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare) Tilney, John
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O. Partridge, E. Touche, Sir Gordon
McAdden, S. J. Perkins, W. R. D. Turton, R. H.
McCallum, Major D. Peto, Brig. C. H. M. Vane, W. M. F.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight) Pitman, I. J. Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Powell, J. Enoch Vosper, D. F.
McKibbin, A. J. Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Profumo, J. D. Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.) Raikes, H. V. Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley) Rayner, Brig. R. Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries) Redmayne, M. Watkinson, H. A.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle) Renton, D. L. M. Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark) Roper, Sir Harold White, Baker (Canterbury)
Marples, A. E. Ryder, Capt. R. E. D. Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin) Scott, R. Donald Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)
Maude, Angus Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R. Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)
Maudling, R. Shepherd, William Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C. Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.) Wood, Hon. R.
Medlicott, Brig. F. Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Mellor, Sir John Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Molson, A. H. E. Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Wills
NOES
Acland, Sir Richard Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Proctor, W. T.
Allen, Arthur (Bosworth) Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell) Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Awbery, S. S. Hannan, W. Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Baird, J. Hargreaves, A. Ross, William
Balfour, A. Hayman, F. H. Shackleton, E. A. A.
Bence, C. R. Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth) Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Benn, Wedgwood Holt, A. F. Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Benson, G. Hudson, James (Ealing, N.) Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Slater, J.
Bing, G. H. C. Hynd, H. (Accrington) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Blackburn, F. Jeger, George (Goole) Steele, T.
Blenkinsop, A. Johnson, James (Rugby) Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Blyton, W. R. Jones, David (Hartlepool) Sylvester, G. O.
Boardman, H. Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Bowden, H. W. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Bowles, F. G. Keenan, W. Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Brockway, A. F. Lever, Leslie (Ardwick) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.) MacColl, J. E. Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Callaghan, L. J. McInnes, J. Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Collick, P. H. McKay, John (Wallsend) Timmons, J.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles) Usborne, H. C.
Daines, P. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Watkins, T. E.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H. Mann, Mrs. Jean Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.) Manuel, A. C. West, D. G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr) Mellish, R. J. White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)
Deer, G. Mitchison, G. R. White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Delargy, H. J. Monslow, W. Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Driberg, T. E. N. Moody, A. S. Wigg, George
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich) Morgan, Dr. H. B. W. Willey, F. T.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C. Morley, R. Williams, David (Neath)
Edwards, John (Brighouse) Mulley, F. W. Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney) Nally, W. Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury) Neal, Harold (Bolsover) Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Fienburgh, W. Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Foot, M. M. Orbach, M. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Forman, J. C. Oswald, T. Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Palmer, A. M. F. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N. Pargiter, G. A. Yates, V. F.
Glanville, James Parker, J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Plummer, Sir Leslie TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Grimond, J. Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton) Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkin.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put accordingly, and negatived.

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

Mr. J. Griffiths

I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again."

I ask you to accept this Motion, Sir Charles, because of the incident which occurred a short time ago. I was not able to be here on Friday, because I was otherwise engaged, but I gather that there was a discussion upon this Amendment which lasted until the end of the Sitting, and that the debate was then adjourned until this evening.

I was here when the debate began this evening. There was a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), and then my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who was to speak for the official Opposition, rose to offer some observations upon the Amendment Immediately, the Government Chief Whip moved the Closure. I think that was unprecedented, unfair and unjustifiable.

The Chairman

If I had thought it unfair and unjustifiable, I should not have accepted the Closure.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—but I did accept it. It is no use shouting "No."

Mr. Griffiths

All I can say is that, in my view, this takes away from the Opposition a right which is embedded in our Constitution.

The Chairman

I accepted the Closure, as I am quite entitled to do, and I really cannot have that argued.

Mr. Griffiths

I want to offer the strongest protest against the action that you took, Sir Charles. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Surely upon occasions such as this, when a right hon. Gentleman has been asked to take charge of the Bill for the Opposition and when there has been a discussion upon an important Amendment, a discussion which lasted several hours on Friday and has gone on again this evening, the Government ought not to take advantage of their majority to deny the Opposition the right to reply. I want to offer the strongest possible protest against what has happened. I therefore ask you to accept my Motion.

The Chairman

If there is any complaint about what has been done and about the Closure being accepted, the way to express it is to put a Motion on the Order Paper against me. I take full responsibility for what I did. No matter who moves the Closure, it is the Chairman's business to decide whether or not to accept it. I was here on Friday and I have heard the Amendment fully discussed, and in my opinion it was time to come to a decision on it, and I accepted the Closure. There is nothing more to be said. The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Griffiths

Do I understand that you refuse to accept my Motion, Sir Charles?

The Chairman

Yes.

Hon. Members

Shame.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)

This is a very serious moment in colonial affairs, and I think the Committee hardly does justice to itself. I make no criticism at all of the Rulings from the Chair, but I criticise the Patronage Secretary, who saw fit—

The Chairman

I have made the position perfectly clear.

Hon. Members

No.

The Chairman

Then I shall do so now. The acceptance or refusal of the Closure is entirely in the hands of the Chair, and has nothing to do with the Patronage Secretary. If there is any complaint it is against me. I could have refused the Motion if I had wished.

Mr. Bing

In my submission, it is no part of the duty of the Chair to protect the Patronage Secretary from criticism, Sir Charles.

The Chairman

I am not protecting the Patronage Secretary; I am protecting myself.

Mr. Bing

In those circumstances, I am directing none of my criticism at the Chair. I appreciate that, under the circumstances, you are bound properly by the rules. You must not consider the international situation, or the conditions in Kenya at the moment, but only the rules, and, therefore, if a proposition is put to you you must judge it according to a series of rules. I do not think that any hon. Gentleman is critical of your action in a very difficult situation. But what I am complaining of is that you should ever have been placed in that situation, and the person who placed you in that situation was the Patronage Secretary.

The Chairman

I cannot see that this argument is directed against anyone but myself. I could have refused the Motion if I wished, and, therefore, I am responsible. I think the position is perfectly simple.

Mr. Bing

Surely it is your duty to judge, in accordance with certain rules laid down, whether the Closure should be accepted or not? There is a long tradition of how long a matter goes on, and how long a question is discussed, but whether or not you are ever called upon to make that decision depends on someone else. You would not yourself say, "This discussion has gone on long enough." You can only be moved to accept a Motion if it is moved. There are certain circumstances in which a debate should be allowed to continue for rather longer than it normally would, and it was to that that I was addressing myself.

It would be a great mistake for us to pass from this Clause without considering the responsibilities laid upon us in regard to every colonial matter at the moment. There are all sorts of circumstances developing, in the colonial Commonwealth.

Mr. Lyttelton

Is the hon. Gentleman now making a speech on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill"?

Mr. Bing

The answer to the Colonial Secretary is "Yes." I am saying that he ought to have had more good sense and decency than to bring forward a Measure dealing with colonial peoples at this time of night.

Captain Charles Waterhouse (Leicester, South-East)

I understood that the hon. and learned Member rose to a point of order.

The Chairman

There is no point of order. We are on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing

I appreciate, Sir Charles, your putting right the right hon. and gallant Member for Leicester South-East (Captain Waterhouse), whose standing in the House of Commons is always rather greater than his understanding.

If I may return to the Colonial Secretary and the Patronage Secretary for a moment, I only want to appeal to them that, in the same way as they have moved these various procedural Motions—because that is in fact the only way in which they entered the debate, they did not deal with any of the realities of the issues before us—they should consider the possibility of postponing this debate.

I dare say that the Colonial Secretary may say that this is not a matter of great importance affecting grave matters now before the Commonwealth.

Mr. Lyttelton

If I may interrupt the hon. and learned Member, I have still to hear any argument which would prevent him from addressing himself to these matters on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. George Wigg (Dudley)

On a point of order. As we have not yet reached the position which we have in Kenya, where all democracy has been banished, can we take it that you are in the Chair, Sir Charles, and not the Colonial Secretary?

Mr. Bing

Perhaps I may remind the Secretary of State, who had a classical education, that there was in the classical Greek drama a form of conversation by which one person says a line and the other says a line in reply, as a consequence of which the drama went on for a considerable time without anyone reaching any conclusion. If he will possess himself in patience and take a lesson from the classics, he will hear the exact argument I am putting to the Committee.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport (Colchester)

On a point of order. It will appear in HANSARD that the hon. and learned Member rose to a point of order and is not addressing his remarks to the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman

I understood that he was speaking on the Question before the Committee, which is "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing

I was attempting, in so far as you called me, Sir Charles, to speak on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." If the right hon. Gentleman feels that I am in any sense taking an unfair advantage and would like to suppose that I have only been addressing my remarks to a point of order I will resume my seat and take the opportunity of following the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) in the intemperate remarks he will no doubt make, but I do not want to delay the Committee for so long.

Mr. Alport

As the hon. and learned Member has referred to me, I should like to make it quite clear that I have no intention whatever of withdrawing the remarks I have made.

The Chairman

I did not hear the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) ask the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) to withdraw anything.

Mr. Bing

I was not thinking of asking the hon. Member to withdraw his remarks. All of us on this side of the Committee have wasted time in appealing to good taste from that quarter too long.

I was addressing myself to the Secretary of State for the Colonies and am asking that he should use his influence with his hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary to see that in these days colonial matters are not approached at this late hour of the night but that there should be an opportunity for the great number of hon. Members interested in debating colonial affairs to have an opportunity of debating them when they will be fully reported in the Press and not hidden away in the darkness of the night.

Up to now the only effective interventions of hon. Members opposite have been appeals to the rules of procedure. Let them make an appeal, not in the interests of their own side but in the interests of colonial understanding, to the Colonial Secretary to postpone this debate until a time when it can be fully reported in the Press and when all hon. Members on all sides of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Colchester, may have an opportunity fully to express their opinions.

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)

We have had a long discussion on this Bill; and it is right that we should have had one because it is a Bill of considerable importance to the Colonies. It raises a number of important issues. The Colonial Secretary has said—and it is of great value that he should have stated it—that it is not the Government's intention to force federation on an unwilling African population.

But, we on this side are concerned that, in fact, this Bill may give a blank cheque to an unknown Government which may be set up in the future—a Government in the framing of whose Constitution this House has had no say. I say this because, under present procedure, the Secretary of State intends to pass a Bill—if he ever gets as far as that—to introduce Central African federation in one single Second Reading debate in this House without the possibility of the Constitution being amended by the House.

We may find this House taking responsibility for setting up a Constitution which it has no power of amending, yet, in this Bill, it is proposed that money shall be loaned to such a Government. It is for that reason that we have had a long debate, and I want to say these few words on the Question now before us. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will say that he does not intend to pass a single Bill which will confer a Constitution on a new Government without this House being able to amend that Constitution. If he says that he will—

The Chairman

The right hon. Gentleman cannot do that on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dugdale

It is surely of very great importance, if we are to lend money to a Government, that we should know just what type of Government it is; and we are here giving the right hon. Gentleman that power. Unless we know the type of Government, then we say that it is a dangerous power to give. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that we shall have an opportunity in the future to discuss what form of Government it will be?

My right hon. and hon. Friends support the general principle of this Bill, as we have always said; but, we have these misgivings about this Clause, and I hope that those misgivings will be cleared up by the right hon. Gentleman, although I have very grave doubts.

Mr. Lyttelton

I thought that from the violent scenes which took place over the Amendment, there would have been some worthwhile observation from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale); but, to me, his remarks seemed to have little relevance to the Bill. During its Second Reading, he and his hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) expressed themselves in entirely contrary senses. The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down said: It is because we believe this that we think there is a great deal to be said for the Bill. I do not, however, know why there need be a limit of £100 million and why the figure should not go higher …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1952, Vol. 507, c. 1271.] Yet one of the Opposition's Amendments was for the purpose of not allowing the limit to be raised beyond £50 million. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) said: Indeed, my whole approach to this matter—if I might make an interpolation in my own speech— and hon. Members will not be surprised to know that he gave himself that permission— would be to say that the whole plan is ridiculously inadequate. … He later added: We should be thinking in terms of participating in the suggested expenditure of £5,000 million a year which even then is calculated to raise the standard of life of the underdeveloped areas by only 2 per cent"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1318–1319.] It therefore came as a shock to find, after these very expansionist speeches on Second Reading, that Amendments were put down which were entirely restrictionist. I was wondering whether something had happened, whether there had been a change of heart in the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Member for Oldham, West, or whether a shadow body had imposed an official policy on both of them.

11.30 p.m.

I think there is an idea that we have something up our sleeves. Of course, the Bill was originally introduced primarily so that the East African High Commission could itself borrow. It manages railways and ports and there are advantages in its being able to borrow. If, in the fulness of time, Central African federation, after debate here, came about, then, undoubtedly, this Bill would enable the Treasury to guarantee loans to the Federal Government. That is unquestionable. If the Amendment had been accepted and the Clause had been pulled about, there would have been grave practical difficulties. This Bill deals primarily with loans from the International Bank, and there would have been doubt between lender and borrower until the last moment whether a loan would, in fact, be possible.

If the Amendments and speeches are designed to put financial strings on Central African federation, then they are very impolitic, because they go against all the things that hon. Members opposite, as well as we, believe. We believe, for instance, in giving the colonial Governments an increasing share in the management of their own affairs. But to say that having been found credit-worthy by the International Bank, and a loan having been negotiated between the International Bank and the colonial Government, they must come back to both Houses of Parliament for an affirmative Resolution, dies in the face of all this talk about an increasing share in the management of their own affairs. One might think that Cue hon. Member for Oldham, West, had never heard of the Boston tea party. All these arguments are entirely false.

We have also heard a good deal of talk about the great advantages that were to be derived from lending taking place by an international body rather than by this country as such. All these arguments—some were advanced by the hon. Member for Oldham, West—turn out to have been mere dialectic.

Mr. Bing

The right hon. Gentleman interrupted me, so perhaps he will allow me the courtesy of an interruption. This is a series of arguments addressed to an Amendment on which the Closure was moved. If he had wished to address his remarks to that Amendment, surely his duty was to persuade his right hon. Friend the Chief Whip not to move the Closure. Surely, Sir Charles, your duty is to confine the right hon. Gentleman to discussing the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Chairman

Clause 1 is the operative clause and he was discussing what the Bill did. I do not think he was out of order.

Mr. Lyttelton

I take it that if I am out of order, I shall be called to order by you, Sir Charles, as you are the Chairman, and not the hon. and learned Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing).

I was saying that we had a lot of argument about the advantages of having an international body to lend money, rather than that we should ourselves lend. That, we were told, would take all the inflammation out of the argument that we were trying to exploit a Colony, and so forth. All that was mere dialectic, because what hon. Members were trying to say was that unless the Clause was amended in that sense, then we, and not the International Bank, should be the ultimate judge of whether the loan should be made.

The Clause as it stands deals not with the whole subject of colonial development but with the quite narrow subject of which authorities acting for more than one territory should be permitted to borrow, and secondly with the subject of loans from the International Bank. It is perfectly straightforward. There is no need to suspect anything at all sinister in this. The Clause is permissive and not mandatory. Any colonial Government or body which is authorised as a borrower under the Clause will have to satisfy the International Bank of its credit-worthiness and that the scheme is for the benefit of the Colony. Then the Treasury, if the Clause stands part of the Bill, may guarantee the loan. The Bill only arises because the colonial Governments, not being themselves members of the International Bank, must be supported by overriding guarantee. That is the whole reason.

So far, we have heard nothing but arguments intended—no doubt unwittingly—to cramp rather than stimulate colonial development. There is nothing whatever in the argument that if a Central African federation should be formed after debate in this House then the right way would be to nullify it by attaching a lot of impractical financial strings to such a federation. If the Clause remains and is passed as it is it will make a contribution in a limited field to a cause which I believe every hon. Member has at heart, which is colonial development.

Mr. Dugdale

Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer the question which I asked him: will the House have an opportunity of discussing, and, if necessary, amending, the constitution if the Government should propose the introduction of a constitution for a federation of Central Africa?

Mr. Lyttelton

I do not know that that has very much to do with the Question before the Committee, but if the right hon. Gentleman will turn up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the last debate on Central African federation he will see exactly what we said with regard to another debate which must take place in the House of Commons before Central African federation becomes, if it ever does, a reality.

Mr. Wigg

The Colonial Secretary is obviously mystified by the attitude of my hon. Friends to this Bill and, if he will let me, I propose to help him. We accept and support the Bill, but we find that the Bill is in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, and while we trust the Bill we do not trust him and we do not trust his party. Why should we trust his party? After all, they have paid lip-service to quite a lot of things connected with the Colonies in the last few years, and since they became the Government they have changed their minds.

If hon. Members are doubtful, let me give an example. Let us take colonial defence. There was a time when the Conservative Party were most enthusiastic about the need for organising a colonial Army. They had not been in office a few weeks before they changed their minds. We have to bear in mind recent events in Kenya and the attitude of the Colonial Secretary when faced with a political crisis. What does he do? He turns down completely any idea that economic causes are behind unrest. That is thrown overboard. He does not think it worthy of consideration.

The Chairman

I doubt whether we can discuss the Kenya troubles on this Bill.

Mr. Wigg

I entirely agree. I am trying to help the right hon. Gentleman and I take it that he was in order in expressing mystification as to why my hon. Friends should have doubts about the Bill when, in the past, they have been enthusiastic and remain enthusiastic. We have not changed our minds.

Mr. Lyttelton

Is the hon. Gentleman now speaking in favour of the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," or against it?

Mr. Wigg

If the right hon. Gentleman had done me the honour of listening, I made it quite clear that I am in favour of the whole of the Bill and my doubts arise because I have no trust whatever in the right hon. Gentleman. I shall go on repeating it.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is a disaster to the country, a disaster as Colonial Secretary, and the only decent step he could take would be to resign. That is where I stand. I believe that that view is held by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee unanimously. I believe that the colonial situation will so develop while the right hon. Gentleman holds office that even the Conservatives will have to drop him. His proper role is raising the Bank rate to 6 per cent., and sending cruisers and Royal Marine commandos to Mombasa. If he really wants to make this Bill work, when it becomes an Act, he will have to do what he did on a previous occasion—resign and sink back into the oblivion from which he should never have been brought.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devonport)

I think the best thing which can be said for the speech of the Colonial Secretary is that possibly it shows a momentary repentance for the ill-temper he showed to the Patronage Secretary with regard to the Closure.

The Chairman

I hope that the hon. Member will leave that point. I have taken full responsibility for accepting the Closure.

Mr. Foot

I am not discussing the merits of the Closure, Sir Charles. What that part of the reference to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) was concerned with was that most of the speech of the Colonial Secretary was directed to dealing with the Amendment which had figured so prominently in our discussions, and most of his reply was concerned with the debate we had on that Amendment. I think it was legitimate to suggest that possibly the reply to that Amendment might have been given with better grace by giving it on that Amendment, instead of its being given later.

The right hon. Gentleman has made repentance and attempted to give a reply, but he has not replied to the main points raised in the debate on the Amendment. One ground of our complaint is that there has been, so far, no reply to the main argument put forward by the mover of the Amendment, and by the hon. and learned Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who spoke in favour of the Amendment. They were, unfortunately, the only two who were able to speak in favour. No reply was given by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs when he replied on Friday to their points.

The main purport of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) was to suggest that there should be an affirmative Resolution of the House if money were to be granted to a new body formed after the Act.

The Chairman

On the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" the only matter relative for discussion is what is in the Clause, not what was in the Amendment. That was negatived. We cannot discuss it now.

Mr. Foot

I was replying to the main argument used by the Colonial Secretary, who charged my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee with having reversed their argument and wishing to be restrictive in the granting of loans. If the Colonial Secretary is able to make that argument, surely we are entitled to reply by making clear, as anyone who was at that debate would have understood—but the Colonial Secretary did not have that advantage—that all we were asking was that if loans under this Clause were to be granted to new bodies set up after the Act the matter might be discussed in this House.

I would have thought that any Colonial Secretary who was eager for colonial development would be glad for this to be done. There have sometimes been complaints in the newspapers—and in newspapers which are supposed to be the greatest supporters of the Colonies, the Empire and the Commonwealth—that we do not have sufficient discussion on colonial matters.

Here is a proposal that there should be many more debates on colonial affairs, and, in particular, we should always have debates when we were going to grant a loan under this Bill to new bodies, the exact constitution of which no one in this Committee knows at present. It seems a perfectly reasonable request. But instead of the Government accepting it willingly, which would have saved a great deal of time—for it could have gone through just after 3 o'clock on Friday afternoon—the Government determined to maintain a long debate on this issue and refused to say why they were not in favour of accepting the Amendment.

11.45 p.m.

I thought the reason that the Colonial Secretary had turned up tonight was because he had read the speech of the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, had realised how inadequate it was and wished to see if he could do better himself. Unfortunately, he has not. He only repeated what his right hon. Friend said, only not so briefly and epigrammatically. The Minister of State for Colonial Affairs said: The power to give guarantees for these loans is purely permissive. It is in the hands of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, and they will always satisfy themselves beforehand that the authority which is proposing to borrow is financially and economically sound."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 2323.] I agree with my hon. Friends that that is not good enough for us. It may be good enough for hon. Members opposite, but we think that important colonial issues of this nature should be debated in the House of Commons. They should not be left to the Secretary of State to decide by himself, even with the assistance he would get from the Treasury. Therefore, we pressed this issue and it would have been perfectly simple to accept it. It would not have imposed any restrictions on this Bill, or inhibited its operations in any way whatever if the Government had accepted that part of the Amendment which was—

The Chairman

I have said several times that the hon. Gentleman cannot go back to the Amendment. I hope he will now confine himself to the Clause.

Mr. J. Griffiths

On a point of order. Does this not arise out of the difficulty the Patronage Secretary put us in? When we were desirous of raising this matter on the Amendment, we had no opportunity, because the Closure was moved, of hearing a speech from this Box or that Box. If the Patronage Secretary had waited a couple of minutes we would have debated it then; instead of which the Minister and my hon. Friend are having to refer to it now.

The Chairman

I have explained the position quite clearly. Any responsibility for the Closure is mine.

Mr. John Edwards (Brighouse and Spenborough)

When the Minister was interrupted he was quoting from speeches made last Friday on the Amendment. You said he was in order, Sir Charles. If my hon. Friend does precisely what the Secretary of State did, surely it would be only fair to hear him.

The Chairman

If the hon. Gentleman had done that, I quite agree. I was listening very carefully to the Minister, and I thought he was in order. Now the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) is discussing an Amendment which has been disposed of instead of discussing the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and he is out of order.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)

The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was discussing this Clause from the point of view of a series of statements he put before the Committee, and those statements are now being dealt with by other hon. Members on this side of the Committee. The same statements were dealt with by the Secretary of State, and it would be, I submit, with great respect, extremely unfair to this side of the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman was to be free to make references to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West, and no one on this side had an opportunity to reply to them.

The Chairman

I was complaining that the Amendment, which had been negatived, was being re-hashed. It is not in the Clause and cannot be discussed now. That is according to the rules of order. I do not make the rules of order; I simply try to get them carried out to the best of my ability.

Mr. Foot

If I have gone astray, Sir Charles, I am sorry, but I was attempting to refer to some of the arguments raised not merely on the last Amendment but on several Amendments, and which have never been answered from the Government Front Bench.

The Chairman

That was my point. Those Amendments have been dealt with and we cannot go back on them.

Mr. Foot

On the discussion of the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," we are bound to traverse some of the arguments which have arisen on the detailed parts of the Clause. It would be a most extraordinary state of affairs if such a debate bore no relation to the arguments which we have had on the various parts of the Clause earlier. I have a number of further examples which could be quoted of arguments to which the Government have made no attempt to reply. In particular, they have made no attempt to reply to the arguments which arose on the last Amendment, but I refer to the last Amendment only to deal with the major issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) earlier in the debate.

When we were asking why this sum should be incorporated in the Clause, one of the major issues which my hon. Friend raised was this: even if we used all the money in the Bill, all the £100 million, it would in no way make up for the subscriptions which the Colonial Territories are making to us, and there is a kind of Fourth Point in reverse going on throughout the Colonial Territories, who are contributing on a large scale to the maintenance of the economic position of the United Kingdom and all the other Dominions within the British Commonwealth.

My hon. Friend stressed the point with considerable force, but the Government made no attempt to deal with it. There was no adequate answer by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, and if the debate continues later tonight than otherwise would be the case, it is partly because the Government had not the intelligence to accept Amendments which they could perfectly well have accepted and which would have strengthened the Bill, and partly because they had not the courtesy to answer arguments.

The Chairman

On this point, Erskine May says, on page 538: Debate upon this question must be confined to the clause as amended (or not amended), and must not extend to a discussion of the circumstances under which particular amendments were made or to a review in detail of the proceedings. That is quite straightforward and I must respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to try to keep to that Ruling.

Mr. Foot

If I were straying outside the Ruling in dealing with the earlier matters, I do not think it can be said that I am doing so at the moment, because this was a main argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend, which is bound to have reference to the whole of the Clause and—

The Chairman

That argument was put forward when he was starting his Amendment.

Mr. Foot

It was an argument to an Amendment upon which the Closure was moved to an earlier discussion.

The Chairman

On an Amendment—that was the point I was trying to make. We have had the four Amendments so far—three together, and then the last Amendment. If the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland) said anything beyond his Amendment, he was out of order at the time.

Sir Richard Acland (Gravesend)

If I may venture to assist my hon. Friend, it was only by very considerable ingenuity that any question about the sterling balances was in order on the Amendment I moved. But that Amendment has now been negatived. Whether we should pass the whole of the Clause at a moment in our history when the sterling balances between the Colonies and ourselves are so profoundly unsatisfactory is surely relevant. I am grateful that I was allowed to introduce the point at an earlier stage when a stricter interpretation of the rules would not have allowed me to. If it was in order on the Amendment a fortiori it should be in order on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Foot

This is a question that arises not only on that particular Amendment, but also arose on the Second Reading, and it has been referred to throughout the Bill.

Mr. Lyttelton

I think I may be of some assistance to the hon. Gentleman. His argument is that this matter of the sterling balances has never been answered by the Government.

Mr. Foot

No adequate answer has been given.

Mr. Lyttelton

If he will look at column 2306 in the OFFICIAL REPORT for Friday he will find that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs dealt with the matter very fully. I do not think the hon. Gentleman was present during the debate, and it is only natural that he should miss the point of what has gone before. If he wants to have the Government answer I refer him to the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Foot

I heard a considerable portion of the speech by the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman had that advantage. If he had been present he would have known how flat it fell on the Committee. If anybody could imagine that the few, cursory remarks which that right hon. Gentleman made, and which appear in column 2306, are any reply to the formidable case put up by my hon. Friend then he is taking things too easily. The whole of this debate tonight would have been abbreviated much earlier if we had had better and more lucid answers, and the Committee would not have been kept late by the Government to be given those answers.

Sir R. Acland

The right hon. Gentleman would have done better if his speech on this Clause had been divided into two parts, the first half on Friday in answer to my Amendment, and the other half this evening just before the Patronage Secretary moved the Closure. Perhaps I may reply to his accusation that my hon. Friends and myself were being inconsistent and that we had developed a restrictionist attitude in this matter. We have not got a restrictionist attitude to colonial development, nor to the financing of such development in any shape or form, and there is not one of us in disagreement with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) said during the debate on the Second Reading.

We would be glad to see the limit removed from the Bill if need could be shown for such action. But no case has been made out for the introduction of a Bill containing a Clause which raised the limit from £50 million to £100 million. We are not restrictionist in the financing of colonial development. We are expansionist in that we wish to extend the opportunities for Parliamentary discussion on this, as on all other colonial matters, because we believe that such discussion on any aspect of Colonial questions does good.

We do not want to see a Clause go through, which, by unnecessarily raising the limit at this stage without any case being made out for it, gives this Government, or some successive Government of the same, or a different, party, in four, five or six years' time, further opportunity to carry on the administration of this Bill without ever coming to the House for a renewed discussion of the matter. To suggest that that is a restrictionist attitude is an inversion of the ordinary meaning of English language.

The other contentious point in the Clause was not one which I raised in any spirit of restrictionism. I raised it in relation to the simple matter of Parliamentary control of administration—

12 midnight.

Mr. Lyttelton

The hon. Baronet will, I hope, forgive me if I say that it appeared to us to be somewhat restrictionist to reduce the limit from £100 million to £50 million.

Sir R. Acland

If any case had been made out by the right hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend to show that there was the smallest prospect whatever of the existing limit of £50 million being passed or touched before the end of 1954, if the right hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend had been so courteous as to address a single word of comment to my argument—which I think I proved, as no word of comment was offered upon it—that there was the smallest risk of the present limit being reached this side of December, 1954, then we should have been happy to see the limit raised to £100 million.

But there is no risk of the £100 million being touched this side of 1956, unless it be that it is secretly known to the Government that within six months of the Central African federation being established the federation will apply for a loan of some £85 million. If so, the whole thing is made clear. But, there again, we should have liked to have had a Parliamentary discussion in order to give Parliamentary sanction to such a loan.

If that is not the situation, then I was correct. No one has offered any argument to show that I was not correct in saying that the present limit will last until the end of 1954. I contend that we are expansionist of Parliamentary discussion in saying that when in 1955 the Government want to go beyond that limit—the House will always give its assent to such a request for the asking if a fair case is made—the fair case should be made in this House so that there will be an opportunity for a further Parliamentary review of what will have happened in the next two years or more and an opportunity to look forward then to what is likely to happen in the future. To call that attitude restrictionist is a complete inversion of all proper understanding of the meaning of English words.

Mr. J. Dugdale

Has the Secretary of State any idea how this money is to be spent before 1954? Did I understand that he stated categorically, in answer to my hon. Friend just now, that he thought it would be spent before 1954? I gathered that his shaking of the head meant that.

Mr. Lyttelton

I shook my head in reply to the question because nobody can tell in the dogmatic terms which the hon. Baronet was using that more than £50 million will not be guaranteed before the end of 1954. I never gave any shadow of excuse for the hon. Baronet to say that it would not be, but I cannot give an accurate estimate because we are not the lenders. Perhaps the Committee will remember that it is the International Bank that is the lender. As far as I can see, there is a great likelihood that the second £50 million may be cut into before the end of 1954, but, naturally, I cannot say because the matter is not entirely in our hands.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time this day.