HC Deb 27 July 1956 vol 557 cc851-8
Mrs. White

I beg to move, in page 5, line 6, to leave out "is needed" and to insert: would be advantageous or convenient". The point of this Amendment is that again we fear that, as at present drafted, the Bill might be found to be too narrow. The experience which we have just had of the difficulty about the legal interpretation of existing legislation makes one very hesitant indeed to agree to a form of words which might turn out eventually to preclude some undertaking which was desirable. We feel that the Government are unnecssarily confining themselves if they use the words "is needed", because it might well be argued that a particular project was not absolutely necessary.

After all, the word "necessary" is a very difficult word to argue about. It is difficult to argue whether anything is really necessary or not. Therefore, we think it would really be much simpler for all concerned if this slightly more elastic form of words, or something comparable to it, were inserted in the Bill at this point.

Frankly, I have no particular example in mind. I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman has necessarily any specific enterprises in mind, but I can visualise very easily a situation in which one might have a corporation put in a position in which it would find it very difficult to say that what it was wishing to do, or what, possibly, the local government was wishing it to do, was absolutely necessary.

This is really a drafting Amendment and one which we think would make it easier for the Corporation in future. I very much hope that the Government may feel inclined to accept the Amendment or, alternatively, substitute some other words of their own to meet the point.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

It seems to me that this Amendment is one which should appeal to the Secretary of State for the Colonies because, so far as I have followed the proceedings this morning, there has been a general expression on this side of the Committee that the Development Corporation ought not to be tied down too much. It should have a sort of flexibility concerning what it wants to do.

As far as I understood the Secretary of State's attitude, he favoured that, and the arrangement which has just been suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and accepted by the Secretary of State also emphasises, I should imagine, the need for accepting this change in the wording of the Clause. I think that the two words "is needed" certainly infer a definiteness incompatible with the attitude which has been displayed so far today. The words suggested by my hon. Friend promote the desire not to hamper the Development Corporation too much in its activities and to give it that little flexibility which both sides of the Committee want.

Mr. F. M. Bennett (Torquay)

I wish to endorse what the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) have just said, and I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies, even if he cannot accept the actual words proposed in the Amendment, to qualify them a little. In other words, I should like him to say how he can incorporate the words "is needed" and whether, in fact, he thinks the words are sufficient or whether there would be advantages in adopting the form of words suggested by the hon. Lady. I would ask my right hon. Friend for one example from the point of view of clarification.

Frankly, I do not understand how this Clause would affect the position, but at the moment housing schemes are going on in Southern Rhodesia for people coming from Nyasaland to work in Southern Rhodesia. I am sure that existing schemes will be authorised and allowed to be finished, but I am not sure whether any schemes in the future which my right hon. Friend is satisfied are for the good of Nyasaland will be permitted. I should be very glad if my right hon. Friend would clear up that point which I know from correspondence that I have received is exercising the thoughts of those in the Federation at the moment.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who have rallied, both to reinforce my knowledge of this subject and also, by prolonging business a little, to enable us to arrive at an agreed conclusion. I cannot remember hitherto having found myself in the position of being able to look round and give a warm, friendly beam, either to my colleagues or to my political opponents—if such exist at the weekend—for going on making speeches. That is a novel rôle for me, and one which I am delighted to be able to play, although I do not imagine that I shall play it frequently in the future.

The hon. Member for Tradeston—

Mr. Rankin

It is the hon. Member for Govan.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin)—I thought his constituency was Tradeston.

Mr. Rankin

Times have changed.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

The Conservative Party representation in Scotland is so much better that I had failed to take account of certain geographical changes in the life of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rankin

A bigger change.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Bigger and better.

Both the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and the hon. Member for Govan stressed the need for some flexibility in this matter, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. F. M. Bennett) asked a precise question regarding housing schemes in the Federation. I said that I knew it to be true that the purpose of this Bill was primarily to validate past activities of the Corporation and to make sure that in almost every way that anything it had done hitherto it would be able to do in the future. But I did not want in the slightest particular to mislead the Committee, and so I said that it was true as a result of Clause 2 we were drawing in rather more precise terms the possible activities open to the Corporation, in Southern Rhodesia; to say, for instance, that there is a limitation on the activities of the Corporation there, though in every other field there is no limitation, but rather the reverse.

My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay asked about the position of housing schemes in Southern Rhodesia. As he knows, this Bill, which I hope will shortly be an Act, completely validates anything which has been done hitherto, including the housing loan to Southern Rhodesia. Any future activities in Southern Rhodesia would have to be to the advantage of the Northern Territories. It may be that there might be a housing scheme in Southern Rhodesia which the Corporation could satisfy me was intended to deal with the housing problems of people from Nyasaland working in Southern Rhodesia.

I do not know that I am very anxious to encourage any form of segregation in the Federation as between people who come from one part or another. I should like to see people from all parts of the Federation living together without any discrimination about whether they come from Northern or Southern Rhodesia or from Nyasaland. But it may be argued that, because a housing scheme in Southern Rhodesia is for the purpose of housing people from Nyasaland, it would be related to the Northern Territories and would start with the strong assumption that the Secretary of State would regard it as a scheme which was proper now within the clearly defined limits of this Bill; but in other cases he would not be able to do that.

Two nights ago the Minister of State made it clear in his opening speech during the Second Reading of the Bill that Clause 2 appeared to us to be necessary, and he gave the reasons for the particular form it has taken. I do not think there is much I need add to the comments which were made. We believe that this will show that provision in the Federation for schemes which are for the advantage of the Northern Territories can be encouraged in the future as in the past. But there would not be a dispersal of effort of the resources open to the Corporation for a territory which is not a Colony and to which it is not intended that the provisions of this particular Bill should apply.

2.45 p.m.

I must apologise to the Committee for these rather informal conversations which are going on between members of the Government Front Bench. I should remind the Committee a little more of how it is that this situation came about in the Federation. Two nights ago my right hon. Friendreferred to the position of Southern Rhodesia. Dealing with the purpose of Clause 2, he said: The Clause deals with the territorial application of the Corporation's powers. It has never been the intention to bring Southern Rhodesia into the Corporation's scope, but with the advent of federation in Central Africa, certain powers of the Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland Governments were transferred to the Federal Government. In order to prevent these two territories being deprived of the Corporation's assistance in matters transferred to the federal field, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (Constitution) Order in Council added 'the Federation as a whole' to the list of Colonial Territories in which the Corporation might operate. In fact, as my right hon. Friend pointed out. that has not been found to be a satisfactory statement of Her Majesty's Government's intention."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1956; Vol. 557, col. 565.] I think that all of us, while we are very anxious to see that there should be considerable encouragement of housing activity in Southern Rhodesia, are not in any way attempting to suggest that housing in Southern Rhodesia is any less important than housing in Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland. Though it is not for the C.D.C. so to provide it, we all felt that some change was desirable.

Mr. J. Johnson

I hope that this will not involve some kind of test for housing or that we shall get into the position where people getting houses in Salisbury will have to say they are from Nyasaland or from Northern Rhodesia.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that segregation as between the constituent parts of the Federation would be a very retrograde step. While preserving local loyalties to the territories in which they live, we wish to build up among the people of Nyasaland, Northern Rhodesia and Southern Rhodesia a feeling of patriotism towards the Federation as a whole. I do not think that can well be done if there are separate housing schemes for different people from different parts of the Federation. I suppose it may be true that in some activities of the Corporation, which depend on the availability of Nyasaland labour, virtually everyone in a particular housing scheme would be, in fact, a citizen of Nyasaland. Were this so, it would be possible to say, even of a housing estate in Salisbury, or anywhere else in Southern Rhodesia, that it was primarily for the purpose of Nyasaland and it would be authorised by the Secretary of State.

Certain events have taken place, and I am obliged to those people who have co-operated in improving this Bill. I think it a salutary thing that towards the conclusion of this part of the Session, and before we adjourn for the Summer Recess, there should be a sort of concerted effort from both sides of the Committee to make this good Bill an even better one. I know that it will give great encouragement to the Corporation to realise that there is no division of opinion and to know that we all wish it well in giving it an instrument which will enable it the better to discharge its task.

My colleagues who have followed my speech as closely as I am proud to say have hon. Members Opposite have told me—and now I am a little more apprehensive of the danger I run by trying to prolong my speech beyond its natural span—that I should make clear to the Committee that a scheme in Southern Rhodesia must not merely be "advantageous", which is the word in the Amendment, but it must be really needed in connection with an enterprise in the Northern Territories. I had meant to deal with that point. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Flint, East, and instead of carrying on in a somewhat lighthearted way and trying to find something to say I could have dealt with that. We looked carefully into the form of words. The intention of Clause 2 was to prevent the Corporation undertaking the development of the economy of Southern Rhodesia as such. I think we all agree on that, since Southern Rhodesia is not a Colonial Territory within the meaning of the 1948 Act.

The Clause enables me to authorise the Corporation to engage in projects in Southern Rhodesia in certain narrowly defined circumstances. The essence of the provision in the Bill is that I, and my successors, should be satisfied that there is a real need for the projects in the interests of the territories of the Federation other than Southern Rhodesia.

If the Amendment were accepted, the result would be that we would lose the stringency of that test and it would become very much weaker than is consistent with the true purpose of the Corporation which is to assist the economies of Colonial Territories within the meaning of the Act of 1948. Clearly, a project might be advantageous or convenient without there being a real need for it. I have had a number of talks with Lord Reith on this matter, and I still feel that the words we proposed are the best.

I have been asked a number of times whether the Corporation agrees with the Bill in toto. The main purpose of the Bill being to validate, the Corporation's legal advice being that there was no need to validate, naturally the Corporation regarded the Bill as an unnecessary exercise, but I think it accepted the Government's point of view that if this matter were tested in the courts and the Government's contention were upheld, it would then be necessary to have legislation, and if the Government's contention were not upheld, it might be that the judgment of the courts would relate only to some isolated incident and not to the whole range. I think that, at the end of the journey, the Corporation realised that the Government had no option but to introduce a Bill and were glad that it should be done expeditiously.

There were certain matters which the Corporation would have liked to see included. It would certainly have preferred the wording suggested by the hon. Lady, but after prolonged talks and discussion with the Corporation, I remain unconvinced by the arguments. Nothing which has been said has caused me to alter my view. I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.

I am delighted to be able to advise the Committee now that the activities behind the Chair have been successful and that the right hon. and learned Attorney-General can now take over from me probably with more profit to the Bill and to the Committee.

Mrs. White

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.