Lords Sitting of 23 February 1954

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

WORLD CONFERENCE ON CARDIOLOGY
2.35 p.m.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Treasury have now had an opportunity of reconsidering the application of the British Cardiac Society for permission to send a larger number of delegates to the World Conference on Cardiology in Washington during September, and if so, with what result.]
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, after full consideration the Treasury has allowed currency for the full number of delegates applied for—namely, thirty-two.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Is the noble Lord aware that the medical profession will be most grateful to Her Majesty's Government, and that the effect which this action will have in America will be of considerable value?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are always pleased to receive the gratitude of their faithful subjects.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Since when have we become the "faithful subjects" of Her Majesty's Government?

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD LLOYD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Bromyard, a copy of
1040
which was laid before the House on February 16, be approved.—(Lord Lloyd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOOD AND DRUGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.40 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]
Clause 1:
Offences in connection with preparation and sale of injurious foods and adulterated drugs
(5) In determining for the purposes of this Act whether an article of food is injurious to health, regard shall be had not only to the probable effect of the consumption of that article by a person of normal health, but also to the probable cumulative effect of the consumption by such a person of articles of substantially the same composition in ordinary quantities.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME)THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (THE EARL OF HOME) moved, in subsection (5) to omit "of the consumption of that article by a person of normal health" and to insert:
"of that article on the health of a person consuming it."
The noble Earl said: The purpose of this Amendment is to dispense with the words "of normal health" which it is thought would make unnecessary difficulties in the courts and elsewhere. I beg to move this Amendment, and the two following Amendments which are consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 8, leave out from ("effect") to ("but") in line 9, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, leave out ("of the consumption by such a person").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, after ("composition") insert ("on the health of a person consuming such articles").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, after subsection (5) to insert:
"(6) A food shall be deemed to be injurious to health if it contains or has been processed with any synthetically produced chemical unless the use of such chemical in relation to that particular food stuff has been permitted by regulations made by the Ministers."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is intended to prevent the use of chemicals in foodstuffs unless and except in so far as they have been officially approved under regulations made, as they can be made under this Bill. On the occasion of the English Bill we had some discussion about similar matters. I understand, of course, that the English Bill is in substance similar to this one. I understood then that one of the objections which the Government had to an Amendment which was moved was that it would prevent the use of such things as salt as a flavouring material, or bicarbonate of soda in baking, and a number of other things which are traditionally used in the preparation of food. I cannot myself see that there is any real objection to disclosing that things of that kind have been used, nor do I think that it would impose any great burden upon manufacturers if they were required to say so.
In order to meet that point, however, I have put down this Amendment in its present form, so that regulations may be made which would exempt from the necessity of disclosure such well-tried and customary ingredients in foodstuffs. But it is extremely important that there should be full disclosure to the public of other chemical substances, now running into many hundreds, which are used for various purposes in connection with the preparation of foods intended for sale to the public. Many of these have properties which are, as yet, quite unknown. A number of them have been found to be definitely toxic. Quite a number of articles which are still permitted to be used in this country have been banned by the Food and Drugs Administration in the United States because, as a result of experiments, they have been shown to be likely to be injurious to health. Examples of these are numerous. One class consists of the so-called Azo dyes, some of which have been proved to be toxic or to lead to the development of cancer, and all of them are under suspicion. So far I understand it is still permissible in this
1042
country to use most, if not all, of them. Then there are many other colouring and flavouring matters of a synthetic nature on which no adequate research has been done, and I submit that there is a prima facie case for preventing the use of them in foodstuffs. If they are to be permitted to be used in that way, the Government ought to take the responsibility of saying they can be used, and making it perfectly clear that they consider them to be safe. That is the purpose of this Amendment, and I beg to move it.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
LORD SALTOUN: Before the discussion proceeds, I should like to know what is the noble Lord's definition of "synthetically produced." It seems to me to be a difficult thing to bring into an Act of Parliament. I do not know what the definition of the term is.
LORD DOUGLAS OF B.A.RLOCH: If I may he allowed to say so, I think the words define themselves. Most of us—and chemists in particular—know very well what it is to produce an article synthetically instead of using one which has been found to exist in nature.
THE EARL.OF HOME: The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is being quite consistent, in that he has pursued this objective right the way through the English Bill and now he hopes to gain his object in the Scottish Bill. He wants, as his Amendment says, to prohibit the introduction of any synthetically produced ingredient in food unless it is approved in regulations. I think it simply would not be possible to review the whole of this field before the Bill becomes law. I would remind the noble Lord of the different requirements in the various clauses. Clause 1 places the onus on the manufacturer not to use substances injurious to health. That is one safeguard. Under Clause 5, the Ministers can call for any information they want, and under Clause L if the Ministers, after receiving that information, are convinced that the use of a certain substance is injurious to health they can make regulations accordingly. As I have said, I do not think it would be possible to review this whole field before the Bill becomes law. But on the assurance that

1043
it is the intention of the Ministers to work out, as soon as possible, a considered programme under Clauses 4 and 5, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, may feel that that is as far as we can practically go in existing circumstances, and will, therefore, be inclined to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: if it is the intention of the Government—and I should like to be quite clear about this point—to use the machinery which is provided in Clauses 4 and 5 in order to achieve the object which is envisaged in my Amendment, then, of course, I shall be happy to withdraw it. If that is the assurance which is given, I shall welcome it very much indeed. There is just one other thing I should like to say. It is true, in a sense, that, under Clause 1 of the Bill, the onus is imposed upon the manufacturer of a foodstuff not to sell anything which is injurious to health. But it is also true that under the scheme of this Bill the onus of proving that, in fact, it is injurious to health is thrown upon the consumer or else upon the public health authorities, who are not given any notice of what the content of any foodstuff is or of what has been added to it. I think that ought to be made clear, because if, in fact, there were an onus thrown on manufacturers to prove, before they sold anything, that it was not injurious to health, that would be a very different story from what is actually in the Bill.
THE EARL OF HOME: The Government have deliberately adopted the machinery of Clauses 4 and 5, by which the Ministers can first of all call for information and then, if, on that information, they are satisfied that a substance is injurious to health, they can make a regulation which will ban the use of that substance. The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, asks whether we shall arrive at the same goal as he wishes to reach. I am not sure whether we shall arrive at quite the same goal, but we shall get some way towards it, perhaps, under regulations made under the Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not feel inclined to press his Amendment.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: The noble Earl has not given me as complete an assurance as I had hoped for.
1044
On the other hand, I know that these things must move by stages, and, in the circumstances, I would ask leave of the Committee to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Fraudulent sales of food and drugs]:
2.49 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved to add to the clause:
"(4) A food shall be deemed to be not of the quality demanded by the purchaser if any constituent has been abstracted so as to reduce its nutritional value, or if some synthetically produced chemical has been used in substitution of a natural substance."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the abstraction from foodstuffs of matters which have nutritive value, and also with the substitution for natural food substances of other things which may or may not have any nutritional value at all. Neither of those matters is dealt with in the Bill as it stands. It is serious if valuable nutritive elements are extracted from foods and the usefulness of food to the consumer is diminished. If that is done, some remedy ought to be provided. If this Amendment is accepted, it will still be permissible to do that under the Bill, provided there is a disclosure to the purchaser that that has been done. What I am proposing is not unduly onerous and need not necessarily interfere with any of the existing courses of manufacture. If a manufacturer wishes to continue to do what he has been doing, then he is afforded a defence by Clause 3 by disclosing to the purchaser what it is he has taken out of the food.
The same kind of argument applies with regard to the substitution of things which are not natural foodstuffs for substances which are. They may take many forms—for example, the substitution of artificial sweetening agents, such as saccharin, which have no nutritive value whatsoever, in place of sugar, which has a considerable nutritive value. Other examples are afforded by the baking industry, where many kinds of fat substitutes are used in place of lard and other natural fats which have long been a traditional means of producing cakes and other bakery products. If that is done, I think the consumer ought to have

1045
some protection. Again, a manufacturer can do it under this proposed Amendment if he makes use of the machinery under Clause 3 and discloses to the consumer what it is he has done. Therefore I commend this Amendment as affording to the general public a protection against having the value of their foods diminished. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not think that I can accept the contention in the last part of the noble Lord's Amendment. The use of synthetic chemicals in substitution for natural constituents of foodstuffs may be justified. There is the case of the injection of vitamins into "white" bread and margarine. I have considered whether it would be possible to think again about the first part of the noble Lord's Amendment, and I will do so before Report stage, although I can hold out little chance of finding words that are likely to he suitable to him. As I see it, the first part of the Amendment, dealing with the abstraction from food of substances of nutritional value, might have the effect of making it impossible for anybody to produce corned beef, and it would be a roundabout way of making it illegal for anybody to eat anything but wholemeal bread. I cannot: get over these practical difficulties by finding new words which would suit the noble Lord's objective. If the noble Lord wishes, I will have a look at the first part of his Amendment before Report stage, but I do not hold out any hopes of an alteration which would suit him and I would ask your Lordships to resist this Amendment.
LORD SALTOUN: I should be sorry if your Lordships were to accept the second part of the Amendment. When I was young, children were fed on bread and jam, which was made of glucose. I do not know whether the noble Lord considers glucose to be synthetic, but we cannot get jam like that nowadays, made with glucose. In those days that world have come under the noble Lord's ban.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: It is interesting to know that jam is less good to-day because of a lack of glucose. If the noble Lord wants to find out the reasons—because there are a
1046
number of them—they lie in another direction. A great deal of jam is made not out of fresh fruit, but out of fruit which has been preserved with anti-staling agents, such as sulphur dioxide, and it has to he bleached and recoloured with chemical dyes in order to make it look like natural fruit. It is adulterated by pectin or other extenders in order to reduce the amount of the more valuable ingredients which are contained in it, and in fact it does not contain, as the best jam made at home does, fresh fruit and sugar, which is all that is necessary to make the most excellent jam. I do not want to pursue the details of this matter.
Let me come back to what the noble Earl in charge of the Bill has said. He said the second part of my Amendment would prevent the addition of vitamins to foodstuffs such as margarine and bread. I do not think that is correct, because, as I explained to your Lordships, this clause has to be read with Clause 3, which succeeds it; and, as I understand it, Clause 3 affords a defence to a food manufacturer if he discloses to the consumer what it is he has done. I would far sooner have my vitamins as natural products then as synthetic products, and there is evidence to show that the synthetic products do not achieve quite the same results as the natural ones. Perhaps that is not altogether surprising, because the more we know about the subject the more complex we find the constituents of natural foodstuffs to he. In the last twenty or thirty years innumerable things, which are shown to be essential to health, have been discovered which nobody ever dreamed of before. That is why I think, on the face of it, there is a case against the addition of synthetic chemicals to foodstuffs. I think it is right to make that clear, but I am willing to withdraw this Amendment and upon Report stage try to produce it, in part at any rate, in a form which meets the difficulties the noble Earl has explained.
THE EARL OF HOME: I do not want to mislead the noble Lord. I do not see any chance of meeting his point on the Report stage. T have tried as hard as I can to see whether there is any way in which I could do so, but I have failed to find one. I cannot see how we could get away from the words of the noble Lord's

1047
Amendment, or talk round them. However I will look at it again, but on the understanding that I am afraid I shall not make much progress in the direction the noble Lord wants.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I understand that that is not a pledge on the part of the noble Earl.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Defences available in proceedings under s. 2]:
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, in subsection (1) to omit paragraph (a). The noble Earl said: This Amendment is moved to ensure that nobody will be able to plead in defence that the addition or subtraction of any constituent in the food was necessary to preserve it in carriage. It is a clarification made after the English Bill went through your Lordship's House, and I feel that it is desirable to include it in this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 37, leave out lines 37 to 40.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This is a drafting Amendment to clarify the wording. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, after the first ("or") insert ("was sold").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This is a further drafting Amendment to clarify the wording. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 44, leave out ("containing") and insert ("displaying").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4:
Regulations as to composition of food, etc.
4.—(1) The Ministers may, so far as appears to them to be necessary or expedient in the interests of the public health, or otherwise for the protection of the public, make regulations for any of the following purposes:—

(a) for requiring, prohibiting or regulating the addition of any specified substance, or any substance of any specified class, to food intended for sale for human consumption
1048
or any class of such food, or the use of any such substance as an ingredient in the preparation of such food, and generally for regulating the composition of such food;

(b) for requiring, prohibiting or regulating the use of any process or treatment in the preparation of any food intended for sale for human consumption or any class of such food;

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH moved, in subsection (1) (a) to leave out "requiring." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the one immediately following are directed to the same purpose and, for convenience. I will speak on them both at the same time. This is a matter which was discussed upon the English Bill, and I shall not detain your Lord- ships by repeating at any length what I then said. The object of this Amendment is to deprive the Government of the power to insist upon the addition of anything which they please to some article of food—for example, the proposal which we discussed not long ago to add iodine to salt, or the practice which is now in operation of adding chalk to bread. This latter may not be a particularly obnoxious practice because, though it is probably of no value, it has little detrimental effect. However, a power of this kind is one which we ought not to admit. It is an infringement of the liberty of the subject to oblige him to take medication whether he needs it or not, and it is the antithesis of all rational medical practice. Although I do not expect to be successful in persuading the Government to accept this Amendment, I feel that, as a matter of principle, this point must be made upon the Scottish Bill just as it was made upon the English Bill. So far as I know, it is the first time that anything of this kind has been proposed as part of the permanent legislation of this country. As we all know, it was done under emergency powers during war time, and it may or may not have had some temporary justification. But to make it part of the permanent machinery of the State that the Government can oblige people to eat or drink things, irrespective of their inclination, is a power so arbitrary and so far-reaching that I feel it ought not to be accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 25, leave out ("requiring").—(Lord Douglas of Barloch.)
THE EARL OF HOME: We must all respect the pertinacity of the noble Lord; if he cannot get a thing one way, lie tries another. His slogan is "Pure natural food, undiluted and unadulterated in any way." However, there is a strong belief held by others that health is not only maintained but improved by the addition of certain substances; and our experience in the war would seem to sustain that point of view. If this Amendment were accepted, it would be impossible to add nutrients or vitamins to flour, or to the various substances about which we have been talking—iodine to salt, fluorine to water, and the rest. Of course, Ministers will make it their business to obtain the best possible advice in applying this clause. The noble Lord said that he does not expect me to accept this Amendment, and I will not disappoint him: I am afraid that I cannot do so.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I beg to move the next Amendment formally, in order to have it on record.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 32, leave out ("requiring").—(Lord Douglas of Badoch.)
On Question, Amendment negatived.
3.9 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT moved to add to subsection (1),
"(e) for publishing lists of chemicals and other ingredients which may be added to any article of food."
The noble Lord said: When I was in the other place we there had a Pharmacy Bill, under which it was decided that all patent medicines—in fact, any medicine in a bottle or other container—should have the ingredients stated on the cut-side. I want to ensure the same thing with regard to patent foods, so that the housewife will know what she is giving to her children. She may find that she is giving her children for breakfast a particular food with a certain chemical in it. That infinitesimal amount of chemical may be all right, provided that it is given for breakfast only, and not during the rest of the day. My point is that, if the housewife knows about these chemicals being in the food, she will make sure that her children do not get too much of a particular chemical. My suggestion on the English Bill did -not meet with the approval of the Govern-
1050
ment, and so I have tried here to put it in a different way. I now want to know whether they will publish a list of chemicals and other ingredients which may be added to any article of food. If that could be done, and if the list could be easily obtainable by the housewives, then I should have gone some way towards getting what I want. We know perfectly well, and the medical profession know perfectly well, that a person can take a certain amount of chemical without its doing him any harm. If he takes more, however, it builds up in his system, and I wish to obviate all that sort of thing. I take the view that this matter is a serious one in regard to the health of the people in this country. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment, which it seems to me will enable housewives and all those who take an interest in this subject to know what is permissible in the way of adding drugs and chemicals to foodstuffs. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Teviot.)
THE EARL OF HOME: The object of this Amendment can be achieved under the regulations for which the Bill provides. Under the regulations the Ministers may prohibit or they may allow. In the case when they allow ingredients to he used in a particular foodstuff, or when they prohibit them, regulations will be published. If I can help the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, by arranging for more comprehensive lists, I shall be glad to do so, but it can be done administratively without an Amendment such as he has moved.
LORD TEVIOT: I thank my noble friend for his reply to my Amendment. It seems to me that he has met me all along the line, and with the permission of the House I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF HOME: This Amendment directs Ministers, in making regulations as to the composition of food, to restrict, so far as possible, the use of substances that are of no nutritional value. I think that, for that reason, this Amendment will be welcomed by the Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, at end insert—
"(2) In the exercise of their functions under this section the Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of restricting, so far as practicable, the use of substances of no nutritional value as foods or as ingredients of foods."—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Labels and advertisements describing incorrectly food or drugs]:
THE EARL OF HOME: It is proposed by this Amendment to leave out the words "nature, substance or." It is thought that if these words are left in the Bill there will be room for endless argument in court proceedings as to whether the advertisement misled as to the nature or the substance or the quality of the food, and that it is better to rest on the quality of the food, rather than include the words "nature" and "substance" as well. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("nature, substance or").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Regulations as to labelling and description of food
.—(1) Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing section, the Ministers may make regulations for imposing requirements as to, and otherwise regulating, the labelling marking or advertising of food intended for sale for human consumption, and the descriptions which may be applied to such food.
LORD SEMPILL LORD SEMPILL moved, in subsection (1) to substitute "shall" for "may" where that word first occurs. The noble Lord said: When your Lordships last debated this Bill I submitted a suggestion in regard to the clear labelling of all packaged foodstuffs. I suggested that the regulations which normally maintain in all chemists' shops under which when one goes in there to buy medicines of one kind or another all are clearly labeled, should maintain also so far as foodstuffs are concerned. Since there may be up to 700 different chemical substances used in the production, processing and packaging
1052
of food, it is essential, in my view, that these substances should be specifically declared on the label of the container. At other times when food has been debated in your Lordships' House this suggestion has been strongly supported by the noble Lords, Lord Silkin, Lord Hankey, Lord Teviot and Lord Douglas of Barloch. On a previous debate, the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, said (OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 184, col. 491):
"…the parts of this Bill that appeal to me are those designed to deal with misleading labels and advertisements.…"
Surely, that is a clear indication that the labels should state what is in the package.
When this matter was before your Lordships on December 3, the noble Earl the Minister of State for Scotland referred sympathetically to this suggestion and spoke of "honest labelling." He pointed out that labelling provisions were taken care of in Clauses 6 and 7. When a like suggestion was made on the English Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Woolton, referred to Clause 5 of that Bill as having similar provisions. The clause to which I particularly wish to direct attention this afternoon is Clause 7, which most certainly gives the Ministers power to label. This clause is entirely permissive, and I hope your Lordships will support my Amendment, and that the noble Earl the Minister of State for Scotland will agree, to change this one word "may" to "shall," so as to make that clause obligatory.
As the bulk of foodstuffs which the housewife buys is in a container or wrapper, the rapid implementation of clear labelling provides no difficulty. The housewives are becoming more and more food conscious, and are rightly alarmed at the adulteration, sophistication, substitution, abstraction, medication and contamination, that may, and all too often I submit do, occur in the production, processing and packaging of foodstuffs.
I beg the noble Earl to agree to my Amendment. I can assure him that this is no fancy of a few Members of your Lordships' House, but the keen wish of the housewives of Scotland who this morning, through Mistress Elizabeth Pattullo of Glamis, the Secretary of the Scottish Housewives' Association, sent me the following telegram which, with

1053
your Lordships' permission, I will read. It is very short and to the point, and says:
"We wish you in the name of the Scottish Housewives Association to secure honest labelling of foodstuffs as suggested by you in the House of Lords in the debate on February 16."
I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Sempill.)
THE EARL OF HOME: It is not the first time that this controversy, as to whether the word in a Bill shall be "may" or "shall," has been raised in Parliament. The trouble with the word "shall" is that it makes it absolutely mandatory on a Minister, and would imply that the Minister should, therefore, make regulations about every sort and kind of food without; exception. I do not think the case is made out for that wholesale treatment of all food in the country. It would be better to give the Minister some discretion, and it is the intention of the Minister to continue the policy of making regulations as to labelling of food wherever there seems to be justification. I do not know if the noble Lord has appreciated that his Amendment would make it absolutely mandatory in the case of all foodstuffs.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: Is that interpretation of the noble Lord's Amendment correct? If the Amendment is accepted, this subsection will say:
"… the Ministers shall make regulations for imposing requirements as to, and otherwise regulating, the labelling, marketing or advertising of food."
But is it not possible in the regulations to say that certain articles of food need not be labelled? Would not that be a regulation made under the mandatory provision? In other words, the regulations would require articles of food generally to be labelled but could provide that there would be certain exceptions. Therefore, I venture to submit that the noble Earl's objection to the noble Lord's Amendment is not entirely well-founded. Certainly it is extremely desirable that as a general rule there should he some kind of regulation requiring foodstuffs to be labelled. That is something which is done in almost every civilised country. Many of us were very thankful to see, during the course of the late War and the subsequent stringency, food parcels given by generous donors in other
1054
countries, all carefully labelled to explain the composition of the food, and, in many cases, going a stage further than that and explaining in what ways the foodstuffs had been processed. Therefore there is nothing unusual about this proposal, nor is there any insuperable difficulty in carrying it out.
LORD SILKIN: I should like to say a few words about this Amendment. Throughout the debate on this Bill and, if I may make reference to it, on another Bill also, the same point has figured and the same principle applies. It has always been an answer, on this 'question of labelling, that the Minister has power to make regulations; and in some instances the Bill has gone further and said that it is the intention to make regulations. On that statement I and many others have thought we might let the matter rest. If it really is the intention of the Minister to make regulations on this question of labelling, then we should be satisfied; but as things stand at: present he is not under any obligation. Now the noble Earl says that under this Amendment the Minister would be required to make regulations in respect of all foodstuffs. It may be so: I should not wish to enter into any legalistic argument on the subject. But that is, not a reason for entirely rejecting the, principle of the Amendment. It is no doubt a reason for saying that this particular Amendment will not do. I ask the noble Earl to look at it again and see whether he cannot meet the wishes of those who have been pressing this, matter all along, and, in fact, fulfil what he has given the Committee to understand is the intention of Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF HOME: I have not rejected this Amendment out of hand because I wanted to hear what noble Lords felt about the matter. My trouble is that under the subsection as it is drafted the Minister may make a regulation saying that something shall be labelled, but he cannot make a regulation saving that something shall not be labelled. But if the noble Lord, Lord Sempill, asks me to do so, I will certainly look again at the wording of this clause. We think that the present wording allows the Minister to fulfil this discretion; and if the Minister intends to exercise the discretion to label fairly large numbers of

1055
foodstuffs it may not be necessary to label the whole. We think that that discretion is necessary, but, as I say, I will look into the matter again.
LORD SEMPILL: I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he will look into this matter again. May I ask him whether he would be in favour—I presume he would—of all manufacturers of products who wished to do so fully labelling their products, stating clearly just what they contain? I think it would be useful if the Minister were to say an encouraging word in regard to that. As your Lordships know, the official mind is very label-conscious at the moment, and there may be a certain resistance in the noble Earl's mind, in view of the fantastic stories that are going round about what is alleged to have been happening in the dungeon's under Waterloo Station, where, and all because of a label, a lot of useful crockery is being broken up—as great an Aunt Sally show as any of your Lordships could ever hope to attend. It would be a good idea if the noble Earl could invite his Scots colleagues to such a party and arm them with pots of "witches' brew" jam—a product of fruit pulp preserved in sulphur dioxide—to shy at the plates with the offending letters. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment in view of the Minister's promise to look into the matter again.
LORD SALTOUN: As the noble Lord has mentioned the matter, I think I ought to draw his attention to the fact that this story about Waterloo Station has been contradicted to-day in The Times—I think officially.
LORD CROOK: May I suggest that, in fairness to the British Railways and their catering department, the noble Lord should withdraw this imputation, because it is a newspaper mare's nest, which has been completed refuted to-day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 to 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Regulations as to food hygiene]:
THE EARL OF HOME: We thought we should define persons who were to be responsible for food hygiene regulations. We have been able to define such persons in the Bill, and that is the object of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 3, leave out from ("may") to the end of line 9 and insert ("impose responsibility for compliance with those requirements on the occupier of the premises and, in the case of requirements of a structural character, on any owner of the premises who either lets them for use for a purpose to which the regulations apply or permits them to be so used after notice from the authority charged with the enforcement of the regulations").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD MATHERS: I should like to say a few words on this subject. This is a great regulation-authorising clause, and I want to make special reference to the first part of it, where the nature and the substance of the regulations are not so specifically defined as they are in subsection (2). I particularly want to make reference to regulations regarding the exposure of the various goods that come within the ambit of this Bill. The word "contamination" has already been used in connection with the previous Amendment, and it is to guard against contamination that I ask the Government to make sure that the regulations are made in very firm, strong, and clear terms. I will give only two instances of what I have in mind. Dogs are admitted to shops, and in greengrocers' shops, for example, many goods are standing about, exposed, without protection, and they are down on the level of the floor. One finds dogs in the shop, sniffing and blowing around the food—and worse. Either there should be a prohibition on dogs entering shops where goods are exposed in that way, or there should be an obligation upon the shopkeeper to see that any possibility of contamination is prevented. I will not dwell upon that matter. I am sure that what I am aiming at in the remarks I have just made will be quite clear.
Another instance I cite is that of the baker's shop, where fine cakes are shown on the counter, temptingly laid out. I know that many ladies go into those shops and regard those cakes as most tempting. There is a real temptation to them to buy them, and it is a real struggle for them, in many cases, to refrain from buying them. They do so only by the severe discipline that they impose on themselves, a kind of "Waste not, want not" idea. If they do not refrain from

1057
buying those things, then they will have no waist-line worth talking about or looking at. I look upon this sort of thing as perhaps the most wasteful way—another spelling of "waist"—of using sugar, fats and flour. However, that is by the way. These goods are exposed and people, including ladies, go into these shops, sometimes smoking. It seems to me that smoking should be prohibited where delicate goods of that nature are exposed and within reach of being contaminated in that way, not only by the smoke itself but also by the tobacco ash, about which some people are careless. I have made my point and given two instances. I hope that I can have an assurance from the Minister that this form of possible contamination will he looked at carefully, and that regulations will be math, to ensure that goods are handed over to the people in as clean a state as possible.
THE EARL OF HOME: I will certainly give that assurance. This clause has deliberately been made wide enough to cover such instances and possibilities as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mathers. In the framing of regulations I shall be glad to have discussions with him as to what might reasonably be covered, and to deal with any further points he has in mind.
LORD MATHERS: I thank the noble Earl warmly for the way in which he has received my remarks.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Registration of slaughterers, manufacturers and traders]:
THE EARL OF HOME: This is really a clarification Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 25, after ("premises") insert (", vehicle, stall or place").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Refusal, etc., of registration under s. 14]:
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, in paragraph (c) of subsection (1), after "unsuitable" to insert:
"having regard to their situation, construction or condition, or to any activities carried on therein."
1058
The noble Earl said: In the English Bill I believe that it was thought that the word "unsuitable," occurring in the corresponding paragraph of the Bill, might lead people to take into account matters not relevant to the public health. This Amendment seems to provide a reasonable qualification here. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 2, after ("unsuitable") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 16 to 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Establishment by local authority of cold stores]:
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, in subsection (1), to omit "who have provided or are about to provide a slaughterhouse." The noble Earl said: In Scotland, we want a definition which will give power to any local authority to provide a cold store where necessary. English local authorities have a wide power to provide cold stores under Section 62 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1938. This Amendment gives a similar power to Scottish local authorities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 1, leave out from ("authority") to ("may") in line 2.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 27 and 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Powers of sampling]:
THE EARL OF HOME: Under subsection (4), as it stands at present, the sampling officer is restricted as to the places at which he, may take samples on request. There is no such restriction on him if he himself initiates the taking of samples. We think it reasonable that there should not he any restriction on him when he is requested to take samples. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 30, leave out ("in the course of or at the place of delivery").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Right to have samples analysed]:
THE EARL OF HOME: This Amendment again corresponds to one in the English Bill. It is intended to ensure that a private person who is submitting a sample for analysis under this clause will not be permitted to send substances unconnected with food. The local authority sampling officer is already limited, by the terms of Clause 29, to substances connected with food. I commend this Amendment to your Lordships as bringing this clause into line with the other clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 2, after ("substance") insert ("capable of being used in the preparation of food").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This Amendment is to enable the public analyst who is unable to perform an effective analysis, probably because he does not possess the necessary equipment, to make use of the superior facilities which may be available in the laboratory of another public analyst. It is a convenience which I think we should put into the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 13, after ("vacant") insert (", or if the public analyst for that area is for any reason unable to perform an effective analysis,").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Disposal of samples taken for analysis]:
3.40 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: The effect of this Amendment is, that where the name or address of a manufacturer or packer appears on an article sampled the sampling officer must inform him that he has taken a sample and from whom it was taken. The underlying reason for this is, I think, quite fair—namely, that where goods have been pre-packed by a manufacturer, and proceedings may eventually be brought against him, he should be notified at the earliest possible moment that a sample has been taken. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 10, at end insert—
("(4) If it appears to a sampling officer that any food, (rug or substance of which he has
1060
procured a sample was manufactured or put into its wrapper or container by a person (not being a person to whom one part of the sample is required to be given under this section) having his name and an address in the United Kingdom displayed on the wrapper or container, the officer shall within three days of procuring the sample send to that person a notice informing him that the sample has been procured by the officer and where the sample was taken or, as the case may be, from whom it was purchased.").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 27, after ("section") insert ("(except subsection (4))").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question,. Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 31, as amended, shall stand part of this Bill?
LORD SALTOUN: May I ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he thinks that "three days" is correct? Would not "immediately" be more satisfactory?
THE EARL OF HOME: I will look at that point.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Special provisions as to the sampling of milk and proceedings subsequent thereto]
THE EARL OF HOME: The next two Amendments are merely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 39, leave out from ("area") to ("authorised") and insert ("an")—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("the medical officer or other") and insert ("an").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Provision as to cases in which division of sample into parts is impracticable]:
THE EARL OF HOME: This is really a drafting Amendment to simplify the wording. The clause makes special arrangements for the sampling of goods in unopened containers. The practice is

1061
to divide a sample into three parts—or, where it is not possible to divide the sample into three, to have three separate tins of tinned food. I am afraid that, as a result of this Amendment, the clause now reads rather like the instructions for the "three-card trick." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 18, leave out ("the requisite number of") and insert ("three").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Proceedings]:
THE EARL OF HOME: This Amendment makes it clear that the day on which the sample is procured is counted in the two months within which the proceedings, if any, must be commenced. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 46, leave out ("from the time when") and insert ("beginning with the date on which").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 and 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Power of court to require analysis by Government Chemist]:
THE EARL OF HOME: This is a drafting Amendment which makes good an omission in the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 27, after ("be") insert ("sufficient").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 45, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Orders and regulations]:
THE EARL OF HOME THE EARL OF HOME moved, in subsection (6), to leave out all words after "such" and to insert:
"organisations as appear to them to he representative of interests substantially affected by the orders or regulations, as the case may be."
The noble Earl said: I think this is a provision which the Committee will welcome. It is an attempt to render somewhat more precise the obligation upon Ministers to carry out adequate consultations before making regulations. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 29, leave out from ("such") to end of line and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Interpretation]:
THE EARL OF HOME: This is an attempt to see that the word "analyse" is interpreted in the same way as the word "analysis." I am assured that those who work out these things know what this Amendment means, and that it is necessary. I hope the Committee agree. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 35, at end insert ("and 'analyse' shall De construed accordingly;").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This Amendment and the next are intended to cover a case which is not purely that of a slaughter-house only, but may be that of a. stable or premises which are essential to the business of a slaughter-house. It is a slight widening of the term "premises." I beg to move this and the following Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 4, after ("premises") insert ("or place other than premises").—(The Earl of Horne.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 40, after ("premises") insert ("or place other than premises").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF HOME: This Amendment is intended to secure that, where meals are supplied free of charge by a catering establishment—for instance, to their employees—the supply shall be regarded as a sale and, accordingly, is brought within the ambit of the Bill. The ordinary business of catering establishments is, of course, undoubtedly within the ambit of the Bill. This Amendment brings in that part of the business which would otherwise have been outside. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 40, line 3, after ("any") insert ("catering establishment.").—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended agreed to.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Minor amendments, repeals and savings]:
THE EARL OF HOME: Subsection (4) was included in the Bill by an oversight. It was put into an earlier draft of the Bill, but is now no longer necessary. I beg to move that we leave it out.
Amendment moved—
Page 41, line 17, leave out subsection (4).—(The Earl of Home.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed.

THE FUTURE OF UGANDA
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the Business of your Lordships' House for a few moments in order to make a statement, similar to that which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary, on the future of Uganda.
The long-term aim of Her Majesty's Government is to build the Protectorate into a self-governing State. In working towards this we shall ensure that Africans play a constantly increasing part in the political institutions of the country, in the Civil Service and in economic development. When self-government is achieved, the government of the country will be mainly in the hands of Africans. The advancement of Africans and the economic development on which that advancement depends cannot take place without the help of the other races. When the time for self-government eventually comes, Her Majesty's Government will wish to be satisfied that the rights of the minority communities resident in Uganda are properly safeguarded in the Constitution, but this will not detract
1064
from the primarily African character of the country. I have placed in the Library copies of two speeches made by the Governor to the Protectorate Legislature on November 20 last year and on February 5 this year. These speeches set out the comprehensive measures which the Protectorate Government is taking, for African advancement, and I would commend them to the attention of noble Lords.
Some fears have been expressed that the development of Uganda's economic resources will bring in large numbers of permanent immigrants. These fears are groundless. We must expand mining and secondary industries in order to diversify the economy and to pay for the expansion of social and other services. For this outside capital and technical staff are needed and must have their proper reward. But there will be safeguards to ensure that the future interests of the Africans are not prejudiced. There will be strict control of immigration and of the alienation of land, and the Uganda Government and industry itself will train Africans for higher positions and ensure proper conditions of labour. No industrial colour bar will be tolerated in Uganda. The Governor is ready to discuss with African representatives any suggestions that they may make to help allay any fears, if such still remain.
It is too early to forecast the form of the Constitution of Uganda when self-government is eventually achieved, though it is clear that only as a united country will Uganda be strong enough and prosperous enough to meet the growing needs of the people. There are, however, constitutional questions relating to Buganda—in particular the future relationship between the Kabakaship, the Ministers and the Great Lukiko, and the relations between the Great Lukiko and the Legislative Council—which must be looked at now so that we can decide on what lines it is best for these relationships to develop. The Baganda themselves should clearly take a leading part in working out these problems. To help in this, the Governor and my right honourable friend the Colonial Secretary have agreed that an independent expert should be invited to go out to Uganda. He will consult with representatives of the Baganda and with the Protectorate

1065
Government to help reach agreed recommendations for Her Majesty's Government to consider. In the meantime my right honourable friend has agreed that the Buganda reforms announced in March, 1953, need not be held up.
In Bunyoro, Toro and Ankole, the Councils are becoming more representative. I do not think there will be any difficulties, but the Governor will arrange for the expert to talk over with the rulers of these districts their future relationships with their Councils, if they so wish. The Governor will pursue these matters on his return to Uganda, and, as far as Buganda is concerned, will discuss them with the Regents and will make an early statement to the Lukiko.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Earl, Lord Munster, for making to your Lordships this statement which has already been communicated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies? To-day we have had a little more time to consider the very important statement which has been made, and perhaps it will satisfy the noble Earl straight away if I say that, having had time to study the Paper, we on this side of the House welcome it. And we welcome it because we feel that there is a record here o at least the initiation of a policy which is in the right direction and which, if carried through as it is suggested it has already been currently put into operation, will certainly be upon the right lines.
The opportunity does arise in a case like this to say something with which I am sure noble Lords here will agree—namely, that, in these difficult circumstances in this very important country, I think we have reason, in view of events and of what he said over here, to have confidence in the Governor. That is important when we have to make policy here. We have appreciated very much the general reports we have heard of the work of Sir Andrew Cohen in this matter. On the other hand, we have one small criticism to offer and it is this. While we are grateful for the fact that the records of Sir Andrew's speeches in Uganda are to be put into the Library of your Lordships' House, where many of us will read them, I should have thought, listening to the statement which
1066
the noble Earl has just made, that the policy outlined is mainly the substance of what was said in those two speeches by Sir Andrew Cohen. I think, therefore, that it would be very convenient, and in the interest; of the wider dissemination of knowledge, if we could have those speeches put in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If that seems impracticable because they are too lengthy, could we at least have them put into a White Paper, so that we may have a permanent record in our hands of what is behind the short and summarised statement which the noble Earl has just made?
We welcome that section of the statement with regard to the constitutional difficulties and the policy proposed to be followed. We are very glad indeed that there is an agreement that an independent expert shall go out to Uganda, for we certainly feel that that will mean a great opportunity for clarification of the difficulties—which seem to be very involved—with regard to the different parts of the country and the various issues which arise. I would only suggest, in conclusion, that we might have an assurance from the noble Earl that when the independent expert has been out to Uganda and has reported to the noble Earl's right honourable friend—so that he will know exactly what is being proposed—a statement will be made as soon as possible to the House, explaining what the views of the independent expert are with regard to the situation which he finds. The noble Earl will recognise from what I have said that we are not only obliged to him for making the statement which he has made, but that we do not seem to be very far apart in the objectives which we have.
3.59 p.m.
THE. EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that in view of the noble Earl's statement I should withdraw my Motion on Uganda which stands on the Order Paper far March 10. I Jo not think any of your Lordships would wish to debate policy in relation to Uganda until the discussions foreshadowed by the noble Earl have taken place and we know their outcome. I very much hope that the Great Lukiko, whose representatives over here in London some of your Lordships have met, and who have shown themselves extremely reasonable and indeed statesmanlike, will

1067
take full advantage of the offer made them by the Government, and that they will use it to secure a constitutional advance for the Buganda people and to increase their influence in the Legislative Council of Uganda.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lords opposite for their comments on this statement. I can assure the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that I will see that the views of the independent expert are communicated to Parliament, either in the form of a statement such as I have given to-day or as a published document.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, that is excellent and I am much obliged to the noble Earl, but what about the White Paper suggested? What is obviously a basic policy should be in our hands in some tangible form. Is that promised?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: Yes.

COTTON BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
HILL FARMING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (BENEFIT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY (WIDOWS' PENSIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1ª, and to be printed.

CYPRUS
4.2 p.m.
LORD WINSTER LORD WINSTER rose to call attention to affairs in Cyprus; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have noticed over a considerable period of time that Cyprus is rarely mentioned in Parliament. Over a period of some six years there have been just a handful of Questions in another place, and the only reference to Cyprus in your Lordships' House has been a reference from a strategic point of view that I made in a debate not long ago. I have felt it proper to remain silent on the subject during the period of office of my successor. Sir Andrew Wright has now completed his term of office, leaving behind him, if I may say so with great respect, a record in the form of addresses to the Executive Council which points to wise guidance and steady progress during his Governorship. I think that perhaps I ought to mention that I have had no conversation with Sir Andrew Wright's successor on the matters which I am going to raise this afternoon, except briefly to wish him the best of good fortune in the office which he has taken up. May I also say to your Lordships that I am sure that the Cypriots themselves, though they may not agree with all that is said, will greatly appreciate the fact that their affairs are attracting the attention of your Lordships' House. On that account I share the regret which I am sure will be felt in Cyprus that no supporter of the Government, except the Minister who is going to be good enough to reply, has found it convenient to intervene in this debate to-day.
The first thing I should like to refer to is the disastrous earthquakes which afflicted the island last year. They struck at one of the most beautiful parts of a beautiful island, and they brought suffering and distress to some of the most deserving and most industrious inhabitants of Cyprus. As it happened, the Governor was absent when those earthquakes occurred. He speedily returned, of course, but in his absence the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Fletcher Cook, rose most admirably to the situation and was supported in doing so with great ability and competence by the Commissioner for the districts and the officers of the health service. I am

1069
sure all noble Lords would wish to commend them for their remarkable service at that distressing time. In that connection I should also like to mention the work of succour which was done by Her Majesty's Navy. The arrangements for relief and help went with that smoothness and efficiency which we associate with anything that Admiral Mountbatten undertakes. He now has very considerable experience of earthquakes, and if I am ever involved in one, I hope that the Admiral may be around. I think that, after fighting, the thing that a sailor does best is to bring help and assistance wherever a great calamity has visited some part of the globe. I know that the humanity, the genuine kindness and cheerfulness of the sailors on this occasion is something which will he long remembered in Cyprus.
What I want to say this afternoon I am dividing into two parts: first, administration; then after I have mentioned a few facts in regard to our administration of the island, I will deal with the political questions which distract it. We took over the island in 1878, and since then we have accomplished great achievements. Let me enumerate just a few of them, as briefly as possible. When we took over, there were two two-wheeled vehicles on the island. Interior communications were by path and mule track. There are now over 700 miles of asphalted roads, 1,800 miles of secondary roads and a network of forest roads. Secondary and forest roads may perhaps sound primitive, as roads go, but I happen to know that over every mile of these roads the largest car which the Daimler Company make can be driven in perfect safety and complete comfort. I think these facts point to a remarkable achievement in road-making. As regards exterior communications, so greatly have we improved the economy of the country that to-day no fewer than thirty-four shipping lines find it worth their while to call regularly at Cyprian ports. A modern, completely up-to-date air terminal has been built, and the air traffic increases monthly. The island is now in swift and rapid communication with every other part of the world. So much for communications.
As regards health services, every big town has its hospital, and there are no fewer than fifty doctors employed. There
1070
are travelling medical clinics and a travelling dental clinic. So good is this service that not one of the 620 villages of the island is more than an hour's travel from skilled medical and surgical help. It is a great pleasure to see how quickly the women of Cyprus have taken to child welfare work. The leper establishment and mental hospital have both been moved to admirable sites, and the most modern treatment is given to these unfortunate people. The death rate in Cyprus is the second lowest in the world. But what stands out above everything else in regard to these health services is the victory over malaria. At one time, quite recently, in a village sixteen miles from the capital of the island, the incidence of malaria was 100 per cent.; but to-day you cannot find a case there. The malaria-carrying mosquito has been eliminated from the island. If the noble Earl, Lord Munster, will allow me to say so, I do not think Dr. Shelley, the Director of Medical Health Services at the time, who directed the campaign, and Mr. Aziz, who was responsible for the field work involved, have ever received adequate recognition for their remarkable services in this respect. With regard to justice, that is swiftly and impartially administered. That was not always the case. The prison adheres to every modern recommendation on the subject of prisons—diet, hygiene, recreation, and the work that the prisoners do. It is a great pleasure to see, and reflects the greatest credit on those concerned. I have mentioned recreation, and I may say that the army have found the prison team formidable opponents on the football field.
However, the matter to which I would call particular attention this afternoon is agriculture. The economy of Cyprus is 80 to 90 per cent. agricultural, and that is the main employment of the inhabitants of the island. Two things in the past have been the curse of agriculture in Cyprus: first, the free-ranging goats and, secondly, soil erosion. The forests have been ravaged by these, free-ranging goats, and literally millions of pounds worth of damage has been done by those animals: the forests have been destroyed, and the understory eaten. The water catchment area has consequently been destroyed, and there has followed soil erosion and infertility. Now, thanks to the work of two devoted and skilful conservators of

1071
forests, the forests are being restored. Now, too, thanks to the patient propaganda which these conservators have carried out on the subject, the free-ranging goat is steadily being replaced by the tethered goat, and in this way a valuable asset is being restored to the island. With regard to soil erosion, the officers of the department of agriculture have been carrying on steady educational work about contour ploughing and terraced agriculture. Great strides have been made, and I hope that the day will come, in the not too distant future, when we shall cease to go up into the hills when the rains come and see some of the best soil of Cyprus staining the sea for three-quarters of a mile offshore, which is the melancholy sight we see to-day.
The island is studded with a system of research and educational stations—agricultural, horticultural and viticultural. New strains of livestock have been introduced, with the result that Cyprian mules and donkeys are now regarded as the finest in the Mediterranean, and in one year alone we exported 5,000 of them. Mechanised farming is making steady headway. In all these respects great work is being done, and T feel that the successive Directors of Agriculture deserve a great meed of praise, not only for their own work, but for the work which they have encouraged in their officers. Water is life in Cyprus, and year by year the Water Department carries out work after work which adds to the welfare and amenity of the island. A very small amount of work, costing perhaps £300 or £400, may add 400 or 500 acres to the cultivable area. One only has to see it for oneself to realise what the bringing of a piped water supply may mean to some of the villages, which from time immemorial have never enjoyed such a thing. Work is going forward in covering the island with an electric grid, a most remarkable enterprise; and when that is completed light and power will be brought to every village in Cyprus, to the great benefit of their agriculture and, also, their domestic life.
On the matter of education, 15 per cent, of the island's budget is devoted to that subject. In 700 elementary schools, 1,500 teachers teach 62,000 pupils: in 50 secondary schools, 500 teachers teach 13,000 pupils. The Cypriots have a quick
1072
and lively intelligence, and anything we can do to satisfy the real demand that exists for education will redound greatly to our prestige in the island. As to the general economy, overseas trade has tripled in five years: and at the present moment it is ten times what it was in pre-war. The Cyprus Government, with great foresight, have spent £12 million on public services which are essential to industry, in order to attract industry to the island. For instance, there has been considerable expenditure on the modernisation of the three main ports. The range of industry is very wide indeed, covering asbestos, mining in many forms, brewing, wine, cement, cigarettes, animal feeding-stuffs; and in addition, the agricultural exports of barley, potatoes, locust beans, grapes, citrus fruit and dried fruits. I would mention that the Cypriot workman is very versatile: there are few strikes, and there is a Department of Labour in the charge of a most experienced officer who has conciliation machinery at his disposal.
I would mention one other industry, and that is, the tourist industry. That has been bounding ahead now for years, and I am afraid that in the near future the tourist industry will have outstripped the hotel industry. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said the other day that there was an opening for a noble Lord to invent a teacup which would not break. Here, there is an opening for someone to erect a large hotel in Cyprus, because at the rate the tourist trade is growing such an enterprise could not fail to be remunerative. So much for what I want to say about the administrative side of the work—I hope that I have not gone into too much detail. I feel that I can fairly say that it is work in which all of us here at home can take great pride, as one of Britain's great achievements in Colonial administration.
I now come to a more difficult and regrettable side of the picture—namely, the political situation in Cyprus. That is dominated entirely by the Enosis movement for union with Greece. It is a movement which provides a common platform for the Church and the Communists, which I think must probably be exceptional over the whole of the world. I must confess that I was interested to see this liking up at a period when the civil war was raging in Greece, and there were

1073
times when one felt that the war might have gone either way: it might have come down on the side of the Communists or the Royalists, and I always wondered how these rather strange bedfellows would react to a victory for either side.
There is one point I should like to make clear about that matter, and I am sure your Lordships will be generally aware of it. The more fanatical supporters of Enosis are apt to press for the "restoration of the island to the maternal bosom of Hellas." That requires a little analysis. Even if Cyprus ever did go to Greece, it would not be a return, to Greece. Greece has never owned or administered Cyprus. I want to be strictly fair about this. I think the Greeks have sonic shadowy claim, based on the division of the Roman Empire into cast and west. I believe that at that time the Greeks did feel that some right to Cyprus accrued to them. In fact the matter is mentioned by Gibbon, but, de facto, I think I am quite fair in saying that Greece has never owned or administered the island. Nor have the Cypriots ever really had self-government. One hook I have read said that in olden times the Cypriots once or twice had a short period of self-government, but again I do not think that was of such a nature as to enable us to say de facto that the Cypriots have ever governed their own island.
On the other hand, a great many other people have. The Egyptians, the Phoenicians, the Persians, the Hittites, the Assyrians, the Macedonians, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Franks, the Venetians, the Turks and, finally, the English, have all owned and administered the island. Of all those who have governed the island, the English brought with them a completely new idea—the idea that the island was inhabited by Cypriots, a fact which seems to have escaped the notice of their predecessors, and that the interests of the inhabitants of the island should be considered in such matters as education, in relief from crushing taxation, and the idea of a Legislative Council with a Cypriot majority, freedom, security and respect for human dignity and human rights. These were all novel and strange ideas that the British brought with them to Cyprus.
To skip a good long period of time, the reward for trying to bring these new ideas were the events of 1931, when Government House was burnt down. As a result of those disturbances, the Governor of the island has since had to govern with the aid of an Executive Council, composed, in my experience, of certain of his officials and of two Greek Cypriots and one Turkish Cypriot. We need not be mealy-mouthed about this matter. It is not a system of government that one likes at all. Nobody in these days would choose such a system of government for one moment. It is a system of government under which the Governor has no means of appealing to public opinion. There is no way in which he can reply to any propaganda, and there is no way in which he can advocate the policy of Her Majesty's Government. There is now a broadcasting system, but no one would wish to see the Governor of the island engaging in a running debate on the radio with his political opponents. I repeat that it is a system which is forced upon us and not one of our own choosing—on the contrary, it is one which we are most anxious to reform.
The late Labour Government made a determined effort to got the Cypriots to make a new start. They said, "Certainly the Archbishop shall return," and they conceded that there should be the election of an ArchbiShop and, of course, the accompanying hierarchy. They gave large sums of money in the form of a development grant spent over a period of ten years, and they invited the Cypriots to come together in a consultative assembly to assist in drafting a liberal Constitution for the island. I am not aware of the facts in this connection, but I feel there can have been few instances of one of our Colonies being asked itself to assist in drafting the Constitution under which it was to live. Art any rate, we had in view a Constitution which would give full expression to public opinion, paving the way to that self government which is the declared Colonial policy of all political Parties in this country.
The reply to these offers was a complete boycott by the Church. I do not know whether or not history ever records much good for a country resulting from the activities of political prelates, but at any rate that was what we encountered when we brought those offers—complete

1075
boycott by the Church and any form of co-operation whatever rejected by the Archbishop. As one instance of how far that refusal went, I may tell your Lordships that in connection with alterations to the system in the prison I had an invitation addressed to the Archbishop to ask him whether he would nominate one of the board of prison visitors. I did this because the rather scurrilous Press of Cyprus was almost daily publishing accounts of prisoners being flogged to death to give the Governor an appetite for his breakfast, of men being done to death in dungeons and starved, and that sort of thing. It was all so completely untrue that I addressed this invitation to the Archbishop. I should have thought that that was a fair thing to offer. Even that was refused. That will give the measure of the opposition of the boycott —the refusal to co-operate which we met with from the Archbishop. Through his efforts the consultative assembly was wrecked. We could not even make any progress with local government. Apart from destroying the consultative assembly and the hope of a Constitution, the Church and the Communists simply dug their heels in and said, "Enosis or nothing."
There was only one course left open to the British Government in that situation, and that was to say, "If you will not go on with the work of the consultative assembly and draft a Constitution, then things must go on as they are." They also said, "The offer is not withdrawn. At any time whatever, if any body of responsible Cypriots likes to come to us and say, 'We should like to go on where we left off,' we will have no recrimination and no and we will start straight away." That offer was left open, but I emphasise that it was open if responsible Cypriots asked for it, for the display of irresponsibility which attended the last attempt towards a Constitution makes that qualification, in my opinion, an essential requirement in renewing that work. I wish, with all my heart, that we could get off this dead centre. Hardly a week goes by without my thinking about these things, exercising my brain upon them, and trying to find some way out of the impasse with which we are confronted.
However, there are some very difficult features in the situation, and it is no good ignoring them. Never having governed themselves, and having at times been governed very harshly and unjustly, Cypriots have developed some of the characteristics of the governed. They have no acquaintance with the art of government, which is not easy to learn. Moreover, there is in them a strong streak of reluctance to express their political feelings and opinions in public—they are what we call "cagey" about that; they dread revealing their inmost thoughts about politics. The other characteristic, of course, is their fear of taking responsibility, especially political responsibility. I ask your Lordships not to judge them too harshly on this matter because, as I say, they are qualities which result from the long centuries of subjection which has been their lot. These things are inherent in their history, and I do not blame them. I only deeply regret their refusal Ito let us develop in them the qualities of which fate has deprived them.
For instance—these are days of nationalism—I very much wish that we could see the young Cypriot aspiring to self-government. He is a man of lively and quick intelligence. I should like to see him aspire to self-government in his island and to a place in that Government. It would be a great pleasure to guide and encourage him along such lines. But all he aspires to is merely to have yet one more ruler—to exchange one ruler for another. There is no thought of independence for his country, with its great history, which was once a jewel in mediæval civilisation. There is no thought of restoring those things—merely, as I say, a desire to exchange one Government for another.
As I have said, there is a great fear among the Cypriots of coming out with their true political opinions. Responsible Cypriots know perfectly well that transfer to Greece would mean a recession in the island's industry and prosperity. In private, they make no secret of that fact—they have told me this frankly, to my face. I give as one instance an occasion when a business man asked for an interview with me, and made the long journey to Troodos in order to see me. The object of his visit was to ask me to take a resolute hand in the matter of political affairs in the island, and to deal firmly

1077
with the people who were resisting, the good things we were offering. I was delighted and I told him so. I said, "I am glad that you are on our side, and I hope you will take opportunities, as they offer, to express these feelings which you have just expressed 'to me." He shrivelled up with horror at the idea—and a few days later he was on the same platform at an Enosis rally with the Archbishop and the Communists. That is the sort of thing with which one has 40 contend. Undoubtedly, under Greek administration the island of Cyprus would go back. We have the evidence before our eyes in what is happening in the Dodecanese Islands—I speak in no spirit of depreciation of Greece and the Greeks, those courageous and intelligent people. But progress in Cyprus depends in a particular way on skilled and trained men, on technicians; and the Greek Government simply do not dispose of such men in the necessary numbers, or with the necessary skill and training to carry on the work of progress in so many directions in the island. That is the harsh and inescapable fact, and that is what I see on that side of the picture. The prosperity of Cyprus would be bound to suffer a setback if such a transfer took place.
Having said that, let me emphasise that in my experience the Greek Government have always behaved reasonably well in this matter of Enosis. I am happy to have this opportunity of saying so. To my knowledge, there was never any encouragement of propaganda or of agitation emanating from the Government of Greece. Sometimes one got the impression that perhaps the Government rather deplored the importunities of the Archbishop. I think that is quite likely, but I have no authoritative evidence for saying so. But ever since the days of Socrates the Greeks have shown that they do not: like a gadfly upon their backs—indeed, that was one of the charges, perhaps, upon which Socrates was put to death. So, as I say, I think the Greek Government have behaved well. There was one rather glaring indiscretion, but that did not emanate from the Government in Greece. Their line is very fair. No one would expect them to throw cold water on the claim—they are bound to uphold the claim. But their line seemed to be, "We welcome the desire of Cyprus for accession to Greece, and we hope that one day it may come
1078
about, but the present time is not opportune; we hope very much that at some future date we shall be able to discuss the matter in friendliness with our very good friends, the British." That seems to have been roughly the line which they have taken. I hope that I do not misinterpret them in any way.
I know perfectly well that the Archbishop has carried out a plebiscite in the island and that, following the best Russian example—or the example of countries that are Russian-dominated—the result has been a 100 per cent. vote in favour of Enosis. I never expected anything else. To my mind, the plebiscite ran absolutely according to form. I should just like to say this about the plebiscite. I visited pretty well every village in the country. The villagers used to assemble under the big village tree, and the headman would step forward and tell me the wants and needs of the village. They might want a road asphalted, or a piece of road re-made, or to rebuild a bridge; or they would ask me to do something about the ravages of the carob rat, aid so on. But never once was the question of Enosis raised with me, nor did anybody with whom I was talking say one word on the question. I never heard the subject raised on these occasions—and believe me, my Lords, the Cypriot is not reluctant to raise whatever is uppermost in his mind.
We are on this dead centre. The matter seems intractable. It is regrettable. Sometimes when I think about it I remember what was said about the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, that its position was completely hopeless but not at all dangerous. We jog along in this way and the island makes progress and headway. I should like briefly to ask your Lordships to look at the alternatives with which we are confronted in Cyprus. We can cede the island to Greece, or we can cede the island to Greece but retain leases of the bases and of the harbours. I should not like to see either of those things done. I would not agree to the second course when there is a Communist element at work. But even if we take those two alternatives of ceding the island to Greece, with or without the leases of the bases, what will be said by the Turks, by the Armenians and by the Maronites,

1079
responsible minorities in the island, who have been very law-abiding? The Turks governed Cyprus for 300 years. Like Greece, they are a partner with us in N.A.T.O.—in fact, I think in the policies which are developing in the Near and Middle East, we are regarding Turkey as a very strong bastion of the policies we are trying to initiate there. What are the Turks going to say? For those reasons alone, and our own international obligations, I feel that the idea of ceding the island is completely out of the question. I mentioned the Turks just now. I feel sure that some of your Lordships will remember that passage in Othello which runs as follows:
"… when we consider
The importancy of Cyrus to the Turk "—
then it goes on:
"We must not think the Turk is so unskillful
To leave that latest which concerns him first."
We must really take other countries into consideration when this proposal is urged upon us.
Then there was the proposal by Mr. Amery, who suggested a dual Greek and British nationality for the Cypriots. I never found that that suggestion received much encouragement, and my own opinion is that it is probably not practicable; and in any case it is not a solution. We might impose a Constitution upon them. This is something about which we hear a good deal: that, the Cypriots not being willing to assist in drafting a Constitution, we should draft a Constitution and impose it upon the island. I am not certain that if we were to do that we should not meet with the same boycott and the same obstruction from the Church that we met with over the offers about which I have told your Lordships. That is why I repeat that the Cypriots themselves must have a share in drafting whatever Constitution is drafted for their island, so that they have some responsibility in the matter and cannot oppose it with a blank boycott or obstruction.
Those are four alternatives. I do not know whether any of them commends itself to your Lordships. I think we come back to the fifth, and last, alternative: that we must go on as we are, with the offer, of which I have spoken, still standing, and that we would resume with
1080
good will. That seems to me the only practicable alternative before us. There is some talk of the Archbishop appealing to the United Nations. With great respect, I should not let that possibility keep us awake at night. The Cypriots can bring forward no complaints of inhumanity, injustice or indifference to their welfare on our part. There is a clean record of progress, of which I have enumerated a few particulars this afternoon, and our offer of the Constitution stands. There is nothing that stands between Cyprus and a Constitution except Cypriots. On that account, as I say. I cannot see the Archbishop receiving much encouragement should he in fact decide to appeal to the United Nations.
In conclusion, may I say this? I know that, if they read my remarks this afternoon, Cypriots will not like much of what I have said. They do not think that you are a friend unless you say what they wish to hear you say. Of course, there are other people like that—it is not necessary to go all the way to Cyprus to find them. Englishmen with experience of Cyprus have very deep feelings of regard for the island and its inhabitants. In spite of all these political difficulties, I walked absolutely alone all over the island and I never met with a discourteous word. They were friendly, courteous, hospitable; and, if I may say so without vanity, I think that when I went into the villages they were as glad to see me as I was to see them. I quote some further words from Othello:
"I have found great love amongst them,"
and so echo Shakespeare's words:
"Heaven bless the Isle of Cyprus!"
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.47 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords. I am sure I speak for all my noble friends on this side of the House when I say that I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Winster, on a first-class exposition of this difficult subject. I am afraid that there was one omission in the noble Lord's speech—that is, that in recounting the great advances that have been made in the economic and social fields he did not tell us of the work that he himself did in those fields when he was Governor of Cyprus. The people of Cyprus certainly had in him a friend and one who worked unremittingly for their

1081
welfare. My noble friend Lord Listowel and myself were in the Colonial Office during the time that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was Governor, and we had every opportunity of appreciating the great work that he did for the people of Cyprus. Therefore, noble Lords on this side hope that the people of Cyprus will listen to the words of wisdom and the advice that he has given them to-day.
I agree with hint, too, that this debate affords a good opportunity of welcoming the new Governor. I have met the Governor; I knew him when he was an official in West Africa, and I have no doubt at all that he is an excellent choice for the post. We wish him well in his difficult task. I would also agree with the noble Lord that it is a pity that there are not a few Back Benchers on the other side who might have joined us to-day. We should have liked to hear speeches from Back Benchers on the Government side. On several occasions lately we have had Colonial debates; there have been speeches from other parts of the Howe but not one speech from Government supporters. Frankly, I do not think that is good enough. There are greater numbers on the Conservative Benches than there are on ours, and I cannot understand why Back Benchers opposite do not speak in these debates.
We must remember that this House, as another place, is one of the Houses of Parliament of all these Colonies. The people in the Colonies look to us to regard their interests and to discuss their problems. It is no good having five or six people speaking from the Opposition side and no one at all, except the Minister, from the other side. We feel strongly about this matter, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, raised it to-day. Of course, noble Lords opposite may say that they know nothing about the question, and plead modesty; but, as we all know, ignorance has never been an excuse for not making a Parliamentary speech, otherwise, on occasion, there would have been precious few speeches made in either House. A House of Parliament is not necessarily a place where experts talk; it is a place where often the ordinary man without very great knowledge may make a useful contribution to the subject under discussion. Having said what I intended to say in that respect, I move on.
1082
My Lords, there is a difference between. Cyprus and the other Colonies upon, which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, has touched—namely, that nowadays nearly every other Colony in the British Empire (to use an old term) is pressing for self government in some shape or form. Cyprus is one Colony which will not have it; there is, in fact, considerable pressure: from a portion of the electorate or population to merge with another sovereign, State. That is a curious feature in the, constitutional structure of the Colonial Empire at the present moment. For several years at the United Nations Assembly two deputations have trudged in a melancholy manner around the, corridors, one from Cyprus and the other from the Blackfoot Indians who inhabit a portion of the United States. It may be because of the presence of the Black- foot Indians, but it is a fact that nobody has taken any notice of those two deputations. Everyone looks embarrassed when they come along, and tries to sidle past them in the corridors. For years past they have sent a deputation to the United Nations, but of course it is not: within the Charter that they should be heard.
I should like to point out at this stage the inadequacy of the Colonial Annual Report, a subject which I have mentioned before. There is no mention at all in. the Report, which otherwise deals with certain features of Cypriot life, of Enosis, which I should have thought was the: burning issue in Cyprus. On turning to the Report there is nothing on this subject, except for one reference—and a very curious reference—alluded to in part by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, that the question of Enosis has caused a purge in the Communist Party in Cyprus. We have heard of purges In the Communist Party in various places. This must be: the most peculiar purge of all—the purge of those who do not want Enosis with. Greece and not of those who want Enosis with Greece. I am glad to read in the Annual Report of the economic and social progress of Cyprus and to find that the value of the external trade of Cyprus in 1952—£38 million—was the highest recorded. I think we ought to congratulate all those who have worked so hard on the economic side—officials traders and others, for that excellent achievement.

1083
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, has said that in 1948 we offered Cyprus a new Constitution. So far as I am aware, that offer still stands. There is a deadlock. The noble Lord, Lord Winster, has summed up brilliantly the various courses which are open to us at this juncture, and he has given some reasons for and against each course which he has suggested. There being a deadlock, how can we remove or break it? This is the problem which we have to face this afternoon. We are highly unlikely, I suggest, to obtain any answer to our problem this afternoon, but at all events it is a problem which we, as members of the British Parliament, and the Government, as the responsible Government for Cyprus, have to solve. I must say that so far as I am concerned, having listened with great attention to the noble Lord, I agree with him that at the present moment we can take no other course than the fifth course he suggested—namely, to continue as we are. That is a sad conclusion, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree. It is one which statesmanship on the part of us all, official and unofficial, should aim at altering. We do not like deadlocks: they are no good to anybody, and I am sure we all want this particular problem solved.
Of course, the defence issue arises here. I do not feel that this is the time to embroil yet another part of the Middle East in the difficulties of a new Constitution or of new government by another sovereign State. So far as the Middle East is concerned, there never was a more difficult time in so-called peace-time than that in which we now find ourselves. Therefore any suggestion which is made has to be made with delicacy, bearing in mind the great problems of that particular theatre. In a way, this is only one particular facet of the larger problem as far as the Colonial territories are concerned. Suppose for the moment that Enosis is out of the question, what is going to happen to countries like Cyprus? I am looking at it, as I think we can only look at it, as purely a Colonial territory, and one likely to remain so. What is going to happen? I have asked this question on many occasions and have got no answer whatsoever, either from the noble Earl, who will brush me off to-day as he has brushed me off so many
1084
times before, from his right honourable friend, from the officials of the Colonial Circumlocution Office, or from anyone else. They have never answered this question which, time after time, comes up for answer.
We saw this particular problem arise in regard to Malta, when the other day there was suggested the extraordinary idea that the Home Office should run Malta. That is an official offer by the British Government. I see that the noble Lord who has just joined us looks surprised, but it is in fact an official offer of the British Government, that the Home Office shall run Malta—without. I may say, any alteration in the Constitution of Malta or any such thing. I should like to hear the views of the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, on that point. Perhaps he will tell us later on what he, with his great experience of the Home Office, thinks about it. At all events, the Government are not grappling with this problem at all.
In my view, there are at least 30—it may be 25, but not far short of 30—Colonial territories which can never in the ordinary way be entirely independent of this country. There are islands like St. Helena and place like the Gambia. Can anybody suggest that the Seychelles or the Leeward Islands, or any of those other territories, will ever stand on their own feet as independent countries? Yet, so far as I know, no thought, or, shall I say, no results of any thought, are apparent either from Her Majesty's Government or from the Colonial Office on this most important question which, time after time, is going to arise in the next few years. I have put forward a suggestion with which they do not agree. They may be right, but it is at least a challenge to them to put up some alternative and agreeable suggestion.
My Lords, may I say finally that in considering this issue we must not blind ourselves to the economic aspect. About a month ago I took my family to dinner at a restaurant in London where there was a waiter whose inefficiency was noticeable. We got into conversation with this man, who admitted that which was apparent—that he was not really a waiter at all. He told us that he was a farmer who grew water melons or pumpkins on the island of Cyprus, and he had

1085
come over here to be a waiter because he could not earn a living as a smallholder or farmer selling water melons or pumpkins on the island of Cyprus. He showed us photographs of his family, and said how anxious he was to go back to Cyprus. He made no reference whatsoever to Enosis. He did not object to British rule; he objected only to the British weather, which he thought was shocking. I guarantee—and this bears out what Lord Winster says—that if your Lordships went around among the rural population of Cyprus you would find a very large number of people who would agree with that pumpkin farmer. In other words, the economic aspect of this matter would loom much larger in their minds than the constitutional aspect. There is nothing more I wish to say, except just this: whatever suggestions we make must be based on sound considerations, and should be made with the utmost care. In these days, in this area, foolish proposals might have the most disastrous consequences.
5.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to intervene very briefly in this debate because, as my noble friend Lord Ogmore has said, I was, like him, one of the Ministers at the Colonial Office responsible for relations with Cyprus at the time when His late Majesty's Government made an effort to restore Parliamentary rule to that territory. I think your Lordships will agree that the future of Cyprus is a very grave problem, and one which deserves serious consideration, in Parliament and by Her Majesty's Government. Lord Winster, whose speech we ail very much enjoyed, spoke at some length, and quite rightly, of the great advances that have been made since the war in the social services in Cyprus—especially in the health services—and in the island's economic development. But however efficient and progressive our administration of the island may be—and I think it deserves both those epithets—it will not win the cordial good will of Cypriots while they have no share in political power and responsibility.
The political deadlock, which I think every speaker this afternoon has deplored, is unfortunate not only because it deprives us of co-operation on the part of
1086
the local population in the administration of the country, and blocks their political advance towards a measure of self-government; it is no less unfortunate —and this, as I think, extremely weighty argument has not been put forward this afternoon—because it would lessen the strategic value of Cyprus in time of war. As I am sure your Lordships will agree, the use of air bases and military installations and harbours in the island by our own Services, or by tie Services of one of our Allies, in war time would be much hampered if the local population were unfriendly and mice-operative. It is, therefore, from the strategic point of view, as well as from the economic and political points of view, that this deadlock is so unfortunate.
Of course, I do not blame the present Government, or any Government that preceded it, for the existence of the deadlock. The offer of 1948, I believe, still stands. En spite of changes of Government in this country, it has not been withdrawn, and it is not our fault that the offer has not been accepted. Wits its guarantee of an elected majority in the Legislative Council, its safeguards for the Turkish minority in Cyprus, and its measure of executive responsibility for the elected members, it is a Constitution which would surely give Cyprus a genuine parliamentary system and a very sound start for parliamentary rule. And it is extremely sad that there is no sign of any change of mind in Cyprus in regard to this offer of a Constitution. The regrettable fact remains, that this offer has now been open for six years, and is still rejected. I fear that we must now ask ourselves whether there is any real hope that it will be accepted, either at the present time or at some future date. If the answer to this question is in the negative, we must choose between some of the alternatives mentioned by Lord Winster in his speech.
We must prepare—and I think, without arguing the different alternatives, that these would be the only practicable alternatives—either for an indefinite period of direct rule, with the continuing dissatisfaction of the local population, or for the making of some fresh attempt to break the deadlock. Such an attempt, even if it proved unsuccessful, would at least convince our critics of the honesty of our

1087
intentions. The only alternative, so far as I can see, to this stalemate would be to impose the 1948 Constitution on Cyprus. Lord Winster put forward that alternative and, at the same time, a weighty objection to it, to which I will refer a little later. As I think the noble Lord rightly said, constitutional changes in the Commonwealth have, as a general rule, been imposed; they have not been made with the agreement of the people concerned. We do not make constitutional changes in our dependencies subject to the prior approval of the people in the territories in which those changes occur. The most striking example of an imposed Constitution was that for India in 1935. Of course, it has to be granted that an imposed Constitution is not likely to work so well as a Constitution that is introduced by mutual consent and which obviously has behind it the force of public opinion. This, indeed, was shown in the case of the Indian Constitution of 1935. That Constitution would have worked better if it had been supported by Congress and by the Princely States, but I think it will be agreed that, if we had not imposed the 1935 Act on India, the progress of India towards orderly self-government, and cordial relations between India (in the sense of the Indian sub-continent) and ourselves, would have been very different from what, in fact, they have been.
I noted with special interest (no reference has so far been made to this in the course of the debate) a recent article in the Sunday Times about Cyprus. In that article, the writer, the Cyprus correspondent of that journal, expressed the view that opinion, both in the majority and in the minority communities in Cyprus, was veering towards an imposed Constitution. I venture to wonder—having regard to the objection put forward by Lord Winster to the imposition of a Constitution—whether it may not be because public opinion in Cyprus has changed since the noble Lord was Governor. I do not know whether that is so; I merely put that forward as a possibility. What I should hope is that when a new Governor goes out to Cyprus, one of the instructions that will be given him by Her Majesty's Government will be to report as soon as he has had time to make proper inquiries into the state of public opinion
1088
in the island. And I hope that, whatever the Government may decide to do in the future in regard to the political situation in Cyprus, they will not regard this deadlock as something inevitable, something that must be accepted, something that defies all our resources of statesmanship. There is this alternative which is apparently now canvassed in Cyprus, and which surely deserves most careful examination and exploration. I hope that the Government will make every possible effort to break the deadlock, and will take advantage of the presence of the new Governor to review the whole political situation.
5.10 p.m.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords. I had not intended to intervene in to-day's debate, and should not have done so but for what the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said, about a bit of variety in the bowling. My only justification for addressing your Lordships is that I have just returned from Athens. There is one angle to this question which has not been touched upon in this debate, and although it is not the ruling angle, nevertheless it is an angle—that is the Greek angle to the question. I came back from Greece just one week ago. I was there for a fortnight, and met all and sundry, and I should like to confirm that people in Greece are very much wrought up on the question of Cyprus. Whether they are right or wrong is another matter, into which I would not venture to go: but there is no doubt that in Greece, where there are the most cordial feelings of friendship to this country, feelings which are deeply rooted over a long series of years of war and rehabilitation, this Cyprus question risks running across that sentiment and, to some extent, marring it. I am sure we shall all agree that that is a thousand pities.
When I was tackled on this subject in Greece, as I was tackled, I did my best to point out to my friends that there could hardly be a worse time to raise the matter. I told them that it would certainly not fall on receptive ears in this country, for reasons we all know. I am afraid that I did not convince them. I repeat, then, that my only reason for getting up to speak to your Lordships this evening is this feeling in Greece. How the problem is to be solved I will not endeavour to suggest, but undoubtedly it has its repercussions in

1089
Greece; and Greece has its importance in our general policy. I should have thought that the suggestions put forward by my noble friend Lord Winster in regard to pressing on with the Constitution, were sound and right and proper. Go ahead with the Constitution if we can: therein lies the best hope of a true solution. I repeat that I had not intended to speak to-night, but as there was a certain comment about lack of speakers from anywhere else but one Bench, I have done my best to leap into the breach.
5.13 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I had not proposed to address your Lordships, but there is one aspect of this rather troublesome situation which has not yet been touched upon. I should draw attention to the fact that by virtue of my personal connection with one of the air corporations my relations with Cyprus are rather special, and perhaps there are some things which I cannot discuss. I would entirely support everything, he noble Lord, Lord Winster said in his speech, and I think he would be supported generally from these Benches. He touched particularly on the question of education, and said, as did other speakers, that the people in Cyprus are reluctant to express their opinions. They are reluctant to assume responsibility for what might happen in due course. I think that can be explained in many cases by the fact that they cannot speak good English. I should like to give one instance of a young Cypriot who was training in engineering. He was very promising technically, but when he tried to take his examination his English was simply not good enough. Before the noble Earl replies for the Government, I should like to ask whether it might not be a good thing, and helpful to the development of the Cypriot mind towards a point where it will be ready to take more responsibility than it is taking at the present moment, if the question of the compulsory teaching of English in schools could be considered. I believe that is not the case at the present moment.
5.15 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, like my noble friend, Lord Killearn, I had not the slightest intention of intervening in this debate, and I will speak for a short
1090
time only, but I am moved to do so by what my noble friend Lord Ogmore said. After his reflection on the Conservative Benches, I wish to show that the Cross Benches are ready to play their part. I am surprised about the Conservative Benches, because, in my opinion, the inhabitants of Cyprus are very conservative people. My first visit to the island was in 1907. I was then Intelligence Officer to the Mediterranean Fleet and my Admiral paid a visit to the Governor. We took rather a long tour. It was before the days of motorcars and we had to go in four-horse coaches. I had taken out an interpretership in modern Greek and I was very anxious to learn all I could about the military and, more particularly, the political state of the island. From the moment I landed I heard nothing from British officials of all kinds but the cry, "Who will free me from this turbulent priest?" The then Archbishop was making exactly the same trouble as exists today, and my own inquiries amongst all and sundry seemed to show that among the mass of the people there was very small feeling for the Enosis which the Archbishop was advocating.
I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Winster and Lord Ogmore, that the situation is one that cannot be changed at the present time—and I may say that I have visited the island within the last year or two. I do not think it would be wise for the British Government to try and force a Constitution on the island, but I should like to ask the noble Earl who is going to reply for the Government whether anything has been attempted in the way of local government. In the science and art of government do we not sometimes build up from local government to complete government? I did not like to interrupt my noble friend Lord Winster to ask if that had been tried, but it would be interesting if we could learn whether that could be considered.
5.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winster, who initiated this debate this afternoon, has spoken with that care and restraint that we should normally expect from one who has occupied the important post of Governor of Cyprus. From his experience the noble Lord is well acquainted with every aspect of the constitutional position, and it is not surprising, there-

1091
fore, that the greater part of the speech which he delivered to your Lordships to-day dealt with that point. But in doing so, if I may say so, the noble Lord did not underrate the difficulties which confronted him, confronted the previous Government and, I suppose, confront the present Government as well. Here let me say at once that I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid by the noble Lord, and also by the noble Lord, Lord more, to Sir Andrew Wright, who was a most successful and popular Governor. At the same time, I should like to convey my good wishes to Mr. Armitage Who took over the Governorship last week. Before I deal with the constitutional problem, I am as anxious as the noble Lord that I should endeavour to explain to the House some of the social and economic matters which have recently been introduced in this important strategic island.
The noble Lord, Lord Winster, gave some interesting particulars about the improvement of the economic life of the country since the earliest days of the benevolent British occupation. We may well be proud of our achievements: it is quite true to say that Cyprus is to-day more prosperous than ever before in its history. Its trade is flourishing at the present time, and the budgetary position is strong—although of course, as the result of the earthquake, there may be difficulties in the immediate future. The ten-year development plan which was begun under the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in 1946 has gone well ahead, and, aided by grants under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, much has been done to improve irrigation, communications and all sides of the agricultural industry. In addition, new industries have been, and are being, established; improvements have been, and are being, made in certain of the port facilities; and a new central power station has commenced operating.
In all, a sum of £15½ million has been earmarked for these development projects, £2 million of which has been provided under the Colonial Development and Welfare Acts, and a sum of £5 million is being raised in the United Kingdom for the central electrification scheme. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, and I believe other speakers,
1092
correctly pointed out, agriculture is the main industry of the island, employing some 55 per cent. of the working population, new industries are becoming established in the island in a most encouraging way. I should like to give the House one or two examples of what has recently occurred. The Cyprus Cement Company is erecting a factory for the manufacture of cement and by-products. The Cyprus Asbestos Mines have installed plants which can produce 300,000 asbestos sheets annually. An additional number of small factories have been set up throughout the island for the manufacture of confectionery, and I have been informed that a concern from this country intends to operate a fruit and vegetable canning factory in the island. So much for the industrial picture, with which I have dealt only briefly, but I thought it necessary to remind the House of what has been done. Some of your Lordships may regard it as small, but let me remind you—and I am sure this will be borne out by the noble Lord, Lord Winster—that these things have an important bearing, and an equally important effect on the inhabitants of that small island.
I turn now for a few moments to the social side. A sum of £829,000 has been, or will be, spent on medical and health services. I would bear out what the noble Lord. Lord Winster, said, that, due to the complete disappearance of the malarial mosquito, the death rate in Cyprus to-day is one of the lowest in the world. A sum of £629,000 has been or will be spent on education, and nearly £500,000 on village improvement. The Government of Cyprus may well be proud of the fact that last year there were 66,000 children in elementary schools, and some 16,000 in secondary schools. The local Government are now in the course of preparing, with the help of a senior officer who was sent out from the Ministry of National Insurance in this country, an outline of a scheme for social insurance. I feel that, having mentioned these facts, the House will be aware at once that Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Cyprus have done a great deal over recent years for the welfare, prosperity and good government of the island.
The noble Lord who moved the Motion made reference to the earthquake

1093
which struck the island on the morning of September 10 last year. The Royal Navy, and indeed the other Services, did magnificent work to relieve suffering; and did, in fact, provide all kinds of relief measures. But much damage was done. Some 110 villages, or about 18 per cent. of the total number of villages in the island, were affected, and 6 villages were almost completely destroyed. In 35 other villages, from 50 to 90 per cent, of the buildings were damaged beyond repair, and in a further 53 villages from 10 to 50 per cent. of the buildings were damaged. No time was lost in starting immediate repairs, however, and within a few months of the disaster about 13,000 buildings were surveyed. Nearly 1,200 prefabricated houses have been provided by the Government, and grants for repairing houses, under a carefully worked out and detailed scheme, have been made to over 10,000 owners. The administrative staff of the Government of Cyprus, and, indeed, the Colonial Secretary, mentioned by Lord Winster, and the Commissioner, Paphos, deserve to be congratulated on this remarkable achievement. I feel that I should remind your Lordships, in passing, that the people of this country subscribed most generously towards earthquake relief, and donations, in all, totalled some £67,000. It is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make a very substantial contribution, but I am not in a position to-day to tell the House the sum of money involved. I can say, however, that Her Majesty's Government have decided to bear the whole cost of the material aid already given, which includes the loan of 6,000 tents and the provision of blankets and foodstuffs.
I now turn to deal with the constitutional question. I do not intend to go into the historical survey which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, undertook from the early days of history, however interesting that may be. I want to start my story from 1931, because up to that date, as many noble Lords will know, Cyprus was administered by a Governor, aided by an Executive and Legislative Council. Fiat Legislative Council consisted of the Governor, nine officials and fifteen elected members, three of whom were chosen by the. Mohammedan and twelve by the non-Mohammedan voters. Let me remind the House. very briefly, that owing to a
1094
complete deadlock in the Legislature over financial questions owing to the campaign for union with Greece, culminating with the burning down and destruction of Government House, the British Government at that time decided that that part of the Constitution providing for the existence of a Legislative Council should be revoked. That was accordingly done. From that day up to the present time the island has been administered by the Governor with the advice of an Executive Council consisting of himself, the Colon al Secretary, the Attorney-General, the Commissioner of Labour, the Financial Secretary and three non-official members, of whom (as f think Lord Winster mentioned) two were Greek and one a Turk. But although therefore there is no wholly or partly elected Legislature, there are throughout the island elected local government bodies. At the centre, the elected element has, in fact, ceased to exist. Tie noble Lord, Lord Hankey, was quite right when he said that there are in the island a number of elected—shall I say?—local authorities.
In 1946, during the time when the noble Lord, Lord Winster, was Governor of the island, an effort was made to bring about a new Constitution. In the proposed Constitution provision was made for the setting up of a Consultative Assembly to consider the question of constitutional reform, including the establishment of a Central Legislature. That Assembly met in November, 1947, but the Ethnarchy refused to attend, on the grounds that a local Constitution was no substitute for Enosis. Greek and Turkish-speaking representatives, and those members who were nominated by the Government, did, however, attend. It was in 1948 that a paper was published which contained the outline of a Constitution It proposed that a new Legislative Council should have a substantial majority of elected members. A Chamber consisting of twenty-two members was suggested, eighteen to be elected on a general electoral register and four on a Turkish communal electoral register. There were to be a small number of senior officials (I think the figure of three to four was mentioned), so that the Legislature could be properly informed on executive subjects, and also on the policy which the Government were pursuing. There was never any inter, ion that the field of debate

1095
for this Legislative Assembly should be restricted or curtailed, but under the new scheme the Legislature was not to be empowered to discuss the status of Cyprus within the Commonwealth and Empire. Arrangements had also been made for three Greek members and one Turkish member to be appointed to the Executive Council and to be associated with certain specific departments of State.
That, briefly, was the Constitution suggested. It was not designed—as, indeed, Lord Winster said—to be the last word within the general framework of the offer, for a number of details had been left open for further discussion by a Consultative Assembly. Unhappily, when that body met in November, 1947, the Right Wing elements, together with the Ethnarchy, declined to attend. The Assembly which did meet was therefore only partly representative, and the proposals were accepted by the narrow majority of eleven votes to seven. His late Majesty's Government were led to the conclusion that, in view of the narrowness of the vote, and bearing in mind the fact of the composition of the Assembly, it would be quite wrong for them to proceed further with the implementation of this new Constitution. Shortly afterwards, in August, 1948, Lord Winster himself informed the Assembly, in the following words—which I will read:
"His 'Majesty's Government have concluded that, having given ample proof of their sincere desire to give Cyprus a Constitution enabling the island to advance along the road to political development, they must now leave the matter as it stands. The offer of a Constitution of the nature outlined in the Secretary of State's Despatch of May 7 is not withdrawn. If at any time responsible and fully representative political leaders in Cyprus come forward to ask that those or comparable constitutional proposals may be re-examined and implemented, or if there is any genuine manifestation of public opinion in their favour, His Majesty's Government will readily take the necessary steps to enable this to be done."
I could not, if I tried, find better words than those which the noble Lord, Lord Winster, used on that occasion.
The noble Lord made a further remark, at the time when the 1948 offer was made. He said:
"The Constitutional issue has been to some extent obscured by manifestations in favour
1096
of Enosis…once again…I must repeat that no change in the sovereignty of the island is intended."
That statement reflected the attitude of the United Kingdom Government at that time. It was reaffirmed in similar terms in June, 1950, by Mr. Dugdale, who was then the Minister of State for the Colonies. The attitude of Her Majesty's Government to-day in this matter remains unchanged. As regards the constitutional position, the matter, as we see it, stands now as it stood in August, 1948, when it was so ably summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Winster, in the words which I have quoted to the House. That offer has never been withdrawn, but it is up to the leaders of the people in Cyprus to show the will to take an active and constructive part in constitutional advance.
5.39 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, may I reply, very briefly indeed, to one or two remarks which have been made this afternoon? I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Ogmore for his generous remarks to myself, and to tell the noble Lord and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that I remember, with gratitude, the friendliness, the assistance and the help which T always received from the Colonial Office during my period as Governor. I must also tell my noble friend Lord Ogmore that if his waiter could not earn a living on the land in Cyprus, there must have been something wrong with him. It is quite easy to earn a living there. He could not have been a very competent fellow. I should like to echo the noble Lord's remark that the conclusion to which we have to come is a sad one, although, indeed, we are forced to it. I noted, with great care, what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said about imposing a Constitution. The people in Cyprus, as I tried to point out in my speech, will say many things in private that they will not say in public; and I have not seen any public statements in the Press that they would accept an imposed Constitution. I do not think that there would be much hope in imposing a Constitution unless the Archbishop is amongst those who the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said may possibly alter their opinion. I know it is quite true that in most cases it has not been made a condition for the granting of a Constitution

1097
that it should meet with the prior approval of the people concerned; but that is quite a different matter from attempting to give a Constitution in the sure and certain knowledge that it has been refused before it is offered and that it will be refused again.
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, for his most interesting intervention, and to say that I am sure nobody concerned in this matter would for one moment underrate the feelings of the Greeks and of successive Greek Governments in this matter. One can only look to the future and say that, for reasons which we cannot foresee at the moment, one day a solution will offer itself which will do justice to the emotions and requirements of both Governments. With regard to the Consultative Assembly breakdown, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, that I had to consider the resulting situation, and an extension of local government was one of the things that I put forward. Very willingly would we have assisted to that end, but there again, there was no sort of answer, although it is true, as the noble Earl, Lord Munster said, that there are certain elected bodies, the mayors. Those—with perhaps one or two exceptions—are not only Communist but completely incompetent. One of the last things I had to do was to withdraw the fire brigades from them and put them in charge of the police, because I had heard from one of them that even if the brigade had been ordered to a fire, it would have been of no use whatever when it got on the spot. So I thought it much better to put the fire brigades into other hands. But I can assure Lord Hankey that the desirability of the steps he mentions has never been out of sight.
I thank Lord Munster very warmly for his reply about malaria. It is not only a fact that the death rate was high, but generations upon generations of malaria thins the blood and lowers the powers of resistance. The people of Cyprus are said to be lazy. I did not think so; but one has to think about the effect on the population of century after century of malaria. I am sure that industry will get greater production in the future. I was delighted to hear of the progress which is being made in social insurance and welfare
1098
generally. This is very important, and it is a great pleasure to hear how it is going ahead. I have nothing to disagree with in what the noble Earl said about tie course of events immediately prior to and during 1931. I think that what he said is substantially in accordance with what I said, although I did not go into very great detail.
But what I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl for is his restatement of Government policy in regard to Cyprus. That was what I had hoped would result from this debate, and I thank the noble Earl warmly for having given it to us. I believe personally that it will assist the Governor as he takes up his task to know that there is no doubt whatever that the situation has not in any way changed. I think it will also assist the officers of the Administration. They are men who every morning have to encounter virulent articles in the Press. The least offensive thing they are called in the Press is "Slave-driving lackeys of Anglo-American imperialistic oil interests." They then each day go out and carry on with their work of trying to do the best they can for the Cypriots. But under that sort of repeated attack these officers like to know where they stand; and I hope they will be encouraged to go on with their work, knowing that the conditions under which it has to be done have been fairly stated by the Government. Certainly the situation is a distressing one, but some situations have to be accepted; you cannot do anything about them. Here in a larger sphere we have to accept the fact that we shall be living for a long time under the coned-lions of cold war. We believe a solution will come, but so far as the immediate future is concerned we must live under those conditions and. we must accommodate ourselves to them. Similarly, in Cyprus a solution will eventually come to these problems which we are discussing; but for the moment we have to go on with the situation as it is—though to our very great regret. With those few words, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter before six o'clock.