Clause 1.—(EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS AS TO SCHEMES FOR COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE.)

HC Deb 25 March 1959 vol 602 cc1360-405

5.0 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, to leave out "sixty-four" and to insert "sixty-two".

On the face of it, the Amendment would have the effect of bringing the operation of the new Bill to an end two years earlier than the Government propose. In view of the fact that we on this side of the Committee are constantly pressing the Government to do more, I suppose that at first sight it might be asked why we want to bring the operation of the Bill to an end sooner but, knowing the acuity of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, I do not suppose that he has concluded that that is our intention. It is, of course, the very reverse.

We have been helped in framing an Amendment to reduce the period of operation of the Bill from up to 1964 to up to 1962 by the fact that in the Bill the Government propose to omit the provision which existed in previous Acts that there should be an annual limitation on the sums to be paid out of the moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of colonial development and welfare schemes. As long as there was a limitation on the annual amount that could be paid out, combined with a period of years, clearly, on previous Bills, it would not have been a good thing for the Opposition to move an Amendment of this sort. But, now that the Government have removed the annual limitation on the amounts paid out by Parliament, it is obviously open to the Opposition to suggest that the period within which the Bill should operate should be shorter. That is what we are doing.

The purpose of the Amendment is to enable the Government to spend more money in each of the years up to 1962—not to cut off the life of the Bill. It is to ask the Government to put more into colonial development and welfare by reducing this period of time. We do this for a number of reasons. First of all, the need of the Colonial Territories is very great. It is not getting less, it is getting greater for this type of aid.

Secondly, the reason we are asking the Government to spend more is frankly that in the past it has not been the limitation of money which has been the limiting factor but the limitations in the supply of technicians and of equipment that could be sent from this country to raise the standards of these underdeveloped territories. Therefore, we believe that now that these limitations have been removed, there is an even better case for saying to the Government that, if there is no limitation except that of money, they should dig a little deeper into the pockets of the Treasury and spend a little more in the next two or three years.

The third reason is one of self-interest. It is that as long as there is in this country unused resources we can say that by making long-term loans or grants—and both are provided for in the Bill—of this description we are stimulating our own export industries, and particularly our own capital goods industries. It is in the capital goods industries that the falling-off has been experienced in the last few months.

I read in the newspapers this morning that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, a new body recently set up, has published a second report which states that the Institute sees little prospect of a recovery in exports". As to the hope that the Government may have had that the release of more consumer credit might stimulate a revival in our industries, the Institute thinks it possible that the increase in consumer spending may be slowed down or even reversed within a very short time.

I said that the basic shortage was in the heavy industries, and the Institute says that the fall in employment has been mainly in metals and engineering and in textiles and clothing. Metals and clothing are the important industries where this sort of help would be most valuable. If I may paraphrase further the Institute's report, it does not fear an expensive capital boom and, generally speaking, it says that in view of the continued large reserve of unemployed men and women it is pessimistic about the United Kingdom position.

Therefore, on the grounds of self-interest, there is a case for stimulating our export industries by increasing the amount which the Exchequer would put every year in colonial development and welfare. The Export Credits Guarantee Department is at the moment reviewing its policy on the granting of long-term credits to a number of countries, one or two of which I know fairly well. They will not be very good risks but the Department will have to take a gamble on them, and the Department ought to be more prepared than it sometimes is to take a gamble on these Colonies.

Some of them are very good risks indeed. If there is any intention on the Government's part to be realistic in the activities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in their loans to foreign countries, there is all the more reason why the Government themselves in the colonial field, where they have such direct control, should stimulate investment. I ask the Government, therefore, on this ground to go further than they have done.

No doubt they will argue, and I immediately acknowledge it, that what they are doing in the Bill is greater in money terms than what was done in the previous Measure. I imagine that it is also greater in real terms. If we are to take into account the falling away in the number of people affected owing to the fact that when a country becomes independent it is cut off from benefit under the Bill—a subject on which we shall say something later—there is an increase in real terms. But I plead with the Government that that increase should be even greater. In view of the state of the economy at the moment, which we are told is in a most remarkable condition—and we are looking forward to very substantial budgetary benefits in the next week or two—there is a case for the Government going further. That is why we on this side of the Committee move the Amendment.

A final point is that one of the basic reasons why the Colonial Territories need this additional help is the decline in the purchase of their own raw materials and primary products. Copper has taken a great beating, if I may put it that way, over the last couple of years. It has fallen away from its substantial crest and gone down into a trough. It has come up a little again, but its decline has undoubtedly been a substantial blow to those territories which are responsible for producing it.

Zinc has fallen in price over the last 18 months from £100 to £60 per ton and has only recently recovered to about £75. Sugar has fallen from £50 per ton at the beginning of 1957 to £29 per ton at the end of 1958. The Economist indicator of commodity prices, which takes the general level of raw material prices throughout the world as fixed at 100 in 1952, was—taking the whole level of prices—down to 90 by the middle of 1956. At the end of 1956 it had recovered to about 100. In June, 1957, it was 90. In December, 1957, it was down to 85 and at the end of 1958 it was hovering around 84 or 85. That is a decline of about 15 points in that indicator since 1952.

Sir James Duncan (South Angus)

It has gone up a little since then.

Mr. Callaghan

That may be so; I have the figures only to the end of 1958. Even so, I do not think the hon. Gentleman would deny that it is a substantial decline in terms of the purchasing power of the territories. There is the further fact that in practically every territory about which we are speaking there has been since 1952 a substantial increase in the cost of living and a decline in the value of money. In this country the decline in the value of money since 1952 has been between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. I am not making a party point but stating a fact. If it is the same throughout the other territories, the indicator, which has gone down from 100 to 85 plus, must be much more serious in their terms.

We were told that we could afford to wait a little while after the American recovery had begun. There was a facile assumption, which I confess I shared, that once the American recovery started this would of itself put up the demand for raw materials and the prices of primary products. In fact that has not happened, at least not by nearly as much as everybody had hoped. The American recovery has been in progress for almost a year now without anything like the effect on those prices which we had hoped. I suppose the reason is that we all neglected to consider the tremendous weight of Europe in the purchase of these materials.

The gross national product of Europe is about two-thirds that of the United States. So, if there is a recovery in the United States combined with a continuing recession in Europe, such as we have had, the effect on raw material prices and primary product prices is clearly less than it would be if we had a European recovery coinciding with an American recovery. In that case we might have been back to our position before the American recession. We have not got that, so this is another reason why there is a special obligation upon the Committee to consider whether we should not do a little more for the territories.

On this side of the Committee we are ready to accept the responsibility involved in asking the Government to spend more. We realise that there would not be so much for taxation relief. I do not know that it would make so much difference, but clearly there would be some difference. However, we are willing to take that responsibility, and we hope the Government will share in it by being willing to play their part. We do so because we believe that we cannot have a prosperous United Kingdom if the Colonies and the rest of the Commonwealth are sunk in a comparative slough of recession because of the fall in their raw material prices.

I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies to consider the countries about which we are speaking—Kenya, Somaliland, Tanganyika, the West Indies and British Guiana. All are territories where the economy is not diversified. All of them are ill-equipped to stand the substantial fall that has taken place in their real purchasing power. It is for that reason we ask the Government to think again about the date they put in the Bill, and to agree with our Amendment that it should become 1962 instead of 1964.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones (Wakefield)

I support the Amendment chiefly because, speaking from my own experience, Colonial Territories are frequently starved of urgently needed social services as well as of economic development. Every year a large number of schemes of vital importance are put forward, but the money is just not there in the territory concerned. Yet, unless money is spent on economic development, it is difficult for a territory to build its productivity so that it may be more prosperous in the days ahead.

5.15 p.m.

Moreover, there is a growing need for an extension of education services, of health services and of resettlement in the territories, and there are other social needs there which cannot be satisfied at present. Therefore, if more money can be made available by grants or by loans or by contributions to desperately needed services, it would help to increase prosperity and lay the foundation of the political reforms about which we are all so anxious. I support the suggestion that the year in the Bill might be altered so that the money available may be concentrated in a shorter period, and so that the urgent and pressing needs of the territories may be partially met by the additional contribution which will be given under the Bill.

One thing is often forgotten when we are discussing money from the colonial development and welfare funds, and that is the considerable contribution made towards these schemes by the territories themselves. The territorial Governments have been extraordinarily generous. For every £1 forthcoming from the British Exchequer, sometimes as much as £4 has been forthcoming from the territory. Many of these schemes the territories have not been able to implement until they get the assistance of the home Government, when they are prepared to make the additional sacrifice in terms of taxation in order to get a larger revenue to pay for these desperately needed schemes. In the circumstances, therefore, I support the Amendment.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East)

All of us here recognise how urgent are the needs in the Colonial Territories. We are supporting this Amendment because it is a way of showing our concern for the expansion of the valuable services that have already been made available from the colonial development and welfare funds.

Many of us have had the opportunity to see the work already done and we know of the work that needs to be done urgently in individual territories. Speaking with the advantage, shared by many of my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite, of a visit to the West Indies, I have certain developments very much in mind. In looking at the White Paper provided in connection with the introduction of this Bill, I noticed the detailed statistics showing how the funds have been spent in the different territories. In the West Indies, for example, I saw how little has been spent on technical and vocational education, which is so important. Some of us commented on that in our report to the House of Commons after visiting the islands. It was a matter of great concern to us that so little was being done there to help people to gain the amount of skill needed to help them build local industries and local activities. How rarely we found in the islands any people with qualifications, even of the most modest kind, in engineering and subjects of that sort. Many projects have been discussed or recommended from time to time by visiting commissions and in the reports of economic experts, but none of them has made headway because of the desperate lack of training facilities.

In one relatively isolated island, Dominica, there is urgent need for training in fishery and for improvement in facilities, equipment and the standard of training. This matter has been under discussion for many years and very little has been done. This is the kind of practical action that we want to see encouraged by extra money voted under a Bill of this nature. I have given an example, and I have no doubt that other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will have other examples in mind.

In almost all of the West Indian islands we were struck by the same lack of facilities, even in the larger islands like Trinidad. Though some small beginning has been made, it is still pitifully small. Some of the more alert and vigorous of the West Indian people have come to this country in search of the training that they cannot get on their islands. This is an added reason why we should look upon the Bill as one of the priorities for our consideration.

Another priority is the need for development in communications. Road facilities are vital in some of the West Indian islands. Although quite a lot has been done—in an island like Dominica there are more prospects for development such as in the timber industry than there are in some of the other islands—the whole thing is held up by lack of communications. An increase in the grant could make a difference in the development of agriculture and afforestation. Such possibilities must be borne in mind.

It is clear that these things cannot be provided unless we secure a greater concentration of capital than we have been able to manage up to now. We have a very real duty to make a bigger contribution than we are making at present.

Mr. H. A. Marquand (Middlesbrough, East)

I feel somewhat apologetic about making a speech on the Amendment at this stage. Unfortunately, another engagement will take me out of the Chamber from about six to seven p.m. I hope the Committee will forgive me for intervening at the moment lest the Amendment be disposed of before I come back. I am especially anxious to refer to the need for far more colonial development and assistance to certain Colonies which I visited not long ago.

Before I do that, I would sketch in the background against which these Colonies have to deal with their tremendous problems and difficulties. The Secretary of State for the Colonies referred on the Second Reading of the Bill to the Government's White Paper, "The United Kingdom's rôle in Commonwealth Development", published in 1957. That White Paper showed that since 1952 the annual net outflow of private capital from the United Kingdom to the sterling area in the Commonwealth was £100 million and to Canada £30 million. It further showed that the public capital outflow of all kinds, including Colonial Development Corporation grants, C.D. and W. grants and public loans raised on the market by Colonial Governments, came to a total of rather less than £70 million.

These figures place in the right proportion the comparison which some of us wish to make between private investment and public investment in the Colonies, but they by no means tell the whole truth. If we are properly to understand the magnitude of the problem in relation to the effort which this country is making, we must take into account the size of the sterling balances. Professor Paish, in Lloyds' Bank Review of September, 1956, pointed out that when this is taken into account, and when we realise the extent to which the trading profits of Colonial Territories are held as sterling balances, and offset them against those figures of net transfer of capital from the United Kingdom, the picture becomes very different.

Professor Paish is certainly not a member of the Labour Party. His criticism is completely detached and professional. The professor's examination showed that the net transfer from the United Kingdom to the sterling area in 1949–55 amounted to no more than £154 million, or £26 million a year, so that the net transfer from this country to the whole of the sterling area in those years was really no more than £26 million per year. If we separate the Colonies from that total for the sterling area the figure is even lower. That is the measure of the actual net aid by this country to the Colonial Territories. The professor concluded that these Colonies, and particularly West Africa and Malaya, provided collectively on short-term the bulk of the capital they borrowed on long-term. Those are the real economic facts of the situation. For years on end the real transfer of wealth from this country to the Colonial Territories has been very small in proportion to the help that they have rendered to us by making their dollar balances available to us fom the sale of rubber, cocoa and other primary products to the United States and Canada. Set off against the transfers that we have made from this country, they show that the total balance in our favour as donors to colonial welfare is very small indeed.

I believe that that has long been the position. It was especially due, in the years 1949–55, to the terms of trade, whereby the prices of the raw materials which the Colonies produced, like rubber and coffee, tended to rise. The Colonies were making large profits on their transactions and these were put on one side into various funds for future development and were held as balances. While the terms of trade were very much in favour of the Colonies, transfers from this country to the Colonies were very small. The Colonial countries were helping us. While the terms of trade were very advantageous to them and they were having the advantage of a very favourable situation, they helped us with our balance of payments difficulties.

5.30 p.m.

During the last few years the terms of trade have turned the other way. Over the last two or three years, prices of primary products have been falling, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) reminded us, and everybody knows it to be true. During the time when the terms of trade were unfavourable to us and favourable to the Colonies, they helped us. Now the time has come when the terms of trade are favourable to us but unfavourable to the Colonies, and so the case is now overwhelmingly great, not for a modest increase in the annual amount and patting ourselves on the back because we are going to give them £2 million or £3 million more than we were doing in the previous period, but for a really substantial improvement. We should make an effort at this moment to help the Colonies commensurate with the immense help which they undoubtedly gave us during the time when the terms of trade were against us.

What, in fact, has been done? During this period when the terms of trade have been in our favour and to the disadvantage of the Colonial Territories, so far from saying to ourselves that we ought to help them in these circumstances, when gold and dollars are flowing into our Treasury, and when they are not able to earn as many dollars by the sale of their goods as they used to do, what did we do? We said that the credit squeeze must apply to them as it applied to us. We said that Kenya, Uganda and other Colonies were part of the sterling area monetary system, the monetary system of London, and that whatever was done in London must apply throughout the sterling area and therefore apply to them too.

We remember the ridiculous situation, when Kenya was suffering greatly by this decline in overseas earnings, that Kenya had to float a loan on the London market in 1957 at 6½ per cent. and at a price of 97. That is nearly 7 per cent., which Kenya had to pay for a loan at that difficult time. The situation was reversed from the time when Kenya was helping us very considerably through the accumulation of sterling balances, which greatly favoured us in our balance of payments difficulties.

It is no use calculating the size of our aid in a mere monetary comparison. I know that the Bill proposes some increase and that whereas in the previous quinquennium some £80 million was allowed we are now asked to allow £95 million in the next quinquennium, which is an increase of £3 million per annum on the average. Allowing for the depreciation of the purchasing power of money since the last quinquennium, which has been quite considerable, and for the completely different situation which now exists in respect of the terms of trade, this is grossly inadequate. I really mean this. I do not mean that it should be a million or two more. I think it falls completely short of what the circumstances of the time demand. It is a definite failure to help the Colonies in their time of adversity, while they helped us in our own time of adversity.

Let me take Kenya as an example. Until 1955, due to the rising value of primary products, Kenya's national income was mounting, but in 1956 it was no more than it was in 1955. I speak particularly of Kenya, because I visited it last year, and I want to speak about it on that account. Kenya was not so very adversely affected as some Colonies, because the goods which it produces, like coffee, tea and sisal, did not suffer such a severe fall as the products of other Colonies, like Malaya, where the price of tin went down very badly.

Still, faced with that situation, Kenya, with her annual geographical income for 1956 no more than it was in 1955, decided that it must cut its development programme. It decided to spend no more than £20 million during the years 1957 to 1960, though, had the means been available, it would have been possible"— I am now quoting from an official document published by the Kenya Government— to employ as much as £50 million on highly desirable projects. It could have employed £50 million without the waste of a single penny on highly desirable, top priority projects, but had to cut the bill by no less than £13 million for those few years—more than the increased annual amount which this Bill provides for the whole of the Colonies—because of the economic situation and because the terms of trade had turned to its disadvantage. Just at a time when investment expenditure should be expanded, when current trade and employment were slack, Kenya had to reduce—not even mark time—its development programme.

For the supply of water in agricultural development, for example, from 1954 to 1957, Kenya spent £14 million, but had to cut it for the next three years to £9 million. This in respect of water for agriculture, and every hon. Member who knows Kenya, of whom there are a large number here, realises full well the desperate need for bringing more land under cultivation in Kenya. It is necessary in order to meet an expanding population, to meet the African desire for stability and their relationship to the land, yet they had to cut the expenditure from 1954 to 1957 from £14 million to £9 million.

Similar figures apply to the forestry programme, in which I have a special interest, because I had something to do with its formulation. That was cut from £262,000 to £126,000. What a deplorable thing, when that magnificent forestry development is going on and when investment in forestry yields its return after so many years, that this had to be cut, impeded and held up.

On local government, health and housing, Kenya spent in three years £5,742,000, and this was cut to £3,750,000. Can one wonder that there is unrest in Kenya, when we have a rapidly increasing population, which knows that the opportunity of getting on to new land is to be restricted, that the opportunity of getting new houses and new schools is to be cut below what their own Government would like to do and below what their own Government had been achieving previously?

There is a similar situation in Uganda, where a drop in the price of cotton has been very serious indeed, and caused a larger fall in the size of the national income than is the case in Kenya. Uganda is more fortunate than Kenya in having a more stable political system and a more advanced population. This is because there is a greater degree of self-government among Africans than is permitted in Kenya, and also because Uganda has resolutely adopted a policy of mixed State and private enterprise and has a better founded economy than Kenya.

The proper remedy for all this is the stabilisation of prices, but we cannot refer to that because it would be completely out of order on this Bill. Even if we were able to achieve international stabilisation of prices quickly, the case would remain for a far bigger allocation of colonial and development welfare grants in the next few years which we are discussing under the terms of this Bill. It is in the next few years that the increase will be so desperately needed in order that Kenya, Uganda—I am sure hon. Members on this side of the Committee can multiply examples—can be fully compensated for the great help they have given this country in the last five years. It will be needed in order that these shocking cuts, which imperil social security and the whole sociological stability of the Colonial Territories, should not be allowed to go on.

Mr. Robert Edwards (Bilston)

I hope that the Government will accept this modest Amendment, which suggests that we should increase the amount of capital made available to the Colonial Territories. I do not know of any greater task that this country can perform than that of assisting the underdeveloped areas over which we have control to balance their economies.

The Russians are lending a lot of money to underdeveloped areas. They lent £5 million to the Yemen to build a great port facing the Red Sea and they lent that money at 2½ per cent. They lent the money which the World Bank should have supplied for the building of the high dam at Aswan, £37 million to Egypt, again at 2½ per cent. New forces are coming into the world today which have very important political consequences and are basically related to helping underdeveloped countries to win a decent life for themselves, so I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that I do not know of any task in which the Government and this country could better engage than the majestic task of making more capital available to the poorest peoples in the world.

It is estimated that out of the total world population of about 2,600 million, 1,500 million, many millions of whom live within British Colonial Territories, are under-fed, ill-clothed and continuously ill because of lack of medical attention, doctors and medicines. To lend money we need to have surpluses from savings. The average income per head of the population of the United Kingdom is £350. Therefore, we have opportunities to find surpluses for capital investment. But how can a territory like Sierra Leone, where the average income per head of the population is about £15 per annum, do that? Their task is to maintain a bare physical hold on life. They have no surpluses whatever, not enough to buy a new shirt, never mind surpluses for capital investment.

There are great possibilities for agricultural development with the proper equipment, advice, technical colleges and instruction. There are possibilities of great development of the mineral wealth of Sierra Leone, but to develop these natural resources so that they can balance their economy and win a decent life are not possible unless they can start building roads. There is only one good hard road in the whole of Sierra Leone.

They still have scores of the old ferries where passengers have to wait for a little boat and where cars have to be dragged across the rivers. More money has to be made available. If we have to make sacrifices to make money available, that sacrifice is a majestic thing for us to make. We could not make sacrifices for a better cause than that of helping poor people all over our Colonial Territories to develop their economies.

5.45 p.m.

Of every seven children in Sierra Leone, only one has any opportunity of receiving primary education. All over the Protectorate there is a lack of teachers and any kind of education. People still die like flies from malaria and yellow fever in many parts of territories that are controlled by this House. Sierra Leone used to be the "White Man's Grave", but it was also the grave of the Africans. For every European who died, 1,000 Africans went to an early grave.

That sort of thing is still happening, because the expectation of life for millions of people in territories controlled by us is about thirty years, as against our expectation of sixty-seven years. In some territories under our control, on an average, the women die before reaching the age of 27, whereas the expectation of life of British women is 73. That is the measure of our relative security compared with their indescribable, grinding poverty.

This Bill, which suggests an increase of £3 million a year on what we previously spent, does not scratch the surface of the problem with which we are dealing. If we are to deduct £2 million for Malta, £23 million is the maximum we can supply. In this age of electronics, automation and nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, this is a very modest contribution considering the magnitude of the problem to be dealt with. During the last fifteen years, for example, 1,000 million babies were born, but 200 million of them died before they reached their first birthday. Of those 1,000 million babies, 120 million may mature, have a good life and reach the age of 60, but they all live in the West, or in North America. Of the 200 million who died, many millions died in territories over which we have had control for a hundred years or more, territories which are rich in natural resources and need only capital to develop these resources so that the countries can look after themselves.

No one wants to suggest continued charity to countries. No one on this side of the Committee suggests that by artificial means we can impose high living standards on underdeveloped countries. They have to earn their own living so that they can build roads, hospitals and factories, but they have to have an opportunity of earning wealth. If there is no flow of capital investments for roads and hospitals, schools, etc., they cannot do that. In Sierra Leone, which I recently visited, there are 80,000 lepers in a total population of 2 million. There are no leper colonies, but they have to be treated at first-aid posts where there are no doctors. There are hospitals only in the main centres, in Freetown and Bo, while in the rest of the country little first-aid posts, where there are probationer African nurses, have to treat all kinds of diseases.

I should like to continue on this line, but there are many Amendments to be discussed. I beg the Government to have a good look at this Amendment. It allows for increasing the amount of money available for the important task set out in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

Mr. A. E. Oram (East Ham, South)

It has already been made clear that we are not moving to reduce the period mentioned in the Bill because we think that it would be good to have a shorter period. We are moving to reduce the period because, within the rules of order, that is our only way of indicating our wish that in any year there should be an increased amount of resources available. But for that limitation I think that we should rather wish to extend the period covered by the Bill, because it is important that the people in the Colonies who have the day-to-day task of administering development and welfare schemes should have as long a period as possible in which they can feel assured that resources will be available.

Our purpose in moving the Amendment is to make sure that the utmost possible amount is available in any one year. That is what we ought to take as our yardstick in measuring the adequacy of what the Government propose. If we compare the Bill with what the 1945 Act did, we find that that Act provided for grants of £120 million over ten years, which is an average of £12 million a year. In the Bill it is proposed that a further £95 million shall be available over the next five years, which is an average of £19 million a year.

It is perfectly clear that since 1945 the value of money, as has already been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), has very considerably declined. Although it may be possible to prove that the present £19 million per year is, in real terms, a little larger than £12 million per year represented back in 1945, I do not think that the argument can be sustained that it is in any way a large increase in real terms over what we planned and did fourteen years ago.

It is true—I have no doubt that the Under-Secretary of State will make this point—that the amounts now being made available are for a reduced population, because some of the territories have now reached dominion status, but further Amendments on the Notice Paper, which we shall be debating later, show that we on this side of the Committee are not in any way minded to accept the proposition that, if a territory attains its freedom or Dominion status, it does not qualify for aid under this legislation.

In making the comparison with what we were able to do in 1945, we ought to have in mind the vastly changed circumstances. There are four ways in which the situation is completely different. First, our own home economy was emerging from a war. Our economy was then on a war footing, whereas now, although we have an immense defence programme, we are industrially on a peace footing. In terms of real wealth which the factories and fields of this country are turning out, our national income is probably 25 per cent. greater than it was in 1945. For that reason alone, we ought to be able to spare a great deal more than is proposed in the Bill.

Secondly, if we cast our minds back to the first substantial Colonial Development and Welfare Bill, we will remember that that was at a time when the country was in severe balance of payments difficulties. That was a dominant factor to be considered when deciding whether it was wise to take any course. Today, that factor is very much less of a hampering factor. It is, perhaps, true that our improved balance of payments situation is due to reasons for which we ought not to take any credit ourselves. It is partly due to the running down of the economy which the Government have brought about. To a very large extent it is due to the fall in commodity prices, and our import bill has been considerably less on that account.

There are two other reasons why we ought to be very much more imaginative and generous in what we are proposing to do in the Bill. Back in 1945, Colonial Territories could look forward to a period—in fact, that period did eventuate—in which they were on a rising market for the commodities which they exported. Now the situation is the reverse. It is always difficult to forecast what are likely to be the future terms of trade, but expert committees of G.A.T.T. have stated that, in their judgment, the terms of trade for primary producing countries in the future are most unlikely to improve.

The final great difference between the situation in 1945 and today is that what was planned then under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act was only part of a much wider programme for sustaining Colonial Territories. We set up the Colonial Development Corporation and, more important still, the Labour Government initiated bulk purchase arrangements, which were one of the main methods by which the economies of the Colonial Territories were sustained.

That has been abolished. I shall not argue the case for and against, but if the Government sustain their policy of doing away with bulk purchase and if they are sincere in wishing for the welfare of Colonial Territories, they ought to be more generous in making loans and grants in the remaining part of the programme.

All those circumstances are radically different from what they were fourteen years ago. At home, we are a wealthier community. The balance of payments situation is less precarious. The trading prospects of the Colonies are much less healthy. The Government have knocked away one of the main props of colonial economic well-being. For all these reasons, it is most essential that the annual amount which we are prepared to provide in the way which the Bill sets out to do should be very much more generous. That is why I support the Amendment.

Mr. R. W. Sorensen (Leyton)

The speeches made by hon. Members this afternoon suggest virtually that what we intend to spend over a certain number of years should be spent in half of the time. I do not intend to go over the ground already covered, because it has been very well dealt with by my hon. Friends and I am quite sure that the Under-Secretary of State is already weighing the considerations they have advanced. I shall confine myself to one point only.

I must state, first, that certainly compared with pre-war a greatly increased sense of responsibility for colonial development is detectable in the House. There is equally an awareness that what we are making provision for in the Bill is partly a repayment to the colonial peoples of all the wealth we have gained from their territories in the past.

It is good for us to be reminded today that although we are making this provision, which is certainly an encouraging advance on bygone days, it is not so substantial as it might at first sight seem to be. We should, therefore, be more seized of our responsibility than we are.

6.0 p.m.

The comment I wish to make is on the relationship of the Bill, and what it attempts to provide, to the political needs of the colonial areas. Although I know that I must not go beyond this Bill, I think it is legitimate to show that it has an implicit political significance. For instance, criticisms have been made that many of our colonial peoples are as yet ill-equipped for the responsibility of self-government, but assurances are given that when they are better equipped fuller responsibility will be given to them.

The difficulty is that at the present rate many of the indigenous peoples who are alleged not yet to be equipped for responsibility, and their successors, will die before that standard is reached. Schools must be built to educate the illiterate. Roads are necessary to link up the country. All the means by which we can help to prepare these populations for their future responsibilities cannot be fulfilled unless much more substantial sums are allocated than those at present made available.

Looking closely at the figures, we could draw up a time plan that would cover, at the present rate, perhaps 50 or 60 years before even adequate educational facilities are available for the next generation. I stress, therefore, that if we wish our actions to appear to the world to be consistent with our expressions and not hypocritical, we cannot leave matters merely with the assurance that in the course of time all the Colonial Territories will emerge into freedom, self-government and self-responsibility.

No doubt we are quite sincere when we say that, but we can understand the charge of hypocrisy that is laid against us. Even though it may be true that we are technically and nominally preparing the way for self-government, we are not doing nearly enough to prepare the people themselves to exercise the powers when they are bestowed. When the American negroes were freed their freedom bewildered them. They were released from their chains but, not knowing what to do, they were in some ways in a worse plight than before.

That is a legitimate although not an exact parallel with what we are doing in some of the colonial areas. We are preparing the way to political freedom and self-government and the transference of very great responsibility to those who in many ways may not yet be adequately equipped to undertake it. That is not an argument for withholding that transference of responsibility; it only emphasises our need to be consistent in what we profess, and to accept the fact that it means extending the necessary finance to enable the people to develop the mental and other equipment necessary for the great responsibilities of their future. I therefore urge the Government to recognise that the principle now admitted by us all urgently needs implementation and to accept the Amendment.

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

I know only too well how easy it is to argue that more money should be spent on colonial development and that more colonial development schemes should be started. Perhaps more than any other hon. Member I know the difficulties attendant on these schemes. I know full well, as do others who have been associated with past schemes of colonial development, that in the end they cost far more than was originally thought and take a considerably longer time to achieve.

Everything goes wrong with these schemes. The bridges go, the roads go, the rain does not fall, or it rains too much. Something else proves intractable. I know all the arguments, and I know how true they are. I know, too, how it can appear to be facile on the part of an Opposition to say, "If the Government are empowered to spend more money, everything in the garden will be lovely and we shall have more schemes."

It will not work that way at all. In many cases, the experts who are working on schemes are not inhibited by lack of money but by certain technical limitations placed upon them. That, however, is not true of all development. In particular, it is not true of education.

When I lived and worked in Africa, I found that men would come to the place where I worked, some of them having walked 100 miles, 200 miles—occasionally even 500 miles—to find work. They did so, but not because they themselves particularly wanted to work. I discovered that the African has this strong bond of community with the European—he is not all that enamoured of the idea of working for a living.

The man walked because he believed that the job he thought he would get would provide an opportunity for the education of his children. He would go to inordinate lengths and would make very considerable sacrifices if only he could know that his children—brought up in conditions so squalid as not to bear description—could have the chance to attend a little school in the shade of the beobab tree and learn the alphabet and some part of the multiplication tables. I was greatly impressed, and I became convinced that the one thing we can give with comparative speed to the colonial peoples is education.

What are we doing? I shall not range widely but will confine myself to what we are doing in a country now in the news—Nyasaland. I speak of this because, although I have made very clear my acceptance of the difficulties inherent in all these schemes. I want the Minister to give careful consideration to the vital part that education has to play in Nyasaland in the next few years.

As I read the figures, the colonial development and welfare funds have spent, or earmarked, £588.000 in the period from 1946 to 31st March of last year on primary and secondary education in Nyasaland. That amount has been spent over a period of twelve years on a population of some 3 million people. If we divide the amount by the potential number of school children it works out at no more than a few miserable pence per head each year.

The total expenditure of the Nyasaland Government on education in 1957—the last year for which I have figures—appears to be in the region of £700,000. It is a far greater burden on the pockets of the Nyasalanders to find £700,000 in one year than it is for us to provide £600,000 over a period of twelve years. We have not been spending enough on education. I know the difficulties about teachers and building schools, although it is not necessary to build palatial concrete schools in African countries. These difficulties, however, can be overcome if there is a determination that we will bring to these countries the educational facilities which they must have if they are to take their place in the march towards progress.

Last year, 13 people out of 3 million living in Nyasaland were entitled to higher education either at the Makerere College, at Witwatersrand or elsewhere. One Nyasa was allowed to go to Witwatersrand. I think that this will be his last year, when the South African Government segregates Witwatersrand. Four came to Bristol and others went elsewhere. Thirteen out of nearly 3 million Nyasas were given the facilities to go to a university or a school of higher learning. This is pitiful, and we should not regard this as a satisfactory outcome of what we are trying to do.

When the Colonial Secretary, with that air of gay well being and with not a hair out of place on his handsome head". —I am quoting from last night's Evening Standard—spoke on the Second Reading, I thought that he showed a certain complacency, not about what he had done, but about what he is going to do under the Bill. While educational facilities languish in our Colonies and the situation in Nyasaland which I have described continues we cannot be satisfied, and for that reason we have tabled this Amendment.

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

It would be rather boring to reiterate many points made about the poverty of the colonial areas. That is well known. I therefore want to try to keep to a point that I have made many times in colonial debates. Whatever Government are in power, if we are arming like Sparta, we have to live like Sparta. If we spend a colossal amount on an arms programme which is almost defunct before it starts we cannot find the finances which are necessary for the uplift of the Colonies. There is, therefore, the paradox that in our strength we can lose our Colonies because of dissatisfaction.

The purpose of the Amendment, although it may appear obscure to the uninitiated, is to concertina into a shorter period a certain amount of investment. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). We must ask ourselves: from where will we get the greatest return? The greatest return will come from mass education projects. If we aim at creating university graduates we shall take too long. The plumber is needed in civilisation before the medical man. This is a fact that airy-fairy economists who write about backward areas often forget.

I have returned from a visit to some of the so-called backward areas, namely, Indo-China and South-East Asia, only this week. Here we have a civilisation which is in-ringed between the hula-hoop and dedicated to Coca-Cola and 7-Up, 500 miles from civilisation. What are the complaints of the experts who are sent to the backward areas? It is that they are sent for six weeks or six months, but there is no follow-up because the necessary finance is not available. The Truman Point Four Plan, the Colombo Plan and plans under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act must be followed up or the continuity and purpose of the project will be lost.

Poor old Britain, both under the Labour Government and under this Government, have been pretending for years that we have been pouring money into the Colonies. The truth is completely the opposite. We are still in pawn to the Colonies if we add up the sterling balances and debts which we owe to them as the result of their contribution to the last war. When the Labour Party was in power it was scoffed at, but I was glad to hear my hon. Friend point out that the first-class policy of the Labour Party was to try to establish stability of prices in the colonial areas by giving the colonial producer and merchant stable prices over a certain period. The only way to do it is by bulk buying.

As I have said before, the outstanding hook on the backward areas is Professor MacMahon Ball's book, Nationalism in South-East Asia, in which he points out the fallacy of the Truman Point Four Plan, the Colombo Plan and the Colonial Development and Welfare Plan. Stable prices must be maintained. A drop of so many points in the price of tin, zinc or copper destroys overnight the entire purpose of an extra £3 million worth of aid. There should be a colonial conference on this one problem to which other countries may be invited to discuss the main economic problem of the so-called backward areas.

The problem is how to give primary producing areas stability of price. To achieve that object, the United States, the Western technical countries and Britain should make bulk buying agreements on the stability of prices for a two or three-year period. That should not be beyond the wit of man. If we do not do that, all schemes for aid will disappear in thin air.

In the wisdom of the Labour Party, knowing that we cannot hope to have stable prices under a Conservative Government and that they are not intelligent enough to have a bulk buying policy for the backward areas, we tabled an Amendment which seeks to concertina investment into these areas to try to keep up with the drop in prices of raw materials. Whatever Government are in power, no scheme is likely to succeed If there are continuous drops in the price of the raw materials that colonial areas produce. I sincerely hope that the Minister will realise that we are not talking for the sake of it, and that we are concerned about the progress of colonial areas.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd (Stockton-on-Tees)

I intend to be very brief at this stage, because I know that we all want to hear the views of the Under-Secretary of State. The Committee has been impressed by instance after instance given by my right hon. and hon. Friends of the need for something further to be done for the Colonies. It is a remarkable commentary that in something which is supposed to be so dear to the Tory Party not one hon. Member opposite has seen fit to say a word about it.

It seems to me that we should do something on the lines suggested by the Amendment or find more money for colonial development which would bring about the same result for two main reasons. First, we have a responsibility for the well-being of the colonial peoples. It is not a responsibility merely to give them doles or sops, but a responsibility to put them on their feet and to enable them to earn their own living. Secondly, it is in our interest to give economic support to our colonial dependencies to help them to stand on their own feet so that they, in turn, can help us by maintaining production and exports and by building up markets to take goods from this country, and, by so doing, building up our own economic strength.

More important, however, is the political reason. As these dependencies are rapidly advancing towards self-determination, it is in our interest to ensure that they remain within the British Commonwealth. One of the greatest psychological factors in enabling them to do this is the amount of help which we give them before they reach that stage. Anyone who has been into a school which has been built with colonial development and welfare money, or has seen a water scheme in an area where water is badly needed brought about by colonial development and welfare money, or to a hospital in an area where there is a serious epidemic will know that notices are displayed to the effect that so much money has been provided from the colonial development and welfare funds.

Those are the greatest arguments for the maintenance of their connection with this country when independence comes to them. If we balance what has been done against what has to be done, we see how great the task is. If we take over education, health, hospitals, and transport to open up these areas to give a better standard in place of the wretched conditions under which people are living the task ahead will be enormous when measured against what we have been doing and intend to do in this Measure. What we are intending to do is only a fleabite against what must be done. We have to spend more in adventures overseas in a few months than we have spent in years of colonial development and welfare.

If we go through the Ministry of Supply Estimates and the Army Estimates we see that we have lost a great deal of money in ordering 1 million pairs of extra boots. This money could have gone towards the building of a fine hospital or school, or to provide a water supply in some of our Colonial Territories. We are not asking for the earth. We are asking that the amount we give should be at least doubled. Whether it is done as provided in the form of the Amendment, or by doubling the grant, does not matter. The important thing is that the money should be found.

The Lord Privy Seal holds the opinion that we could double our standard of living in twenty-five years. Does that statement apply to the Colonies? If it does, we have got to do much more than we have done hitherto. We have to bear in mind that we shall not always be living under a stagnant Tory economy, when we can give only what we are able to give at the moment. With an expanding economy which will enable our national product to' increase without necessarily increasing taxation, we should see that prior charge is given to the development of our colonial dependencies by increasing the amount of money we are providing under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act.

Mr. James Johnson (Rugby)

I detect signs, not of impatience, but a desire to be on with the job by the junior Minister on the Front Bench opposite and, indeed, in the hon. Lady below me. Since I am batting almost last I will not detain the Committee for more than a few minutes.

I want shortly to make two points. First, in the past we have not been able to spend as much as we would have liked on our dependent territories because it is admitted that we had not got the technicians and members of the public service to go out to these territories. For the first time in our debates this argument has gone, since the Colonial Secretary told us in the Second Reading debate that it is now easy, or, at least, possible, to get schoolmasters, engineers, and, of course, plumbers to go out and man the services.

That old argument having gone and we now being able to vote the money, and the money being satisfactorily disposed of, the Minister patted himself on the back a few weeks ago and said that we were now to spend £25 million a year for five years, which is an enormous advance. Of course it is, but the sum of money expended must now be larger than that.

Each year more and more students come to this country and then return home. No longer are we on a slowly moving escalator, but a fast toboggan. These men go back to their own country and inculcate in their own people not merely higher and higher standards, but more and more urgent desires to get the things they want. It is an ever-quickening tempo. The world today is moving faster and faster. These young men go back as leaders and create in their own people a desire to make more demands and for the demands to be satisfied.

While I place much of the responsibility for the present state of affairs in Nyasaland on the Ministers opposite, the trouble is much more deep-seated than that. At one time the Nyasas led East and Central Africa, in the field of education, before the First World War, in the early days of the Church of Scotland. Between the two wars, in days of economy, because the missions did not receive financial help, the Nyasas fell back. The Nyasas, once having led Central Africa, now lag behind and this explains their sense of frustration. It behoves the Minister to devote more cash to these people's education in this purely political context of Federation in view of the conference in about eighteen months' time.

So far, the Somalis have not been mentioned. We understand from the Minister's statement that next year they will be allowed to opt for union with the ex-Italian Somalis in the south. Since the end of the war Italy has spent over £24 million in Mogadishu and elsewhere in Somalia. We are patting ourselves on the back because we have voted, but have not yet spent, £2¼ million over five years for our northern Somalis.

We should spend much more because it is a question not merely of satisfying the peoples in these dependent territories in their demands for health and education, but, more important, of giving them a fair deal alongside their cousins in other former empires. Our Somalis feel that they have lagged behind those to the south. When union comes, in future, the people in Hargeisa will not be equipped to play their part alongside the ex-Italian Somalis of Mogadishu. They will lag behind and take second place to those who have for so long been behind them.

In two, three, four or five years they will go ahead faster than our people in the northern half, yet because we fear Nasser and his propaganda the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster can spend thousands of pounds building a wireless station at Berbera to counter this anti-British propaganda. We can spend money in Berbera because we fear the spoken word in the bazaars of the Middle East, but we have not spent money in the last five or ten years, or even five or ten months, on our Somalis. Yet they are human, like us, with human desires for things like we have in the United Kingdom.

This is a point to which the Minister ought to direct his attention. He should realise that these are places in respect of which we should spend more money. I am told that we could increase the global sum from £25 million to £30 million, or even £50 million if we could get the men to go out. It is merely a matter of the Government of the day to assigning more money to get the men to go out and work in education, local government and public health, and all the other things which are needed.

I draw the Minister's attention to these territories and ask him to think again before he rises to answer the debate.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I first came to this House over thirty-six years ago, but this is the first time that I have ventured to take part in a colonial affairs debate. I would not do so now but for the fact that, last year, Mr. Speaker nominated me as one of the Members to go to the West Indies to present to the Federation House of Representatives a mace from this House. During my stay in the West Indies I had so enlightening a time, particularly in my association with those interested in the spread of education in those islands, that I do not think that I ought to remain silent this afternoon. I shall try to prevent the urge to speak from making me speak for too long.

I want to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) said about the people of the West Indies. It is astonishing to be in a place where there is no colour consciousness. When a speaker confronts an audience of teachers, who ask him, as a fellow-teacher, to speak to them, he finds every possible shade of human colour there. There are white-robed Roman Catholic school masters from the United States, right across to people of whom I hope I shall not be accused of saying anything patronising if I say that they are quite obviously pure-bred negroes, and, in between, Chinese, Hindus and Pakistanis. There are also hybrids from the most astounding amalgams from that wide range of races.

When such a meeting begins a person coming from a country such as this is acutely conscious of the differences of colour, but after a short period of discussion, when he puts less weight upon the colour of the speaker and is simply listening to the argument being adduced, he forgets about colour. That is what I mean by the complete absence of colour consciousness.

As representatives from this House we had the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks. (Sir T. Dugdale), the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme) and myself. We had the great advantage of being entertained both by the island Government and the Federation Government. On one occasion we were entertained by a delightful choir, consisting of people of the same range of colour as had been present at the meeting to which I have referred. People in the choir took their places not according to any basis of race, but according to their appropriate ability to deal with certain items.

I was informed by those capable of judging music, including a former Tory Chief Whip, who is now the Governor-General of the West Indian Federation, that it was a most accomplished performance. I am not capable of judging, since I am completely tone deaf, and only know by reason of the company I am in, or when the audience rises, that they are singing "God Save the Queen", or the "Red Flag".

In the West Indies compulsory education of a sort—by which I mean that there is a sort of compulsion; it is not as effective as it should be—is given between the ages of six and 12. A Federation university has also been established in Jamaica, and the period between 12 years of age and entry to the university is covered by a voluntary arrangement for attending school, and by schools provided from voluntary efforts.

We also saw the Texaco oil wells. That firm takes youths into employment at about the age of 13 and watches them for the first two years. Those who appear to be of a sufficiently high intelligence are then put on to the skilled trades ancillary to this important industry, and at the end of two years they are shifted into one of five skilled trades. In that way the firm was able to spot one boy who, when we were there, was studying in the University of Manchester at the firm's expense, and he will be going back to carry on his life's work with that firm after acquiring high technical qualifications. I also visited Malta with the Under-Secretary. There we were told that the great problem was to place technical skill at the disposal of youths who had the same limited form of primary education, with very little secondary education.

If we are to make our Colonies places where ordinary people can live self-respecting lives, believing that they are using their native abilities in a far higher form of employment than has been possible hitherto, we must do a great deal, by way of the colonial development and welfare funds, to provide secondary education of the widest type in order to prepare people not merely for universities, whether in their own country or here, but also for the employment of those skills which must be the basis of the trade of any self-respecting community aspiring to live an intelligent life of its own.

I was greatly impressed by the desire among certain people with whom I discussed the matter that this should be made possible, and I hope that, not merely in the West Indies but throughout the Commonwealth, we shall devote more money to this purpose. It is essential that young men and women who have the capacity for being trained should receive the necessary training among their own people so that they are able, without having to accept the responsibilities of self-government, to feel that they have in their native resources the capacity to deal with all those economic problems which must be solved by highly educated youths passing on to manhood.

Mr. M. Philips Price (Gloucestershire, West)

I do not want to prolong the debate for more than a few minutes, or to repeat the arguments which have been put forward so well by my hon. Friends, explaining why the Government should accept the Amendment, which will have the effect of compressing the period of investment by two years.

I rise to speak only because I want to add one thought which I do not think has been mentioned. It concerns public and private investment in the Colonies and Commonwealth, which is a matter of vital interest to this country as well as to the people of Africa. The interests of the two people are the same. The old Mother Country and the young developing countries are different sides of the same coin.

We must remember that we are at some disadvantage now, because the Free Trade Area in Europe has temporarily broken down, and it may remain so for some time. As a consequence, it is likely that our trade with the Continent will suffer in the near future; we do not yet know how things will work out. But one trade area, spread all over the world, is open to us, if we can only find the money to help investment to raise the standard of living of the colonial peoples, and to help their general economic development. We are, perhaps, in a better position to do so now than we were a short time ago, because we have an active trade balance. We must invest that and as much else as we can in the Colonies and the Commonwealth.

I do not think that we can do it entirely ourselves. We must have the assistance of the United States—and why not? If we can then form a great investment area for social and economic improvement in what is now our Colonies and Commonwealth, that would be a very good outlet and we could then probably not worry so much about Europe, and, perhaps, Europe—the Common Market—would be coming along and wanting to take part in this great overseas development.

That is the idea I want to put forward to the Committee. It is, to some extent, a race against time. There is now a growing feeling of independence running through Africa, like there has been throughout the Middle East and South-East Asia, taking on unpleasant political forms. One of the ways, but not by any means the only way, in which we can meet that is to show that by staying within this great Commonwealth of nations, economic security is vouchsafed. Therefore, in this race against time, the Bill, small though it is, is extremely important and this little Amendment, which aims at compressing the period of investment, would help to secure the aim which, I am sure, we are all trying to achieve.

Sir John Barlow (Middleton and Prestwich)

I do not propose to speak for more than two or three minutes. Indeed, when I came into the Chamber this evening, I had no intention of speaking at all. There are, however, many hon. Members opposite who seem to think that we have done little or nothing in developing and helping the Colonies over the last twenty or thirty years. I know that many hon. Members opposite have visited the Colonies in comparatively recent years and learnt a great deal about them. Those visits have been most valuable and it is a pity that we cannot do much more of that work.

Through the years, the Colonial Office has done most valuable work. It has not done everything right—at times, I should be the first to criticise it—but, taking its work by and large, during the last thirty years it has done an extraordinarily fine job of work. Although hon. Members may visit different parts of the Colonies for the first time or, perhaps, the second time and by our standards in this country see how far behind they are, perhaps they do not realise how much has been achieved in the last thirty years.

I speak with a little more knowledge of some of the Eastern Colonies and Malaya in particular, because I have visited there fairly regularly for the last thirty-five years. Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not realise the immense amount of social welfare work which has been going on there, quite apart from Government and Colonial Office agencies. It has been little spoken of and many people do not realise it, but I assure the Committee that on the rubber estates of Malaya, for example, of which I have some little knowledge, there have been fairly full welfare state conditions for the last thirty years. They have had their schools, their hospitals, their maternity benefit and their creches.

6.45 p.m.

That has all been done by private enterprise, sometimes in very difficult conditions. Indeed, when the price of rubber or tin may have been very low and it would have been to the immense advantage of everyone, as one hon. Member has pointed out, if there could have been some stabilisation of prices, that has been tried but found to be most difficult. If it were possible, I should be all in favour of it. Indeed, I am constantly trying to search out methods of so doing.

Hon. Members opposite should not decry our colonial system, which has proudly been the best in the world. We have not had facilities or money to achieve as much as we should like, but a great deal of private enterprise, in the form of rubber, tea, oil and other companies, has done a very great deal for the benefit of the colonial peoples which perhaps has not been adequately recognised by some hon. Members opposite.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Julian Amery)

The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), in opening the debate this afternoon, assured us that in cutting down the period of years, as his Amendment seeks to do, there is no intention of cutting down the aid. I assure the hon. Member that it never crossed my mind that that was his intention. There was a time, many years ago, when the party opposite was an appendage of the Liberal Party, when all expenditure on the Empire, as it was then called, was regarded with suspicion. It is, however, one of the great advances of our political life since the war that the two parties have, to a certain extent, competed and striven to see which could produce, at least on the development and welfare side, the better plans and programmes for the well-being of the Commonwealth. Therefore, I welcome the spirit in which the Amendment has been moved, even though, as I must explain in the course of my remarks, the Government cannot accept it as it stands.

Before I come to the reasons that impel me to say that, I should like to deal with some of the points which have been raised during the debate, because in endeavouring to answer them I shall to some extent be building up the case which I have to make in reply. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) spoke of the need in the West Indies for technical advisers, and it is a crying need. Such advisers as there are are largely provided, as the hon. Member knows, as a result of the colonial development and welfare grants. It may well be that under the allocations of the next quinquennium they will be increased.

How those allocations are made is a problem that the hon. Member for Cardiff South-East raised on Second Reading. He did not refer to it today, but I was interested by what the hon. Member said in our last debate, and I have made a point of sitting in at some of the meetings at which these allocations are decided. I assure the hon. Member that the organisation of the Office in this respect seems to me, at least, with my limited experience of administration, completely satisfactory, and that it is treated at a very high level—indeed, at as high a level as is possible—in the Colonial Office, that full time is given to it and that the conclusions do not flow, as, I think, the hon. Member at one time suspected, from each man batting entirely for his own parish, but that there is a wide understanding of the general common need of the Colonial Empire as a whole.

The right hon. Member for Middles-brough, East (Mr. Marquand) referred to the relationship of the help we were giving to the Colonies to the help which they had given us under the sterling balances. It is, of course, true that the debt of this country to the great dollar earners of the Colonial Empire in the immediate post-war period is very great. We can also claim, at least in certain cases, if not in all, to have played a great part in helping them in the war. But, without trying to strike a balance, there is no doubt at all that they were of immense help to us.

Nevertheless, the Colonial sterling balances today are not really as great as has sometimes been thought, and the extent to which they are already committed is very considerable. To begin with, I think it has to be remembered that the balances are not evenly held by different Colonies. Nearly one-quarter, for instance, of the present total is held by Brunei and Hong Kong. In East and West Africa the strain on balances as the result of the fall in commodity prices is considerable. There is not all that much room for manoeuvre with the balances.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that because of the help we have received from the Colonies in the immediate postwar period we ought to make a larger contribution in the help we give them at present when the trends of trade have turned in our favour. The increase in the colonial development and welfare grants does to some extent reflect the increased help which we can give. If we have not been as generous as the right hon. Gentleman would have wished in the past, it has been partly for reasons which I am sure he will understand when he considers these remarks. Sterling area policies designed to fortify sterling as a whole were in a sense just as much in the interest of the Colonies as in ours, and it might have been a very great mistake had we embarked on an attempt to help them with policies which, by weakening sterling, could only in the end have brought injury and suffering to them.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, East also spoke of the shortfall in the assistance we were giving to Kenya. He said, if I understood him aright, that the Government of Kenya had said they could have spent more than the sum they were receiving had greater finance been available. It is important to appreciate that the cut in the Kenya programme is not in items which would have been financed in the ordinary course by development and welfare grants but in items which would have been financed by loans; and the Government of Kenya found difficulty in placing loans on the market. It is, of course, to meet this difficulty that in this Bill we are bringing forward the Exchequer loans, which are to be discussed in greater detail later today. The cut is not quite as drastic as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. Over the last three years the Kenya Government have been spending just over £9 million instead of just under £10 million which was what they had hoped to spend.

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Bilston (Mr. R. Edwards), whose speeches I always find extremely convincing, spoke of the problems of Sierra Leone and the absence in Sierra Leone of a leper colony. I remember in wartime coming back through West Africa and visiting a leper colony in The Gambia, and a very piteous and pathetic sight it was. I am no expert in these matters, but I am advised that modern medical thought leans away from the segregation of lepers. I think that that is the explanation why there is not a leper colony in Sierra Leone at the present time.

The hon. Member for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer) laid particular stress, rightly, if I may say so, on the need to spend on education. He also emphasised that it is much easier to spend on education than on schemes of which he has had experience, where technical staff and so on play their part. What he says is true within certain limits, but teacher training and so on is not as rapid a business as is sometimes thought.

I do not think the record over education is as much to be criticised as some have implied—nearly £13 million on primary and secondary education, £5½ million on technical education, and £10½ million on higher education, all from development and welfare grants, when it is realised that much the greater part of the expenditure, particularly on primary and secondary education, comes, of course, from the local colonial budget on what the Colonies regard as their most urgent social service.

Sir L. Plummer

I have been doing a rapid calculation as the hon. Gentleman has been speaking. I make the total to be something under £30 million, which in 12 years is about £2½ million a year. Spread among many people who have it, it is pretty thin on the ground.

Mr. Amery

In relation to the number of teachers available? The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes), who was in St. Helena recently and has been studying very carefully the position in St. Helena, has come up against the great difficulty there of finding teachers; and people have been sent from St. Helena for teacher training here and have not returned. The problem there is not entirely different from some of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred at the beginning of his remarks.

He spoke in particular about education in Nyasaland, as did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson). Because the matter is topical at present, I would only say that there has been very nearly a fourfold increase in expenditure on education since 1953. when Federation was introduced. The figures are; in 1952, £241,635; in 1953 to 1954, just over £500,000; in 1957 to 1958 it had gone up already to very nearly £566,000; and the estimate for the year just ending is just over £700,000. There has been a substantial increase there.

The hon. Member for Rugby also referred to the problem in Somaliland, It may be that progress in Somaliland has in some respects not been as fast as in Somalia, but we have in fact been particularly successful in increasing the rate of development expenditure which is almost wholly financed by development and welfare grants. The annual figures, looking back over the last four years, not to take them beyond that, are £80,000 in 1955–56, £90,000 in 1956–57, £500,000 in 1957–58, and £700,000 in the year just ended.

The hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), in an otherwise interesting and restrained speech, spoke of the great contribution, as he put it, which the Labour Government had made in their time towards stabilising the prices of primary commodities. I would not altogether dispute what he said. I am by no means dogmatic, and never have been, on this matter of bulk purchase, but I would quote one statement from the Economic Survey for Europe for 1948, which has been reproduced in Socialist Party publications with some pride. This is what it says: The explanation of the relatively low prices paid by the United Kingdom for its imports of food and raw materials appears to lie largely in the extensive use which has been made of long-term contracts and bulk purchasing agreements covering a large proportion of its purchases. We in this country may have benefited to some extent by the fact that as a result of these arrangements relatively low prices were paid, but in a debate of this sort, in which we are saying that our primary duty is to ensure a rising standard of living among the people of the Colonies, this does not sound quite so good. In fact, it sounds a little bit like old-fashioned exploitation.

Mr. Harold Davies

The fact is that we can get relative stability of prices even with moderate or low prices if they are maintained over a long period of time, and that is better than having prices moving up and down, which puts the small producer out of business. I will not argue too much about it, but I think there is point in my argument as well as in what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Amery

I am not suggesting that the hon. Member was entirely wrong in what he said. I am only saying that there is another side to this point. Where the balancing out argument comes, a great deal can be done by commodity funds such as have been developed in Uganda. I should have thought that the experience of Uganda in profiting by the high prices and making a cushion against a fall in prices had shown what a good arrangement it was.

It is hard to tell what impact all this will have over decades on the standard of living of the Colonial peoples. The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) questioned whether we should double their standard of living over the 25-year period mentioned on another occasion by the Leader of the House. That is hard to say. However, they seem to be well on the way to doubling their population, which is an indication in one sense of prosperity. It is also an indication of a very serious problem to which both sides of the House must give their minds, but it is an indication of sufficient nutrition and better health.

The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) gave a very interesting and happy account of meetings that he had had in the West Indies. Some of us who go overseas to the Commonwealth have fortunate experiences like that, but others have more difficult experiences, such as those which we have recently been debating. Sometimes it might be a good thing if we spent a little money on encouraging our own people at home to learn rather more about what happens in the Commonwealth. The other day I met a distinguished Chinese from Singapore who had spent much of his life working for the Co-operative and Labour movement. He visited the United Kingdom and was invited to speak in a mining village in Wales. The meeting was well attended. The chairman introduced the distinguished Chinese politician from Singapore who had long experience of our ways of political life. However, the chairman said: "We are privileged tonight to have with us the representative of a backward people, in this case a Malay. He does not know anything about our procedure. Perhaps we had better explain to him how a meeting works." There is a need for us to learn a little more so that we can tell our constituents more about conditions overseas and the progress which is being made.

To try to draw together the conclusions which the Government reach from the criticism which has been put forward today and from similar criticism in the Second Reading debate, I would say that we are faced with two difficulties when it comes to increasing the expenditure on development and welfare, which is what the hon. Gentleman's Amendment aims at. There is one difficulty which I am glad to say is becoming less, though it is still with us. That is the difficulty on the human side, that of finding the skilled staff, recruiting the necessary organisation and drawing up the plans. This used to be the overriding problem in the days when the hon. Member for Deptford was actively engaged in these matters. It was the hardest nut of all to crack. It is becoming less, but the Colonies do not all move at exactly the same rate, and some of them still suffer to a considerable extent in this respect.

Others suffer—this is the growing problem which we face—from the difficulty of financing the recurrent costs—this is a point which the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) was leading up to—of the development schemes which development and welfare grants help to bring about. These difficulties are very real. While it is easy to say that one could spend more money, it is significant that from the very beginning of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act we have not yet succeeded in a single period in spending all the money which Parliament has voted. Expenditure has always lagged behind the money voted by the House. This happened when the Labour Party was in power just as it has happened while the Conservative Party has been in power; this is not a partisan matter.

Under the Bill a total of £139½ million will be available to be spent in the next five years. Even allowing for depreciation in the value of money, it is still a substantial increase on the amount of money which has been available in any previous quinquennium. Leaving aside the £6¾ million allocated to Nigeria and the £6 million or so to be committed to the Malta dockyard, this leaves more than £25 million a year to be spent compared with £12 million in 1945. The fact remains that in no year so far have the Colonies been able to spend more than £20 million in one year.

For all these reasons, the Government do not feel that they can accept the Amendment, but I should like to try to meet as far as I can the strong feeling which I recognise in the House. We have begun to try to meat it in one way by taking off the ceiling on annual expenditure. I would point out—I hope this may help the hon. Gentleman—that if it seems desirable to the House and the Government in power at the time, we could always introduce the next Bill, as we have this one, a year ahead of the expiry of the period—in 1963—and provide for a year's overlap then. To spend all the money in four years instead of five years would call for an expenditure of £31½ million a year, or £10 million a year more than was spent by this time last year, the highest year on record.

That is something which could be done under this Measure, and it would then be up to the House of Commons to decide what would be the next stage. At any rate, I hold this out to the House as something which could be done. Whether it will be right to do it and whether the Colonial Governments themselves would wish to do it will depend very largely on their ability to finance the recurrent costs of expenditure undertaken, and this opens the whole broad question of the future of their trade. Here at any rate, whatever differences there may be between us on methods—bulk purchase and so on—I think there is strong agreement on both sides of the House that the success of the expenditure proposed in the Measure depends very largely on our being able to promote a steady and increasing volume of inter-Commonwealth trade.

Mr. Callaghan

I recognise that the Under-Secretary has gone some part of the way to meet us. We are not anxious to divide the House merely for the sake of dividing on this matter. What is important is the intention of the Government in the period before 1962. All of us recognise that it will be open to the Government—any Government—in 1962 to introduce a new Bill; but is the Under-Secretary saying that it is now the Government's intention to try to step up the amount of expenditure which is laid down annually? If he is not going to say to us that he is doing any more than dividing the present £95 million by five, or whatever it is, I do not think we can meet on this matter, but if he is saying that where Colonies can show that they can properly spend more and not waste it—the case of Kenya has been mentioned—he will be willing to meet them and enable them to raise their development and welfare expenditure, that would be a valuable concession.

Mr. Amery

With regard to Kenya, I think that the hon. Gentleman was confusing two issues. The cut in the Kenya expenditure has fallen on the services that would normally be financed by loan rather than by grant. It is to meet that difficulty that we have introduced the proviso about Exchequer loans in this Bill and about which there will be, I understand, a debate later this evening.

Mr. Marquand

This hardly alters the fact that the Kenya Government specifically said that it could spend £50 million without any waste but it had to cut the total programme to £30 million. Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that it could possibly raise £20 million by loans on the London market. Surely the Government ought to give them now a larger grant to help them during this difficult period.

Mr. Amery

The important point is that a number of the services that had to be cut back were the ones that would be financed by loans. The right hon. Gentleman raised this question only a short time ago, and I have not been able to look into it in detail. In replying to the hon. Gentleman's point, we have always wished—and this I must underline—to see the money voted by Parliament spent up to the hilt. In an effort to make this easier than it has been before, we have deliberately taken the ceiling off the annual expenditure and, therefore, wherever we see a chance of pushing ahead with useful, valuable expenditure, it will be done. That has always been our intention, and it is our intention more than ever today. It is in token of that that we have taken off the ceiling.

I have tried to explain to the hon. Member that it is open to us on the basis of the quinquennial Act when we come to review the position in 1963 after four years—

Mr. Callaghan

"We"?

Mr. Amery

The House, the Government—and I have no doubt who "we" will be either—and the Committee. It is quite possible, now that the ceiling has gone, for expenditure to be over the four years at a five-year rate, but it will be a gamble, but a fairly good gamble, whether when the time comes the House will vote the overlap, as it were, in reverse. I cannot commit the Government or pledge the Government to this particular course because the great difficulty is that we have not been able in any one year to spend anything like £25 million which would be the five-year division of the sum at present before the Committee.

The most that I can say to the hon. Member is that it is our intention in every way we can to promote useful and constructive development up to the maximum allowed under the sums voted or asked for in the Bill before the Committee at the present time. I think that there is no doubt in the Committee that if there were to be entirely changed circumstances and it were much easier to spend the money than it has been hitherto, the Government of the day would not be unwilling to come back and ask for more if necessary.

Mr. Creech Jones

In the matter of recurrent charges, is it possible for some easement to be made under the terms of the Bill, because that would be of considerable assistance in the territory itself? Secondly, is it not possible to encourage the Colonial Governments themselves to submit many of the schemes which are waiting on the stocks and which they would love to get on with but cannot because they have not the funds available?

7.15 p.m.

I appreciate the importance that hitherto we have attached to the problem of how the territory is to meet recurring charges on any new service or new development that is created. Here funds are not available under the colonial development and welfare Acts. Would it not be possible to ease the position of the Colonial Governments by making it possible for a certain proportion of the money available to be used for the recurrent charges?

Mr. Amery

There may be certain possibilities, and I should like to refer to them in greater detail later on an Amendment which touches that more directly, for a combination of loan and grant. I do not know how far that meets what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but it seems to me to be one way of alleviating the problem.

Mr. Callaghan

We do not want to vote on this if we can avoid it. The Under-Secretary will know that I am only pressing for clarification on this matter. Is he willing to or does he intend to go to these territories and say to them, "If you have plans which we have hitherto turned down on financial grounds and you have the physical resources and the manpower and technical skill available to do them, put them forward again and within the limit of the total sum voted by Parliament we shall be ready to acceler- ate them now irrespective of the annual limit of the total sum divided by five." If the hon. Gentleman is free to say that that will be the policy, I would be inclined to withdraw the Amendment on the basis of that assurance.

Mr. Amery

I have expressly explained and the Bill expressly provides that the annual ceiling which has hitherto been a feature of these Bills is not there. It has gone. Therefore, it is perfectly open to any Colony to put forward schemes for speeding up development. Indeed, I can tell the hon. Gentleman from my experience, short as it is, at the Colonial Office that it is not slow in encouraging schemes. Some of those with whom I work are apt to promote schemes which are attractive and interesting. There is no holdback of this particular kind.

Mr. Callaghan

Is there positive encouragement?

Mr. Amery

Not only is there positive encouragement, but very often it is not we in the Office who hesitate to authorise schemes for financial reasons. Very often it is the Colonial Government which, conscious of the difficulties on the spot, hesitate because of the recurrent charges. It is not by any means that London is the only one which is too cautious in its approach. It is very often, quite naturally and rightly, the Colonial Government on the spot.

The hon. Gentleman can be assured that there is absolutely no obstacle on our part to the full expenditure of the sums voted and we would like to see it because it helps not only the national interest in terms of production—a point which the hon. Member raised earlier himself—but also helps us to discharge our duty in this matter to our fellow subjects in the Colonies where we would like to see this go to the maximum extent that we can.

To help the hon. Member, I tried to go a stage beyond that and foreshadowed that it might be possible—this is not something on which I can now give a definite commitment—over the four years to spend a great deal of the money which is laid down for a quinquennial period, since there is a tradition of bringing in a new Bill a year before the expiry of the old Bill and it would be quite easy to operate the overlap provision in a constructive sense.

Question put, That "sixty-four" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 162. Noes 135.

Division No 77.]	AYES	[7.20 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter	Gibson-Watt, D.	Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Altken, W. T.	Glyn, Col. Richard H	Marlowe, A. A. H.
Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)	Godber, J. B.	Mathew, R.
Alport, C. J. M.	Goodhart, Philip	Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)	Gough, C. F. H.	Medlicott, Sir Frank
Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William	Green, A.	Nairn, D. L. S.
Armstrong, C. W.	Grimond, J.	Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Atkins, H. E.	Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)	Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Baldwin, Sir Archer	Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.	Noble, Michael (Argyll)
Balniel, Lord	Gurden, Harold	Nugent, G. R. H.
Barber, Anthony	Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)	O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Barlow, Sir John	Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)	Osborne, C.
Batsford, Brian	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera (Macclesf'd)	Page, R. G.
Baxter, Sir Beverley	Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)	Partridge, E.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)	Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.	Peel, W. J.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)	Henderson-Stewart, Sir James	Pitman, I. J.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald	Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.	Pitt, Miss E. M.
Bidgood, J. C.	Hill, John (S. Norfolk)	Pott, H. P.
Biggs-Davison, J. A	Hirst, Geoffrey	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bingham, R. M.	Hobson, John (Warwick & Leam'gt'n)	Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Bishop, F. P.	Holland-Martin, C. J.	Prior-Palmer, Brig, O. L.
Bossom, Sir Alfred	Holt, A. F.	Profumo, J. D.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)	Hornby, R. P.	Rawlinson, Peter
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)	Howard, Hon. Granville (St. Ives)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)	Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.	Ridsdale, J. E.
Bryan, P.	Hyde, Montgomery	Roper, Sir Harold
Butcher, Sir Herbert	Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry	Russell, R. S.
Carr, Robert	Iremonger, T. L.	Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Channon, H. P. G.	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Sharples, R. C.
Cooke, Robert	Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)	Shepherd, William
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col, J. K.	Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)	Spearman, Sir Alexander
Corfield, F. V.	Johnson, Eric (Blackley)	Spelr, R. M.
Courtney Cdr. Anthony	Joseph, Sir Keith	Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)	Kerr, Sir Hamilton	Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.	Kershaw, J. A.	Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)	Kimball, M.	Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Currie, G. B. H.	Kirk, P. M.	Studholme, Sir Henry
Dance, J. C. G.	Lambton, Viscount	Temple, John M.
Davidson, Viscountess	Langford-Holt, J. A.	Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Deedes, W. F.	Leavey, J. A.	Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
de Ferranti, Basil	Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)	Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.	Vane, W. M. F.
Doughty, C. J. A.	Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)	Vickers, Miss Joan
du Cann, E. D. L.	Linstead, Sir H. N.	Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)	Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)	Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Duncan, Sir James	Longden, Gilbert	Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)	Loveys, Walter H.	Wall, Patrick
Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)	Lucas, P. B.(Brentford & Chiswick)	Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn	Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Webster, David
Fell, A.	McAdden, S. J.	Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Finlay, Graeme	Macdonald, Sir Peter	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Fisher, Nigel	McLaughlin, Mrs. P.	Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Gammans, Lady	Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Garner-Evans, E. H.	Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
George, J. C. (Pollok)	Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)	Mr. Chichester-Clark and
		Mr. Whitelaw.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Coillck, P. H. (Birkenhead)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Greenwood, Anthony
Awbery, S. S.	Cronin, J. D.	Grey, C. F.
Benson, Sir George	Crossman, R. H. S.	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)	Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)	Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Blenkinsop, A.	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Boardman, H.	Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)	Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.	Deer, G.	Hamilton, W. W.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)	Delargy, H. J.	Hannan, W.
Boyd, T. C.	Dodds, N. N.	Hayman, F. H.
Brockway, A. F.	Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)	Herbison, Miss M.
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)	Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.	Hewitson, Capt. M.
Burton, Miss F. E.	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)	Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)	Holman, P.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)	Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Callaghan, L. J.	Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)	Hunter, A. E.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.	Fernyhough, E.	Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Champion, A. J	Fitch, A. E. (Wigan)	Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Chapman, W. D.	Foot, D. M.	Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn & St. Pncs. S.)
Chetwynd, G. R.	Forman, J. C.	Johnson, James (Rugby)
Cliffe, Michael	Eraser, Thomas (Hamilton)	Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)	Moss, R.	Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)	Moyle, A.	Sorensen, R. W.
Key, Rt. Hon. G. w.	Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)	Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Lawson, G. M.	Oliver, G. H.	Sparks, J. A.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)	Oram, A. E.	Spriggs, Leslie
Llndgren, G. S.	Owen, w. J.	Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Mabon, Dr. J Dickson	Palmer, A. M. F.	Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary	Parkin, B. T.	Thornton, E.
McCann, J.	Plummer, Sir Leslie	Tomney, F.
MacColl, J. E.	Popplewell, E.	Viant, S. P.
MacDermot, Niall	Prentice, R. E.	Warbey, W. N.
Mclnnes, J.	Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, w.)	Weitzman, D.
McKay, John (Wallsend)	Pursey, Cmdr. H.	Wells, Percy (Faversham)
McLeavy, Frank	Randall, H. E.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)	Rankin, John	Wheeldon, W. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Redhead, E. C.	White, Mrs. Elrene (E. Flint)
Mann, Mrs. Jean	Robens, Rt. Hon. A.	Wilkins, W. A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.	Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)	Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Mellish, R. J.	Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)	Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Mikardo, Ian	Short, E. W.	Winterbottom, Richard
Mitchison, G. R.	Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)	Woof, R. E.
Moody, A. S.	Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)	Zilliacus, K.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)	Skeffington, A. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S,)	Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mort, D. L.	Slater, J. (Sedgefield)	Mr. John Taylor and
		Mr. J. T. Price.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.