Sitting of 9 July 1936

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.

    ASSISTANCE REGULATIONS.
    Mr. ELLIS SMITHasked the Minister of Labour whether he will give an assurance that the new Unemployment Assistance Regulations shall not come into operation until Parliament reassembles after the Summer Adjournment?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): The proposal is that the new Regulations should not begin to operate till 16th November.

    ENGINEERING INDUSTRY (RE-EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Minister of Labour whether any special arrangements are being made to facilitate the coming back into the engineering industry of those specially skilled who had left it when unemployment in that industry increased during the slump; and whether he will set up a special sub-department to deal with this question?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Engineers who have obtained employment in other industries may nevertheless register at the Employment Exchanges for employment in the occupation in which they are skilled, and their qualifications are carefully considered in connection with any suitable vacancies. Skilled men who left the engineering industry during the depression are not likely to be unaware of the opportunities of employment which the industry now offers, but, though I do not think it is necessary to set up special machinery, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity of drawing attention to the facilities afforded. I should add that, as indicated in the answer given to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Sir W. Edge) on 12th June, I am making the experiment of admitting
    1366
    a small number of skilled engineers who are unemployed in areas of heavy unemployment to "refresher" courses at the Government training centres.
    Mr. E. SMITH: If the skilled engineers do return, can the Minister give them an undertaking that they will not be subject to the same kind of treatment to which they have been subjected during the last five years, and will not again be subject to the means test?
    Mr. BROWN: That is a much wider question.
    Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Can the Minister give a guarantee that miners who have got out of the mines will not be forced back later on, but will be allowed to enjoy a little sunshine?
    Mr. BROWN: There are special rules with regard to that question.

    MUSICIANS.
    Mr. DAYasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the unemployment among British musicians, he will consider further restricting the entry of foreign musicians into Great Britain; and in how many instances during the last three years foreign musicians, who have entered Great Britain as members of bands, have had their personal permits extended and are employed here individually?
    Mr. E. BROWN: If, as I understand him, the hon. Member has in mind only foreign members of bands, there is no need for further restrictions, as permission is not ordinarily granted to such foreigners to take employment in Great Britain. Permission for this purpose during the last three years has been limited to a few cases where the circumstances were exceptional.
    Mr. DAY: Is the Minister aware that members of certain bands which have come over as bands have obtained permits to remain after the actual bands have gone back?
    Mr. BROWN: If the hon. Member has a case in mind and will communicate with me, I will look into it.

    JUVENILES (INSTRUCTION CENTRES).
    Mr. DALTONasked the Minister of Labour whether he has now made arrangements for the provision of meals

    1367
    at the junior instruction centre at Bishop Auckland or at any other junior instruction centres?
    Mr. E. BROWN: No, Sir. As stated by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to a question on 9th June, I have asked the National Advisory Councils for Juvenile Employment to review the system of authorised courses, and I anticipate that the councils will include in their deliberations the question of the provision of meals in junior instruction centres. Meantime I am not in a position to take action in the matter.
    Mr. DALTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as long ago as last December, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry told me, in reply to a question, that this matter was under active consideration? In view of the fact that the Commissioner for the Special Areas has commented on the deteriorated condition of those joining these centres, as a result of under-nourishment and disease, and that the local medical officer has also made a report to the same effect, may I ask how long this deterioration and disease is to be allowed to continue?
    Mr. TINKER: As this matter has been referred to on many occasions, and the Minister has promised several times to give us a report on it, cannot he make an attempt to do so?
    Mr. DALTONasked the Minister of Labour whether he has taken any steps, otherwise than by the provision of meals, to improve the physical condition of juveniles attending junior instruction centres?
    Mr. BROWN: Yes, Sir. I have been able to announce to local education authorities in England and Wales an amendment to the statutory scheme governing the provision of medical services for juveniles attending authorised courses. The amended scheme enables the education authority to arrange for the medical inspection of all juveniles in attendance and the provision of medical and dental treatment where necessary. I propose in the near future to issue to local education authorities a comprehensive memorandum on the provision of medical services for juveniles attending authorised courses.
    Mr. DALTON: Does the Minister realise that this is a very urgent matter indeed, and has dragged on for many months? Is the right hon. Gentleman actively pursuing it at the present moment?
    Mr. BROWN: I think my answer indicates that I am.

    NEW INDUSTRIES (SPECIAL AREAS).
    Mr. W. JOSEPH STEWARTasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the tendency of industry to move towards the south, where the population is reaching saturation point, the Government are prepared to help the starting of new industries in the Special Areas by clearing derelict factories and erecting new ones, so as to make those areas more attractive and able to compete better with areas where industries have been started in better surroundings?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to paragraphs 68 to 79 of the second report of the Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales), Cmd. 5090. The hon. Member is no doubt aware of the arrangements that have been made for establishing trading estates and of the facilities offered by Special Areas Reconstruction Association, Limited.
    Mr. STEWART: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the Survey of Industrial Development issued by the Board of Trade in 1933, new factories were started in this country which, in 1932 and 1933, gave employment to over 83,000 people, only 900 of whom found work in Durham, Northumberland, and the North Riding of Yorkshire; and are he and his Government prepared to do anything to stop this trek of industry south?
    Mr. BROWN: We are trying to do all we can.
    Mr. DALTON: When is the first trading estate going to be established?
    Mr. BROWN: I cannot say at the moment.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the company formed under the Special Areas Reconstruction Act has commenced operations; and how many applications have been received for assistance to start new industries in the county of Durham?
    The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I am informed that 63 applications have been received relating to the North East Special Area as a whole. It is not possible to state with certainty how many of these relate to the county of Durham since many of the applications are not precise as to locality, nor is it possible to say at present how many of these relate to new industries.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that speed is of the essence of the matter, and urge the company that has been formed to proceed with the utmost expedition?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am sure they are doing that but, though speed may be one of the factors, it is also very desirable to have proper investigation made of the applications.
    Mr. DALTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the extension of existing businesses will be permissible?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already said that, but I think that this question relates to new industries.
    Mr. MABANE: Can my right hon. Friend say how much capital is represented by this application?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.
    Mr. WATKINS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what these three cases mean in the terms of fresh employment for unemployed people?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Obviously, not until they have been investigated.

    PROPOSED TRADING ESTATE, DURHAM.
    Mr. SHINWELLasked the Minister of Labour where the proposed trading estate in Durham is to be located; and what progress has been made in connection with the scheme?
    Mr. E. BROWN: Negotiations are proceeding in regard to a number of possible sites for the company. It is inevitable, in an area where mineral rights have to be taken into account, that these negotiations should be somewhat lengthy,
    1370
    and it is clearly impossible to make any statement until they have been satisfactorily concluded.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not a fact that this question was regarded by the Government themselves as extremely important and urgent; and, as many months have elapsed since the decision to create a trading estate was taken, when are the Government going to take action? Is it not about time that the Government stopped trifling with the people of Durham?
    Mr. BROWN: That is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The House knows that some of the members of the board concerned with this matter are, and have been from the beginning, among the keenest advocates of this idea, and they and other members of the board are doing all they can to get an early decision.
    Mr. SHINWELL: How long is it, going to take before a, site is provided and operations are commenced? Are we to be told that in the next spring this is going to be done?
    Mr. BROWN: The House will be told the moment I am in a position to make a decision, when the negotiations are concluded.

    EXPENDITURE, SOUTH WALES AND MONMOUTHSHIRE.
    Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS(for Mr. JENKINS) asked the Minister of Labour the total expenditure in Monmouthshire during 1935 and 1936 in unemployment benefit, unemployment assistance, and grants made by the Commissioner for the Special Areas, respectively; and similar information for the Special Area of South Wales and Monmouthshire?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I am having the information extracted, and will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT as soon as possible.

    HOLIDAYS WITH PAY.
    Mr. RILEYasked the Minister of Labour the number of industries in this country in which agreements have already been reached providing for annual holidays with pay; and whether he can specify the industries and, approximately, the number of workers affected?
    Mr. E. BROWN: A list of the industries in which collective agreements are known to be in operation providing for annual holidays with pay for manual workers was given in the Ministry of Labour Gazette for April, 1936. The number of manual workers covered by such agreements cannot be stated exactly, but is estimated at about 1,500,000.
    Mr. LYONS: Is this one of the matters which are coming under constant survey in the discussions which the Minister is having with industrial representatives; and will it, when a precis of those conversations is published, be dealt with more fully?
    Mr. WATKINS: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence with those industries that do not provide this arrangement, in order that they may do so at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. BROWN: I have already promised a White Paper on the subject as a whole when we get the report of the decision at Geneva.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is necessary to do something more than bring it to the notice of employers; and will the Government take action on their own initiative, and not be forced by the Socialists to do it?
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Does not this sound as though people were trying to reduce the pay of the workers?
    Mr. RILEYasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether all regular manual and non-manual employés in the service of the State already enjoy annual holidays with pay; and, if so, what is the approximate number of persons affected?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. W. S. Morrison): All whole time civil employés in the direct service of the State, manual and non-manual, are allowed annual holidays with pay, subject, in some instances, to a qualifying period of service. The number of persons affected is approximately 445,000.

  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

    "CIVIL SERVICE ARGUS."
    Mr. LIDDALLasked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to an article in the "Civil Service Argus," the monthly journal of the staff of the Ministry of Labour, containing an attack on the Unemployment Assistance Board; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a future incursion by this journal into controversial politics?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I have seen this article, which is an anonymous contribution to a staff association journal. It is not a matter over which I have any control.
    Mr. SHINWELL: Was not the Unemployment Assistance Board created to take unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance out of politics; and how, therefore, does the question of politics come in?
    Mr. BROWN: I can only say that, if there are no better grounded attacks than this on the Board, we shall not spend many sleepless nights.
    Mr. LAWSON: In view of the fact that the Board itself commended the standstill arrangement to the Government and the House of Commons, are not these people to be commended for replying to their criticisms?
    Mr. BROWN: I am not usually given to taking notice of anonymous contributions.

    WAR OFFICE.
    Mr. DAYasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider introducing legislation for the purpose of effecting the change of title of the War Department to some other more suitable name?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Duff Cooper): I do not think I should be justified in occupying the time of the House with legislation for this purpose.
    Mr. DAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that a more peaceful title, such as "Ministry of Defence," would be more appropriate?
    Mr. PETHERICK: Is there any good reason why a mere change of name would improve the efficiency of a Government Department any more than it does in the case of private individuals?
    Mr. VIANTasked the Secretary of State for War the number of persons employed in the War Office who are in receipt of salary and pension, apart from war or disability pension?
    Mr. COOPER: I regret that the figures are not available, and could only be obtained by direct inquiry of the large number of ex-service personnel employed in the War Office.

    ADMIRALTY (STAFF).
    Mr. VIANTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of persons employed in his Department who are in receipt of salary and pension, apart from war or disability pension?
    The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Samuel Hoare): The number of persons employed on a non-industrial basis in the Admiralty and at the out-ports, who are in receipt of salary and pension or retired pay apart from war or disability pension, are 238 and 252 respectively.

  COAL INDUSTRY.

    HOURS OF WORK.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHSasked the Minister of Labour whether he has anything to report from the International Labour Conference on hours of labour in coal mines; and whether, seeing that the United States miners are working a 35-hour week which has proved economically advantageous, he will take steps to bring about a similar state of things in this country?
    Mr. E. BROWN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to a question asked by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent (Mr. E. Smith) on 25th June on the subject of the recent International Labour Conference.
    Mr. G. GRIFFITHS: Do not the Government intend to do anything in the direction of a 36-hour week for our miners—
    Mr. BROWN: We shall be able to discuss that matter when the White Paper is published.
    Mr. GRIFFITHS: I had not quite finished my question. Did not Lord
    1374
    Sankey state that when the miners were producing 250,000,000 tons a year we should have these hours; and is it not a fact that they reached that figure of 250,000,000 tons 16 years ago?
    Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member will understand that I am not responsible for Lord Sankey.

    RACECOURSE BETTING CONTROL BOARD.
    Mr. DUNCANasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has given approval to the action of the Racecourse Betting Control Board in making no provision for depreciation of buildings, equipment, motor vehicles, furniture, and fittings on expenditure on leasehold premises until the redundant assets account has been completely written off and a substantial reduction made in the development account; and will he watch the position closely to see that meanwhile no further substantial amount of redundant assets is created?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The board is an independent statutory body. Certain duties are imposed on the Secretary of State by the Racecourse Betting Act, 1928, but it is not within my right hon. Friend's province to approve or disapprove of the board's policy in the matter of making provision for depreciation. In their published report for the year 1935 the board state that it is anticipated that the balance of £57,484 odd now remaining on the redundant assets account will be written off during the current year.

    CHAR-A-BANC PARTIES, BRIGHTON.
    Mr. MONTAGUEasked the Home Secretary upon what authority the Chief Constable of Brighton instructs char-a-banc parties to leave the town before 6 p.m.; and upon what authority a licensee in Brighton acts in exhibiting a notice outside his hotel stating that char-a-bane parties are not served with refreshment?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): I have obtained a report from the Chief Constable of Brighton who

    1375
    informs me that no such instructions have been issued by the borough police. As regards the second part of the question, the police are not aware that any such notice has been exhibited.
    Mr. MONTAGUE: Is it not part of the licensing law that any sober person can be served?
    Sir J. SIMON: I should like to have notice. Rather complex legal questions may arise.

    MONEY PAYMENTS (JUSTICES PROCEDURE) ACT, 1935.
    Sir ARNOLD WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether he is yet in a position to indicate the effect of the Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Act, 1935, in reducing the population of His Majesty's gaols?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have arranged for the preparation of comparative statistics since this Act came into operation at the beginning of this year, and I am glad to say that the indications are that there has been a substantial reduction in the number of persons imprisoned for nonpayment of moneys to which the Act relates. I should, however, prefer to await further experience and a more detailed examination of the figures before making any more definite statement.
    Sir A. WILSONasked the Home Secretary when he proposes to introduce further legislation to give effect to recommendations of the Departmental committee not covered by the terms of the Money Payments (Justices Procedure) Act, 1935?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject at present.

    ARRESTS (SHOREDITCH).
    Mr. THURTLEasked the Home Secretary whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the case of Albert James Trinnaman and George Robert Trinnaman, two unemployed men of Shoreditch, who were recently charged at Old Street police court with being suspected persons loitering with intent to commit a felony; whether he is aware that the men were said to have nothing against
    1376
    their character and were discharged without conviction; and whether he will state the length of service of the police constable in plain clothes who effected the arrest of these men?
    Sir J. SIMON: I have made inquiry into this case and am informed that the magistrate, after hearing the evidence given by the police and by the defendants, found the charge proved but discharged them under the Probation of Offenders Act in view of their previous good character. Of the two police constables concerned in the case, one has 16 years' service and the other three years' service.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the material police constable in the case, the man who made the arrest, was the man with the shorter period of service and that the general complaint is that police are being sent on this very difficult duty who have had very short experience indeed, and will he make it clear to the police of the Metropolis that walking about the streets is not in itself a crime?
    Sir J. SIMON: No one ever suggested that it was. I regret that there should be a reflection made on these policemen. I might inform the hon. Member, if he does not know it, that the magistrate said:
    "I am quite satisfied with the evidence of these two police officers and I find you both guilty."
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was only one officer who pretended to have observed the men's movements, and that the magistrate himself merely said they had been indiscreet?

    SILICOSIS.
    Captain PLUGGEasked the Home Secretary how many deaths have occurred during the past three years from silicosis; and what steps are being taken to co-ordinate the activities of all concerned in this matter with a view to reducing the deaths from this cause?
    Sir J. SIMON: I am informed that during the three years 1933 to 1935, 470 deaths were certified by the Medical Board under the Silicosis and Asbestosis (Medical Arrangements) Scheme to have been caused by silicosis or by silicosis

    1377
    accompanied by tuberculosis. In recent years much has been done by safeguarding workers in the industries concerned against inhalation of silica dust, and otherwise to reduce both the incidence and the seriousness of the disease. I need not assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the importance of this matter is fully appreciated, and there is close co-operation between the Home Office, the Mines Department, the Silicosis Medical Board and the Medical Research Council.

    WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION.
    Mr. BROOKEasked the Home Secretary the reason for His Majesty's Government's refusal to ratify the International Labour Convention of 1925 concerning workmen's compensation for accidents; and whether it is on account of the obligation which would ensue from Article 11 to introduce a system of compulsory insurance against the insolvency of employers?
    Sir J. SIMON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave the hon. Member for the Shipley Division (Mr. Creech Jones) on 31st March.
    Mr. BROOKE: How many countries have ratified the Convention, or, alternatively, in how many countries does compulsory insurance against insolvency of employers exist?
    Sir J. SIMON: I could not say without notice.
    Mr. BROOKE: May I put down another question?
    Sir J. SIMON: I shall be very glad to answer it.

  EDUCATION.

    MILK AND MEALS (CHILDREN).
    Mr. T. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give a list of those local education authorities which are exercising their powers under Sections 82–84 of the Education Act, 1921, only to the extent of providing free milk for necessitous children?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Some 106 local education authorities are
    1378
    exercising their powers under Sections 82–84 of the Education Act, 1921, only to the extent of providing free milk for necessitous children. I am sending the hon. Member a list of these authorities.
    Mr. SMITHasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will give for the latest convenient year a list, by type of local education authority, showing for each town or area, separately, the number of meals provided free, for payment, and total meals; and the number of children fed, distinguishing what meals are provided, i.e., breakfast, dinner, tea, or milk or cod liver oil only, and the average cost for each meal for each type given and for all types together?
    Mr. STANLEY: The preparation of the information required in respect of each area separately would involve a disproportionate amount of labour. I am, however, sending the hon. Member a return giving for the year 1934–35 (which is the latest period for which figures are at present available) a summary of the information required arranged by types of local education authorities.
    Miss CAZALETasked the President of the Board of Education whether he will consider making arrangements whereby schoolchildren who are receiving milk in school under the Milk Marketing Scheme may also be provided with this milk during the holiday times?
    Mr. STANLEY: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Hepworth) last Monday, of which I am sending her a copy.
    Mr. EDWARD DUNNasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that 34 county councils in England and 10 county councils in Wales are complaining that they cannot provide supplies of milk for the children in their elementary schools, either as a whole or part of their schools; and will he give the reasons for this position and state what he is prepared to do to remedy this state of affairs?
    The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): I am aware that in certain areas, where only few school children are taking milk, difficulties have been experienced in obtaining supplies on the

    1379
    terms applicable to the milk-in-schools scheme. If the hon. Member will send me particulars of any schools which have been unable to obtain supplies, I will forward the information to the Milk Marketing Board, who have already been successful in arranging for supplies to be made available in other cases.
    Mr. DUNN: Is the Minister aware that practically all the schools that are now on the schedule are in areas where milk is being produced, and are mainly agricultural areas?
    Mr. ELLIOT: Yes, Sir, but that does not alter the fact that it is in distribution where the difficulty lies, and it is just as difficult to distribute milk to people whether they are in an area where milk is being produced or whether they are in an area where it is not being produced.
    Mr. DUNN: Are there not over 1,000 schools in agricultural areas in this country where milk cannot be obtained for children in elementary schools?
    Mr. ELLIOT: That matter, as the hon. Member well knows, is being considered in association with the county councils. They have already agreed to write to the Board of Education and the Milk Marketing Board, and after these negotiations have been carried through we shall be able to carry the matter further on the Floor of the House.
    Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Instead of waiting for all this correspondence, and for committees and conferences, would it not be better that the Government should recognise that it is their duty to ensure the distribution of this milk?
    Mr. ELLIOT: If we were to carry out the original suggestion of the hon. Gentleman's friends of a penny per gallon for service instead of sixpence, we should have greater difficulty still.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I would be happier if they charged nothing for the service?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The hon. Member would be happier if we were paying nothing for the service, but we should not get the milk distributed at all.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: You do not get it distributed now.

    ASSISTANT INSPECTORS (ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS).
    Mr. PARKERasked the President of the Board of Education how many appointments to the ranks of assistant inspectors of elementary schools have been made in the last five years; how many of these were obtained by graduates of Oxford and Cambridge; how many were graduates of other universities; and how many had had two or more years' experience as teachers in public elementary schools?
    Mr. STANLEY: Sixty-three appointments of assistant inspectors of public elementary schools in England have been made in the last five years. Of these, four were graduates of Oxford, three of Cambridge and 16 of other universities. Forty-two of these inspectors had had two or more years' experience as teachers in public elementary schools before they were appointed to the inspectorate.

    HANDICRAFT AND DOMESTIC SUBJECTS TEACHERS.
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education, what steps he proposes to take to ensure that there shall be an adequate supply of fully qualified and trained handicraft and domestic subjects teachers by the appointed day for the raising of the school-leaving age under the Education Bill?
    Mr. STANLEY: I propose to take an early opportunity of discussing this matter with the local education authorities when the Education Bill has become law.

    PRIVATE SCHOOLS (SUPERVISION).
    Mr. EDEasked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the recent discussion at the Urban District Councils Association's Conference on the inadequate supervision of private schools; and what action, if any, he proposes to take to strengthen the law dealing with such schools?
    Mr. STANLEY: My attention has been called to the proceedings of the conference. As regards the second part of the question, I can add nothing to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 11th December last.
    Mr. POTTSasked the President of the Board of Education the annual cost per child of elementary education in England and France at the latest available date?
    Mr. STANLEY: The average cost to public funds of education in elementary schools in England and Wales in 1936 is estimated to be £14 14s. 8d. per child. I regret that, so far as France is concerned, I have no information which would enable me to state a comparable figure, because, among other things, no

    The following Table shows the number of children submitted to routine medical inspection in the elementary and secondary schools and junior instruction centres maintained by the Monmouthshire Local education Authority during the year 1935, together with the numbers and percentages found to have slightly subnormal nutrition, or to be suffering from definite malnutrition:

    Type of School.

    Total number of inspections.

    Slightly subnormal nutrition.

    Percentage.

    Badnutrition

    Percentage.

    Elementary

    9,673

    1,468

    15·1

    17

    0·17

    Secondary

    1,721

    145

    8·4

    2

    0·11

    Junior Instruction Centres

    611

    104

    17·0

    18

    2·9

    MOTORING ACCIDENTS, KENT (HOSPITAL TREATMENT).
    Captain PLUGGEasked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the congestion in the hospitals in the Rochester, West Kent, and Canterbury districts owing to motoring accidents; and whether he will take any action to ensure with the local authorities concerned the investigation of the facilities for hospital treatment provided in the respective districts with the object of securing their substantial increase?
    Sir JAMES BLINDELL (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend is aware that statements alleging congestion at these hospitals have appeared in the Press in connection with a recent fatality. He is asking for the observations of the Kent County Council and will inform my hon. and gallant Friend of the result. My right hon. Friend understands that a new voluntary hospital is to be built at Canterbury.

    NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Health whether small shopkeepers and
    1382
    information is available as to expenditure from local funds.

    MALNUTRITION (MONMOUTHSHIRE).
    Mr. J. GRIFFITHS(for Mr. JENKINS) asked the President of the Board of Education the number of children in the Monmouthshire elementary and secondary schools and the junior instruction centres, respectively, suffering from malnutrition?
    Mr. STANLEY: As the answer contains a tabular statement of figures, I shall, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the answer:
    small farmers are included in the scheme now being evolved by his statistical advisers for the extension of health insurance; and, if not, whether he will consider the desirability of instructing his expert advisers to take the position of these two classes into consideration?
    Sir J. BLINDELL: I have been asked to reply. Small shopkeepers and small farmers will be eligible for admission to the voluntary scheme of pensions insurance which the Government has announced its intention of introducing. My right hon. Friend would, however, point out that, for the reasons given in his answer to a question by the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 19th March last, the new scheme will not extend to health insurance.

    INCOME TAX (PROPERTIES, REVALUATION).
    Mr. CROWDERasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider instructing inspectors of taxes that they should not assess property for Schedule A purposes at a sum in excess of the rating assessment without adequate

    1383
    reason, and that in all such cases the owners of property shall be furnished with a statement of the motives which have actuated any differentiation?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 6th July to the hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle (Brigadier-General Spears), of which I am sending him a copy. He will see that a local rating assessment is only one of the factors to be taken into consideration in determining the annual value of a property for the purposes of assessment to Income Tax under Schedule A. I have no reason to suppose that such assessments are not made in accordance with the requirements of the law, and I fear I cannot adopt the suggestion in the last part of the question.
    Mr. CROWDER: Does my right hon. Friend think inspectors of taxes are more qualified to assess the value of houses than the local rating committee which knows all the local conditions?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The local rating assessment is only one of the factors that the inspectors have to take into account.
    Mr. BENSON: Is it not a fact that the annual value for rating purposes and for Schedule A are frequently two entirely distinct things?

    HIS MAJESTY'S CORONATION (SPECIAL COINAGE).
    Mr. DAYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are contemplated by the Royal Mint for the issuing of any special coinage for His Majesty's coronation; is it proposed to issue any gold pieces to commemorate the same; will the citizens of the Dominions and Overseas Empire be given an early opportunity on this occasion to make their applications; and will he give particulars?
    Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: In accordance with custom, specimen sets of the first issue of the coins of King Edward VIII will be issued in due course. For collectors and others requiring them sets containing gold coins will be available at special prices to all who apply. Full details will be publicly announced in good time, and
    1384
    the issue will be available to all applicants both home and oversea.
    Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take precautions this time and see that the advertisements oversea are made well in time so that our citizens can make application?
    Mr. GALLACHER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the unemployed will be specially interested in collecting gold coins?

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. MANDERasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the difficulty of unmarried women in finding employment at the age of 55, he will consider the possibility of granting old age pensions to unmarried women at that age?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 20th February last to the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee).
    Mr. MANDER: When will the Government be able to give a definite decision upon this matter?
    Mr. MORRISON: The answer to which I have referred the hon. Gentleman says that similar proposals have been made in the past, and it has not been found practicable to adopt them.
    Sir FRANK SANDERSON: Can my hon. and learned Friend give the approximate cost?
    Mr. MORRISON: I can if a question is put down to that effect. I would not like to give an inaccurate figure.

    IMPORTED SUGAR (DUTY).
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the total amount of revenue from duties upon imported sugar, and also the tonnage imported during the last financial year?
    Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The net amount of duty collected on imported sugar retained for home consumption during the year ended 31st March, 1936, was £8,270,000. The total quantity imported at varying degrees of polarisation during the year was 2,102,000 tons.

  AGRICULTURE.

    SUGAR-BEET.
    Mr. ADAMSONasked the Mininster of Agriculture the total amount of sugar-beet produced, and the amount of subsidy paid for sugar-beet, in the last financial year?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The total amount of sugar-beet produced in Great Britain during the last financial year was 3,403,989 tons. Making allowance for certain payments and liabilities in respect of the preceding and in the subsequent financial year, the total amount of subsidy paid and to be paid on sugar production during the financial year 1935–36 is approximately £22,770,000.
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the Minister aware that the foreign capitalists are very grateful for the assistance they have received from the British taxpayer in this matter?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The home agricultural workers are still more grateful.
    Viscountess ASTOR: Is the Minister quite certain that the agricultural workers throughout the country are grateful for this, and that the country is going to allow him to go on giving a subsidy, when he has a report of a committee saying that it can never be financially sound?
    Mr. ELLIOT: The matter has been thrashed out and decided by this House, and I do not propose to ask the House to reopen its decision.

    IMPORTED DAIRY PRODUCE (LEVY).
    Mr. LEACHasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in framing a policy for the imposition of a levy on imports of both Empire and foreign dairy produce, as indicated in his statement of 25th July, 1935, on the Government's long-term agricultural programme, he proposes to consult consumers' organisations, such as the Consumers' Council and the principal women's organisations?
    Mr. ELLIOT: As indicated in the statement to which the hon. Member refers, the question whether as part of the Government's long-term policy for the milk industry assistance should be afforded by a system of duties or levies on imports of butter and cheese will fall for consideration in the light of the report of the
    1386
    Reorganisation Commission for Milk for Great Britain, which should be available in the near future. The Government are always willing on such occasions to give due weight to any views that may be submitted to them by responsible organisations.
    Mr. LEACH: Is there any chance, if the representatives of women's organisations make out a strong case, of the policy of the Government being altered?
    Mr. ELLIOT: If convincing reasons are made out against any portion of the Government's policy, it will certainly be altered.

  SCOTLAND.

    GENERAL HEALTH.
    Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he takes as a warning of the general health deterioration the fact that 38 per cent. of those offering themselves to the Array service in Scotland are rejected; and what steps he proposes to take to remedy this physical deterioration?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): While the figure of 38 per cent. which relates to 1932, cannot be regarded as satisfactory it does not appear when viewed in relation to the figures for previous years to suggest general health deterioration. The hon. Member will be aware that the whole question of the health of the Scottish people was comprehensively reviewed by a committee whose report was published last week. The committee have made important recommendations with a view to the further improvement of the general health and these are at present receiving the earnest consideration of my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I took the figures from the report that he has just mentioned, that the general condition of health in Scotland has not improved since 1932, and that the ages at which these men were tested showed that there has been a rise of about 5 per cent.?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the most recent figure, that for 1935, does show an improvement.
    Mr. HARDIE: No, it does not.

    Police administration (Coatbridge).
    Mr. BARRasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make any further statement toward the solution of the difficulties that have arisen regarding police administration in the burgh of Coatbridge?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I am glad to say that suggestions which my right hon. Friend made for ending the difficulties referred to have been adopted and the constables who had been suspended have returned to duty. Steps have also been taken to end the litigation.
    Mr. BARR: May I thank the Minister and the Scottish Office for the action they have taken in this matter, and ask him whether the answer he has given implies the lifting of the suspension and the dropping of all the disciplinary charges that were made, or proposed to be taken, against the members of the police force?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir, that is so.
    Mr. BARR: Thank you.

    SEINE-NET FISHING (FIRTH OF FORTH).
    Captain McEWENasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is in a position to make any announcement regarding the date of the next meeting of the Scottish Fishery Board, with a view to the promulgation at the earliest possible moment of the decision of the committee recently set up to inquire into the question of the area allotted to seine-net fishing in the Firth of Forth?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Fishery Board are holding a special meeting tomorrow to consider the recommendation of their committee and to decide whether they will submit for confirmation a by-law modifying the existing seine-net fishing area in the Firth of Forth.
    Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman remember in this connection that at least 80 per cent. of the seine-net fishermen in the Firth of Forth are definitely against the extension of this area?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: All relevant considerations will be taken into account, and if the board decides to make a bylaw, the hon. Member will be aware that for the statutory period it will have to
    1388
    be advertised in order that objections may be considered.
    Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman bear in mind that there is a good deal of divergence of opinion in the Firth of Forth upon this point?
    Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: I have good reason to know that.

    MINISTERS' SALARIES.
    Mr. BOOTHBYasked the Prime Minister whether the Government propose to introduce legislation to put Ministerial salaries on a more equitable basis?
    The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the answer which I gave on 18th May last in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams).
    Mr. BOOTHBY: In considering this matter, will the Prime Minister hear in mind the fact that this House, has passed a Resolution in favour of the revision of Ministerial salaries?
    The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, Sir, but I think that my hon. Friend will admit that it would have been very difficult to have introduced any more legislation in the last few months than we have done.

    ROYAL ALBERT HALL (LETTING).
    Mr. MANDERasked the Lord President of the Council whet-her in view of the fact that the Royal Albert Hall Corporation possesses three royal charters, he will consider the desirability of introducing legislation which will prevent the continued exercise of political discrimination in the letting of the hall?
    The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I do not consider that this is a matter which should be dealt with by legislation.
    Mr. MANDER: Will the Lord President be good enough to consider the possibility of making representations to the Corporation in view of the close association in the past of the Royal Family with the Albert Hall?
    Mr. MacDONALD: Such representations, I think, do not fall within the scope of the duties of the Privy Council.

    SOUTH AFRICAN PROTECTORATES.
    Mr. DONNERasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (1) whether he can give an assurance that no steps will be taken, to concur in any way with the incorporation of Bechuanaland or Basutoland or Swaziland in the Union of South Africa before the natives of these territories have been consulted and their unequivocal approval obtained;
    (2) whether he is aware that there have been threats and attempts at intimidation of the natives of Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland by suggestions of economic and other pressure unless these inhabitants express a desire to be transferred and incorporated into the Union; and will have give an assurance to this House and to the natives of these Protectorates that the Imperial Government will at all times protect them from the effects of any such action;
    (3) whether his attention has been drawn to the interpretation placed by the Prime Minister of South Africa on the word consult in the Dominions Office aide memoire regarding the future of the High Commission territories, of 15th May, 1935, relating to the undertaking that the inhabitants must be consulted before any transfer of any of these territories can take place; and whether he will draw the attention of General Hertzog to the memorandum handed to General Smuts by His. Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom on 21st July, 1933, in which it is specifically declared that account must be taken of the wishes of the inhabitants?
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the interpretation placed by the Prime Minister of South Africa on the word "consult" in the Dominions Office aide memoire of May, 1935, relating to the undertaking that the inhabitants must be consulted before transfer of the South African Protectorates could be considered; and whether he will give an assurance that it is the policy of His Majesty's Government that the free
    1390
    approval of the inhabitants must be obtained before the question of transfer becomes a matter of practical politics?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Marquess of Hartington): The pledges which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have given with regard to the question of transfer of the South African High Commission territories to the Union are set out in the memorandum of July, 1933, which is published in Command Paper 4948. To these pledges the Government fully adhere, and I have nothing to add to them. As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a question on 7th July, the Acting High Commissioner for the territories is in communication with General Hertzog regarding certain points arising out of his recent speeches, and he hopes to be able to make a further statement on the subject next week.
    Mr. DONNER: May the House understand that the inhabitants of the High Commission Territories will in no circumstances be transferred against their wishes?
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Command Paper, which contains a full statement.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: May I ask whether the word "consult" in the Command Paper denotes the acquiescence of the natives, and if so whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that General Hertzog has disputed that interpretation and says that no acquiescence is necessary?
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: I think my hon. Friend had better wait for the statement which my right hon. Friend will make.
    Mr. EMMOTTasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will in no circumstances agree to the transfer of the South African Protectorates to the Union Government being effected merely upon a resolution of the Union Parliament, in accordance with the expressed intention of the South African Prime Minister relying upon a schedule to the Constitution Act of 1910?
    Marquess of HARTINGTON: The position of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in regard to this matter is set out in the memorandum included as an Appendix in the Command Paper Cmd. 4948. I do not think General Hertzog's recent statement was intended to be read in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend.

    PORTLAND BILL (FOG SIGNAL).
    Captain PLUGGEasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the numerous fatalities to vessels at Portland Bill, whether he will suggest that arrangements should be made for the establishment of an adequate fog signal at that cape?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am not aware that there have been in recent years numerous fatalities to vessels at Portland Bill. I am informed by the Trinity House that in their opinion a fog signal at Portland Bill is not necessary for the purposes of general navigation.
    Captain PLUGGE: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider instituting an inquiry into what maritime opinion really is in the matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is already a signal and fog signal at the Shambles light only five miles from Portland Bill, and it is not necessary to add to that.
    Mr. THURTLE: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "fatalities to vessels"?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The total loss.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    TURKEY.
    Miss WARDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the large adverse balance in the Turkish clearing, he will make it compulsory for British importers of Turkish goods to pay through the clearing?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The operation of the Trade and Payments Agreement with Turkey is receiving the careful consideration of His Majesty's Government, and I hope to be able to make a further statement at an early date.

    AUSTRALIA.
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYDasked the President of the Board of Trade the nature of the ordinance regulating the import of Australian goods recently promulgated by the Japanese Government; and whether he has made any representation to the Japanese Government on this matter?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given yesterday to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner).
    Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: When the right hon. Gentleman receives a copy of the ordinance, will he make representations to the Japanese Government, and thereby show that penal action against any part of the Empire is action against the Empire as a whole?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think I had better await the receipt of the ordinance itself.

    INDIA (BRITISH TEXTILES).
    Mr. ROWSONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the grave dissatisfaction prevailing in the cotton trade in Lancashire concerning the Indian import duties on British textiles; and will he take steps to secure a further reduction of such duties and at the same time try to bring prints, yarns, and rayons within the scope and operation of such reductions?
    Mr. RUNCIMAN: The views and wishes of the Lancashire cotton organisations are being kept well in mind, and especially the points mentioned in the latter part of the question.

    HIRE-PURCHASE AGREEMENTS.
    Mr. CHORLTONasked the Attorney-General whether he proposes to introduce any fresh Regulations with reference to hire-purchase agreements which, because of their not needing a witness at signing, frequently produce cases of hardship through misunderstanding of all the liabilities that are incurred, resulting in many of the articles concerned having to be returned though payments still have to be made?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Terence O'Connor): There are no statutory powers under which such Regulations

    1393
    can be made. I also doubt very much whether the necessity for a witness would prevent the misunderstandings to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. TURTON: Is the Solicitor-General aware that in regard to the law of hire-purchase the law of Scotland has advanced in recent years and that the law in England has not, and will he take early steps to remedy that simple defect?
    The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: It is a fact that there is legislation in Scotland which does not exist here, but that matter is being remedied by new county court rules which are shortly to come into force here.

  TRANSPORT.

    BRIDGE AND BY-PASS, SELBY.
    Major CARVERasked the Minister of Transport whether the proposed new bridge and by-pass at Selby which con-nects the main trunk road between the East and the West Riding will come under his recent decision of maintenance and improvement; and whether his Department will therefore bear the whole cost of the approved scheme or similar schemes?
    The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): I hope that pending the introduction of the Bill I may not be pressed to particularise the schemes of construction and improvement which will be involved.
    Major CARVER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this road is a main trunk road between Hull and Liverpool, and therefore, it should come in the category mentioned the other day?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Nothing that I have said this afternoon in any way detracts from what I have said previously.

    TRUNK ROADS.
    Mr. SALTasked the Minister of Transport whether the proposal to take full responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of some 4,500 miles of trunk roads will include powers to provide for their lighting in accordance with the best modern practice?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I would ask my hon. Friend to await the presentation of the Bill.
    Mr. LYONS: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the approximate time when the final report of the Departmental Committee on Road Lighting will be ready?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That does not arise out of this question, but I should he most happy to give the date if I knew it.
    Mr. DINGLE FOOTasked the Minister of Transport why the trunk road between Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen, A92, is not included in the routes for which the Ministry of Transport propose to assume full responsibility; and whether, in view of the importance of this route, he will consider the advisability of including it in the scheme?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The Edinburgh-Perth-Inverness road and the Perth-Dundee-Arbroath-Aberdeen coastal road are included in the scheme.
    Mr. MATHERS: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to link up that road with bridges over the Forth and the Tay under his own responsibility?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That will arise at some later date.
    Mr. FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the list of roads to be included in the scheme is finally closed, or whether he will receive representations for including any other road?
    Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not prepared to receive representations, and if I did receive them I am not prepared to consider them. The statement that I made covers all the trunk roads in the country.

    MANDATED TERRITORIES.
    Mr. SANDYSasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in view of recent German propaganda, whether the declaration made by the Foreign Secretary to the German Chancellor, in Berlin in March, 1935, to the effect that the cession of any British Mandated Territory was not a discussable question, still represents the attitude of His Majesty's Government?
    The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, many statements on the subject of the Mandated

    1395
    Territories administered by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been made since March, 1935, in this House; and, in particular, I would refer to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Committee of Supply on 6th April last.
    Mr. SANDYS: Owing to the uncertainty which still exists in spite of those statements, cannot my right hon. Friend give a direct answer to this question, or, failing that, make a full statement on, the subject in the course of the coming Debate?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I hope that my hon. Friend will do his best to help me to put an end to these uncertainties which, I think by his supplementary question, he is tending to increase rather than decrease.
    Mr. SANDYS: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the easiest way to put an end to the uncertainty would be to give a direct answer to this question?
    Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in one and a half columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT gave a most direct answer.
    Mr. MANDER: Are the German Government in the least interested? Do they not simply take what they want?

    BRITISH ARMY (RECRUITING).
    Miss CAZALETasked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Hackney Borough Council not to allow notice boards and advertising spaces which are municipal property to be used for recruiting purposes, and further to discontinue from the end of the current year the privilege hitherto accorded to its employés of extra leave on full pay for the purpose of attending Territorial Army camps; and whether he will take up these matters with the council?
    Mr. COOPER: Yes, Sir, I have seen references to this matter in the Press, but, while I regret the decision, I fear there is no action which I can usefully take. I trust, however, that this council and others who adopt a similar attitude
    1396
    to the Forces of the Crown, will realise in time the extent to which they and the civilian communities for which they are responsible are dependent on those Forces, and in particular on the Territorial Army, for their protection.
    Miss CAZALET: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the time has arrived to ask hon. Members opposite whether they will state clearly what their policy is on the whole question of recruiting?
    Mr. COOPER: It was stated by the Leader of the Opposition during the week at Derby, when he said that if we asked them to assist in the work of recruiting we should ask in vain.
    Mr. SHINWELL: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of these municipal bodies realising in time. What does he mean? Does he expect some trouble to occur shortly?
    Mr. CROSSLEY: Does he not mean that if we are strong we shall not be invaded?
    Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on this side would not care to ask young men to commit their lives to the keeping of any other Government except a responsible Government?

    ITALY AND ABYSSINIA.
    Sir A. WILSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how long before the Negus fled from Addis Ababa he advised Sir Sidney Barton of his decision to depart; whether Sir Sidney Barton uttered any remonstrance or any warning of the probability of disturbances occurring in the capital when the people learned the Negus had fled; whether the British Legation were informed of the existence and situation of the large stores of ammunition in Addis; and whether any precautions were taken to safeguard these stores?
    The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, the answer is about five hours. Sir Sidney Barton has not reported in any despatch that he felt it his duty to dissuade the Emperor from his intention to leave Addis Ababa, or to warn His Majesty against the consequences which might result. His Majesty's Legation may have been aware

    1397
    of the existence of stores of ammunition in the capital, but I cannot say whether the exact situation of these stores was known to them. It appears from Command Paper 5213, which was recently laid before Parliament, that no adequate precautions were taken by the Abyssinian authorities to safeguard these stores. It was obviously not the duty of any foreign representative in Addis Ababa to undertake such a task.

  ROYAL NAVY.

    BATTLESHIPS AND BATTLE CRUISERS.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many battleships and battle cruisers are at present in every way ready for sea with full active service complements; and how many are refitting, under repair, manned by reduced crews, or performing training services?
    Sir SAMUEL HOARE: Seven battleships and battle cruisers are at present in every way ready for sea with full peace complements, and one is now commissioned for trials after completing large repairs. The other seven are either undergoing modernisation or large repairs, or are refitting, manned by reduced crews, or performing training services, but of these seven, all but three can be made ready for sea, at short notice if required.
    Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: May I ask whether every effort will be made to keep more than 50 per cent, of battleships and battle cruisers ready for active service?
    Sir S. HOARE: The situation is very closely watched, and we keep these facts in mind.
    Sir RONALD ROSS: Do not the figures show how necessary it is to replace them?

    MEDITERRANEAN FLEET.
    Mr. MANDERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when it is proposed to bring back the British Fleet from the Mediterranean?
    Sir S. HOARE: There is no intention of withdrawing the British Fleet from the Mediterranean, but it is proposed to release, at a very early date, those units
    1398
    which were sent temporarily to the Mediterranean from the home station and from other stations abroad.
    Mr. MANDER: As the Government have said that they are not willing to risk any of these ships, what is the precise purpose of keeping them there?
    Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not the fact that the British Fleet has been in the Mediterranean for over 300 years and is there any reason why it should be withdrawn now?
    Sir S. HOARE: And I think they are likely to stop there for another 300 years.

    REAR-ADMIRALS.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many rear-admirals are on the active list of the Royal Navy; how many are employed in admiral's commands; how many in other than admiral's commands: how many are unemployed; and when those unemployed were last employed?
    Sir S. HOARE: The answer to the first part of the question is 38, to the second part 24, to the third part six (including three attending courses), and to the fourth part eight. As regards the last part, the officer who has been longest unemployed vacated his last appointment in August, 1935.

    PROMOTION.
    Lieut. - Commander FLETCHERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether officers of the Royal Air Force render confidential reports on naval officers attached to the Royal Air Force; and if these confidential reports are taken into account by the Board of Admiralty when the promotion of such naval officers is under consideration?
    Sir S. HOARE: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative. Full details of the arrangements for the promotion of these officers in Royal Navy rank are contained in King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, Article 985 (7a (i)) and 865 (12) as supplemented by Admiralty Fleet Order 1340/36.

    PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (TERRITORIAL FORCE ALLOWANCES).
    Mr. WALKDENasked the Minister of Health whether, in assessing need, a

    1399
    public assistance committee has the approval of his Department in taking into consideration bounty and other allowances received by a son as a member of the Territorial Force?
    Sir JAMES BLINDELL: I have been asked to reply. A local authority has no authority to exclude from consideration any resources available for the support of an applicant for relief other than those expressly excepted by statute; and the payments referred to by the hon. Member are not so excepted.

    WOOLWICH ARSENAL (EXPLOSION).
    Mr. HICKS(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to give the House as to the explosion that occurred at Woolwich Arsenal on Wednesday, 8th July?
    Mr. COOPER: I very much regret to have to announce that an explosion occurred in the Research Department at the Royal Arsenal yesterday shortly before 3 p.m., when an experiment was in progress regarding the filling of a high-explosive shell. One naval officer, and four civilian members of the Research Department staff, lost their lives, while one other member of the Department who was, however, not in the danger-building itself, was injured. The cause of the explosion is now in course of investigation, and a Court of Inquiry has been convened. The building involved was in a special danger area, and though it was completely wrecked the other activities of the Research Department and the Royal Arsenal have not been interfered with. I am sure that the House will wish me to express its sympathy with the families and relatives of these officials, who lost their lives in the performance of their duty.
    Mr. HICKS: While thanking the right hon. Member for his statement and for his expression of sympathy with the relatives, I will at a convenient moment raise the question again as to what the Government propose to do for the relatives of the deceased, and also as to what steps can be taken to prevent a recurrence of the accident.

    REX v. BRYANT (DEFENCE).
    Mr. SILVERMAN(by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in the case of Rex v. Bryant the Court of Criminal Appeal refused to admit certain additional evidence on the ground that it could have been produced at the original trial; that at the original trial the defence was in the hands of junior counsel only whereas the prosecution was undertaken by the Solicitor-General, another King's Counsel and junior counsel; and whether, as the Attorney-General has now refused his fiat for a further appeal, he is satisfied that the accused woman was properly represented and the requirements of the Poor Prisoners Defence Acts adequately complied with?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think this question should more appropriately have been addressed to the Attorney-General. I have consulted my hon. and learned Friend and am informed by him that the answer to all parts of the question is in the affirmative.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable public uneasiness about this case, and does he not think that when a case of such difficulty as to justify a prosecution by a Law Officer in person is defended by junior counsel only, there is a considerable danger of a miscarriage of justice?
    Sir J. SIMON: No, I do not think so. In this particular instance I know the learned gentleman who represented the accused and I am certain that she suffered no prejudice in the presentation of her case by junior counsel.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Will the Home Secretary do me the justice to realise that I intended no reflection whatever on the learned gentleman who represented her? Does he not think that where there is such a very heavy battery of legal gentlemen on one side the effect on the mind of a rustic jury may be considerable?
    Sir J. SIMON: I think the hon. Member puts his question from a mistaken point of view. When counsel appear for the Crown in a serious case they are not a battery against an accused. They are engaged in trying to present the facts of the case with complete propriety and with the greatest impartiality.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Is it then the right hon. Gentleman's view that it was unnecessary for the Solicitor-General to appear in the case? Could not the case have been presented adequately and fairly by the other leading counsel who appeared, supported by junior counsel? If it was so difficult a case that a Law Officer of the Crown had to appear in person, would it not have been fair to see that the defence of the accused person on a capital charge was in the hands of people of equal prestige?
    Sir J. SIMON: If I may say so, these questions really should be addressed to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is the responsible authority who selects and nominates counsel for the prosecution in a serious criminal charge. It is not a matter which comes within the functions of the Home Secretary, but my own view is that in a case of this sort the defence was most adequately conducted.
    Mr. PRITT: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Law Officer who is present whether, however able and eminent the one counsel who represents an accused person on a capital charge may be, it would not be well to recommend, so far as they can, to magistrates or others who allot counsel that there is power in those cases to allot two counsel, and that the almost intolerable burden of such defences is better borne by two?
    Sir J. SIMON: My hon. and learned Friend will no doubt be glad to know that in the present case there were two counsel.
    Mr. SILVERMAN: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Court of Criminal Appeal the accused person was represented by a leading counsel who did not appear at the original trial, and that that leading counsel desired to call additional evidence which was not admitted because it was available to the defence in the original trial, and was not called?
    Sir J. SIMON: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, however that may be, it does not involve in the slightest degree any difference between King's Counsel and experienced junior counsel. Exactly the same view would be taken whether by experienced junior counsel or King's Counsel.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business for next week?
The PRIME MINISTER: Monday.—Committee stage of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions), Money Resolution; Committee and remaining stages of the Malta (Letters Patent) Bill [Lords]; Consideration of certain draft Orders made under the Government of India Act and the Government of Burma Act.
Tuesday.—Supply; Committee (15th Allotted Day): Scottish Estimates; Report stage of the Cattle Industry (Money) Resolution.
Wednesday.—Supply; Committee (16th Allotted Day): Board of Trade Vote.
Thursday.—Supply; Committee (17th Allotted Day): Ministry of Health Vote.
Friday.—Second Reading of the Cattle Industry (Emergency Provisions) Bill.
On any day, as opportunity offers, progress will be made with other Business.
Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Can the Prime Minister say what Scottish Votes will be taken on Tuesday?
The PRIME MINISTER: Not yet.
Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the Prime Minister quite adamant on the point put to him yesterday on the Unemployment Insurance Regulations, namely, to take them finally before we adjourn for the Summer Recess; and is he not open to the suggestion made from the Front Opposition Bench that there should be a Second Reading Debate before he finally takes them?
The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I adhere to what I said yesterday.

BILL PRESENTED.
  JOURNALISTS (REGISTRATION).
  "to provide for the registration of journalists and for purposes connected therewith," presented by Sir Percy Hurd; supported by Mr. Bossom, Mr. Clarry, Captain Arthur Evans, Mr. Thomas Hunter, Mr. Harold Nicolson, Mr. Temple Morris, and Mr. Graham White; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Pensions (Governors of Dominions, Etc.) Bill,
  Land Registration Bill,
  Darlington Corporation Trolley Vehicles (Additional Routes) Provisional Order Bill,
  Derby Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
  Doncaster Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,
  Pier and Harbour Provisional Order (Gloucester) Bill,
  Reading Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.
  Weights and Measures Bill, with Amendments.
  Amendments to—
  Shops Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

  BILLS REPORTED.
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (HELSTON AND PORTHLEVEN WATER) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.
  Reported, with Amendments.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

  SOUTH SUBURBAN GAS BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments.
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

  SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.
  WREXHAM AND EAST DENBIGHSHIRE WATER BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed, Bill, as amended to lie upon the Table.

  DOVER CORPORATION BILL [LORDS].
  Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.*
  Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.
  [14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]
  CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1936.

CLASS II.

  COLONIAL OFFICE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £112,459, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies."
  3.46 p.m.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I beg to move, to reduce the Vote by £100.
  The Motion for the reduction of the Vote which I have the honour to move affords an opportunity of discussion on all the important points of Colonial administration. I believe that hon. Members on all sides of the Committee will be very grateful for this opportunity. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will not regard any criticisms expressed in this Debate by me as reflecting on his own person, since this House and the Colonies look to him at the present time, in his new office, for a progressive and constructive policy in Colonial affairs. The Colonial debates in this House do not give rise as a rule to the same bitterness which is often engendered by discussions on home policy. Yet there is a considerable number of matters which are connected with the Colonial policy of the Government which sometimes demand a critical inquiry. In opening this Debate I would like especially in this regard to allude to the question of Kenya and to the land question in that Colony, which has excited so much controversy both here and in Kenya lately. It has caused a spate of interesting correspondence in the columns of the "Times," in which letters have appeared from various important ex-Colonial governors and Colonial Office
  1414
  officials who can speak with undoubted authority.
  In May of this year I put a question to Mr. Thomas on the proposed Order in Council which is to deal with this matter, and the Colonial Secretary agreed at that time to postpone publication of that Order until the matter had been discussed on the occasion of the Vote now before the Committee. That promise made by Mr. Thomas was, I feel certain, in accordance with the wishes of all parts of the House, and I think we are grateful that it should have been made. May I recall that the proposed Order in Council was foreshadowed in the White Paper of 1934, in which it was stated that it would implement the recommendation of the Morris Carter Commission. I wish that this draft was before us now, but since it is not, I hope the Minister will give a full exposition of his proposals when he winds up the Debate. We shall listen very carefully to his exposition and to his justification of those proposals, because it is a fact that they may involve grave consequences not only to the native population of Kenya, but they may create a precedent of far-reaching importance to the whole of the Colonial policy of the Empire.
  The tangled and difficult question of land in Kenya is not a new one. The Committee will remember it survives from the days when Kenya was a Protectorate. Under the Protectorate, land was allotted by the Lands Office, and in practice that office restricted the grants of land in the agricultural Highlands to Europeans only. In 1906 Lord Elgin, who was then Colonial Secretary, approved of this administrative policy. At the same time he instructed the Governor that it was not in accordance with the general policy of the Imperial Government to restrict any section of His Majesty's subjects from holding land in the Protectorate. In 1908 Lord Elgin again endorsed the policy but again rejected the suggestion that any legal restrictions should be placed on the landholding rights of any section of the community. In 1923 the Imperial Government reaffirmed the same policy approving of restriction of grant and transfer of land in the Highlands to Europeans. The reason given was that for a period of 15 years Europeans had been led to believe that this practice of restriction

  1415
  would continue, and that they had developed the Highlands on that understanding.
  Another White Paper was published in 1930 on this policy and in it the Government, over the signature of Lord Pass-field, declared that they were not prepared to go back on the decision of Lord Elgin in 1908, but were unwilling to see any restriction extended to other agricultural areas in East Africa. That declaration seemed to imply something new, namely, that there would be no extension of the area of land reserved in practice for Europeans. I submit that the policy which was declared in 1930 may be seriously modified if some of the recommendations of the Morris Carter Commission are adopted. Under these it is proposed to define and enlarge the European Highlands and, further, to create a colour bar by preventing non-Europeans from owning or leasing land within the defined area although a fairly large number of natives, all British subjects, are within that area at present. What would be the effect of the Morris Carter recommendation? It would be, I submit, to create a privileged position for Europeans of every nationality over British subjects in Kenya who are nonEuropeans—both natives and Indians. The Committee is, of course, aware that there is a large population of Indian settlers in Kenya, and I need not remind hon. Members that the administrative policy outlined by Lord Elgin, was first adopted to grant a privilege to Europeans in comparison with the newly-settled Indians. Do not let us forget, however, that we declare ourselves to be trustees for native interests, and we should ask ourselves on this occasion whether legislation of this kind is in favour of the trustee or of the wards.
  Another important matter dealt with in the proposed Order in Council is the question of the access of natives to courts of justice in respect of land claims. These claims are dealt with in the Morris Carter report. They will arise wherever native rights are expunged and compensation offered. It is now proposed that no native shall be allowed to bring a claim into court, though he may have grievances of a serious nature which require, in his opinion, immediate redress.
  1416
  Here, again, I suggest the Government will be in the position of saying to British subjects, "Foreigners may go to the courts with their land claims, but you may not." Lord Elgin's Order may have been good or it may have been bad, but it was a purely administrative Order and its merits are not at issue to-day.
  The question now appears to be: Is it right that in a Crown Colony this practice should be legalised in the manner proposed? Let me remind the House of the White Paper of 1922. The right hon. Gentleman who is now at the head of the Colonial Office, then occupied a humbler though very important position in the same office, and he defended that White Paper with great cogency and eloquence, and with all the fire of youth. In that document the Duke of Devonshire pointed out that the Provision of Crown Lands Ordinance did not amount to legal discrimination—that the administration could be altered and that there was no actual legal discrimination between one British subject and another. As regards right of access to the courts, finality of settlement. in respect of land is no doubt eminently desirable after all these years, but I should like the Minister to explain how the exclusion of our fellow-subjects from the courts without their consent is to be regarded as a proper manner of securing finality. May I refer to what Queen Victoria said nearly 80 years ago:
  "in the eyes of the law there should not be any distinction or disqualification whatever founded upon mere distinction of colour, origin, language or creed."
  That magnificent statement typifies the generous and liberal-minded attitude which this country has shown in its Colonial policy for nearly 100 years. It has been repeated in one form or another in many White Papers published by the Colonial Office and in many utterances of successive Secretaries of State. The present Colonial Secretary himself has pointed out that His Majesty's Government should regard themselves as exercising a trust on behalf of the African population. The White Paper of 1923 said it was the intention of the Government to work for "the protection and advancement of the native races "and further said:
  "It is the mission of Great Britain to work continuously for the training and

  1417
  education of the African towards a higher intellectual and moral level than that which they had reached when the Crown assumed responsibility for the administration of the territory."
  The right hon. Gentleman himself on that occasion pointed out the difficulties which existed then and which still exist in Kenya, where Europeans and Indians and Arabs are living together, and he added:
  "It was the common duty of all to subordinate the narrower conceptions of racial consciousness to the higher ideal of working together for the Colony and the Commonwealth as a whole."
  He said further:
  "It was our duty to do justice and right between the various races and interests, remembering that we were trustees before the world for the African population."
  He concluded by saying:
  "Our administration of this trust must stand eventually before the judgment-seat of history, and that on it we should be judged as an Empire."
  I, least of all, wish to disparage the work of the European settlers in Kenya. It is the admirable work of a host of bold and enduring pioneers, who have gone there with their lives in their hands and who have, no doubt, done a great deal to benefit the Colony and for the advancement of the natives. Lord Francis Scott, to whom the white settlers owe such a deep debt of gratitude did, I feel sure, express the views of the Europeans when when he said in London the other day that their policy is in no way anti-native, and added:
  "It is a policy founded many years ago and known as the dual policy—the full development side by side of Europeans and natives alike."
  In that spirit I firmly believe that a solution of the land question should not be impossible. But this new proposal, in so far as it is going or may be going to introduce a crude racial and colour bar in respect of opportunities in better agricultural land, does not, to my mind, promise to make for good relations between Europeans and non-Europeans at the present time. I hope that the Colonial Secretary will be able to shed some light on what is going to happen.
  With the permission of the Committee I will now turn to another question which is also occupying the public mind. It was alluded to to-day at Question time. I refer to the future of the Mandated Territories. I certainly trust that the
  1418
  Government, through the Colonial Secretary, is keeping in touch with the views of the natives on this important matter.
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will forgive me for interrupting. I think the Committee may be in some difficulty in this Debate with regard to the question of Mandated Territories unless we come to a definite arrangement as to how the Debate is to proceed. I understand that certain Mandated Territories, being self-supporting, come under the Secretary of State for the Colonies and would, therefore, come under this Vote, but there is another Mandated Territory, Palestine, which is not self-supporting and, therefore, involves expenditure which is included in another Vote. Consequently it would apparently be in order to discuss on this Vote certain Mandated Territories, but not to disuss the Mandated Territory of Palestine and Transjordan. Equally, when we come to the other Vote on the Order Paper, on which Palestine and Transjordan can be discussed, the other Mandated Territories cannot be discussed. It has been not an uncommon practice for the Chairman to permit, if it is the general wish of the Committee, discussion of two Votes together. In these circumstances it may be for the convenience of the Committee if the two Votes which are on the Order Paper are discussed together to-day, so that the question of Mandated Territories could be discussed without the necessity of leaving out Palestine and Transjordan. If the Committee feel that that is the most convenient course it would involve this: At the moment the hon. Member would not be able to do what I understand he intends, that is to move a reduction of the Vote, because if he moved a reduction that would confine the Debate to the particular Vote to which the reduction related. I can only suggest to the Committee that perhaps the hon. Member, who is speaking for his party, may, if it be thought to be for the general convenience of the Committee to discuss together the two Votes that are on the Paper, refrain from moving a reduction and later on it would be possible, of course, for an hon. Member to move a formal reduction of the first Vote or of the second Vote, if he so desired, towards the end of the Debate.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I am very much obliged for that Ruling. As

  1419
  regards the reduction that I have moved, I propose that we should stick to it. The question of Palestine has been amply discussed on previous occasions and has been thoroughly ventilated, and there is, therefore, no reason to start on it afresh now. On the other hand, this new question has not been before the Committee, and I think it would be best if we limited ourselves now to the reduction I have proposed of Vote 8.
  The CHAIRMAN: In those circumstances, the two Votes certainly cannot be discussed together, because, as I said, it cannot be done except with the general assent of the entire Committee. If that general assent is not given hon. Members must bear ha mind that we are now confined to matters which come under Vote 8, and that we must exclude from the discussion those matters which come specially under "Middle Eastern Services" and other matters under Vote 9.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: The view expressed has our concurrence, inasmuch as we have had a discussion on Palestine on a previous occasion.
  Earl WINTERTON: Having taken some part in the Debate on Palestine, I associate myself with what the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) has said.
  The CHAIRMAN: It is obvious that my interruption was unnecessary. I hope the Committee will understand that we are now confined, so far as the Mandated Territories are concerned, to discussion of those on which there is no expenditure involved. They come into this Debate only in so far as their administration is under the Secretary of State fur the Colonies, whose salary is included in the Vote that we are now discussing.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I am very happy to find that Members in all parts of the Committee are prepared to subscribe to the suggestion made. I will, therefore, refer only briefly to the question of the other Mandates. When you rose, Sir Dennis, I was expressing the hope that the Government, through the instrumentality of the Colonial Secretary, was keeping in touch with the views of the natives on the important matter
  1420
  of the administration of these Mandates and the claims put forward by other Powers for the abandonment of our part in those Mandates. The German claims, as we know, have not been officially formulated as yet, but there is no doubt that they have already been clearly stated by Herr Hitler and some of his Ministers; and there can be no doubt that they will shortly be put forward in a manner which will require the consideration of the Colonial Office. If there is a claim for the return of the German Colonies—
  The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member is now getting on to something which is outside the Colonial Office. What he is now mentioning would be a question entirely for the Foreign Office, I think.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I submit that I am only touching on the attitude of the Colonial Office to these Mandates as an adviser of the Government and of the Foreign Office as to what to do. I am going to discuss only the relations which now are binding the Secretary for the Colonies to the Mandated Territories in order that he may be able to advise the Government and the Foreign Office as to the wishes of the natives in those territories.
  The CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member keeps on those lines it may be unnecessary for me to interrupt further, but he will understand that any question of debating the advisability or otherwise of a return of any of these territories to some other Power is not a matter which comes under the Colonial Office, and it would, therefore, be out of order.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I was saying that if there is a claim for the return of these Mandates to some other Power we should not be bound Or even entitled to consider it. That would be contrary to our duty as a mandatory Power, a duty which is in the hands of the Colonial Secretary; it would be contrary altogether to the principles upon which the man. dates system has been set up. After all, we cannot divest ourselves at will of the mandate Clauses of the Treaty of Peace, nor of the administration of these Mandates by the Colonial Office as it is carried out now. We are responsible, the Colonial Office is responsible, to the

  1421
  Mandates Commission of the League for our administration of these Mandates. The Colonial Office every year is represented at the Mandates Commission and reports on the way the Mandates have been administered. I would remind the Committee that there has been only one case so far of our surrendering a Mandate. That was the Mandate for Iraq. After discussion with the Colonial Office and after advice given by the Colonial Secretary the Government decided that the people of Iraq were ripe for self-government and that the time had come to lay down the Mandate, and through the League the Mandate was surrendered.
  In the same way the present Colonial Secretary may be called on to declare his views on the question of terminating one or all of the present Mandates. He may be called on to do that as the administrator of the Mandated Territory affected, and as our representative at the League of Nations. When that time comes it is essential that we should be guided mainly, if not entirely, by the interests and the wishes of the populations of the Mandated Territories. On these matters the Government will need the advice of the Colonial Secretary, and I hope sincerely that the Colonial Office is busying itself with this question, informing itself of the wishes and interests of the native populations, and considering how far they would be affected by any transfer of Mandates to another Power. The observance of native interests must, of course, be paramount both in administration of the Mandates and in any question of the transfer of Mandated Territories to another Power.
  I may say, in passing, that for my own part I cannot imagine that the natives would care to exchange British for Nazi rule. I cannot believe they would care to be ruled by German governors, who would share Herr Hitler's view that the black man should always be subordinated to the white man, that the black races are inferior races who can never aspire to a higher status. Indeed, this theory is absolutely contrary to the basic purpose of mandatory rule, which is to bring the natives, by gradual advancement, to share in their own government. Nor can I imagine that if Germany became a mandatory Power, the natives would feel confident that she meant to observe her responsibilities under the League.
  The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is now going too far. The wishes of the natives, as to what should be done under British administration it would be in order to discuss, but when it comes to a question of some foreign Power, that is a matter which is outside the Colonial Office Vote.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I will, therefore, merely say that I hope the Colonial Secretary will inform himself as to native feeling and native interests in this matter, and bring his influence to bear on this subject in those circles which would barter away these Mandates in order to buy off some foreign Power which may threaten our own European peace. There is one field where the interests of natives and of Powers without Colonies coincide, and that is the field of medicine, science, technology, and such like. The German pre-war Colonial administration, bad as it was, did recruit men, and good men, from these fields who were prepared to devote themselves to the betterment of native African populations, and no doubt now in other countries there are plenty of such men, in the universities of Europe, who are qualified and anxious to do the same. I am putting forward to the Colonial Secretary the hope that he might consider the suggestion that the technical branches of the Mandate administration should be open to men of non-British nationality. Doctors, architects, bacteriologists, and other scientists would certainly be of great assistance in the development of the natives, and Lord Lugard, whose opinion anyone interested in Colonial matters must respect, has made himself an advocate of this proposal.
  Claims for Colonies are advanced on two grounds, political and economic. So far as it rests on questions of prestige, it is out of our purview to-night, but as regards the demand for Colonies on economic grounds, may I point out that our own Colonial policy may well have justified such a demand? Let me remind the Committee that since Ottawa we have sought deliberately to make our Colonial markets into preserves for British trade and that this policy, by excluding other nations from the markets of our Colonies, hampers them in the purchase of raw materials, of which our Colonies produce so much of the world's supply. [Interruption.] At the present time I am discussing the general Colonial

  1423
  policy, and not only the policy in Ken a. In this sphere again, as in all the others that I have touched upon, the paramount consideration must be that of the Colonial people themselves, and I wonder whether our fiscal policy since Ottawa has been to the advantage of the Colonies themselves. From 1924 to 1929, which were five Free Trade years, the Colonies were dependent on non-Imperial markets for the sale of half their exports. Therefore, it is obvious that the Colonies must be harmed by any reduction of their foreign trade. It is to the interests of the Colonies to sell as much of their produce as they can, and it is obvious that Great Britain, huge buyer of Colonial produce as it is, cannot supply a market for the whole production of the British Colonies throughout the world.
  A direct effect of the restriction of imports to the Colonies has been a reduction in the standard of life of the natives. Let us take one instance, the instance of Ceylon. The Committee will remember that in the interests of the Lancashire cotton trade we have regulated cotton imports into Ceylon, and the result has been a drastic reduction in the total imports of cotton goods. Take the year 1934. In that year Ceylon imported 78,000,000 yards of cotton; in 1935 the imports of cotton into Ceylon were only 56,000,000 yards. Also, the average price of cotton in Ceylon has increased; since, although the volume of imports has decreased by 33 per cent., the total price paid for cotton in Ceylon remains practically the same. The price in 1934 was 14,017,000 rupees, and in 1935 the price was 13,871,000 rupees, a difference of about 3 per cent., whereas the difference in the sale of cotton was something like 33 per cent. On the other hand, let us take the instance of Kenya.
  Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves Ceylon, is it not a fact that the fiscal policy of Ceylon was decided by the natives of the island?
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I am glad the hon. and gallant Gentleman has put that question. The Legislature of Ceylon did decide against this quota on cotton, but was overridden by the Imperial Government. In Kenya the cotton imports have increased from 52,500,000 yards to 89,500,000 yards, because of the free fiscal policy maintained by the Congo Basin
  1424
  Treaties. These figures show that a Protectionist policy is not in the interest of the Colonial consumer. Lancashire cotton interests naturally take what advantage they can from the Ottawa policy, and I am not prepared to judge them in any way too hardly, but it strikes me as rather paradoxical that while they press for fiscal benefit in Ceylon, they are at the present time opposing fiscal advantages to the British farmer at home, on the ground that such measures will reduce the Lancashire cotton market in South America.
  I should like particularly to call the attention of the Government to one aspect of the restriction of Colonial trade, and that is that as a result of this restriction the Germans and other nations in Europe are unable to trade in the Colonial markets, and, therefore, they are making themselves as independent as they can of Colonial sources of raw materials. They are developing substitutes and synthetic products, and this will have a profound effect in reducing the demands on the producers in our Colonies. We all know that the Germans have been making stupendous efforts to urge the most distinguished chemists to get some system of manufacturing synthetic rubber and that they have to a certain extent achieved this purpose. Hitler has said that as regards rubber they are independent, and although rubber, if manufactured, is more expensive than that which can be got from Malaya and other rubber-growing countries, when huge vested interests have grown up in these countries, and when in Czechoslovakia and other countries, which have no raw materials at all and which have to import all their raw materials, efforts are made to create synthetic rubber and other synthetic products, it is bound in the long run to reduce the demands on the products of our own Colonies and thus to reduce the welfare and the happiness of the inhabitants of those Colonies. In a long view, therefore, I submit that the Colonies have everything to gain from the freest possible trade.
  It has recently been suggested that the British Government should take steps to denounce the Congo Basin Treaties. I would, in conclusion, urge that the maintenance intact of those Treaties is of the highest wisdom, both in the interests of the Colonial populations and in the interests of world peace.

  1425
  I believe that the open-door policy maintained by the Congo Basin Treaties should indeed prevail throughout the whole of our Colonial Empire.
  4.28 p.m.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), who has just resumed his seat, in a discussion of all the points which he raised, but I am interested, and keenly interested, in the first subject which he brought before the Committee, and at a later stage I should like to enter into a discussion of it in some greater detail. I was rather anticipating, though I make no complaint on the point, that the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary would have made an opening statement by way of review of the Colonial Office Vote generally, but I quite appreciate that the notice might have been short, and he himself, after all, has only been at the head of the office for a comparatively short time, but I trust that before the end of the Debate we shall have the advantage of hearing the right hon. Gentleman, for on what he has to say in regard to some of these questions will depend whether we ourselves will press the matter of a reduced Vote.
  I cannot help feeling, when these Supply Votes recur in this House, that it is rather a pity that we cannot devote more of our time to examining what our general objective is in Colonial administration. The range of interests, of course, is so vast that the debates necessarily become somewhat cluttered up with the discussion of details, and oftentimes the subject of immediate interest, such as the Kenya subject of to-day, is apt to take a very substantial proportion of our time. The consequence is that administrative problems in other parts of the Empire often pass unexamined and even unnoticed. I can only hope that our friends in various parts of the Empire will not regard that silence on our part as indicative of lack of interest.
  I ask the Committee to allow me to raise the fundamental question of what, after all, is our general objective in colonial administration. I want to state what I regard as the proper objective and to examine the Government's administration in the light of our views. it
  1426
  will be accepted that there are roughly three groups of territories within our Empire. There is first, the self-governing Dominions, which do not come within our purview to-day. Their status is formally recognised in this House and in other ways by the fact that we have a Dominions Office. There remain two other groups which are not in the same stage of development. There are areas of which it might be said that they are substantially ready for a larger measure of self-government, if not of complete self-government. There are other areas, for instance, certain African territories, that are much less ready for self-government. We have to make up our minds what shall be our general attitude in regard to these two groups, which are under the aegis of the Colonial Office.
  I think that I shall carry everybody with me when I say that the ideal for us is that all these territories should advance in the direction of self-government. That ideal is an imperative one for us. We accept it cordially, and, having accepted it cordially, we must judge, as I conceive it, from our point of view, the administration of the Colonial Office by how far it enables the peoples of those areas to advance towards the achievement of self-government at some later date. If our ideal is stated in that way our function in this House becomes that of trusteeship. The hon. Member who preceded me indicated that that was the view which he and his friends took. If we accept the concept of trusteeship, it follows that the trusteeship must be characterised by a genuine endeavour to assist the indigenous peoples of those areas to equip themselves for the ultimate task of self-government. Moreover, if we accept the concept of trusteeship it is inconsistent with it so to administer the estate, if I may call it so, for the primary benefit of ourselves or of our own kin and colour who may happen to reside in those areas. The prime function of a trustee is to run the estate for the benefit of those to whom the estate belongs, and not for the friends of the family of the trustee. Finally, I think I can say with complete acceptance—on this side of the Committee, at any rate—that the policy of the open door should be our main objective as between our administration of those areas and the countries outside the Empire.

  1427
  Having laid down these broad propositions, I venture to ask the Committee to allow me to examine the present administration in their light. I think that the first four will be accepted by everyone, but there might be some controversy about the policy of the open door. We are all, to what ever party we belong, committed to the principle of trusteeship. The spokesman who laid down the proposition of trusteeship was the Duke of Devonshire, whose declaration in 1922 was made in the most explicit and precise terms. It is clear that if we entertain that view of our functions and relations to these people, we must visualise the coming of the time when these people will be able to enter into possession of their inheritance which we now administer on their behalf. The primary duty that devolves upon us as trustees is to enable these people to prepare themselves for the exercise of that function, and our first task is to give them ample opportunities to educate themselves for that function. The British Government are rather open to the charge, generally speaking, of neglecting rather sadly the provision of educational facilities throughout our Colonies. The amount of effort which we put forward and the amount of money which we spend upon the education of the natives in those areas is comparatively small.
  It is not true to argue that these people would not respond to the provision of educational facilities. I remember reading some years ago the record of the life of a West African whose education was developed in America, Dr. Aggrey, who proved to be a most distinguished scholar, but was unfortunately cut down in early life. If his ideals had been realised, he would have returned presumably to Achimota College and have become a distinguished cultural leader among his own people in that part of Africa. I am sure that the development of institutions like Achimota College would be well worth while in other parts of Africa, for the native does in real fact respond to educational effort made on his behalf. In any case, if at some future time these people are to be enabled to function on the various governing bodies of the areas where they live, they must be prepared and equipped with some measure of education. I would plead with the right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his career
  1428
  as Colonial Secretary to review with particular care the measure of the provision that we make for the education of native peoples.
  The second point I would raise is the attitude of the Government in relation to what is called the labour problems in these various areas. It is impossible for us to hope that primitive civilisation will remain untouched for ever by modern industrialism. It is bound to be affected. It has been brought into contact with it at various points already in Africa, and we have to make up our minds what Is the correct attitude towards labour problems which must arise among the native peoples. We are bound to have raw materials, and therefore we must examine this problem. We do really need a thorough investigation of the whole labour position, in the British African Colonies in particular. Sometimes the curtain is drawn aside by some incident such as the Rhodesian riots. As a rule, the most uncomfortable features are hidden away in the decent obscurity of official documents. Nothing happens, but the labourer himself, the person with whom we are principally concerned is, of course, very inarticulate in these matters. If we are to function as trustees we really must see that his condition is adequately safeguarded. The labourers can be divided into three classes—the labourer who is recruited for labour service outside the territory where he lives, the labourer who is employed in and about the mines, and the labourer employed on farms.
  May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is likely to happen in regard to the adoption by the International Labour Office conference of a convention for the better control of labour recruiting? That convention will be welcome, for a large proportion of the workers comes from British Protectorates and Colonies and, therefore, it has a special relevance for us. Are the Government likely to ratify it? Are the Government taking any steps to make a special study of the heavy mortality among mine workers? Permission is given to recruit labour in the tropical zone for work in the Johannesburg mines, and I understand that the figures disclose a high degree of mortality. I should like to know whether there is to be an investigation into that matter.
  In regard to Nyasaland, I gather there is a report by a Government Commission

  1429
  on the recruitment of labour there, and that is reveals rather terrible consequences for social life in Nyasaland, and, therefore, I should like to know what the Government propose to do in that matter. I have one suggestion to make on this question of labour legislation. Some years ago, at a time when economies were being imposed, we deplored the reduction of the staff of the labour inspectorate in the Colonies, and we should be exceedingly glad if the right hon. Gentleman would re-examine that question as soon as possible. After all, this labourer of whom I am speaking has no union to safeguard his interests, is very inarticulate, and very helpless generally; he does not understand the implications of this legislation; and it might be worth while to reinforce the staff of inspectors, who should not merely be officials to compile records but officials who will interpret the law to them, establish a sort of close contact with them, and, in short, be a kind of general friend to those unorganised and inarticulate workers.
  I am told that a model Workmen's Compensation Ordinance is being drafted by the Colonial Office, for use in East and West Africa. I am told, I do not know what authority there is for the statement, that this ordinance is being submitted in a preliminary way to chambers of commerce. Why they should be specially consulted I hardly know, and I should be glad if the right hon. Gentleman would let me know whether, in fact, that is the case. Then there is the question of labour on farms. There are particularly onerous and, from our point of view, undesirable pass laws being imposed on labour on farms in various parts of Africa, and we should be glad to know that the pass laws in their most offensive form are not going to be introduced into Kenya. Further, and here I think I am in agreement with the hon. Member who spoke first, I think we might do very much more in mobilising not merely expert medical opinion in our own country but what is available to us from other countries in advancing all forms of health administration throughout the Empire, and especially in Africa.
  I come now to a second part of Colonial administration. I started by saying that I thought we all accepted the idea of trusteeship with a certain ultimate ideal
  1430
  in our minds. Are we, in point of fact, getting a little tired of this ideal? I cannot help feeling some misgivings about certain things which have taken place, and are still taking place, in Colonial administration, not in one part of the Empire only, but in many parts. There has grown up recently a tendency to introduce ordinances of a particularly onerous kind, and, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) adds, of an odious kind. Why are we called upon to accept these ordinances with approval? There is an ordinance, No. 21, issued in 1934, for the Gold Coast which has this peculiarity, that under it the onus of proof of innocence falls upon the person accused and not upon the Government. That is a complete reversal of the law as we understand it here, and it is a reversal of the law which, if it were attempted in this country, would be vigorously resented by everybody, to whatever party he might belong.
  Mr. WISE: Can the hon. Member give us the exact text of that Clause, because it may be one which is in very common use—as under the Indian Penal Code—under which you are entitled to ask a man to show cause why he should not be convicted? That is not a prejudgment of the case, but a simplification of the case. A mere plea of "not guilty" starts the whole procedure in the ordinary way.
  Mr. JONES: I will give an extract from a more recent Ordinance, one issued in Ashanti in 1936—Ordinance No. 1. Clause 6 reads:
  "No writ of habeas corpus or other process calling in question the legality of the detention of Kofi Sechere under or by virtue of the provisions of this Ordinance shall have any effect within Ashanti."
  That is an Ordinance which has specific reference to one particular person.
  Mr. WISE: Is he a man who has already been convicted under some other Ordinance?
  Mr. JONES: No, he is detained, and he has no redress. He cannot bring any charge against anybody, because a writ of habeas corpus does not run in that connection. This is of a piece with similar legislation to which I am taking objection. On the Gold Coast we see a similar tendency, and it is not one to be welcomed. There is another case con-

  1431
  cerning a man named Wallace Johnson, the secretary of the West African Youth League. He was prosecuted for sedition under the Gold Coast Sedition Ordinance. Much depends on what interpretation is given to the word "sedition." I dare say that I could make a speech in this House which to me would seem comparatively innocuous but which might frighten the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Wise). Then there is another case affecting the editor-in-chief of the African "Morning Post," who in May of this year wrote an article. I admit that, to my idea, the article was somewhat indiscreet, but, after all, there are indiscreet people in the Tory party. I have also seen most indiscreet articles in the English "Moning Post," but I should not regard them as seditious; in fact, the more it writes the better I am pleased. The point is that this man wrote an article which was in sarcastic vein and showed a certain bitterness on account of what he regarded as the betrayal of the Abyssinians by the British Government. He was arrested. At what point is the interpretation of sedition to stop? What is sedition and what is not? Is it to be deemed seditious if people write what we might regard as rather advanced literature? How are people to express themselves if they are always to be liable to prosecution or arrest on the ground that their writings are seditious in character?
  Mr. EMMOTT: Surely everything must depend on the terms of the article in question?
  Mr. JONES: And also upon the interpretation of the word "seditious."
  Mr. EMMOTT: Certainly, but the terms of the article are the very foundation of the charge.
  Mr. JONES: I turn to British Somaliland. I am told that there, at this moment, there is a complete absence of any system of legal defence. I believe it was the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) who, earlier in the year, put a question to Mr. Thomas on this point, and Mr. Thomas replied that he was proposing to inquire into the system which the hon. Member alleged to exist there. We cannot go on condoning this kind of thing. By all means let natives be subject to the law, but do not let us
  1432
  have laws so repressive that they cannot express their minds at all, because the only way in which they can learn the art of self-government is through opportunities for expressing criticism of government as they see it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will examine this matter once again, because I do feel disturbed about some things which have happened recently in various parts of the Empire. Rightly or wrongly, we took a certain step in regard to Newfoundland, and now we are taking a similar step in regard to Malta. Not long ago I received strong representations concerning action which is taking place in the municipality of Suva, in Fiji, where an elected municipal council has been completely swept aside and replaced by a council nominated according to the ipse dixit or whim of the Governor. All those things have a cumulative effect, and when we find side by side with them these ordinances and sedition Acts we are entitled to come to the conclusion that there is ground for believing that someone or other is getting uneasy over the measure of criticism of the Government which is rising in various parts of the Empire. Criticism within certain limits is good for the Government, and it is right that those who are governed shall have their chance to express themselves within those limits.
  I turn to the last subject I wish to discuss, namely, Kenya. I agree with the hon. Member who spoke first that action by Order in Council may have not only grave consequences in Kenya but far-reaching consequences in other parts of the Empire. It is imperative that we should discuss it here and now. The hon. Gentleman said that the circumstances which have given rise to the Order in Council were not new. For many years, the party with which I am associated has exercised unceasing vigilance over the developments, as we see them and have understood them, in Kenya. I know that the European settlers in that part of Africa have disliked and even resented the flood of light which has been thrown upon certain transactions in that area.
  We are not speaking without knowledge. I happen to have a document, which I can quote if I am called upon to do so, and which shows that the spokesman for the settlers agrees with

  1433
  the proposition which I have stated. They do resent it. They think that our action arises from some opposition to them as settlers. That is not the case. We have no objection to them at all, but we do take objection to their claim that they have a prior right to the right of the people in that area.
  Brigadier - General Sir HENRY CROFT: Speaking as one who is closely associated with all the Englishmen, Scotsmen, Welshmen and Irishmen who have developed Kenya, I should like to say that they have always resented the attitude of mind which is sometimes expressed by hon. Members in this House, that their fellow-countrymen are always wrong.
  Mr. JONES: Our main criticism in this matter has not been applied to the settlers themselves, but has always been concentrated upon the reaction of the Government to the approaches of the settlers. I propose to raise this afternoon another instance of the same thing. Whatever these people may think about our interest in the doings in Kenya, we shall continue to exercise the most vigilant interest in regard to matters there. We started some four years ago by making it quite clear to the Government that any future Labour Government would not feel bound—I repeat it explicitly this afternoon—by the Government's action arising out of the Morris Carter Report. When this commission was set up, the then Colonial Secretary, now Lord Swinton, upon his own admission, took a certain step. On 18th December, 1934, he admitted that in December, 1932, he—I use his own words—" caused the chairman [of the Morris Carter Commission] to be informed" that no non-European might own or occupy land in the European Highlands. He condescended to tell this House two years after that action was taken, and in response to a question by an hon. and gallant Friend of mine. If that is the way we treat Commissions, future Governments must hold themselves free to take what line they think appropriate.
  In 1921, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Indian Affairs accepted the general principle which the Government of India had laid down, namely, that there is no justification in Kenya for assigning to British Indians a status
  1434
  inferior to any other class of His Majesty's subjects. That will be found in House of Commons Paper 177 of 1921. In 1923, with a view to assuring the Indian Government that a legal bar to Indian ownership of land in the Highlands of Kenya was not contemplated, His Majesty's Government gave the following declaration, in the Duke of Devonshire's Memorandum, in February of that year:
  "It cannot be claimed that they [the provisions of the Crown Lands Ordinance] amount to legal discrimination against Indians, for it would be possible for the executive government to grant land in the Highlands to Asiatics or to approve of the transfer of land from a European to an Asiatic, without any alteration in the existing law."
  That is what was declared in 1923.
  Earl WINTERTON: That was the result of an agreement which rejoiced in the name of the Wood-Winterton Agreement, which had resulted from negotiations conducted by myself on behalf of the India Office and the Government of India, and, of course, His Majesty's Government, and Lord Irwin on behalf of the Colonial Office and His Majesty's Government. The answer which I gave was very carefully drafted as a result of that agreement.
  Mr. JONES: In that, the Noble Lord has underlined what I said. It is additional proof of the accuracy of my statement. It is well to recall the words which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) used. They were words used by Queen Victoria, although he stopped short of one important phrase:
  "There shall not be, in the eye of the law, any distinction or disqualification whatever, founded upon mere distinction of colour, origin, language or creed."
  It then said:
  "But the protection of the law in letter and in substance, shall be extended impartially to all alike."
  That is the important section of the declaration. We have never taken the view that the Morris Carter report was wholly bad. We agree that there are valuable parts of it, but we also urge that there are certain shortcomings in the report. But there it is; the report has been published.
  Now we are told that the Government are likely to issue an Order in Council.

  1435
  In connection with this matter, may I address questions to the right hon. Gentleman? Reference has been made to the presence in this country of Lord Francis Scott. I do not know Lord Francis Scott. That is no loss whatever to him, but I must ask this question: Lord Francis Scott has come to this country presumably as an emissary of the settlers, of whom he is a distinguished leader. He has not used the customary machinery, by which the Governor is the intermediary between the settlers and the Colonial Office. He has come presumably to complain to the Government about the state of affairs in Kenya. May I ask what he wants? Is Lord Francis Scott asking for further discrimination in favour of the settlers, favoured though they are already with low taxation, favourable railway rates and land taxes and direct representation in the legislative council?
  I am told that those are the facts, and that, in regard to the local government in Kenya, British settlers get a grant while the natives get nothing. I do not know the reason for this discrimination, and I cannot understand it. I do not know what the case is. I ask whether we are not entitled to draw conclusions? These white settlers, entitled though they are to the rather generous tribute paid to them by the hon. Gentleman, and entitled as they may be to credit for what they have done in developing that area, we still ask, Are they entitled to the priority of claim which they seem incessantly to be putting forward on their own behalf in Kenya?
  I ask the next question: What is the view of the Government in regard to the treatment of Indians in this matter? I want to know. Do the Government of India take the view that a discrimination against Indians in Kenya is justified or not justfied? Until recently, they took the view that such discrimination was not justified. What is the present feeling of the Government of India, and what is the response of the Colonial Office to the representations of the India Office in this matter? It is of the first importance that we should not give to the Indian people, at this stage in Indian history especially, the feeling that, outside the confines of India, Indian people are of less account than other people who belong to the Empire. If you carry on
  1436
  this policy of discrimination against Indians you may rest assured that, although you may get away with it today, sooner or later that policy will rebound with terrible effect upon our own country, and possibly upon the Empire.
  I further want to say to the right hon. Gentleman opposite that there may be a case for encouraging white settlers, but that when I have read stories of the discrimination between white men and other men in the various parts of the Empire I confess to wondering whether it is worth while encouraging white settlers to go anywhere. If they go, they can only go on the understanding that the British Government will do all that can be done to assist them, but that that assistance shall never abrogate the Declaration, either in the letter or in the spirit, made by the Duke of Devonshire in 1923. The first claim upon us in these areas is to safeguard the rights of the indigenous people. It is not the white settlers who have the first claim but the people who belong to those areas, and to whom those areas should belong. Our interest in them is that of going there and teaching them self-government. I say deliberately that if we are to retain our control of these areas at the price of making concessions to white settlers which give them complete dominion over the lives and wellbeing of the coloured peoples, the community system is not worth while, from my point of view.
  I started by saying what I considered to be the broad outlook which should govern us in colonial administration. We take the view, and we have stated it explicitly without fear, that we regard ourselves as trustees for these people, and our prime function as that of guiding them safely and steadily along the road towards eventual self-government.
  5.15 p.m.
  Earl WINTERTON: Having a belief, which is now rapidly becoming old-fashioned, in debate as opposed to reading from a typewritten manuscript—I hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that I am not referring to him—I should like to reply to some of the points which he raised in his speech, which, if I may say so, was a perfectly fair debating speech. He dealt in a perfectly fair way from his own standpoint with several matters of very great importance, and I should like equally

  1437
  fairly to endeavour to reply to the points which he made, and also to the points made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild). With regard to what the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said on the subject of Colonies and trade, I am afraid that, in common with several of my hon. Friends, I did not quite gather the purport of his argument. In the first place, he said that so far as possible there should be an open door for trade in the Colonies and Protectorates—an open door which, I understood him to say, would benefit the whole world. I am afraid I take the rather old-fashioned view that in the case of Colonies and Mandated Territories the first consideration should be the wellbeing of the people of those Colonies and Mandated Territories and the wellbeing of the people of this country.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I said that the first claim was that of the inhabitants of the Mandated Territory or Colony, and then I said that the open door policy, if adopted, would also benefit the rest of the world.
  Earl WINTERTON: I do not wish to enter into an argument on Free Trade and Protection, but the hon. Member is perfectly entitled to make, as the starting point of his argument, the assertion that the open door policy is the one most calculated to benefit the people of those territories and the people of this country. If he says that, I have, although I differ from his views, no objection to it as an argument; but I did not quite gather that that was his policy. I thought that he was arguing in favour of trying to win with two horses. Unlike the hon. Member, I am not very well up in racing terms, but I hope I have stated it correctly.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: I am afraid that anyone who tried to do that would not be likely to win with either the one or the other.
  Earl WINTERTON: I did not hear what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do not think that the Liberal horses can be said to be very fast. One of them is the complete open door. Whether the open door policy is or is not the one best calculated to benefit the people of the Colonies and Mandated Territories, on the question whether, since the changeover from Free Trade to Protection, the
  1438
  Colonies and Mandated Territories have gone forward or backward, in my view the basis of his argument that they have gone back is entirely wrong. Of course, one can take the trade statistics from 1924 to 1929 and the trade statistics from 1929 to 1934, and one can find that in particular instances there has been a decrease of trade in particular Colonies, but in the one case the statistics are those for years of comparative prosperity in world trade, while in the other case they are for years in which there was the worst depression in world trade that has ever been seen.
  Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: The Noble Lord is accusing me of doing a number of things that I did not do. It is true that I quoted the figures for the years 1924 to 1929, when we were at the peak of prosperity, but the figures I compared were the figures for 1934 and 1935, and not the figures of Free Trade years.
  Earl WINTERTON: I think it is true to say that, since the swing-over after the period of trade depression, it will be found that not only has the trade of the Colonies and Mandated Territories been maintained, but that in many cases it has been increased as a result of this swing-over. I have not the actual figures by me, and the hon. Member may have more right on his side than I am prepared to assume, but certainly one statement that he made was completely wrong. I am sure he would be the last person to want to give any aid to the Nazi case, but indirectly he was helping the Nazi case. I find that many of my friends in Germany, when discussing the matters referred to in this Vote, invariably say, "Look at the way in which we are excluded from the raw materials of the world." That statement is quite untrue. There is nothing to stop people under the Nazi or any other Government from purchasing raw materials from any Colony or Mandated Territory in the British Empire.
  Mr. R. ACLAND: Except that they cannot sell to them.
  Earl WINTERTON: The trade between Germany and Tanganyika Territory today is larger, both ways, than it was when Tanganyika Territory was a German Colony, and I think that that would apply to German South-West Africa as well. Germany has a favourable balance of trade

  1439
  with our African Colonies. I beg hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal Benches not to give, in their religious fervour for the policy of Free Trade, an adventitious and entirely fictitious form of aid to the Nazi case. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely, when speaking about synthetic rubber, seemed to think that in some way we had done something to encourage Germany to produce synthetic rubber. But Germany is now producing/all sorts of things. For example, I think few people in this country realise the degree to which Germany is producing oil from coal. But she is not doing it economically, and she is not doing it because of lack of trade, but for quite other reasons which I must not discuss now. There is nothing in the argument that Germany is being deprived of raw materials on account of the fiscal system of the British Empire. I desire to say that here, because I have no doubt that what is said in this Debate will be made known in other countries. It simply is not true. Another interesting fact is that there are more people of German birth and descent in Tanganyika Territory now than there were before the War. I most heartily associate myself, however, with the statement that there must be the fullest consultation with all the inhabitants of the Mandated Territories, not only before there is any question of recommending a cession of the Mandate, but before there is any question of even altering the terms of the Mandate, and I hope that the whole Committee will be at one in that view. It is most important that that should be known, and I think we are all in agreement on the point.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who, as I have already said, put his case most fairly, stated very truly that it was difficult in Debates of this kind to take a bird's-eye view; and, moreover, however liberal the Chair may be, we are curtailed by the rules of debate. It is difficult to discuss Colonial administration apart from the Dominions, and even from foreign policy. For example, there is the question of the differences in regard to native administration as between South Africa and the African Colonies. The hon. Gentleman spoke of education in Africa. I share with the Colonial Secretary and possibly one or two other Members in the Committee the advantage of having visited
  1440
  every African Colony—British, French and German—with the exception of Uganda, in the days before the War, and I think that, at any rate so far as West Africa is concerned, in none of what I may call without offence the native dependencies of any other country is a better system provided than in ours. As regards the cost of that education, one thing that was partly responsible for the depression that occurred in those territories a few years ago was the cost of administration, which was very heavy, owing almost entirely to the provision that was made for native welfare, including education. That is an actual fact.
  But do not let us be too certain that an increase in mere intellectual and literary education among indigenous Africans always has the results that we anticipate. When I was in West Africa I asked how far the excellent system of scientific agricultural education enabled improvements to be made in agriculture in the villages, and my informant, who was one of the most sympathetic men possible towards education for the Africans, said, "Unfortunately, it too often happens that, when you give an African the most scientific education in agriculture, he goes back to his village and forgets all about it, or, alternatively the people of the village will not listen to what he says. On the other hand, where you teach that man a slightly improved form of native agricultural practice, that is to say, show him certain things which he can do better in another way, it becomes known all over the place." I do not want to say anything that might seem disparaging to our African fellow-subjects, but it really is necessary to remember that it is not possible to approach the subject of education for a backward people in the same way as in the case of a more highly civilised people. That is a universal fact.
  My last point is concerned with the question to which the hon. Gentleman referred in the latter portion of his speech. He laid it down as a proposition that the basis of our rule in what may be called the native territories throughout the Empire should be that that rule was not based on the primary benefit of people of our own race. I am not quite sure what he means by the primary benefit of people of our own race. In my opinion, British subjects, of whatever colour or race, in any British

  1441
  Colony, are entitled to have their rights considered on an equal basis; that is to say, whether people are of wholly European descent, or half European, or indigenous, the rights of those people should be considered equally.
  Mr. RILEY: Would the Noble Lord say that immigrants should come before the natives?
  Earl WINTERTON: If we are to take that line we must immediately ask our fellow-subjects in Canada to hand back Canada to the Indians, and the same with the Jews and the Arabs in Palestine. Do not let us get on to that subject. I am sure that my Arab friends in Palestine would be very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Whether others would be so grateful I do not know. I do not, however, propose to answer his rather rhetorical question. The rule to go upon is that the rights of His Majesty's subjects, of whatever colour or creed, should be considered on an equal basis. That is what we have always thought. There has been some talk in this Debate about discrimination against Indians in Kenya, but you are bound, in a mixed Colony like Kenya, to have certain forms of discrimination. In case the Committee may be under the impression that the discrimination is applied to others, I would point out that it is discrimination against British settlers, in the sense that they are not allowed to take up some of the most valuable land in Africa in the native reserves. There is in Kenya an immense amount of valuable land which neither Indians nor Europeans can take. Speaking as a former Under-Secretary for India, if you were to throw open some of the native reserves in Africa to Indians they would flock there in their millions and you would have all the supporters of the African point of view in this House very properly getting up and saying, "You cannot allow them to do that!" You are bound to have discrimination.
  It has been contended that it is grossly unfair to refuse to allow certain African squatters in the Highlands of Kenya to become permanent owners of land, and even to exclude them from the land. The story is far more simple than is imagined. We went to Kenya not merely to trade but very largely in pursuit of our determination to end the slave trade. There are frightful stories of cruelty, oppression
  1442
  and almost inhuman brutality that went on in the old days of Arab trading, and when one compares that with our administration to-day the criticisms that I have heard in the last 30 years are really terribly exaggerated. I do not suppose that in any administration that has ever existed in civilised times or exists to-day there is a milder and more lenient rule than that of British administration over the world as a whole. I say that, too, in reply to what the hon. Gentleman said about sedition. I have seen newspapers in West Africa whose editors and publishers if they were in this country would be prosecuted and would be liable to imprisonment for seditious libel. When I went there in 1931 my comment was that I hoped they would soon strengthen the sedition law. I have never seen such seditious utterances, even in India. When the hon. Gentleman says we must have freedom of speech, I agree up to a point, but let him be logical and remember what is happening in Palestine to-day. If we are going to give freedom of speech, give it everywhere. You cannot have complete freedom of speech at present with so much combustible material in the world. You cannot allow newspapers in any part of the British Empire deliberately to incite to rebel. Any Empire that did so would soon cease to be an Empire. Speaking generally, our laws throughout the Colonial Empire go neither too far nor too short. They are just right.
  To return to the Kenya Highlands, when the British first went there in pursuit of the peaceful avocation of trading, and partly in connection with the suppression of the slave trade, those Highlands were very sparsely populated indeed. There was practically no one there. Native Africans did not settle there. There are huge areas of Africa where there has never been any permanent settlement. The people just move on from one part to another. When white settlers were encouraged to take up land there they entered into an arrangement, to which successive Governments have in no way objected, with the native people, and in accordance with native custom, and permitted a, certain number of natives to occupy land in return for doing a certain amount of work on the land. The relations between them and the settlers are of the most happy character. Many of them treat these people in a paternal fashion, supplying

  1443
  them with medical comforts, looking after their wives and children when they are away and things of that kind. As far as I know, there has never been any trouble between them. I do not want to make invidious comparisons but, if you want to see a very different system, go a few hundred miles further south to another territory, which we cannot criticise to-day, and see the difference. Go to South West Africa or to the old German East Africa. To make out, as the Liberal party has done, that there is a great land question which will lead to all sorts of trouble, and to object to the recommendations and to the policy of the administration on the subject, is doing no good. Apart altogether from that, these natives have gained because they have been given extra land in the reserves.
  Major MLNER: In the desert.
  Earl WINTERTON: No, it is not fair to say that. [Interruption.] I do not think it is full of malaria.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: People who have been there say they have travelled for miles, and at certain periods of the year there is absolutely no water available at all, and it is from their point of view malarial.
  Earl WINTERTON: I know something about malaria, having nearly died of it. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if there is no water, there is certainly no malaria, because there are no mosquitoes. If there is a grievance I am sure the Colonial Secretary will look
  into it. Such threats as have been uttered leave the settlers completely cold. Neither this nor any other Government could take drastic and unfair action against the settlers of Kenya or Northern Rhodesia or anywhere else. If they did, they would break up the whole Empire. You would have the whole of South Africa saying, "We stand by these men." The settlers are often difficult, but they can be more easily led than driven, and the sort of criticism that they get in this country leaves them cold, but it makes for bitterness and ill-feeling which goes far beyond the territories themselves. It percolates to South Africa, and even to Australia and Canada, and you meet men who say, "What does the British
  1444
  Parliament know about the overseas possessions? What right have they to do this or that?" That is a bad thing. We should endeavour to find a modus vivendi, a method of getting on with the settlers of our own race overseas.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. OWEN EVANS: This Debate has covered a considerable amount of ground. Both the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) touched upon what is to my mind an exceedingly important matter from the point of view of Colonial administration, namely, the attitude of this country to what has been termed the open door policy and the question of trade between the mother country and the Colonies. The Noble Lord said that we look upon the open door policy as a question of Free Trade and Protection. That is not altogether the point that we are considering when we talk about the open door. We regard it as of importance not so much from the point of view of Free Trade and Protection as from the point of view of the relationships between this country and other great Powers. Whatever some Members of the House may say, there are other countries which have not a Colonial Empire such as we possess, which regard the question of the open door as of some importance to the peace of the world, and it is really from that standpoint that we look upon the question when we are arguing as to whether we should maintain the open door or not. I think this aspect of Colonial administration might be discussed with considerable advantage.
  A very important function is being observed in Birmingham, the centenary commemoration of one of the most distinguished Colonial administrators that this country has ever known—Joseph Chamberlain. It is well for the House to recall what he said about the open door policy and the question of trusteeship and the real function of this country in the building up of a Colonial Empire. That period was one of great expansion when many great nations beside ourselves were scrambling for territory, in particular in Africa. Joseph Chamberlain made this famous declaration in 1897:
  "In the development, of new colonial territories Britain acts as trustees of civilisation for the commerce of the world.

  1445
  We offer in all these markets over which our flag floats the same opportunities, the same open field, to foreigners that we offer to our own subjects, and upon the same terms. In that policy we stand alone. All other nations seek to secure a monopoly for their products by preferential, and artificial methods."
  It was upon that rock, as I understand it that, according to his idea, this Empire was built and was to be built in future. I wish to ask the Colonial Secretary whether that is still the policy of His Majesty's Government, or have the Government made up their minds to abandon that policy, which made the Colonial Empire for this country without incurring active hostility of other great nations who are also bent upon expansion? We are entitled to have an answer, particularly as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in the future. There are certainly examples, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) pointed out, where the Government are open to suspicion that they have acted not in the interests of the native population, but in the special interests of this country, and contrary often to the interests of foreign countries.
  The Noble Lord stated that Germany can purchase every raw material she requires in our Colonies, and that she is not being deprived of any raw material which is produced in any of our Colonies. That in a general sense is true, but it is not absolutely true. There was, as the Committee will probably recollect, a prohibitive export tax upon tin ore exported from the Federated Malay States and Johore unless it was destined for smelting in the United Kingdom. That is a definite instance of preference being given to this country for smelting tin ore. There was a temporary duty which existed for a number of years, but I cite it because it is an example of what this country, possessing Colonies, may do if its policy in regard to its colonial trade is misguided. There was an export duty placed by West African Colonies upon palm kernels to foreign countries.
  The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): Will the hon. Gentleman say when it was?
  Mr. EVANS: I said that that duty was taken off, but I am citing it as an example of what this country has done, can do and may do in the future.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is the hon. Gentleman alluding to the War duties?
  Mr. EVANS: I am alluding to the duty on palm kernels which was put on during the War, and taken off in 1922.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: A duty put on during the War period?
  Mr. EVANS: Yes, I am citing that as an example. It was a duty on the export of palm kernels, which had to be crushed in this country or any part of the Empire. It was understood, I believe, at that time that the duty was intended to strike at Germany. My submission to the Committee is that it set a precedent and certainly created misgivings in the minds of foreign countries as to what might be done in the future. It is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that foreign countries, highly developed industrially like Germany, recognise this powerful weapon which the British Government have in their hands and might at any time use against them. It is from that point of view that I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the question of the open door.
  I remember questions being asked by hon. Members above the Gangway when reports were received that Germany was rapidly re-arming. Questions were asked in this House suggesting that Germany was purchasing large quantities of such metals as copper and nickel which were produced within our Empire. A suggestion was made that Germany might be prohibited from purchasing these metals during peace time. That is the point that I have in mind. It is sometimes suggested in this House that because these raw materials are produced in the Empire we possess in these raw materials a potential weapon which might be used against a foreign country even in peace time. Therefore, the Government should consider what their policy is to be in regard to the equitable distribution of raw materials among the countries of the world. Take one of the most important metals of which Germany consumes a very large quantity and is probably one of the largest consumers in Europe, that of copper. We are producing copper in one of our Colonies, in South Africa. There has been a tremendous increase in production. What is to be the policy of the Government in regard to that vital raw material to the industries of Germany?
  Mr. GALLACHER: Stop it from being used for armaments.
  Mr. EVANS: It has been suggested that the Government should have the right and power to veto the export of copper to a friendly country during peace, without even being satisfied as to the purpose for which the metal is to be used. As I have said I am looking upon the question of the open door not from the point of view of whether it is Free Trade or Protection, but from the point of view of its effect upon foreign nations and our relations with foreign nations. Does it conduce to peaceful relations in the world or not? I want to put questions to the Colonial Secretary upon that aspect of the matter. As we all know the Ottawa Conference extended preferences to certain Colonies for the products of this country. Therefore, in recent years the policy of the open door upon which, and with which this Empire has been built successfully without incurring a challenge; from the world, is gradually being abandoned in every case where Treaty obligations do not stand in the way.
  It may be argued that these restrictions upon exports are small in themselves and that the preferential tariffs are only granted because in return for them they get preference in our markets for their products. But the question that affects foreign countries is that they have no chance to negotiate similar arrangements between themselves and our Colonies. They have no right to do so because the tariff policy of our Colonial Empire is being dictated by the right hon. Gentleman as Secretary of State for the Colonies. The power is there to restrict exports or to place prohibitive taxes upon exports from the Colonies to foreign countries, and the Germans and other countries know it, and it has a very important psychological effect upon their minds. That is shown by a quotation from the speech made by the German Minister of Finance last year in Frankfurt:
  "If we fail to obtain through larger exports, the larger imports of foreign raw materials required for our greatly increased domestic employment, then two courses are open to us—increased home production or a demand for a share from districts from which we can get the raw materials ourselves."
  1448
  It may be said that even the Ottawa Agreements and what resulted from them in respect of the Colonial Empire have never been challenged seriously by other countries. In what way do the Government want them to be challenged? If these Agreements and the policy of the Government in regard to our Colonies, do, as I submit, cause grave dissatisfaction and unrest among many peoples of the world, and admittedly so, how do the Government want to have it challenged because, as certainly as we pursue this policy, some day it is bound to be challenged? The Committee are entitled to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether the policy of restriction is to be the future policy of the Government, or whether it is their intention at some date to revert to that principle embodied in the declaration of Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, which I have read to the Committee, and follow that Liberal spirit—I am not ashamed to call it a Liberal spirit—which animated him at that time.
  This matter is one of very grave importance in view of the unsettled state of the world to-day, and particularly in the light of the historic statement made by the late Foreign Secretary on behalf of the Government at Geneva last year. I need not quote that statement, but will remind the Committee of the last few lines of it:
  "The Government that I represent will, I know, be prepared to take their share in any collective attempt to deal in a fair and effective way with the problem that is certainly troubling many people at present and may trouble them even more in the future."
  He was referring to the question of the distribution of raw materials and the economic conditions of this country and the Colonies. That declaration was subsequently confirmed by the present Foreign Secretary, when he said, in his first speech as Foreign Secretary in this House, that His Majesty's Government had in no way withdrawn from the proposals of the previous Foreign Secretary on the question of access to Colonial raw materials. Why is it being discussed at all, unless there is some difficulty being placed in the way of foreign countries?
  Earl WINTERTON: Surely, the hon. Gentleman has failed to bring out the most important point. The whole effect of the speech of the Foreign Secretary

  1449
  was directed to show that there should be an inquiry, and that His Majesty's Government would welcome such an inquiry. He seems to assume that the Foreign Secretary suggested that there was not that access.
  Mr. EVANS: I was coming to that point. I am simply pointing out that the state of mind of foreign nations is that they have no equal opportunities such as we have to obtain raw materials from our Colonies, and it is clear that we still have this weapon in our hands, and we have used it in the past. We have directed it against foreign nations when it has suited our purpose. I was going on to quote from the speech of the Foreign Secretary that:
  "They are perfectly willing at any time to enter into an examination of this subject, and they think that such an examination could usefully be held at Geneva. The appropriate moment, however, for such an examination must clearly depend on many factors, including the attitude of other Powers towards the proposals."
  Earl WINTERTON: Hear, hear!
  Mr. EVANS: Exactly. That is a point upon which we should like to have some information from the right hon. Gentleman. The Foreign Secretary said that the Government were willing to enter into an examination of the subject, and that the examination must depend upon the attitude of other Powers.
  Captain Sir IAN FRASER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House the words which the Foreign Secretary used to describe the subject he wanted to be inquired into?
  Mr. EVANS: I shall be glad to read the whole passage:
  "The appropriate moment, however, for such examination must clearly depend on many factors, including the attitude of other Powers towards the proposals. Useful though we believe such an examination would be, I think that the House would be mistaken if we were to imagine that from a pursuit of it we should discover some magic touchstone for all our ills."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th February, 1936; col. 82–3, Vol. 309.]
  Sir I. FRASER: Examination of what?
  Mr. EVANS: Examination of the question of raw materials referred to by the late Foreign Secretary at Geneva. The Foreign Secretary stated that the Government were perfectly willing to examine the question, and I would ask the Colonial
  1450
  Secretary whether that examination has begun. If the examination must clearly depend upon the attitude of other Powers towards the proposal, has an approach been made to other Powers to ascertain what their attitude is, what their views are and what they really want?
  I would ask the Committee to listen to the point that I am about to put. Just over a year ago I happened to be in Washington. Americans are extremely fond of listening to lectures by distinguished men from this country, some of whom are hon. Members of this House. At the time that I was in Washington a distinguished statesman was lecturing there to a very representative audience, consisting of diplomatic representatives and many American statesmen. I was present at the lecture. He spoke on the question of the relations between Japan and Manchukuo. The gentleman who lectured was well known to all of us. He was an authority on the subject and had taken a leading part on behalf of the League of Nations in drafting the report on. Japan and Manchukuo. At the conclusion of the lecture questions were asked. One question was to this effect—I cannot remember the exact words:
  "Was it not a fact that what Japan had done was previously done over a long period of years by Britain, and how was the action of Great Britain to be distinguished from that of Japan."
  The answer was fairly obvious. The answer was that previously there was no League of Nations. The existence or non-existence of the League of Nations does not make the matter right or wrong, but what I submit now in regard to this important question, seeing that there is a League of Nations now, is that we should administer our Colonies in the time spirit of the League.
  6.3 p.m.
  Captain F. E. GUEST: It is a little hard to bring back the Debate to its starting point, because it has wandered over a very considerable field. There are, however, some of us who wish to take advantage of this opportunity to deal with a specific section of our great Colonial Empire. I should like to say a few words, although they would seem hardly necessary because my sentiments have been so admirably expressed by my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and if anything is left to be said that he did not

  1451
  say it can be said much better than I can say it by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg), who has had very wide experience of this problem in Kenya. There are one or two things that I should like to submit for the consideration of the Committee.
  I should like in my own way to comment on the word "trusteeship." That word is used in the glibbest possible way by hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite. There is not one of us who does not appreciate the fact that the white man's burden as accepted in all countries, not only by Great Britain, has been to explore the world, to improve the world, and to carry the burden of helping those whom in the process of evolution they have conquered. It began that way when the Huns and the Goths overran Europe. It has been the same for the last 150 years when the great foreign nations have gone exploring in the Continent of Africa. To accuse Great Britain of having failed to do the best for the people who come under our control, is quite untrue. We have done extremely well, and, as the Noble Lord said, we have done a great deal better than many other countries. Therefore, to dwell upon the word "trusteeship" as if we did not understand the meaning of the word, is nonsense.
  I will deal with Kenya particularly in this connection, because it was selected by the hon. Member opposite, who insinuated that we had failed in our trusteeship to the East African natives. I do not know whether he has been there or whether he has been inspired by someone who has been there for a very short time. I know that Colony as well as anybody in this House. I have been there every year for the last 23 years, and I served there for several years during the War. There are no happier 3,000,000 natives in the world than the 3,000,000 natives in the Colony of Kenya, and that is because we have accepted the word "trusteeship" in its proper sense. They have their local councils, which they are learning to understand—it takes time—and certainly the question of money plays a big part in the development of their social welfare. Do not let the Socialists imagine that we do not understand the meaning of trusteeship.
  What I am concerned about is that someone should put the settlers' case.
  1452
  Everything that has been said so far has been in putting the natives' case. It is quite proper that the natives' case should be put, but I do not see why the settlers' case should not be considered. I would take the minds of the Committee back 17 or 18 years to the time when I was encouraged, having been engaged as a soldier in the East African campaign, to take up a farm out there. I was encouraged to be a settler. Fundamentally, what the Colonial Office have to decide is whether or not they are going to support the settler movement. Upon that rests the whole of the mental activities that they pursue on the subject. I did not take up a farm, because I had a residence in England and saw no reason to settle out there, but hundreds of my friends took advantage of the Government's offer of free farms as a recompense for their service and as an encouragement to the white settler. Therefore, it is very hard for the Colonial Office to go back upon their original conception of settlement.
  I would ask the Committee and the Colonial Office to consider a few of the difficulties from which the settlers have suffered. To begin with, it is true that they did well. It would probably be also true to say that it looked better on paper than it really was. All the years that I have known Kenya Colony I have never known anybody to come away with any money. A great deal of money has been sunk in Kenya. I know as many men as I can count on one hand who put into the Colony something in the region of hundreds of thousands of pounds, and I am perfectly certain that although the money is still there in tae form of land, water and trees it is not in the bank. There has been very little net return on that enormous effort to colonise Kenya Colony. Therefore, I do not think that because once in a way there is a lucky coffee year, it is fair to suggest that the settlers are there to be used and squeezed. They have all sorts of difficulties, including locusts and disease, and if it was not for the fact that they are living on small remittances from home, many of them would not be there. If it is the policy of the Government to encourage settlement, the policy should be to put the burden of taxation as lightly as possible on the shoulders of the settlers. The burden of taxation on their shoulders is far too high.

  1453
  That brings me to one or two smaller points. It is very important to realise how limited are the primary producers of Kenya. There are to-day not more than 2,000 farms in the whole of the Colony, but it may surprise the House to know that there are 2,000 officials in Kenya. I am sure that they are all good fellows, and I know many of them, but can we afford to carry that burden? I speak as a settler and as a taxpayer there. I pay taxes and I am one of those who has to support 2,000 officials. Therefore, when the settlers hold their annual Convention of the Farmers' Associations and pass resolutions asking the Government to reduce the burden, either by reducing the number of officials or, if possible, by reducing the salaries of the officials, their resolutions should receive more attention than they have received in the past.
  I will not worry the Committee by quoting the resolutions, but I would point out that only a year ago a series of resolutions was passed by this very distinguished Convention, representing 35 Farmers' Associations. Resolution after resolution was passed dealing with simple things, economy being the foundation of them, but they were turned down. I will not say that they were turned down by His Excellency the Governor, but by the Colonial Office, which sits 'in Whitehall. The policy is dictated from Whitehall. The Governor is only the mouthpiece of the Colonial Office in Whitehall. Therefore, when we get a chance of putting the case for the settler we have to put it direct to the Colonial Secretary, and I am very glad that he is here to-day for that purpose.
  When we come to the bed-rock of the situation we have to remember that there are 2,000 people who call themselves farmers, and we have also the enormous overhead administration to which I have referred. I cannot believe that 3,000,000 of the most peaceful natives the world has ever seen need such an enormous administrative staff. The fact that the prices of primary producers have more or less collapsed, with the exception of sisal, which has jumped up again, is due to world depression, and there is no blame to be attached to anybody for that, but so long as we have out there a number of people who are unable to make any money, and when we know at the same time that they are mortgaged up
  1454
  to the hilt and have to pay something like 8 per cent. at the least on the land which they bought, probably at much too high a figure, the fact remains that we have to consider whether we want to encourage settlement or whether we want the settlers to drift away.
  Here I come to a point which is well worth some thought by the Colonial Office. Instead of there being migration into the Highlands of Kenya there are people actually leaving Kenya. The farmer population is gradually growing less. They do not like to leave, because they have a happy life there, but they are drifting away. They can hardly make ends meet, and the small remittances that they have from home have also suffered from the depression in the homes from which those remittances come.
  Mr. GALLACHER: The hon. and gallant Member says that they are leaving Kenya. Will he tell us why they are leaving Kenya?
  Captain GUEST: I have been trying for the last ten minutes to explain that the over-taxation of the farmer, who is the primary producer, has crippled him. There are the railway freights and the various forms of taxation which fall upon him. There are also the import duties, which he has to pay as a consumer. I am suggesting to the Colonial Office that if they want, first of all, to continue the original policy of encouraging migration and white settlement, they must seriously realise that things have very nearly reached the stage of the last straw which breaks the camel's back. I am trying to be careful not to say anything in the form of a threat, but I do ask the Colonial Secretary, whom I welcome very much to his office, to realise that those of us who have been to the Colony a great deal, although we do not live there, have a better chance of knowing the psychology of the settler than anybody in Whitehall. Many of them were intimate friends of mine at school and in the Army, and I am entitled to say that when they get to breaking point they cannot be coaxed any more. A British settler anywhere in the world can be easily led, but he cannot be driven, and if the settler position remains as it was in August and September last it is getting near to breaking point. When they get to breaking point Britons always go on strike.

  1455
  There is the Vigilance Committee? It was a very strong step for any colonist to take. It means secret organisations and revolt against the administration. I have urged them to take no decisive action, I know quite well what happened as between the setting up of the Vigilance Committee and the disbanding of the Kenya Defence Force. The way that was done—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit it—was inexcusable. It meant compulsory service; every settler was available in his area to give assistance to the law should there be any native uprising. The commandant of the Defence Force was a most distinguished general in the Army and, incidentally, an aide-de-camp to the late King. Without one word of warning the Defence Force, was disbanded by a stroke of the pen. The two members of the Executive Council which is the nearest advisory body to the Governor, were never informed, nor was the commandant himself.
  I submit with the greatest respect that this is a matter which wants the closest attention. It may be a tinder pile which only needs a match to set it alight. If it has fortuitously been saved by the Abyssinian war, so much the better. It will give the Colonial Secretary more time to look into it. I was told that every motor car was bought up during the last few months and that cattle raisers have got better prices for their cattle. If that is so it is all to the good, but I would urge the right hon. Gentleman to give the closest possible attention to this subject. They are a grand lot of fellows. It is a small Colony of 18,000 whites, but still it is good. An immense amount of British capital has been provided, but they need leading; they will not be driven.
  There are three things that they care about. The first is this: Three years ago, when the Budget did not balance, a certain amount of extra taxation had suddenly to be imposed. The colonists realised this. One of the taxes imposed was an Income Tax, and, rightly or wrongly, the colonists had a feeling that being the only place in the world where there was no Income Tax it was a condition which had the effect of attracting more settlers and more capital from out side, which is what they urgently need. Therefore, they opposed tooth and nail
  1456
  the proposal to impose an Income Tax. Probably they were impulsive. They were given the opportunity of choosing their own taxes. They might have been wiser if they had accepted the logical tax, which is an Income Tax. Nevertheless, they were well handled and they suggested other taxes of their own, which practically brought about the same result. I was there at the time and I know that they were definitely told, in the simplest language possible, that these were only temporary taxes to meet an emergency and would not be regarded as permanent.
  My experience tells me that the danger of all administrations is that they never go back and reduce rates; they are always sure to keep up a high rate, and unless there is a most. drastic order from home this reduction will not be made. They have had a grievance ever since that these emergency taxes which were described as temporary are now regarded as permanent. It is a grievance which represents £80,000 a year towards the Budget. I am certain that with a little good handling and a recognition of the rally which the Colony made to meet an emergency period, the matter can be put right. The second point on which they take their stand is a closer consultation in the financial control of the Budget. As it is, they have a standing financial committee which is consulted, but it is not consulted until after the Budget has been submitted to the Legislative Council. It is a wise thing in dealing with a body of Englishmen to treat thorn as your friends before, rather than run the risk of making them your enemies after a Budget. The name of Lord Francis Scott has been mentioned. He is a man of the highest calibre and in this House would occupy a commanding position. There are many others of the same calibre; indeed, there is a body of men in the country who might be made of great use.
  The third point upon which they take their stand is a matter raised in the Morris Carter Report—the question of the Indian invasion. It is a most difficult question. I know exactly what the white settlers want and whom they want to keep out. Those who have visited the Colony frequently and those who have lived there would be inclined to support the Morris Carter Report. and certainly I should support the selection of certain lands for certain purposes for certain

  1457
  races. They do not mix, and it is no good pretending that they do. There is a tacit agreement among the white settlers that they will not sell to a corporation when they know that the money behind the corporation is Indian money. Only last year a case was exposed and a contract declared void, because the white settlers would not have it; and as soon as the Colonial Office make up their mind that they will not have it either it will be easier to handle this difficult problem. These are the three things upon which I believe the white settlers—I may he wrong—are prepared to die in the last ditch before they give way. It has been decided that we must not mention the word "Mandate"—
  The CHAIRMAN: The Ruling I gave was that there are certain Mandated Territories included in Vote 9, Palestine, and Transjordan, which cannot be discussed, but other Mandated Territories and the question of the administration of the Mandate is open for discussion. The other Ruling I gave was that we cannot discuss on the Colonial Office Vote any question as to foreign Powers.
  Captain GUEST: I am sorry that I did not quite appreciate your Ruling. I only wish to mention in passing that it is not so much what happens to a Mandated Territory in the end. It may play a part in some arrangements, and it may be that in the international field there should be some give and take, but what I want to emphasise is the uncertainty which the present situation has produced. I have been looking at the statements made on this subject. They are of tremendous importance to the settlers. The same problem arises in Tanganyika as in Kenya. When you get within a period of two years such a variety of statements on this subject, it is no wonder that the settlers in Kenya and Tanganyika do not quite know where they are. In 1934 the then Colonial Secretary, now Lord Swinton, used the strongest words. He said that while prophecies are dangerous, he would make one prophecy, that just as no Government, whatever its complexion, had changed its views in the past 20 years, no Government would ever change its views. Another statement made by the same Secretary of State was that we
  1458
  would never consider any surrender of Mandated Territories.
  His actual words were:
  "Residents of Tanganyika, both official and unofficial, might count upon this as a fixed certainty."
  The late Secretary of State, Mr. J. H. Thomas, said that the matter had not so far been considered—
  The CHAIRMAN: This is not a matter with which the Colonial Office can deal, and, therefore, it cannot be discussed on this Vote.
  Mr. SANDYS: Surely the point which the right hon. and gallant Member is trying to make is not the cession of these territories, but to draw attention to the serious effect on the settlers and native inhabitants caused by the uncertainty as to their future?
  The CHAIRMAN: It is exactly the uncertainty as to their being handed over to a foreign Power which I have ruled three times already this afternoon cannot be discussed on this Vote.
  Mr. SANDYS: Can you give us your Ruling under what Vote we may discuss it?
  The CHAIRMAN: I have suggested it comes under the Foreign Office Vote.
  Mr. SANDYS: In what way can we raise the serious effect upon administration and order in Mandated Territories which will result from this uncertainty and growing unrest which is occurring at the present moment?
  The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must not ask me to give a Ruling on a hypothetical question which does not arise at the moment in the Debate on this Vote. There are certain references no doubt which may he in order here, but it must be understood, and hon. Members will follow the meaning of this, that any question of handing over a Mandated Territory to a foreign Power is a matter for the Foreign Office as a Departmental matter or of the policy of the Government as a whole, but it does not come under the administration of the Colonial Office and, therefore, while it can perhaps he discussed on the Foreign Office Vote it certainly cannot be discussed on the Colonial Office Vote.
  Captain GUEST: I thank you for your help and guidance. I think that without trespassing against your Ruling I may say that to the word "Mandate" there is very closely allied the word. "uncertainty." It would be of enormous help to the primary producers in Tanganyika if their minds could be set at rest on this matter. I feel sure that the Colonial Secretary, after hearing what is said on this matter, will take the first opportunity of getting a declaration from the Government as to the views they hold on it for the purpose of increasing the stability and certainty of those who are in Kenya. I would like to conclude my remarks with a plea that the Government should make up their minds as to whether they believe in white settlement or not. I would ask them certainly not to believe the accusations which come from the other side and which suggest that the white man gets all the fun and the black man none. Believe me, from long experience I know it is very much the other way. Almost everything that can be done is done for the African native who lives in Kenya Colony, and the white man has very largely to support the burden. The white man does the work, he brings the capital and he does his best. I hope the new Colonial Secretary will rise to the occasion and give us a good look in on this difficult problem.
  6.32 p.m.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I feel that if I waited until the end of the evening before answering the very many questions that have been put to me, I might be answering questions all night and occupy too much time. At tins point I do not propose to make a general reply, but there are one or two matters which have been raised in the Debate which, I think, I. had better clear up as briefly as possible. I will deal first of all with the speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest), who asked me for particulars with regard to the burden of taxation. I hope to receive a report from Sir Alan Pim on that matter in the course of a few weeks, and I understand that report will be published both in Kenya and here. Sir Alan Pim was selected to make the inquiry on the suggestion of the Kenya settlers. Like all other problems in Kenya, this problem
  1460
  is a, very difficult one. Let me say frankly that I do not think it has been in the interests of the farmers in Kenya to have had this graduated poll tax instead of Income Tax. I think the primary producers would have immensely benefited if for a long time past there had been an Income Tax. At present it is the commercial community which has the benefit, over the primary producers. I have always been of the opinion that the settlers have been definitely wrong in thinking that anybody is likely to be attracted to Kenya more than to any other part of the British Empire because there is no Income Tax in Kenya. If I may say so, I think that idea is a complete delusion.
  With regard to my right. hon. and gallant Friend's remarks concerning consultation, I think it is most important on all possible occasions to carry the community with one in all these matters. My right hon. and gallant Friend said that we dictate from the Colonial Office. I deny that that is so. It certainly has not been so since I have been at the Colonial Office; if anything, it. is the other way; I am always being restrained and told that before I make suggestions, the local government must. be consulted. The whole spirit and tradition of British administration in the Colonies is to consult local opinion in the Colonies. As everybody knows, a characteristic feature of British Colonial administration is its, variety, the absence of dictation, the absence of uniformity, and the endeavour of every Colonial Secretary and every Government to adapt ideas and proposals to local circumstances in full consultation with the local people.
  I hope the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans) will forgive me when I say that I was really amazed at parts of his speech. He made a case to the effect that the British Colonial Empire was holding up, or was threatening to hold up, or interfere with the free supply of Colonial raw materials to Germany and other foreign countries. He built up a case which, if it were true, would be very damaging to this country; but it is not true. The principal anxiety of the Colonial Empire at this moment is to find markets for our products. The hon. Member quoted copper. We have made no attempt to restrict or to direct the flow of copper any more than nickel has been restricted by the great company

  1461
  with which the hon. Member is associated. To suggest that we are going to do so or are doing so is completely out of the picture. My difficulty at the present moment in the Colonial Empire is to find markets for our products.
  Mr. O. EVANS: How does the right hon. Gentleman explain the undoubted anxiety of foreign countries with regard to this matter? Is it not because it is known that this country has the power to do what I have suggested and has done it?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: These suggestions, I believe, come from the Cobdenite group in this country. Let me refer to two instances in which it has been done. In the first place, it is true that in 1904 a differential export duty was put on tin ore, and I understand it has been maintained ever since. Suggestios were made soon after the 1906 Election that that duty should be taken off, and the then Liberal Government, under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, declined to do so, as has every successive Government from 1904 to this day. The only other example, so far as I know, in the history of British Colonial administration in this century is the differential export duty on palm kernels from West Africa. That duty was imposed soon after the War as a result of the recommendations of a committee set up during the War to ascertain whether any steps should be taken after the War to prevent our being dependent on foreign countries for certain key products. The committee found that although we produced large quantities of palm oil and palm kernels in British West Africa, the crushing and converting industry was practically nonexistent in this country, and that practically the whole of those products before the War had gone to Holland, Germany and one or two other countries. The committee recommended that it was desirable to give a start to a crushing industry in this country in order that we should not be dependent on other countries in time of war for vegetable oils of that sort. Consequently, from the end of the War to 1922, there was a temporary differential duty imposed. After three years that duty was taken off and has never been reimposed. We now have a large palm kernel crushing industry in this country.
  1462
  The British Government have always practised the policy of no restriction of Colonial exports, and our anxiety at this moment is to sell more of our tropical Colonial products. In a speech made at Geneva, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty gave the lead. We are urging foreign countries to admit our Colonial products, and we want other countries which practise restriction both of exports and of imports to take the matter up and to follow our example. So far we have not met with a very ready response from other countries. I am faced with this problem, that in endeavouring to get markets for Colonial products on every single occasion there must be bargaining with countries, particularly in Continental Europe, which are imposing quotas, exchange restrictions and the like on almost every product which we wish to sell. Britain is charged with being the wicked protectionist country which is holding up the recovery of Europe, but the reverse is true. It is the narrow economic nationalism in Europe which is to blame. The British Colonies are only too anxious to sell their products, and I want to make that very clear.
  I will deal now with some of the points raised by the hen. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). In the first place, he referred to the International Labour Conference at Geneva this year and the Convention for the recruitment of native labour. The Government representatives sent out by the Colonial Office voted for the Convention. We supported the Convention and we hope it will be ratified without any modifications; but before that is done we have to invite the opinions of the Colonial Governments in order to give them a chance to raise any points they wish to raise, and we shall not ratify until we receive their replies. Another point raised by the hon. Member concerned workmen's compensation. I understand that at the moment discussions are going on in this country to assist Colonial Governments in devising suitable workmen's compensation ordinances where those ordinances appear to be called for by reason of industrial developments. As the hon. Member knows, the important. thing in that respect is that any workmen's compensation Act, if it is to be practicable and to give the compensation effectively, should be coupled with a system of insurance whereby the employer

  1463
  can insure. The hon. Member will realise that it is essential that the negotiations with insurance companies who do that kind of work should take place here, because although many of them have local agents, it is inevitable that those local agents would be referred back here. I am given to understand that negotiations on this important question of insurance are now going on.
  The hon. Member also raised the subject of education and I hope he will not think that Achimota College the experiment carried out by Sir Gordon Guggisberg as Governor of the Gold Coast, which was very well-advertised and deserved to be very well-advertised, represents the only type of elementary or higher education in the Colonial Empire. That institution is unique in this sense that it is about the only institution of the kind which is endeavouring to cater, by means of one organisation, for all classes of pupils, male and female, from the elementary stage to the university. For the most part, however, the work of education in the Colonies is not done on, those lines, but proceeds on the ordinary lines of having primary schools, secondary schools, technical schools, and higher education. I assure the hon. Member that as the purchasing power and therefore the revenue of the Dependencies increases, more and more attention is given to supplmentary education. I agree with that, and I would like to announce definitely that we intend forthwith to take steps in regard to the extension of the Makerere College in Uganda, as a central institution of higher education for Africans in East Africa. A commission of experts will go out there this winter in order to do some definite planning with that end in view. It is already on a good foundation as a centre of higher education, but it requires considerable development and we are determined to develop it.
  The hon. Member also asked me about the recruitment of labour. I agree that wherever you get new mining development in Africa you are immediately faced with new labour problems. In the case of the development in Northern Rhodesia there was some little trouble owing to the rather sudden announcement of differential taxation as between the mine worker earning wages at the mine, as compared with the native who remained
  1464
  on his own farm or in the agricultural village. That, I think, has now been cleared up, and in considering this question we find that a great deal depends, not only on the conditions of life at the mines, but on the conditions on the journey to and from the mines. I have seen an advance copy of the report of the local committee as regards the effect of leaving matters more or less to chance, especially on those singularly enterprising people the natives of Nyasaland—the effect on the village and home life of what I may call promiscuous and unregulated migration from Nyasaland to almost all parts of South-East Africa.
  The people of Nyasaland—one or two tribes in particular—are most enterprising. You will find them as far south as Cape Town, and as far away as Kenya. You will find them doing all sorts of odd jobs in Tanganyika and away in the Congo. They seem to have a sort of spiritual affinity with the Scottish race. I remember in Portuguese East Africa when the train in which I was travelling stopped at a wayside halt there was a small gang of natives working on the permanent way. It was some way from Nyasaland but there was a Nyasa boy in charge. When they knocked off work he took out of his pocket a little book of the Paraphrases according to the Kirk of Scotland and he sang the Paraphrases in a distinctly Scottish accent. He was probably a product of the Livingstone Mission. They are, as I say, an enterprising people who like to travel but things do not always turn out well with them and it may be that the Governor will have to consult with the Governors of neighbouring territories as to the best way of regulating the inevitable tendency to migration of these people who have such a desire to see the world.
  The main point raised by my right hon. and gallant Friend who spoke last and by almost every other speaker, has been in regard to the land situation in Kenya. I still think that there is some misunderstanding about the Morris Carter Report and the general situation in Kenya and if I deal now with one or two of the outstanding questions which have been raised, it may be for the convenience of the Committee and may avoid having the same thing all over again in the subsequent Debate. What is contemplated, arising out of the recom-

  1465
  mendations of the Commission, is the issue of two Orders in Council. There are, of course, many other things arising out of those recommendations, but the points which have been raised are chiefly concerned with these Orders in Council. One of them is to define the native reserves and the other is to define the boundaries of those parts of the Highlands which are to be set aside for nonnative occupation. I wish to make it clear that this will not finally divide up anything like the whole of the territory or even the whole of that part which is called the Highlands. The native reserves as defined by one Order in Council will comprise 48,149 square miles and it so happens that in that area 86 per cent. of the total native population live. That is to say, it covers the more densely populated parts and it includes part of the Highlands and certain districts such as Kavirondo. Therefore, 86 per cent. of the natives of Kenya will be in the area now reserved and defined by the Order in Council.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: What proportion is that area of the whole territory?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think the whole territory is about 225,000 square miles.
  Captain GUEST: Of which some thousands of square miles are uninhabitable.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Unless they are irrigated or unless great developments take place. I now come to the other Order in Council dealing with the European area which is exclusively in the Highlands. I have already I think made it plain that part of the native reserve is in the Highlands. The European area which will be defined by the other Order will be 16,700 square miles of which 3,950 square miles, although included in the area defined by the Order as the European area, are to be preserved for all time as forest reserve. That means, in effect, that for purposes of non-native agriculture there will be about 12,000 square miles in the Highlands of Kenya with a defined boundary.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: What about the Indians?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no Indian reserve.
  Mr. JONES: This is rather important. The right hon. Gentleman has told us what is to be reserved for the natives and what is to be reserved for the Europeans. Is there any Order whereby Indians are excluded, either from the native area or the European area?
  Major MILNER: May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the 16,700 square miles is the total area for European occupation or the additional area for European occupation?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That is the total covered by the proposed Order in Council.
  Major MILNER: That is not in addition to the 6,000 square miles at present alienated.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would not like to take that figure as accurate. At any rate, that is the area which is to be defined in the Order in Council and I want to make it clear, in reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly, that there is to be nothing in either Order imposing any legal disability against Indians or against any persons on the ground of race, colour, creed or anything else. Equally, I want to make it clear that the existing administrative practice which was first laid down by Lord Elgin is to be continued. I wish that to be understood clearly both in India and elsewhere. The existing administrative practice of the Kenya Government which has been followed since 1908 will continue. In the area demarcated as the European area, not by law, not by anything in the Order in Council, but as a matter of administration, that practice will continue in the future as in the past. I have replied already I think to the qestion put by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. de Rothschild) in this connection. There will be no legal colour bar.
  One or two other Kenya questions have been raised. Reference has been made to the new ordinance dealing with resident native labourers. I ask hon. Members not to imagine that this is a simple problem or one capable of an easy solution. In these 16,000 square miles, or in that part of the area which has already been alienated to European settlers—which was almost entirely land that was free from occupation—there are a number

  1467
  of natives. They came on to that land by arrangement with the settlers in, the course of years since settlement began in the early part of this century, and there are no fewer than 150,000 natives now living there on European-owned farms. They have come in there from various tribes and from various parts of Kenya and they are there on purely annual tenancies. They are what is locally called squatters. The existing law and practice for a very long time past is this: the European farmer is not allowed to charge a rent. He has to provide the squatter with land on which to build a house and cultivate his own food. The squatter has to have an agreed amount of stock and domestic animals. which he brings with him. In. return the farmer gets from the squatter 180 days' labour a year, which has to be paid for at rates specified in the contract and in the agreement which is come to with the knowledge of the district commissioner.
  The practice has been that these contracts have been renewed from year to year. The result is that you have, quite frankly, a large number of detribalised natives who have now become permanently resident on European estates. Whereas in the contract when they arrive they were entitled to bring a certain number of cows or goats, the goats and the cows are no longer of that number, as you can imagine, with the tendency of the African natives to regard all cattle as a form of currency, especially at weddings and so on. It is presenting a very serious problem to know what is to be the future. The Europeans are most anxious to keep a great many of these squatters, but they are not anxious that the whole of their land should be so used. I am not sure how far it is in the interest of the Colony to have more and more of its restricted European. area taken up by the native population, and how far it is not better in the interest of native development for labour required on European farms to come in and out of the reserves, which are not far off European farms in most cases, and so maintain connection with their tribal authority, the native council and all the native administration in the tribal area. It presents a particular problem, and I am not going to commit myself to expressing what is the right solution of that
  1468
  problem. Quite frankly, I have not come to any decision on that subject, and I may take a little time.
  Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the proposals in the Order which is coming before him?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Quite frankly, I have not seen it. What I want to make clear is that in the debates on this question and in discussion in the Press this question of squatters has got linked up with the existence on European land, and in some cases actually on European farms, of natives who are not squatters but who, as it were, have a prior right to be there. It is obvious that as we are trying to stabilise both the native reserves and the European area, it is desirable to get any of these sort of patches where there is a doubt as to rights cleared up before we make these two Orders in Council final. The recommendation of the Morris Carter Commission is that the rights should be extinguished on provision of suitable land and on payment of compensation for disturbance, which compensation they have advised should be on a general scale. The number of persons affected was considered by the commission to be between 200 and 300, not the 150,000 squatters who have come in since European occupation. These others had occupation rights before the Europeans came there. They are not squatters, and it is intended to move them and to pay them compensation. That, is connected with another small point, which is that of the Tigoni area. There the commission found there was an area in the middle of land alienated to Europeans in which by some access natives have been allowed to settle since 1904. The land had been unoccupied before 1904, and the commission have found on the facts that it had been vacated and that the natives did not return to it until the surrounding farms had been alienated. They recommended an exchange of land to be added to the native reserve and the Government had proposed to carry this out. But it was found on investigation that the land recommended by the Morris Carter Commission was not satisfactory or adequate for the replacement of these natives and—I think that this is what the hon. Member for Caerphilly had in mind—an alternative has now been found which has proved satisfactory to

  1469
  the natives and has just recently been accepted by them. It is very desirable in the interest of all these charges and counter charges that all these small points of friction which lead to letters in the "Times" and all the rest of it should be cleared up, and that as regards the major native reserves and the major areas for Europeans, these things should be cleared up.
  Major MILNER: What date was that agreement arrived at?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am informed quite recently.
  Major MILNER: Within the last month?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Before that.
  Major MILNER: I have in my possession a petition dated 13th June denying that. I should therefore like to know the date of the agreement.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I should be interested to see that document, but this is the information I have. The Government recognise that the area of land proposed by the Morris Carter Commission is not satisfactory and not adequate. They have made an alternative proposal, as I understand it, which the natives have accepted. It is important that it should prove acceptable when they are being moved from this area.
  7.10 p.m.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I wish in a few words to refer to the speech of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) as well as the interesting speech to which we have just listened from the Secretary of State. Let me say at once that although I have listened with satisfaction to some of the statements in his speech, it does not remove many of the misgivings particularly in relation to Kenya which I and my hon. Friends feel. I will explain to him quite frankly what the reason for that is. It is important to clear our minds when we begin to discuss this question as to what we believe the fundamental principles of our policy should be in Kenya. I think it has been made clear by speakers in all parts of the Committee that the last thing any one of us wants to do is to appear as a champion of native rights against settlers or of settlers' rights against natives. What we want to see is a
  1470
  happy and prosperous community there, and we want to see the prosperity of that community built up upon the contributions of all the races there, British, native, Indian and the others. When the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham said that the rights of the natives and settlers must be considered on an equal basis, I go a large way in agreeing with him, but when we come to consider practical issues of policy, it may well be that there is a clash which it is difficult to resolve on a basis of perfect equality. As regards legal rights, certainly they must be equal, but when you are considering the development of policy it may be difficult, though you are inspired by a desire to treat both equally, to strike a balance and the interests of one side may have to give way in some measure to the other, as it is to be hoped, in the ultimate interest of the whole community, and therefore of each part of the community. When such a clash arises I say quite definitely—and in saying it I base myself not on the opinion of any Liberal or Labour statesman but on the opinion of the Duke of Devonshire at the time when he held the high office of Secretary of State for the Colonies in a Conservative Government—that the paramount consideration must be the interests of the natives. To quote his words:
  "Primarily Kenya is African territory and His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives mast be paramount, and that if and when these interests and the interest of the emigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail."
  Therefore, that must be our point of departure in considering policy in Kenya.
  The Noble Lord has referred to the happy relations which existed between the settlers and the squatters in the Highlands. No one on this side of the House wants to disturb those happy relations; we want to see them go on. But the Noble Lord referred to the threats against the settlers; and the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest) said that the utterances and criticisms of hon. Members in this House of the settlers left them cold. In another passage of his speech he referred to the indignation which they aroused, not only among settlers, but in other parts of the Empire, so apparently they make them

  1471
  alternately hot and cold. As a matter of fact, these references by the Noble Lord and the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division to threats directed against and unsympathetic criticisms of the settlers have no relevance to the Debate to-day, and have none to the speeches which have been made from this side of the Committee, either above or below the Gangway; but I did regret that in their speeches there was a note of warning which amounted very nearly to a threat. The distinction certainly in the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division between his very solemn and earnest warning and a threat was very difficult to draw. What is this Vigilance Committee to which he referred?
  Earl WINTERTON: As my right hon. Friend referred in a perfectly fair way to me, I think he and the whole Committee will agree that when you get a white settlement beyond a certain point in numbers, no matter whether it is in Canada, Australia, Kenya, or wherever it is, you cannot afford to treat those settlers as if they are of no account, because if you do so you will break up the Empire, because you cannot bring the force necessary to deal with them.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Exactly; the Noble Lord's argument is, as I said, quite irrelevant to the Debate. Nobody has said that they are of no account. My hon. Friend who opened the Debate paid a very high tribute to the work of the settlers, a tribute with which the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench associated himself. I have tried to make it clear that I too appreciate the vital importance of the work which they are doing in Kenya, but I think it is unfortunate that hon. and right hon. Members opposite should be expressing the opinions of the settlers to us in language which is minatory in character. What is this Vigilance Committee, and why should we pay any attention to a committee of that kind? I hope it will be kept in order by the Secretary of State or by the Governor there. I do not want to pursue that subject. We have not raised it on this side of the Committee, but that hon. Members on the other side, speaking professedly on behalf of the settlers, should talk to the House of Commons about a
  1472
  Vigilance Committee which will become active if we take a certain line, is a deplorable argument to use in this Debate.
  The Noble Lord asked whit right we had to criticise the settlers and to lay down principles of Colonial administration. I say, every right, because the interests of the natives must be paramount, as the Duke of Devonshire said.
  Earl WINTERTON: The right hon. Baronet says that I said, "What right have you to criticise the settlers?" said nothing of the sort. I said that that was the question which was being put by people in the Dominions, and the right hon. Gentleman had better address his criticism to every Canadian, Australian, and South African who is putting that question.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I cannot address it to each of them individually, of course, but from my place in this House I am quite prepared to address it to every Australian, South African, or Canadian. Here we have every right, and the duty, to insist that the interests of the natives should be paramount in our administration in Kenya, and we base our claim on the principle of trusteeship. The right hon. arid gallant Member for the Drake Division said that trusteeship was just a glib phrase, which bore no relation to reality. He made it clear that he preferred the phrase," the white man's burden," and he made great play, in the course of his speech, with the white man's burden. It may be very foolish of me, but I find it very difficult to attach any precise significance to the phrase "the white man's burden," but I do attach a very precise significance to trusteeship, which I think was admirably defined by the hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench as being an endeavour to train the native to take over an increasing measure of responsibility for the government of his country, and I would add, improving his social and economic condition and. enabling him to raise his standard of living and avoid the imposition of any obstacle between him and the trade of the world which may make it difficult and more costly for him to raise his standard of living. All these things I regard as coming within the ambit of the principle of trusteeship. It seems to me, therefore, a better and

  1473
  more precise phrase to use than "the white man's burden."
  Now I come to what the Secretary of State told us about the plan which he is making for dealing with the problem of land in Kenya. He told us there would be Orders in Council in the near future, one of which would define the native reserve and the other of which would define the reserve for non-native enterprise. The first thing I notice about this second Order is that it is intended substantially to enlarge the area of the Highlands which is to be reserved for nonnative exploitation, at a time when the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division was telling us that the white settlers were leaving the country. It seems to me quite unnecessary and, I think, a little unfair, to the natives to enlarge that territory at a time When the number of white settlers is not increasing, when there is no great pressure of white settlement, but when, on the contrary—and I regret it—the white settlement is falling off.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think I should explain to the right hon. Baronet that the whole object of these Orders in Council is to give greater permanence, a greater sense of security. We are having regard to getting something really stable for many years to come.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: What I object to is the exclusion of natives and Indians from an area in which only European enterprise will be allowed, to which Greeks, Portuguese, Italians, will be able to go.
  Sir EDWARD GRIGG: Oh!
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: My hon. Friend below me says, "Oh!" but Italians may very likely go and settle there, in an area, from which British subjects, natives and Indians, will be excluded. That that area, at a time when, as I say, white settlement is falling off, should be enlarged does seem to me to be one indefensible aspect of the proposal. There will be a third Order, the Secretary of State tells us—
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No; a local ordinance.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: A local ordinance which will refer to squatters, which, as he very rightly said, is an extremely difficult problem. He said he had not made up his mind about that, and how it is to
  1474
  be dealt with, and therefore, until he can give us a little more information, it would obviously be foolish for us to express any more definite opinion than he is prepared to do on the information which is before him at the moment. But at the same time I would say that surely one solution might be to stop the increase in the number of squatters without affecting the rights of those who are there now. If his proposals are going to affect the rights of men who have for many years acquired an interest in the land, then indeed we shall have something to say in criticism of any such proposal. Now I come to the further proposal to which he referred, namely, his proposal for dealing with the native population which has been there for generations. He tells us the number is very small, but the principle is extremely important, and it seems to me a deplorable thing that you should root these people out of the soil to which they belong, and evict them from their homes. I belong to a country where we have had Highland clearances, and they have left a scar on the consciousness of the people which has never been removed to this day.
  Earl WINTERTON: Is it not happening in Palestine now?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is the second time that the Noble Lord has made that allusion. I would say that, whereas the basis of our rule in Kenya is this principle of trusteeship and of the paramountcy of native interests, the basis of our rule in Palestine is clear, defined, proclaimed to the world. It is the necessity for constituting the Jewish home in the country that clearly differentiates the two cases. There is nothing in common between them.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I thought the right hon. Gentleman's party treated Colonies and Protectorates as if they were Mandated Territories, as if the principles of the Mandates were to govern the Colonies.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Decidedly, but I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can have followed the point of my answer to the Noble Lord.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I did not follow it.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Then I will put it again and say that in the case of Pales-

  1475
  tine we are pledged to constitute a Jewish national home in that country. It is true that we are pledged to preserve the civil and religious rights of the inhabitants, but we are also pledged to establish a Jewish national home there and to bring people in. That is the basis of our rule in that country.
  Sir E. GRIGG: How does the right hon. Gentleman differentiate that from the action taken by the Imperial Government in settling our own countrymen on the land in Kenya and assuring them that they will not be disturbed?
  The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Sir Malcolm Barclay-Harvey): I think we are getting on to the Palestine ground, which the Chairman has ruled is not to be raised in this Debate.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I think I can answer, without transgressing your Ruling, the point put by the hon. Gentleman below me, because he brought the question back to Kenya, and the answer to him is that those settlers whom we have brought in there have been brought in on the basis of repeated assurances that our rule in Kenya was based upon the principle of trusteeship and in face of the plain declaration by the Duke of Devonshire, which I have already quoted, that the interests of the native population in that area were to be paramount.
  Captain P. MACDONALD: That was made a long time after the settlers were settled on the land in Kenya.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: That declaration was not intended to be a new declaration and a new departure of policy. It was merely an authoritative interpretation of repeated declarations of policy which have been made by British statesmen stretching back to Lord Derby in the reign of Queen Victoria. Therefore, I say that there is no such analogy as the Noble Lord draws between Palestine and Kenya. Indeed, if it were proposed in Palestine to root out the Arabs to make room for the Jews by the action of the Government, I imagine that the Noble Lord himself would be the first to protest.
  Therefore, I say that it would be a most unfortunate proposal to root out the
  1476
  people who have been living in these areas for generations. It would leave a scar in the consciousness of those people and of the black peoples all over the Continent of Africa, who would feel that an injustice had been done to men of their own colour because they were not white-skinned. I hope, therefore, that this proposal will not be pursued but that it will be made absolutely clear that these men will be able to remain in their homes as long as they want to. If you think it is advisable in the interests of the Colony and of white settlement to offer them land in compensation, and if they will take it voluntarily, by all means let that be done; but let no man be evicted against his will, and let no British citizen be denied access to the courts of law, which is part of the Morris Carter proposals. To these two proposals we on these benches offer firm opposition. We are opposed to the idea that there should be a denial to British citizens, whatever their colour or race, of access to the courts. We dislike the whole principle of reserving for the exploitation of British white settlers, and of Italians and Greeks it may be, areas of land into which British Indian and African citizens are not allowed to go.
  I pass from that to reply to what the Secretary of State said on the subject of the open door. The right hon. Gentleman tried to draw a distinction between the opinions held on this subject by Members sitting on these benches and the opinions held by everybody in every other part of the Committee, including the Labour party. He said that this subject of the open door was only raised by the old Cobdenite group. There was a most eloquent passage in the speech of the hon. Member who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench on this very point. What the right hon. Gentleman says is not true. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. O. Evans) was speaking of the possibility of restrictions upon exports, the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) interrupted and said, "Stop the copper going to Germany because it is being made into war material." We on these benches do not take that view. To say that it is only our policy to create prejudice on this subject, that there is no reality or actuality in the fears of those who believe that restrictions of trade of this kind may be imposed, restrictions which may easily

  1477
  compromise the prospect of peace, is to say what is really not true.
  There was a great meeting of economists and statesmen from the United States of America and from all over the world at Chatham House last year. This is one of the subjects on which men of all parties, distinguished men who pursue the study of politics and political economy in different countries, regarded as important, not only from the point of view of the economic future of the world, but from the point of view of peace, which was the point my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan was making. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is a matter in which only a small group of persons is interested, he is living in a world of illusions.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said that it was only a small group of people who thought that Great Britain in regard to its Colonial Empire was trying to restrict and narrow the range of its exports. I appreciate why the First Lord of the Admiralty made his speech in Geneva and why statesmen of the world have raised this question, but the accusation of a change of policy by Great Britain in regard to the Colonial Empire only comes from the right hon. Gentleman and his friends.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: The right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. If any of those who share our views have said that the British Government is solely to blame, they have been guilty of inaccurate statements.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to blame at all?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: Of course this Government is to blame. It is to blame because of the Ottawa Agreements, because of the import duties which have been imposed under those agreements, and because of the Japanese quotas which have been imposed. All these things have tended to restrict trade and hamper purchases in our Colonial market. It is a significant fact that two speakers from among the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters used arguments which buttressed our case. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham, in trying to disprove some argument on the same subject by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of
  1478
  Ely (Mr. de Rothschild), said that the trade of Tanganyika was flourishing. It is, but Tanganyika is a Mandated Territory and is not affected by the Ottawa Agreements. It is notably flourishing. On the other hand, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division referred to the grievances of the settlers in Kenya, and said, "There are, the heavy import duties which they have to pay."
  Mr. ORMSBY - GORE: They are identical with those in Tanganyika.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: That is true, but I am not contrasting the two cases. I am only saying that when the Noble Lord wanted to find a prosperous Colony, he went to one where import duties are comparatively low and which is not affected by the Ottawa Agreements at all. I was not saying that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's illustration of Kenya was in conflict with that. I was only saying that by the right hon. Gentleman's testimony imports duties, even at the level at which they exist in Kenya and Tanganyika, are a burden upon the enterprise of those countries. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, speaking, as he said, on behalf of the settlers, agree they were a serious burden upon their enterprise. It, therefore, follows that if import duties at the comparatively low level which prevails in the area which is covered by the Congo Basin Treaties are a burden upon the trade of those Colonies, so the higher duties and the quotas which have been imposed on certain Colonies are inevitably a burden upon their trade. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan pointed out, they add to the obstacles of world trade generally and they make it more difficult for Germany, for Italy, and for all the Powers that have not a sufficient number of Colonies to satisfy them, to buy the raw materials they want because they find it more difficult to sell their goods, because of those duties and quotas, in competition with British merchants.
  The problem is a greater one than that. It is one that is too great to discuss on this Vote because the problem which those countries have to face is that of getting exchange. That brings us on to the whole problem of obstacles to trade generally, because, until those obstacles to world trade are removed, it will be

  1479
  impossible for the Germans, the Italians and other countries to obtain the exchange which they require in order to effect the purchase of the raw materials which they want for their industry and which they can get from our Colonies.
  Mr. SANDYS: Does my right hon. Friend really mean that Germany and the other countries, but particularly Germany, are being prevented by the British Colonial system from getting the raw materials they want because they have no Colonies? If that is his argument will he say how it is that Germany is at any disadvantage considering the fact that all her former Colonies are now Mandated Territories and are not under the restrictions to which he referred?
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: I have already referred to that, and I do not think the hon. Member could have followed my argument. The answer is the difficulty which Germany has in obtaining exchange, not only because of our Ottawa duties, but because of the height of trade barriers which is killing German world trade. Our trade with Germany for the three years 1027–9 was just over £100,000,000. Our trade with Germany now is just under £50,000,000. Half of that trade has been destroyed by tariffs and quotas and by economic nationalism, and that it what is making it difficult for Germany to buy in our Colonial markets.
  Mr. SANDYS: Surely my right hon. Friend is aware that Germany's trade with her former Colonies has a favourable balance, which means that she is taking currency out of those Colonies, so that no advantage would accrue to her by having those territories under her control.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: It is true that she has a very slight favourable balance of trade but if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, he has a bee in his bonnet about Mandated Territories, and he is always badgering the Government to make a declaration about them. I do not happen to be discussing that question. I have expressed publicly my view that I am opposed to the return in existing circumstances of Mandated Territories to Germany, and I am opposed to any declaration of the Government that would do that. I am not discussing that particular point now, and the hon. Gentleman's interruption has no particular
  1480
  relevance to the argument I happen to be addressing to the Committee. It opens up, however, an interesting subject of discussion which, no doubt, the hon. Member will develop when he enters the Debate. We on these benches attach the utmost importance to the reassertion of the principle of the open door both from the point of view of the prosperity of the Colonies and from the point of view of world trade and the trade of the British Empire as a, whole; and also, I would add, as one of the great contributions which could be made—not by this Government alone, it is true, but which we want to see this Government give a lead to the world in making—to the establishment of world peace.
  7.45 p.m.
  Sir E. GRIGG: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) brought us back to first principles, and before I sit down I will deal with that aspect of the great question of administration which we are discussing. But before I come to that I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary for the statement which he made to us, and to urge him, even in his absence, not to listen to the criticisms which have been made from behind him on the measures which he proposes to take. I am convinced that those are necessary in the interests of all races in Kenya. Kenya has been stirred and bedevilled in this country by controversy, which has always been kept alive, but now, at last, there is an opportunity of getting some of those points of controversy fairly removed. They have been investigated by a most responsible body, months being devoted to the investigation, and I believe that we have a fair settlement, and. I hope that the Government will, without hesitation, put it through.
  Now I come to the question of trusteeship, which my right hon. Friend raised. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) raised it earlier in the Debate, and I was grateful to him for the speech he made. I think it is immensely important, when dealing with the question of Colonial administration, to get down to first principles. If we did that more we should find that our differences were very much less. Personally, I attach the utmost importance

  1481
  to Colonial policy, particularly as it concerns these difficult racial questions, being as far as possible a matter of agreement. When there is not agreement in this House the difficulties on the spot are enormously increased. We tend to foment racial trouble if we ourselves are divided about them. It is of the utmost importance, if we can do it, to lift Colonial policy in these matters out of the field of party controversy or even of wide political recrimination in this country. For that reason I was grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question of first principles, and I would like to give him some of the reasons why we differ from him on the question of trusteeship. What I am going to say applies equally to what was said by the right hon. Member for Caithness.
  We are agreed unquestionably that our position is that of trustees. That was laid down clearly in this House by the great Colonial Secretary whose centenary is now being celebrated. Mr. Chamberlain said that we were trustees for civilisation. He said it from that Box as Colonial Secretary, and I believe that was the first time the phrase was used. We are agreed, and the hon. Member for Caerphilly emphasised it, that the object of our great Colonial system is always, to lead the people up to self-government, that that is the distinctive mark of the British Empire. Other empires have given their subjects quite as much as we have given in the way of law and order, of peace and of great public works; the Roman Empire was not second to us in that respect; but we, at any rate, have made it a principle of our administration to spread responsibility as widely as possible, and to bring people up to the use and enjoyment of freedom as soon as they are able to use it and enjoy it. I think there would be absolutely no disagreement on that point among Members in this House.
  Where we do disagree, I think we disagree in this, that the hon. Member seemed, on the whole, to take too narrow a view of trusteeship and to forget one aspect of it altogether. This trusteeship is not in one form but in two forms. That is clearly laid down in Lord Lugard's book on government in Africa, which is the classic on the subject. The book itself is called "The Dual Mandate in Tropical Africa," and on the title
  1482
  page Lord Lugard quotes from a proclamation made by King George V on his
  Accession:
  "It will be the high task of all my Governments to superintend the development of these countries for the benefit of the inhabitants and the general welfare of the world."
  Not only the benefit of the inhabitants, but the general welfare of the world. It is that consideration which must be taken into account in discharging this trusteeship. Let me put to the hon. Member an instance of what this may mean. There has been, in this country, a great deal of controversy which has now, happily, died down, about gold in Kenya. Gold is a matter of immense importance to the world as a whole. It is important not only to those who make money by getting it out of the earth but to all who buy and sell; it is important to every working man and woman in the world. Everybody knows that the production of more gold, if it can be arranged, will help in raising prices and in reducing our difficulties at the present time. I do not think anybody would deny that the winning of gold is a vital matter to the whole world.
  Are we to say that this metal, so valuable to the world as a whole, is to be denied to the world because it happens to lie under the soil inhabited by a few tribes of African natives? That seems to be an impossible attitude to take up in trusteeship. You have to think of the welfare of the world as well as of the interest of those particular natives. You must be absolutely fair to them, but you cannot inflict upon the whole world the disadvantages that might come from refusal to develop that talent lying in the earth, merely in order that a few people in a very primitive state should remain undisturbed. I think the hon. Gentleman agrees with me.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: I think I have already made it plain that we do not take the view that the primitive peoples of these countries can remain unaffected by the march of industrial civilisation.
  Sir E. GRIGG: I am delighted to hear that statement, because the trusteeship has to take into account something be sides the benefit of the particular inhabitants of those countries. People who say that we are entitled to consider only the advantages to those particular countries are taking too narrow a view of

  1483
  trusteeship. There is another qualification which I should like to make, and I think it is very vital. The hon. Gentleman seemed to me to imply that our main aim was a political aim, and that we should concentrate on the particular aim of bringing all the people within the British realm along the road to the enjoyment of self-government. I believe it is very dangerous at the present time to look at the task of administration as primarily a political one. I do not believe that it is. I believe that it is primarily economic. We should learn from the mistake we made over India.
  I think I have quoted this observation in the House before, but I make bold to quote it again. That great Frenchman, M. Clemenceau, went to India after the War and at the end of his public service. On his return I asked his view about our administration in India. He said the administration was wonderful, that he had had no idea of what a perfect system of administration we had established. He said, too, that our system of justice was prodigious, considering that it was established in an Oriental country. Those things had impressed him; but, he said, we had made one mistake. I asked: "What is that?" He said, "You have not considered sufficiently how to enable the people of India to pay for these benefits." I believe that was a perfectly just criticism. So intent were we on making a perfect administration that we rather tended to ignore—and more than to ignore, to set aside—the economic development of India, with the economic problems involved. We went further—and this is another lesson for Africa—and we pressed on with literary education, anxious to give the people there what we were giving to the best of our people here, and in that process we produced hundreds of thousands of young men for jobs which did not exist. That is one of the troubles which has led, perhaps, to more unrest in India than anything else in our time. There is a great danger of doing that in Africa too, and we must learn from India that concentration on a political aim, or on education looking towards a political aim, is a very dangerous thing.
  Mr. MORGAN JONES: All I have advocated is the development of the natives educationally and culturally along
  1484
  the lines most appropriate to their needs in their own areas.
  Sir E. GRIGG: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and glad to know that he agrees with me about it. On this question of administration we must concentrate on the fact that economic progress is vital, and that economic development is far more important at the present time than political development. If I could have any hope that my friends among the settlers in Kenya would listen to me, I would beg them to leave political agitation alone and to concentrate on their economic necessities. They would be in a far stronger position. It is the economic question on which their future ultimately depends, and it would be far wiser for them to concentrate on asking for the things which can help them economically than on making political demands which certainly do not meet with much sympathy in the greater part of this country.
  If it be true that we have to look to the economic side as well as the political side of development in colonies like Kenya, and to look principally to the economic side, I would ask the right hon. Member for Caithness to consider the white settlements from that point of view. Why was the white settler brought to Kenya? He was not brought there for his own benefit—nobody cared about him; he was not brought there for the general benefit of the Empire; it was for the benefit of the Colony because further revenue was necessary in order to enable the Colony to live. The records are quite clear—the records of Sir Charles Elliot, who administered the Colony in the days of the Foreign Office and was the first administrator to bring in white settlers, and the records of subsequent governors before the war. It was the same reason for which settlers were brought in afterwards—the great necessity to secure an economic revenue to carry the burden of the improvements which we were undertaking in Kenya for all races. If that be true settlement was introduced not primarily in the interests of the settler but in the interests of the Colony, and those settlers are still vital to the Colony. I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman had had my responsibility in a case like that he would have realised that dual development is the life-blood of Kenya. The place would collapse if either native development or

  1485
  white development failed; they are the two pillars on which it rests.
  Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. Gentleman is only saying far more eloquently and with a greater mastery of the subject exactly what I said at the beginning of my speech. I referred to the two races who had worked together for the development of the Colony and said we wanted to help both.
  Sir E. GRIGG: I often find it difficult to reconcile the right hon. Gentleman's principles with the policies which he afterwards expounds. He seemed to be making a speech, at any rate towards the end, which was entirely hostile to the settlers in Kenya, and suggesting that they were getting too much consideration. I am sure that there must have been other hon. Members in the Committee who misunderstood. I am delighted to have drawn that reply from the right hon. Gentleman. What do the settlers want at present? They want security with regard to land for nonnative development. They will get that, if the Government pursue this policy of the Order in Council which the Secretary of State has just announced. They want also cheap capital. A question was asked in this House quite lately as to the amount of money spent by the Government of Kenya on the support of farmers during the last few years. I do not know what the amount is, but I know that it is small, and that it compares very badly with the immense sums which have been spent everywhere else throughout the British Empire upon farmers, during this crisis. Farmers have been carried in this country, and in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The only place where they have not been carried to anything like the same extent is Kenya. It is very remarkable—in spite of the very slight amount of support and the weeding out which has taken place the good men are still there—that the exports of the Colony have gone up by 56 per cent. in the last year. That is, as I say, a very remarkable achievement, considering how little help these men have received.
  This increase is not solely due to the exports of the white settlers, but also to a considerable improvement in native production. If this improvement is to continue, there is one way in which the Government can help the settlers, and
  1486
  that is by ensuring them cheap capital which would be repaid. The capital should be available at the lowest possible rates, as has been done for farmers in the other parts of the Empire. It ought to be done in Kenya. A third thing which they need is the satisfaction of knowing that, in the area now set aside for non-native development, the Imperial Government are, at long last, ready to give their moral support to the white settlers. That support has been in great doubt for years past, but the time has come to make the position clear, now that a dual policy is restored and we are going ahead with development in Kenya.
  So much for the white settlers. I should like to say a word about native development, which is equally vital to the Colony. I do not differentiate between the two. An increase of native production is absolutely necessary to Kenya. The process will involve changes in the attitude of the Africans to land, and will mean the development of group tenure, family tenure and, ultimately, individual tenure, as opposed to communal tribal tenure, which is the most primitive form. I am sure that a demand for that sort of tenure will grow, and I do not believe you will get a very greatly increased native production without it. When a man develops skill to use land well, and has mastered the rotation of crops and the use of manures, he wants to feel that the bit of land which has done all that for him is really his own, so that he can go on doing with it what he has done before. That applies to group or family tenure, as well as to individual tenure.
  The demand for a different principle of land tenure will grow in Kenya very fast. It is one of the signs of change, and it comes very naturally, not only from the fact that the native is looking upon land with different eyes because he is learning how to use it with much more skill, but also because he is being widely educated in ideas which have never before reached Africa. I was told the other day, for instance, of the son of a very distinguished old Kikuyu chief who has just finished his time in a college in America, and who is now coming back to Kenya. The Kikuyu will learn a great deal from him; there is no doubt about that. The old tribal ideas will be broken up. People talk of keeping Africa African. That is exceedingly difficult to do. You

  1487
  cannot put up a barrier to ideas, which are like dynamite and are spreading in Africa at the present time. This idea that you can just set aside a great area of land and say that it is reserved for the tribe will be found utterly inadequate. You will have to go further, and lay down principles as to how it is to be held, by groups, families or even by individuals.
  I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman is not in his place at this moment, because I wanted to say to the Government that this question is too big to be dealt with on the basis of Kenya alone. It is more an East African or a Central African question. New study should be given to the principles by which we are gradually to evolve from the tribal holding of land to something nearer to our own ideas, which the native will want to pursue. There ought to be one policy laid down in this respect for the three East African territories. You obviously cannot have one land policy in Tanganyika, another in Kenya and another in Uganda. The same principle should govern this development of all of them. That is the strongest argument for a central authority in those three territories at the present time.
  Meanwhile, and before that pressure for a new system of tenure inside the reserves comes, you will have, I think, to deal with the needs of the progressive young man, who is multiplying at the present time, and who comes not only from the reserves but may belong to a squatter family residing upon land outside the reserves and wants to start out upon land of his own. The land set aside by the Morris Carter Commission for restricted development should, if possible, be used both in the tribal reserves and outside. We should proceed with the development of land upon a new principle of tenure, so as to keep the reserves intact as long as we can.
  I hope that the new ideas in regard to tenure may be tried out first of all in the experimental areas outside the reserves rather than within the reserves themselves, and if this is to be done the Government must take the initiative. The problem will arise largely with regard to the Kavirondo and the Kikuyu, which are agricultural tribes and are much the most advanced tribes of Kenya.
  1488
  They number between them more than one-third of the whole Kenya African population. I was glad to see that the Morris Carter Commission set aside areas which ought to be valuable to those tribes. For instance, the Kavirondo take naturally to the sea coast. The lake basin and the sea coast are similar in climate. The Kavirondo tribes are to be found not only all over the coast but also in Zanzibar. I hope that the Government will consider some sort of scheme for the Kavirondo families, and will try a colony at the coast, because that would make a valuable start in the process of colonisation and would help the Kavirondo as well as the coast provinces. That is very important at the present time. Another area has been set aside for the Kikuyu. The plan will need the initiative of the Government, who, I hope, may be prepared to proceed on the lines which have been so successful in the Sudan, under the Sudan Cotton Syndicate.
  One other thing vital at the present time to the development of the natives and the white colonists, is markets. They will come. There are only three kinds of markets available, so far as I know. The first is the world market, which is of some use; but I doubt whether there can be adequate development for either race in Kenya at the present time, with respect to a world market. Prices are low and competition is vast. I believe that if we are to depend upon the world market we shall find great unrest in Kenya, because it is not going ahead. There are coffee, sisal, basic oils and that kind of thing, perhaps, but the world market will not provide satisfactory prices for some time. There is the market which might be made by the miners. When the mines are developed you may get a market for agriculture, as in South Africa, where agriculture has lived on the Rand for years. It has been subsidised by the Rand and has sold to the Rand. It sells everything it produces to the Rand, and exists entirely on the production of gold. If gold were found in payable quantities in Kenya there might be immense advantage to the producers of all races there.
  This is a very uncertain question, and I know very little about it. I very much doubt whether mining development is going ahead at the, present time. Prob-

  1489
  able an immense amount of capital will have to be sunk before anything is discovered on a large scale. The third alternative which, I believe, is the key to the prosperity of East Africa at the present time, is the development of the native market. The native market has immense potentialities in regard to tea, coffee, dairy produce, meat, cereals, and all the things which can be produced in the Highlands and elsewhere.
  I beg the Government to remember that this, again, is an East African question and not purely a Kenya question. In spite of the fact that there is a customs union between the three territories in East Africa, there are ridiculous restrictions in force at present prohibiting exports from one territory to another. I am told that Kenya meat is prohibited in Uganda, although Uganda can produce practically no meat of its own, and that there are immense difficulties about tea. These things are ridiculous. There ought to be a development of the native market and of native purchasing power throughout the East African territories by a central authority upon a considered plan. I believe that that would ensure the prosperity of these territories as nothing else would.
  8.14 p.m.
  Major MILNER: One of the difficulties of a Debate upon the Colonial Estimates is that any one of our Colonies or Protectorates would provide sufficient material for one full day's Debate. One feels oppressed with the multitude of subjects that ought to be covered and with the importance of them all. I feel bound to follow the hon. Gentleman in some of the things which he has just said. He commenced by dealing with the subject of trusteeship, as to which a good deal has been said in other parts of the Committee. While he admitted that the principle of trusteeship had been laid down, in words which I do not think I need repeat, in the Duke of Devonshire's White Paper in 1923, he sought to add to the terms of that declaration an additional condition. The declaration was in these terms:
  "Primarily, Kenya is an African territory, and His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives must be paramount, and if, and when, those interests and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail."
  Sir E. GRIGG: The hon. and gallant Gentleman realises, no doubt, that that formula gave rise to so much controversy as to what exactly it meant that it was followed by another White Paper, and was finally referred to a Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament, which gave a final verdict four or five years ago. That statement, therefore, by itself is certainly inadequate.
  Major MILNER: If the right hon. Gentleman had waited, I would have quoted to him the final declaration, which was laid down in these terms by the Joint Committee on East Africa in 1931:
  "The doctrine of paramountcy means no more than that the interests of the overwhelming majority of the indigenous population should not be subordinated to those of a minority belonging to another race, however important in itself."
  That is our complaint to-day—that the minority interests are subordinated in all the matters of which complaint has been made from these benches.
  The right hon. Gentleman went on to make a very rash statement indeed. He made a special plea on behalf of the settlers, as did also the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest). The right hon. Gentleman said that farmers throughout the world, and particularly in this country, received this, that and the other, and he implied, if he did not say it in words, that the settlers of Kenya had been the most hardly dealt with of all farmers and settlers in the world. According to my information, however, the European settlers in the Kenya Highlands are beyond question the most highly subsidised farmers and settlers in the world to-day, or certainly in the British Empire; I cannot speak with any authority as to other countries. I have a list here, which must be well known to the right hon. Gentleman. It was given by Sir Humphrey Leggett when he gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee on Closer Union in East Africa. It sets out 10 points on which the "white colonist" type of development, as it has been termed, has been built up. There is one instance in regard to which I have had inquiries made, and which will be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman. In Kenya a network of State railway

  1491
  branches has been built throughout the whole of the white-settled area, on which an inquiry, conducted in 1932, showed that there had been losses during the previous two years of something over £200,000 in each case. Incidentally, Mr. Richard Gibb, who inquired into these losses, recommended that, to avoid political pressure in Kenya, these railways should be run by a board in London—a recommendation which, so far, has not been carried into effect.
  I will give one example with regard to discrimination in railway rates. I went to the goods department of the London and North Eastern Railway at King's Cross, and asked how far the London and North Eastern Railway would rail a ton of grain for 8s. 6d. The reply was 22 miles. But, if it were part of a bulk consignment on a long-distance run, say from London to Lincolnshire, they quoted a special rate under which a farmer would get his ton of grain moved 63 miles, instead of 22 miles, for 8s. 6d. The Kenya farmers had a concession in December, 1935. Previously they had enjoyed a flat rate for their country produce, and in December, 1935, that flat rate was reduced on the State railways from 13s. 6d. to 8s. 6d., so that at present the Kenya farmer, even if he is some hundreds of miles inland—for example, on the Uganda border—can get his ton of maize carried 677 miles for 8s. 6d., as compared with 63 miles in the case of the English or Scottish farmer. I suggest that there cannot be any stronger evidence than that of the degree to which farming is subsidised in Kenya. If, on the other hand, one looks at the native crops grown by our fellow-citizens of the British Empire, for example, cotton and cottonseed, there has been no reduction whatever of railway rates on these. They come, chiefly from Uganda, by the same line that carries the settler's maize at 8s. 6d. for the whole distance, but the African pays £4 a ton for the haulage of his crop. Some 300,000 bales of African-grown cotton are coming out this year—60,000 tons at £4 or more a ton. It is the principal item in the State railway receipts, and this alone enables the railway administration to assist the white farmers by granting them a subsidy in the way that I have mentioned.
  1492
  With regard to the question of trusteeship, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and to the discrimination of which we complain, here again the right hon. Gentleman put himself in my hands. He raised the subject of gold. Between July, 1934, and March, 1936, there have been some 10 gold-mining flotations in London in connection with Kenya gold mines, when something like £1,500,000 was slipped into sundry pockets in Nairobi or in London; but, so far as the poor workers in the gold mines are concerned, they earn 8s. 11d. a month, that is to say, 30 working days of eight hours each, Saturdays and half-holidays, if any, not being counted. That is less than ½d, an hour—the lowest wage on record in any British-controlled goldfield in the world. Therefore, when the right hon. Gentleman speaks about gold, it is desirable to bear in mind that on the one hand a few financiers are obtaining something like £1,500,000 from these flotations, without doing any useful work. while the producers earn something like ½d. an hour.
  The Colonial Secretary, in a very pleasant and, as it seemed to some people, very satisfied fashion, gave an explanation with regard to the proposed Order-in-Council in Kenya. I do not know how the rest of the Committee feel, but I am quite dissatisfied with that explanation. It is proposed to make an Order-in-Council which, the right hon. Gentleman said, in the first place would define native reserves, and, in the second place, would define the boundaries of those parts of the Highlands which are to be reserved for non-native occupation. He said in an answer to me yesterday:
  "There is not and never has been any intention of varying the procedure hitherto followed, by which this question is dealt with as a matter of administrative practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1936; col. 1184, Vol. 314.]
  Surely it is quite a different thing to deal with the matter as one of administrative practice, having always the right of changing that practice and permitting Asiatics or anyone else to have land in the European Highlands from passing an Order-in-Council whereby there is a legal discrimination against any native occupying land in the reserved area. I take strong exception both to the Government's proposal, based as it is on the recommendations of the Morris Carter

  1493
  Commission, and the way that proposal by the Morris Carter Commission was brought about. My hon. Friend mentioned that the then Colonial Secretary, Lord Swinton, admitted for the first time in reply to a question from me in effect that he had given instructions to the Morris Carter Land Commission that no person other than a European should be entitled to acquire by grant or transfer agricultural land in such area. If that was not an improper act it was, at any rate, a, wrong act for the Colonial Secretary, who had laid down terms of reference for the committee to carry out afterwards, to give a lead to the committee as to the decision that it should bring in. The responsibility is not that of the Morris Carter Land Commission but of His Majesty's Government, which gave instructions that a recommendation on those lines should be brought in.
  What is proposed by this Order in Council? It is said that there is to be no variation in the procedure as it is at present carried out. I should like to ask whether there is any legal discrimination against Asiatics or Africans to-day as far as the White Highlands are concerned, and, if the answer is that there is no discrimination, is it not a fact that, if the Order in Council is passed as proposed, there will be such discriminations in future? It is a travesty to say that there is no variation in the procedure hitherto followed. The present law permits alienation to an Asiatic. It may be that as a matter of practice such alienation rarely, if ever, occurs, but supposing my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) was appointed, as he might very properly and deservedly be, Governor of Kenya. He might desire to effect a variation in that procedure and to permit Asiatics to occupy land in the White Highlands, but if the Order in Council be passed he will not be able to do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] Because the Order in Council will presumably have the force of law and will forbid him.
  Sir ARNOLD WILSON: It may be modified by another Order in Council much more easily than an Act of Parliament.
  Major MILNER: That may be, but what then becomes of the claim that, if this Order in Council be passed, the settlers will get stability and security?
  1494
  If it is anticipated, as it may well be, that the next Labour Government will alter the Order in Council and permit Asiatics and Africans to occupy land in the White Highlands, there is no security and not stability. Why should the Colonial Secretary make the claim that there is? The draft of the Order in Council has not been laid before the House. It may be that there is no legal obligation to lay it, but it would certainly have been a convenience, and I should have thought a necessity, to permit the House to consider it before it had the force of law. If it is brought into force, the Government will be guilty of a violation of that principle which has been enunciated on countless occasions that there will not be any distinction whatever founded upon race, colour, origin, language or creed, but that the protection of the law, both in letter and in substance, shall be extended impartially to all alike. In my view there can be no justification whatever for the Government taking the action that they propose to take.
  When the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) was speaking of the reserves that were to be appropriated to Africans, I called out "desert," and the Noble Lord and others disputed the fact that those reserves would or might consist of desert land. I should like to read an extract from a letter in the "New Statesman" from the Secretary of Kikuyu Central Association:
  "More than half of Kenya's 144,000,000 acres is made up of arid desert or semi-desert tracks. Turkana and the Northern Frontier Province (not to mention the Taru Desert) the areas chiefly comprised, support only a very scattered semi-nomadic population (144,000): and drought and famine are such a regular feature that the hut and poll tax is generally collected there at a lower rate than in the other parts of the Colony. Nevertheless it is noteworthy that in these very areas that are shown in the Morris Land Commission Report as 'D Area (subject to Native Priority Interest)' i.e., intended to meet the future needs of an expanding native population."
  So one might go on. As the Leader of the Liberal Opposition pointed out, it seems an absolutely absurd position to add something like 6,000 square miles to the lands that are at present alienated to non-natives when so little use is made of the lands which at present are in their occupation. I have some figures here

  1495
  which I have taken from the Annual Agricultural Census and the Annual Reports of the Department of Agriculture for Kenya, and they show that the land alienated to 2,102 Europeans is over 10,000 square miles, and that the only cultivated portion thereof amounts to 869 square miles, something like 3,600 square miles alleged to be used for grazing of live stock, and 2,200 square miles alienated but lying unoccupied in 1934, and a further 3,600 square miles alienated but not used for cultivation, grazing or fallow. So that in 1934 there were no less than 5,817 square miles of the European Highlands lying unused, and yet the Government propose, if they bring in that Order in Council, to add a further 6,455 square miles, making a total of 16,700 square miles in all. That proposal is ridiculous on the face of it. It is outrageous, and particularly so when one sees that the area cultivated year by year in Kenya is declining progressively. In 1932 something like 12·25 per cent. was cultivated, in 1933, 11·41 and in 1934 10·82 per cent. From year to year there is a progressive decline in the land which the white settlers of Kenya think fit to use and occupy. Therefore, why put on one side another 6,000 or 7,000 square miles of territory for their sole use, so that thereafter no non-European shall be permitted to enter upon that land?
  On the matter of the sedition ordinances, I wish to make a request to the right hon. Gentleman. I have an immense list, with which I will not trouble the Committee, of ordinances and laws in regard to sedition passed in almost every Colony and Protectorate coming under the administration of the Colonial Office. I hope that we may have some explanation of why it has been necessary in the last few years to bring in all these ordinances. I remember some time ago asking whether in Kenya there had been any instances of sedition and disorder, and I was told by the then Colonial Secretary, "No." Why then is it necessary to pass all these repressive measures and so many of the Press ordinances and regulations, and to bar so many books and papers of one sort or another, the great majority of which, in my opinion, are quite innocuous? I see that one of the publications which the natives of Kenya
  1496
  and the natives of other Colonial territories are forbidden to read is, "A Negro Anthology," by Nancy Cunard. The book is a masterpiece of negro literature from all parts of the world, and yet the negroes themselves are forbidden to read this masterpiece of literature. It is intolerable that that state of affairs should continue. I notice that these ordinances make what hitherto has been a misdemeanour into a felony, so that those found to be guilty are subject to seven years' imprisonment rather than to the usual two years for a misdemeanour.
  I wish to make two requests to the right hon. Gentleman in this regard. The first is that he should give instructions for an annual report to be presented to this House giving particulars of the persons who have been charged with offences under these various sedition and Press ordinances, and that the particulars might include the alleged offences, and the result, and such particulars as the right hon. Gentleman found it possible administratively to give. There is great anxiety in this matter throughout the Colonial Empire. Secondly, I would ask that provision should be made in each of the Colonial Territories for a public defender, so that our African citizens may at any rate be assured of something like an adequate defence in matters which obviously, for the most part, they cannot themselves properly understand. Had the right hon. Gentleman been in his place, I should have expressed the hope, knowing of his very considerable knowledge extending over a long period of years of Dominions, Colonies and Protectorates, and the sympathy which he has expressed in regard to many matters in the past, that he might have made his administration memorable by righting at any rate some of the many wrongs which at present exist throughout these Territories. I still hope that he may do so. I should like to read a rather notable passage from an address which was given a few days ago by Dr. H. A. Moody, the first coloured man to be elected President of the British Christian Endeavour movement. He said:
  "For the first time in history a national British institution has placed a man of colour in such a position and it will not be the last time. The bonds which bind the Colonies to the Mother Country are now becoming so loose that she is yielding to the impulse of fear and passing Sedition

  1497
  and other Bills which restrict the liberties of her peoples in these Colonies. That is the way to make these bonds still looser and to produce the results which she now dreads. If the Government of our people is just and liberal, and we are indeed acting as trustees of weaker peoples, then there is nothing whatever to fear. The British Empire is predominantly a coloured Empire. The coloured section, especially its African section, is not only an important section, but has paid a great price for its place in Empire. We are free citizens and no longer want to be beggars at the table of Empire. We courteously ask for our rights."
  I cannot believe that the right hon. Gentleman will permit himself to be a willing instrument to refusing to our Colonial brethren overseas those rights which we claim ourselves.
  8.44 p.m.
  Mr. PICKTHORN: I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) who wished that we might sometimes be able to debate not the details of colonial administration, but the general question of what is the ultimate purpose of having a Colonial Empire. I do not think that this is the time to do that at any length, but I wish to discuss a more general branch of the question of Colonial government than has been mentioned at any length to-day so far. I think that anyone who has paid any attention—and I am bound to confess that my knowledge is entirely indirect and through others—to Colonial government in the last 20 years, will not doubt that the educational factor is fundamental to the whole thing, and that possibly among the fundamental factors it is the most urgent at the moment, and the one which is most widely common to all the Colonial territories. That consideration would be by itself enough to make us welcome the accession to the headship of the Colonial Office of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Colonial Secretary, for he has shown his interest in these matters before. I believe that the Advisory Committee on Education at the Colonial Office is very largely if not altogether his creation.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly rather gave the impression that in African education nothing had been done except at Achimota. I am glad that the Minister mentioned Makerere. Other institutions might have been cited e.g. at Yaba and Fourah Bay. Outside Africa a good deal
  1498
  has been done lately to improve educational administration. In Cyprus a positive and largely successful attempt is being made to free education from the dead hand of the departed Turkish and Greek Governments and to adapt it to modern requirements and local conditions. The Arab schools in Palestine have been very much improved and have been doing remarkable work. The recent memorandum on education in African communities is, I think, having some effect on some of the Governments in Africa. There has been an extremely valuable report on education in Hong Kong, and I hope that it will not be long before we can be assured that that report is having real effect. The same thing may be said about the recent recommendations concerning secondary education in Malaya.
  All these things are very well, and are largely an answer to the criticism that education is being neglected in our Colonial administration. But all these things are piecemeal and are necessarily by way of recommendation rather than of direction. I would ask whether this is not the moment, and the present Secretary of State the man, to try and give us a continuous policy in regard to this matter. In Africa especially I think it may be said that the whole problem is the problem of education and the problem of agriculture, and that these two things cannot be separated. It is very easy to exaggerate the possible pace of advance in Africa and especially is it very easy to be highfalutin about what can be quickly done in the higher ranges of education. That has been very largely done in print but, making all possible allowances for that, it remains true, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) that there is a demand for education in Africa which the African can think to be comparable with university education. If only on economic grounds it is important that that should be supplied as far as may be inside Africa. Certainly, some advance towards a standard of that sort there must be, and if it is to be done with any effect at all it cannot be done by unco-ordinated administration between six or seven African territories.
  That there cannot be unification is certainly true, partly because of local jealousies and partly because of differences in agricultural practice, which

  1499
  must be a principal faculty in these colleges for some time to come. For these reasons and others a scheme of unification, having one college dealing with one subject and another dealing with another, that scheme which has been suggested would not be a complete solution, but some sort of co-ordination between territories there must be. Incidentally, if that is true, the first necessity clearly is that it must be known what territories they are which are to be co-ordinated. A planned relation is necessary not only geographically but chronologically, between the periods of office of different Governors. Without criticism of any Governor, it is clear that you may have one Governor who has taken a great interest in education followed by another who takes very little interest in education; or if you do have two Governors running who are interested in education, one may be interested in primary education and the other may be interested in the higher ranges.
  Therefore, it is extremely necessary that there should be some sort of coordination over periods of time as well as between the various territories. I do not want to go into this side of the subject at length, but I might point out that so far the Governors who have most effectively and with the most lively minds attacked the problems of education in Africa have been men who were not the products of the conventional English system—Cromer, Kitchener, Wingate, Cameron. To mention that is perhaps sufficient indication that there ought normally to be some sort of direction to the Governors from home.
  What sort of policy ought there to be in regard to education? The first requisite is that there should be a designed relation between the process of education and the product of education, so that at any given moment, at whatever level you have got your education up to, there can be some reasonable chance of that level of education being used; o that for going successfully through the best course of education that Africa can provide the natural reward should he responsible and important employment. That seems to me to be the first, and an absolute, necessity. How far you can go on raising that level is a matter which only years can tell, but if we should be foolish to assume lightly that the
  1500
  raising of the top level can be very rapid and very wide, we should be more profoundly mistaken to doubt that the effort must be constant.
  If there is to be any continual integrated educational policy, it must depend upon the British officers who serve it, upon getting the best men into the educational service and making the best of them when we have got them there. It is important, above all, to look after their status. That is more important than the question of remuneration. They must be treated as being equally valuable with men in the administrative service or the agricultural service or other services. They must have equality of consideration, which has not always been given. They must have equality of opportunity in influencing policy. I do not mean that they must have opportunity to influence policy equally with the administrative officers, who must in the highest ranks be able to influence policy more than others; but they must have some opportunity of influencing big decisions; otherwise the best men will not accept educational employment. Alternatively, although they may start off on the educational side, as soon as they begin to be successful and a little ambitious they will try to get into the general administrative side.
  The question of status is fundamental to the whole business of building up the educational system if we are to have a long-term policy that will do what we want it to do. Questions of remuneration are much less important, but there are one or two things that may be said. People who are in the teaching service may very often begin later than the man who comes into the administrative service and who usually comes in at 22 or so. They may not be wanted to be so long in any one Colony. Therefore, there are all sorts of reasons why, if they are to have effectively the same remuneration as other people, they should sometimes be given artificial seniority at the beginning of their service, or they should have accelerated promotion towards the end of their service; and sometimes they should be seconded for service from one Colony to another, or to England, and back again.
  As far as I have been able to inform myself, technical difficulties of this sort are not sufficiently met, and in so far as

  1501
  they are met they are met mainly by the dispensatory powers of the Governors; but no man can found a career upon that, because one Governor may use such dispensatory powers freely. If a man comes at 28 into the educational service one Governor may arrange for him to have artificial seniority of four years, but another Governor may not do that. It is important that there should be a continuous policy, but such continuity cannot be assured by anything except the continual attention of the Colonial Office.
  If there ought to be a continuous and comprehensive policy of this sort, and if it must be directed by the Colonial Office and not left entirely or even mainly to local initiative, the Colonial Office ought surely to be controlled in that direction by this House. If we were always to have the present Secretary of State perhaps one might not feel so much anxiety, but in the way of all flesh he must pass and there ought to be a policy which will go on, modifiable and perhaps even reversible, but a policy going on without interruption. I submit that there ought to be periodically a comprehensive survey of what the educational policy has been in the recent past, what the effects are, and what the next line of development is expected to be. I suggest, if it is not impertinent on very imperfect information to make so specific a suggestion, that there might be at regular intervals, at periods of, say, seven years, inspections made by a very small committee, perhaps only two or three people who should fly all round Africa—a similar suggestion might be made about the West Indies or the Far East—and inform themselves how the policy had been going on, whether it could be better co-ordinated, whether they considered that the right sort of staff had been got or whether they felt at all doubtful about it, and how the line of development might be quickened or varied.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. CREECH JONES: Our discussion has covered a wide field, and as opportunities are very few for discussing what is going on in our Colonial Empire, it is important that we should have freedom to range over a fairly wide field and bring to the notice of the Colonial Secretary some of the problems which are agitating us now. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) pointed out that at
  1502
  times there is a difficulty in appreciating precisely what is actually our Colonial policy. It is true that from time to time there are Colonial Conferences and that there is the Colonial Development Fund, and we have heard from the Minister that in certain directions developments are contemplated in respect of education and labour, and workmen's compensation. That, of course, we welcome, but it is true that it is difficult at times to discover precisely what policy the Government of the day are pursuing. We have heard that it is our responsibility to act as trustees of the native peoples, and that in the long run we hope the native peoples will learn the art of self-government and build up their economic and political life. But I submit that at the present moment there are some grounds for disquietude, and that in certain of our Colonies there is a tendency towards stratifying their life; that there is developing a vast number of detribalised and industrial natives, who are subjected to laws and conditions which they scarcely understand.
  When one also recognises that there is an increase in repressive legislation one is apt to doubt whether the policy of the Colonial Office is strictly in accord with the principles of trusteeship. Important as world interests may be in defining the principles of trusteeship, it is equally important that the interests of the natives should, in the last resort, be paramount. I suggest that it is time that a clear and long-sighted policy for our Colonies was stated. It is obvious in places that there is a departure from the old Liberal traditions in administration. Reference has been made to the sedition laws, but I should be out of order in discussing what is going on in South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. It seems to me that what happens in South Africa one day is adopted in Southern Rhodesia the next day, and in the end we shall find it adopted in Northern Rhodesia and in Kenya. There is a tendency towards an illiberal policy which is marked in the growth of repressive legislation, and we are, therefore, entitled to be a little sceptical in regard to the general drift of our Colonial policy at the present moment.
  I was interested in the speech made by the right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest). He suggested that the colonists had a raw

  1503
  deal, that, in fact, white colonisation was a matter of considerable difficulty and had to be bolstered up in a number of ways. It is clear from the answer given by the Secretary of State in reply to a question the other day in respect of white settlement, and in the evidence given before the Joint Select Committee on Greater Union in East Africa, that if white colonisation is to succeed at all it must be considerably bolstered up by special subsidies and measures in the interests of white colonists. In the light of the economic difficulties Which are widespread among the Colonies, in the light. of the fact that the policy is extremely expensive to the white people, if that white colonisation is to be anything like a success, there has to be a considerable amount of repression of native races. I should like to see an inquiry whether the policy inspired by Cecil Rhodes, in sending men to colonise in these difficult tropical districts, is actually succeeding, whether there are not inherent weaknesses in it and whether economically it can ever succeed.
  I put that point because of the many cases which have been brought to my notice of colonists who have fallen into bankruptcy, walked away from their farms, because of the difficulty of maintaining them after losing all their resources. I should like to see this matter more clearly studied before we go on driving many of the native peoples into desparation, creating in them a sense of frustration, and increasing their bitterness against the British people. Before we allow more waste of economic resources, the whole of this policy should be carefully re-examined. I would go further and say that the principle of trusteeship in respect of native peoples might be expressed by our volunteering an annual report to the League of Nations on the way in which we are administering our resources and administering the territories from the point of view of the natives. The world could then see what our policy is and how we are carrying it out. I do not think that is a revolutionary proposal.
  In discussing Colonial policy in the House, hon. Members are in a very difficult position in that they do not know precisely what is happening in the
  1504
  Colonies. It is all very well for us to talk about the trusteeship of our Government, but, in point of fact, ordinances are enacted and Orders in Council are issued, and this House never has the opportunity of knowing what is under discussion and of criticising or objecting. Many ordinances and Orders in Council are issued without the knowledge of the House and are only discovered some considerable time afterwards when irreparable harm has resulted from them. If I may stray for one moment, I would point out that we have the spectacle of the Southern Rhodesian Registration Bill which has now become an Act without the knowledge of this House, and it is only by stray reports that one knows that these Orders are contemplated and these ordinances likely to be enacted. I raised this matter before and the Minister suggested that if I felt strongly about it I might raise it on the question of his salary. The objection put forward is, apparently, that long constitutional usage is such that it would be too revolutionary, and that there are too many ordinances and Orders in Council for the House to be informed of them. I suggest that some means ought to be found, if the House is to discharge its responsibility to the native peoples, whereby it can have knowledge of ordinances and Orders in Council that are contemplated so that it may have an opportunity of stating objections and subjecting those ordinances and Orders to criticism. I do not think that would be contrary to democratic principles, and in any case it is likely to make the principle of our trusteeship a little more effective.
  I welcome the statement of the Minister in regard to contemplated labour developments I particularly welcome his announcement that, so far as the Colonial Office is concerned, they are in sympathy with the International Labour Office Convention on the recruitment of native labour, and that after consideration by the Colonies concerned it is likely that the Convention will be ratified. I welcome also the study which is going on in regard to a model workmen's compensation act, but I would like to emphasise, as did the hon. Member for Caerphilly, the importance of a development of inspectorates and the importance, which the Minister should urge on our Colonies, of building

  1505
  up labour departments. I would like to see an extension of inspection of working conditions in the Colonies under our control. That is all the more important because one is dealing in this connection with people who are largely defenceless, who are poor and who have no knowledge of the complicated industrial system in which they are being caught up. I emphasise it also in the light of the reports we have had concerning Northern Rhodesia. It is well worth directing the attention of the Committee to paragraph 143 of the report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the disturbances in the copper belt in Northern Rhodesia:
  "Here there are considerable numbers of natives concentrated in compounds; without chiefs; with their tribal organisation being broken down by disintegrating influences; becoming accustomed to machinery and modern methods; feeling an increasing desire for luxuries; and what has been called pathetic contentment rapidly giving way to what has been called divine discontent. Experience in all countries shows that industrial disputes give rise to violent passions and often to sudden violent destruction, to the loss of all parties, which is afterwards regretted; and it is unreasonable to hope that no such industrial dispute will ever take place on the copperbelt. It is a possibility which must increase with the development of industrialism, and it seems necessary to recognise the fact and to take such measures as are necessary to preserve the public peace."
  It seems to me that that is an admirable description of increasing detribalisation and industrialisation of the natives, which must inevitably involve industrial disputes between one side and the other, and it is important that before the situation drifts too far there should be developed some kind of organisation and machinery for dealing with these troubles. Therefore, I hope the Minister will encourage such developments.
  The Minister also said that he welcomes consultation on every possible occasion. May I express the hope that that consultation will be as freely exercised in regard to the native peoples as in regard to the white people? I put that point because I have in my hand the case of the Gold Coast Aborigines Protection Society, which sent a petition to the Colonial Office. The delegation is still waiting for an answer, but I very much hope that the Minister will not keep it waiting much longer in view of what he said concerning consultation.
  1506
  I would like also to say that I hope the Minister will be firm in regard to the proposals for the amalgamation of the Rhodesias. I hope he will object very strongly to any such amalgamation taking place. I am glad that in reply to questions put to the Government, assurances have been given on that point, because, after all, Northern Rhodesia is a native protectorate under British law, and Southern Rhodesia has comparatively little in common with Northern Rhodesia. If we are to exercise to the full these principles of trusteeship on behalf of the native peoples, that definite responsibility can only be exercised by maintaining the partition. At the same time, I would like the Minister to look into the dreadful conditions now existing in Northern Rhodesia, and particularly the great exodus which is taking place from Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in order to supply the mines in other parts of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia and other places. I think it would be deplorable if Nyasaland arid Northern Rhodesia were regarded merely as labour farms for the feeding of the great industrial centres in other parts of Africa.
  The Minister has referred to the inquiry which has recently taken place in Nyasaland on the subject of the recruitment of labour. The conditions in Nyasaland are dreadful, and if the full story were told it would harrow the feelings of hon. Members. One is glad to know that some action is contemplated, and I sincerely trust that the Minister will give his whole-hearted support to the Colony in its effort to tackle the problem. Attention should also he given to the conditions under which Nyasaland natives, who can no longer work, are sent back into Nyasaland. These men who are broken and diseased have to make their way back home under dreadful conditions, and often have to make their way on foot for very long distances in getting back to their villages. I hope the Minister will encourage the Colonial Government in its effort to deal with this very difficult problem, and will see that the recent report is implemented in order to deal with the grave evils which are now working such havoc in this important Colony.
  9.17 p.m.
  Captain P. MACDONALD: The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) has referred to one aspect of the native

  1507
  problem in East and South Africa, namely, the recruitment of labour. There has been a great deal of loose talk in this House and a great deal of loose thinking generally about the conditions under which this labour is recruited, and I suggest that the hon. Member before he accepts the rumours and reports, which he quoted at great length, ought to take a trip to those countries and see the conditions for himself. If he does so, I think he will agree that the reports are exaggerated.
  Mr. CREECH JONES: So bad are the conditions that it has been necessary for the International Labour Office this year to consider a Convention for the regulation of recruitment. May I also draw the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the report of the commission which has recently investigated this matter, as far as it relates to Nyasaland? I would welcome an opportunity of reading to the House that report, which shows that the commissioners were amazed at the dreadful nature of the conditions.
  Captain MACDONALD: I accept the statement that there are cases which require investigation, and those cases should be investigated. It is in the interest of the mineowners themselves that these questions should be looked into, and they have a vigilance committee of their own. When I was in the mining areas in South Africa I consulted with mineowners on this subject. I saw native labour being signed on and I expressed grave doubts as to whether it was done in the best way. The fact remains that these natives walk, in some cases, as far as 100 miles, in order to be taken on at the mines, but only a small percentage of those who offer themselves are accepted. Only those of the highest physical standard are accepted. Statements are also made about the conditions under which the natives are obliged to work. I have been down some of the mines and I have seen the conditions for myself. However deplorable they may have been in the past, I assure hon. Members that to-day the natives are well looked after, if only for the very important reason—apart from the vigilance constantly exercised by bodies like the International Labour Office to see that conditions are favourable—that it is in the interest of the mineowners to keep the men fit. They have underground casualty clearing sta-
  1508
  tions, and if a man gets even a cut finger he is immediately rushed to hospital for treatment. I do not say that there are not cases in which improvement is not possible, but I know that statements made in this House and by Labour speakers throughout the country are grossly exaggerated.
  I think this Debate has done much to clear up a number of points which for too long have been clouded in obscurity. I welcome heartily the definte declaration of policy by the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the Kenya Highlands. That question has been hanging fire for a long time and has caused a good deal of uneasiness to settlers in that Colony. Now I hope that the matter has been made clear and that people will know where they stand. There has been a great deal of talk to-day about trusteeship, and I hope this declaration of policy will do something to settle that point also. I never liked the talk that went on some time ago about the paramountcy of the native races. It implied that the white settler had no right in Kenya, and the result was that when a statement on that subject was made by a former Colonial Secretary such exception was taken to it in this House that a Select Committee was set up in order to put forward a different statement. They did so and that statement suggested dual responsibility. That dual responsibility has been proclaimed in this House by the Colonial Secretary and I hope the white settler in Kenya will now go forward and forget many of the grievances which he has been nursing against both the Kenya Government and the Colonial Office on the ground of obscurity and delay in statements on this question.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) said that the real issue confronting the white settler in Kenya was economic, and with that I thoroughly agree. Far too much time has been spent by the white settlers in Kenya, excellent as they are, in magnifying their grievances against the home Government and their own Government, to the neglect of their real problem which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is economic. It is true that they have causes for complaint. Their taxation is high, their freight charges and interest charges are high, and the cost of administration is out of proportion to the size of the Colony. But these

  1509
  are things that have grown up without much complaint by the settler when the Colony was prosperous, prices higher and markets good. They were only too pleased then to enjoy the fruits of all these things, and to go on borrowing money without thinking of the future. To-day they have to face realities, and it is not pleasant. The depreciation in commodity prices, bringing in its train other evils, is a problem that we and every other country have had to face. It is no use settlers in Kenya or anywhere else forming vigilance committees to bring pressure on the Governor and on the home Government. It is far better that they should face the problem as we have done in this country, and deal with it in an economic way.
  What was the position in Kenya a couple of years ago? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Drake Division (Captain Guest) made what I considered was a personal attack on the Governor of Kenya, though he said that he made no attack on the Governor but rather on the Colonial Office which had dictated policy to Kenya. As the Colonial Secretary has disclaimed any such responsibility or intention it remains a reflection on the Governor. My opinion is that mistakes have been made on all sides. The settlers were unwise, when they were faced with the crisis, not to do more to assist the Governor to deal with it. Sir John Byrne is a man I have known for many years. He has a good Army record and a good record as an administrator. He was promoted to the Governorship of Kenya at a time when he had to face problems which would break the heart of any Governor. He found himself with instructions from the Colonial Office that as there was a financial crisis at home all Colonial Budgets must be balanced. He called the settlers and asked their advice. They gave him no assistance and said they were over-taxed already, and that he must cut down administrative charges and freight charges and economise in that way. That was no doubt necessary, and it has been done, but it would not balance the Budget. The result was that the Governor had to take decisions himself without assistance from the settlers, and he imposed an Income Tax. Representations were made to the Colonial Office who, I think wrongly, upheld their view and over-
  1510
  ruled the decision of the Governor. That has destroyed the prestige of the Governor, has added to the difficulties in the Colony, and means that the settlers now think that whatever decision the Governor takes they have only to agitate sufficiently and the home Government will uphold them.
  I hope, now that important points of difference have been made up, they will forget their political worries, and as prices, markets and exports are improving, they will go ahead and prosper as they deserve. Kenya is a difficult country in which to farm. I have great sympathy for the settlers. They were told after the War that it was desired that they should settle in the Colony and develop it. There is no doubt that certain parts of Kenya are very attractive. It has the most wonderful climatic conditions in the world. These people settled in the country, put their money into it and developed it, and for a time they prospered. But they have had a serious time in the last three or four years. First, they had a, visitation from locusts which destroyed the crops, the next year they had a drought, and the next year an economic crisis. Unless a man has considerable capital there is every prospect when that happens, of his being faced with a period of economic trouble or complete ruin. That is what has happened in Kenya. A great many settlers have gone under, and a great many others are disheartened and may feel that the burden of administration is far too high. It is extremely high and might be cut down, but where are you to start cutting? If I were asked, I would say that there is too much money spent upon education, for what we get out of it. I think it is spent in the wrong way. I think it is wrong that the cost of the railways should fall entirely upon the settlers, because if that had been the case in Canada, the Canadian Pacific Railway would never have been built. It is a charge that the Government should be prepared to accept, and they ought not to put the whole cost of the railways on the settlers, but that is what is being done to-day. The freight rates are extremely high and almost ruinous. There is also the competition of the lake steamers, and I feel that there is a great opportunity there. Something has been done between Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika in the way of co-ordinating rail-

  1511
  ways and transport, but a great deal more can be done. There is too much competition between lake steamer, rail, and road transport, and I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman, with his great knowledge of the problem—I do not think there is anybody in this House who knows more about this territory than does the present Colonial Secretary—will take steps to see that greater economies are effected in that direction.
  Another thing that I am very pleased to hear is that he is making use of MacEllory College in Uganda as a means of educational development. That is a step in the right direction, as long as you work on the right lines. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman: Whither are we going in the direction of the higher education of the natives in Africa? Personally, I think that is a very important question indeed. I was very impressed with its importance on a visit which I paid to Uganda with a Parliamentary delegation a couple of years ago. I was shown over all these institutions, and with some of them I was very much impressed indeed, but with MacEllory College as it was then run I was impressed unfavourably, not because of the officials who were running it, but because of the curriculum on which they were working. I was bold enough to question the wisdom of a curriculum of that kind for natives, and they agreed, and they were at that time changing it to something more adequate to meet the needs of the Colony. There is no use in turning out a failed B.A. class of native in East Africa. It is far better to work on the lines of turning out a good native rather than a bad European, and there is great danger of giving the natives too high an education, encouraging them to be lawyers or politicians and then having no means of putting them into the administration of the country. I think that may come, but in these matters it is better to hasten slowly.
  They have a wonderful native administration in Uganda. It is a model for the whole world, and as a result you have happy natives, you have a wise administration, and you have, what very few other Colonies have, a Budget surplus of £1,500,000. That, I hope, will be used in developing the Colony, and I feel sure it will, because it is not the policy of
  1512
  the Uganda Government to build up surpluses, as the Colony is definitely administered for the natives. That is the important point of difference between the administration of Uganda and that of Kenya. At the very outset in Uganda we took the definite line that the Colony was to be administered for the natives, and it has been ever since. It is an education to anyone to go there and see what wonderful work has been done. I hope the same lines will be adopted in Tanganyika, as they are working on these lines, and that the same fruits will accrue.
  Another thing that the Debate has done, I hope, is to destroy some of the fallacies which have grown up about the question of the open door. I was very glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman emphatically destroy the statements made by several hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway opposite and their arguments about the problem of raw materials. It is fantastic to talk about any restriction of raw materials in East Africa to-day. I think the problem is one which confronts all European countries to-day, Germany as much as any other country. The Congo Basin Treaties are imposed upon us by the League, which says there must be an open door maintained in Mandated Territories, with the result that it is impossible for us either to put a quota on imports or to impose any restrictions or tariffs whatsoever. The result is that Japan is using these Congo Basin Treaties as a means of dumping goods wholesale into these countries, to the exclusion of all European countries, and that is a problem confronting not only ourselves, but Germany and other European countries as well, who are trying to maintain a higher standard of living. I only wish we were free from the Congo Basin Treaties, in order that we could deal with any country which used such methods of trade as to try to depreciate the standard of life in all other countries in the world. That is exactly what is happening to-day. By lower standards of working and living conditions, by ex-change restrictions, and by assisting exports, Japan is a menace to every country in Europe to-day, and it is a very serious problem in East Africa.
  I visited a large number of Dukans in Uganda, Kenya, and Tanganyika, where we find them stacked with Japanese

  1513
  goods, and if you say, "Is there any demand for British goods?" they say, "There is," yet the Japanese goods are so cheap that the natives will always buy them. One or two of these shopkeepers were honest enough to say that the intelligent natives preferred to buy the British cycle, even if it was more expensive, but the methods of camouflage used by the Japanese exporters are so subtle and cunning that the native thinks he is buying a British article. Several examples of that sort of thing were brought to my notice, and the most glaring was the case of the bicycle.
  To-day in Uganda, Tanganyika, and Kenya most natives have a bicycle, on which they carry their hundredweight of cotton to market and at times quite considerable loads. As a result of experience they know that the British bicycle stands up to the load far better than does the Japanese or any other bicycle, and the result is that there is a great demand for the British article. That applies particularly to the Raleigh bicycle. In one shop I found some Raleigh bicycles and some very good-looking Japanese imitations. The methods of camouflage used by the Japanese, were very ingenious. They were not allowed to use the label, so they made the lampholder in front in the form of a broad R. A native came in, and seeing the R, thought he was buying a Raleigh bicycle, but he found the difference when he put his one cwt. of cotton and himself on it and went to market. That was one example out of a great many which were brought to our notice.
  The real menace, I would point out to my hon. Friends who uphold the open door, is not the fact that restrictions are imposed on imports or exports, because no such things exist in East Africa. The real problem there is the dumping of Japanese goods. That is a problem which confronts every country in the world today. It is a problem with which we have had to deal in every Colony where the Congo Basin Treaties do not apply. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor at the Colonial Office in taking advantage of such measures as Orders in Council in order to impose a quota on those Colonies that refused the quota of Japanese goods, because it has had a wonderful effect on our Lancashire cotton trade; and that to me is far more important than whether or not there is a
  1514
  greater volume of cheap dumped goods into these Colonies.
  I feel sure that, as a result of this Debate, a great many important points have been cleared up. I had great misgivings when another debate on Kenya was suggested, because poor Kenya has been in the limelight so much in recent years that I felt a great deal of harm might be done by again dragging her in the mud. This Debate however, has done a great deal of goo and has cleared up many points. I feel sure the result will be that the British settlers as well as the natives will go forward to greater security and prosperity.
  9.48 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: I should like to invite the Minister's attention to one or two parts of his far-flung Colonies which have not been referred to in the Debate. I realise the pressure which there must be upon the right hon. Gentleman in regard to Palestine, and that first things must come first, but when the pressure eases, as we all hope it soon will, I would invite the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the island of Ceylon and ask him to find time to give some consideration to it. I have a certain amount of first-hand information from people there who are well-wishers and supporters of the right hon. Gentleman's Government. There is an amount of poverty among the native population of the island which is extremely distressing to the English colony. It must be a matter of great regret to us that in an island where so great an amount of wealth has been made by the English business community, there is such a dreadful amount of depression, poverty and suffering among the native population. In that regard, I would like to call particular attention to a recent malaria epidemic in the island in which the death roll was really appalling. The natives died like flies, and there were indescribable scenes of horror and misery during the epidemic. I think that there is a case for inquiry as to whether the medical administration in the island was really adequate to the situation which it had to meet, and whether, in view of the events of the epidemic, there is not good reason for overhauling the medical administration and making sure that better supplies of

  1515
  medicine and more medical assistance can be available in the event of a recurrence of such an epidemic.
  I should also like to call the Minister's attention to another grave and distressing feature of life there, namely, the constantly recurring instances of terrible and dreadful cruelty to children which arises out of the custom of child adoption in Ceylon. I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee by recounting instances of cruelty nor to convey that adoption and cruelty always go hand in hand, but I can assure the Committee that there is a constant stream of cases of the most dreadful and barbarous cruelty to children who are victims of this system of adoption. I would only mention that a widespread form of this cruelty is the inflicting of burns upon children.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: By which community?
  Lieut.-Commander FLETCHER: By the Singalese natives. The sentences imposed for these cases of cruelty seem to me completely inadequate, and so inadequate as not to act in any way as a deterrent. There is an admirable society in Ceylon which is trying to deal with this question. I believe that one way to mitigate the evil would be a system of registration of adopted children. I can assure the Minister that it would bring the greatest relief to the white Colony in Ceylon if, during his period of office, he were able to take some steps with the Governor which will result in a diminution of this grave and distressing feature of life there.
  I would like to ask one or two questions with regard to the West Indies. There was a Royal Commission on the sugar industries in the West Indies, which revealed bad social conditions in the islands, and generaluly revealed great neglect. The impression left upon my mind by the findings of the commission was that, while a certain amount of State assistance has been rendered to planters, yet the peasant holders and labourers have been neglected, both economically and socially. It seems to me that very little has been done to help the West Indies towards self-government which should be the aim and object of our colonial administration. The findings of the Royal Commission raises a question
  1516
  in one's mind as to why we should subsidise beet sugar at home while West Indian sugar is so badly hit. If the commission had any object, it was to encourage sugar production in the West Indies, yet legislation at home seems to take the form of trying to keep that sugar out of this country. I should like to ask what has been done about assistance to the industry and about other points mentioned by the commission, namely, the establishment of alternative industries, the development of peasant settlements, and the improvement of labour conditions. It would be interesting to many Members to hear what is the acreage of the official schemes of peasant development. Again, it would be interesting to know if the Minister has anything to report regarding the commission which was set up to inquire into the labour disputes in British Guiana, where there seems to have been very considerable disturbances indeed. Further to this matter of labour disturbances, has the Government received any final report on the serious labour disturbances at St. Kitts in January, 1935? They seem to be a very ugly feature indeed in the West Indies, and it would be interesting to hear the reports of the commissions set up to inquire into them.
  If the Minister will forgive my passing on rather quickly, I should like to mention one or two points in regard to Malaya. Again from what I have been able to read and gather, the viewpoint of the Government seems to be that the maintenance of the authority of the Malay rulers must always be a cardinal point of British policy. From the evidence I have been able to see there is very little to indicate that these Malay rulers show any special aptitude for, or have any great interest in, administration. Their idea of life seems to be morn bound up in their own ideas of pleasure, which is not at all a bad idea if nobody else suffers in the process, but it would be far more desirable and far more in harmony with the traditions of British Colonial administration to endeavour to develop the Malay States in a democratic direction, and to try to establish there a system in which the public good and not the rulers' personal wishes and pleasures is the aim. Perhaps the Minister will be able now or at some other convenient time to let us know what is the Government's

  1517
  policy in regard to the report on Malaya which was rendered by Sir Samuel Wilson.
  There is one other point which I should like to bring specially to the notice of the Secretary of State and that concerns the governors of our Colonies. I should like to make it very clear that I am not for one moment wishing to indulge in any criticism of any of our Colonial governors. Through the auspices of that admirable institution the British Empire Parliamentary Association I have the privilege of meeting governors of our Colonies from time to time, and always receive the same impression of great enthusiasm and great ability in the discharge of their tasks, but I should like to suggest that perhaps in the Colonial Service, as happens in my own profession, the Navy, those in high position or in authority rather tend to guide their actions entirely by the regulations of their service. There is always a tendency in that direction. A man has his career to make in his service, he looks to that service for advancement and promotion, and one of his guiding considerations must always be not to come into conflict with his own chiefs, and to a certain extent he is guided by the routine and the regulations of his service. I suggest that it might be a very good thing indeed for all our Colonies in turn if, say every 12 or 15 years, a governor from completely outside the Colonial Service were appointed for a period of two or three years. I think that to get a man from completely outside the Colonial Service who was not dependent in any way upon the Colonial Office for the gratification of his ambitions in life, as governor who would render to the Colonial Office reports on the Colony from a completely fresh, non-routine standpoint, might result in the Colonial Office getting the most valuable information and insight into the affairs and conditions of each Colony in turn.
  I think that what I have suggested could be done without prejudice or damage to the careers of officers of the Colonial service. There need be no damage to the career or prospects of advancement of a man who had reached the point where he might expect to be appointed a governor of a Colony, if in his place a governor were appointed from outside the service for a short period. It would be quite possible to make arrangements so as to ensure that the
  1518
  officer in question need not suffer in the way of promotion or pension. I would strongly commend this suggestion to the Secretary of State, because I believe many of our Colonies would get a great impulse from the appointment of a governor from outside the service with a view to the Colonial Office getting independent reports. I know that this has been done from time to time. We on these benches remember that Sir James O'Grady was appointed to Tasmania, and I believe he made a most successful governor, and it seems to me that he met with a rather unfortunate reward in being sent subsequently to the mists and fogs of the Falkland Islands. I should be very grateful if the Secretary of State would take this suggestion into his consideration, as I believe it would be of benefit to the Colonial Office, and to our Colonies.
  10.3 p.m.
  Sir A. WILSON: One of the first English essayists began an essay on Paradise with the words:
  "Of Paradise I cannot rightly speak, because I have not been there";
  but that did not prevent him from writing some 20 pages on the subject. Some of the speeches to which we have listened this evening have reminded me rather of that early essayist, both in the extent of their vision and the surmises and speculations with which they have been replete. A pleasant exception was the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald), who had been there and who, therefore, gave us something at first hand. The hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones) talked of Orders in Council as though they were secret documents of which the House never heard until long after they had been published. Surely he must know that the Journals of the House contain a reference to every such Order. They are placed on the Table of the House, a copy will be found in the Library, and any Member of Parliament who is curious as to what the Departments are doing need only go to the Library to look and he will get a bellyful of Statutory Rules and Orders. And if he will refer to that "Parliamentary Child's Guide to Knowledge," the Guide to Official Statistics, he will find, price 1s. 6d., an Annual Report on every Colony which is not merely presented to

  1519
  Parliament—a far more effective body than the League of Nations or the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations—but is in fact sent to the Mandates Commission, and I have no doubt they will be very glad to answer any questions on the subject posed by that body. But to suppose that the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations is capable of discussing or usefully contributing to the discussion on the administration of British Colonies is to assume that unfortunate body capable of assuming responsibilities which it is quite incapable of bearing.
  We have heard a good deal from the benches opposite of repressive legislation under these Ordinances, of which, apparently, they never hear until too late. I hear of them generally before they have been issued through the medium of the Aborigines Protection Society. That indispensable and courteous body of men, the Librarians of the House of Commons, have every single document regarding the Colonies and the British Empire sent to them week by week. When I compare existing legislation with regard to the control of the Press in the British Colonies and Dominions with that of any other country in the world, I stand amazed at the risks which we take. Neither in France nor in any French Colony, the United States, or in South America, or in any part of the world where I have been, is there any country constructively so free, and where there is so little censorship.
  The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) referred to the judiciary in Somaliland. The position should be known by this time to the Secretary of State himself, as his predecessor initiated inquiries some months ago. At the present moment counsel cannot appear on behalf of a man accused on even a capital charge, though it is not difficult to procure counsel from Aden. We dealt by question and answer this afternoon with the point whether a prisoner upon a capital charge in this country had been adequately defended by two junior counsel. There are parts of the British Empire where no counsel is retained at all. While not associating myself with the suggestion that there should be a public defender, I think that the employment of counsel at the expense of the Government and under some sort of Poor
  1520
  Prisoners' Defence Act, where a capital charge or felonies are involved, should be examined.
  I should look with the greatest alarm at the prospect of our Colonies being fitted out every 15 years with amateur Governors, for the good of the Colonial Office. The Colonial Office has many sources of information, and the peripatetic journeys of British Empire delegations will give Paget, M.P., in every part of the House an opportunity of telling the Colonial Office what he thinks ought to be done. The very last thing the Colonies want is amateur Governors. A heavy responsibility hangs on men in the supreme command, under the Crown, of a Colony.
  We have heard from the Opposition Benches references to the Kenya colonists as having proved that it does not pay to colonise. It is suggested that they should he told to go if it does not pay. I wonder how the Opposition Benches would like to apply those easy words and phrases to Palestine. Zionism does not pay; should Zionism be ended because it does not pay? The interests of the natives of Palestine have not been regarded as paramount. Do the Opposition hold that we are not doing our duty by the Arabs of Palestine? If we had a Mandate for Kenya from the League of Nations, with instructions to found there a national home for British colonists, and if we had to make an annual report to the League of Nations as to what we had done to provide such a home, the conclusion of the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations would be that we had done a good deal more in regard to a national home for the Jews in Palestine than we had done for the national home for the British in Kenya.
  We are not in the least called upon to apologise for the steps we have taken in the last 30 years to make Kenya Colony a success. It may be necessary in the future to reconsider the steps that we have taken. If so, we ought to face the position, and ought to he prepared to buy out the colonists, to compensate them, whether that cost £3,000,000 or £5,000,000, and thereafter to make it clear that we cannot allow the Highlands of Africa to be used either for the British or for Indians. As to Indians, I know how difficult it is, but we must be careful lest, under the guise of promoting

  1521
  freedom, without distinction of colour, race, creed or language, we start yet another minority problem there. How many minority problems have we started since the War? We started one vast minority problem with Zionism in Palestine. We have been landed by the League of Nations, owing to a mischievous decision, with another, the Assyrians. No more fatal decision was ever reached than that which excluded the Assyrians for ever from their national home, and left them, a disgrace to this House and a disgrace to England and to the League of Nations, lying derelict upon the sands of Arabia. The decision reached by the League of Nations that the Assyrians had no title to return to their own land was disgraceful. Let us not laugh about it, except in ignorance.
  There is ground for thinking that we are not giving some of the Crown Colonies as ample justice as they should have. We still apply to every Crown Colony the exclusively English conception that the King can do no wrong, that no action in tort can lie against the Crown and that no action in respect of Crown lands can be entertained by the Government, unless the fiat of the Attorney-General be obtained. The position of the Crown in England has long ago been the subject of inquiry by this House, and action was unanimously recommended by the Ministers' Powers Committee, on the strength of the report of the Crown Proceedings Committee in 1927. We have not yet taken action.
  I would ask the Colonial Secretary to remember that, whatever we do in this country, it is even more necessary in the Colonies to introduce some remedial legislation to assimilate the position of the Crown to that of the subject in tort in the Crown Colonies. Important steps were taken in this country in 1333, in the Business of Courts Act, 1933. I suggest that the whole question of the fundamental basis of the courts in the Crown Colonies, and their relation to the Executive, should be dispassionately considered and assessed.
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. D. GRENFELLI feel exceedingly honoured by the speech to which we have just listened. I must confess my ignorance and lack of oratorical advantages as compared with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. We know of his taste
  1522
  for blue-books. He likes them. But, while we admire his voracity, and the wonderful, miraculous, metabilic powers he possesses, we do not altogether trust his judgment when he suggests a diet of blue-books for us. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, perhaps, as well informed on this subject as he is on many others, and I should not be disposed to question his judgment, except with regard to the charge which he made against my hon. Friend behind me with respect to amateur Governors. The Government have just appointed an amateur Governor, and I believe, too, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself is a kind of Pooh Bah in that regard.
  My remarks to-night will be very brief, because I know that the Minister has to reply, and I believe that there is to be another contribution to the Debate from the Liberal Benches. In discussing the subject of Colonial administration, such an extensive territory has to be brought under survey, and the range of subjects is so wide, that I feel that the House cannot deal competently with a question of this kind in one day, and that, therefore, the subject of discussion must necessarily be limited. You, Sir Dennis, have curtailed the discussion by your Ruling, I think to the great profit of the Committee. There are, however, one or two subjects to which reference has already been made, and which I think will bear a little more attention from those who are interested, in order to represent our point of view on these matters.
  Much has been heard about Kenya, which, indeed, is one of the most critical of our Colonial problems at the present time, and no one wants to say anything here that would add to the difficulties of the situation; but I think we ought, at any rate, to clear our minds. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last said that the League of Nations had created one or two very difficult minority. problems, but here is a minority problem in Kenya which was not created by the League of Nations, nor by the present Government, but was created a decade or two ago by certain enterprising gentlemen who went out there, largely, in their own interests, and who now, to the number of over 2,000, present a tremendous problem for the Government administration. I would like to examine the claims of these people, who have not only

  1523
  acquired lands which were formerly in the possession of the native people, but have tried to exclude those native people from their own land, a thing which is probably unheard of in the history of Colonial administration.
  The right hon. Gentleman gave us some figures this afternoon. He said that something like 48,000 square miles were reserved for native peoples in Kenya, but I have another set of figures which show that 12,000 or 13,000 square miles have been acquired for the white population in the Highlands. That is an area larger than the country in which I live and to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs. These 12,000 or 13,000 square miles are reserved for white settlers, who need not necessarily be English, but may be French, German, Italian—or Welsh. They must be white people, but they need not be British subjects of the Crown, either from any country in Africa or from India. As compared with these figures, the Committee should know that only 3,000 square miles are reserved for the Kikuyu, who number 500,000, and only 7,500 square miles for the Kavirondo, who number 2,000,000. The Masai, a more nomadic people, have a larger area of land, but much less water, and hardly any land suitable for cultivation. The small minority of white settlers have an area equal to that of all the cultivable land of the native population.
  There is another problem which arises out of that. We know from statistics given us that the product of white agriculture is equal to about £2,500,000. It is almost equal in value to the total product of native agriculture. Only 15 per cent. of the native production is exported, while almost the whole of the production of the white population is exported. You will find that the native is handicapped in exports, in transport and in the sale of his products. This vast native population, living and working on the land, is handicapped in every way for the special benefit of the white population. In the matter of freight we are told that they pay £4 a ton for the carriage of goods on the same route and for exactly the same distance as the white settler pays 8s. 6d. for.
  Sir A. WILSON: Is it tons by measurement or by weight, because it makes a
  1524
  profound difference as between cotton and maize?
  Mr. GRENFELL: I do not think it makes so much difference, and the rate charged to the native producer is over nine times that charged to the white settler. It is utterly unjustifiable. It is a form of subsidy paid by the native. This discrimination is observed in a variety of ways. The native is denied the right to buy or sell land. He is compelled to work 180 days for the white possessor of the land on which he lives. It is true that he is given some interest as a temporary tenant. This term "temporary tenant" is given to the person whose home it is. This small minority of white people who have gone thousands of miles away from their homes are given all these privileges at the expense of the native population. I do not think this can be justified and the Committee will have something to say to it. If the interests of the indigenous people in our Colonies are to remain paramount, if there is any sense of justice, we cannot allow these people to be discriminated against as they have been in Kenya. The wages paid them are scandalous.
  Sir A. WILSON: They do not include feeding and housing.
  Mr. GRENFELL: There is no defence to the wage conditions in Kenya, Rhodesia or in other parts. May I also say a word or two about the registration of natives in the two Rhodesias? There again you have a terrible scandal. The native in his own country has to get a pass to visit a town—not only the township where the people reside but an area outside which may extend to 80 or 100 square miles. The native of that country is not allowed to move about in his own country unless he carries a pass entitling him to look for work, a pass to assure all those who may be interested that he is at work, a pass to allow him to go to buy or sell goods in the town. All these restrictions upon the movements of these people, which deny them the possibility of a free livelihood and free citizenship, are designed to achieve the end of creating a large army of the black proletariat for the service of white capitalism under conditions which could not be defended anywhere.
  In these days of oppression, it is the duty of this House to see that under the

  1525
  British flag we denounce any such tyranny, if there is any suggestion in the comparison made to-day between the British White settler and the native, and if we are to nurture and sustain the world in these matters. There are restrictions on the free movement of these people, and even upon their minds. There are ordinances to prevent men from thinking. To-day we are glad to hear the Minister say: "We are providing advanced education in various colonies and have already achieved very satisfactory results; and we are very proud of this system." It is not a perfect system, and I am glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make it very much better than it is. In improving the conditions of these people, we must provide for their physical assistance and for the retention of their society. We must not try to model their lives exactly on ours, and certainly we must not try to crowd them into compounds and make them the ready slaves of anyone who can exploit them.
  The important thing is to educate the people in all these parts of the world. But what is the use of giving education to these people, if they are not allowed to read when they have learned to read? Why should they be permitted to read "Comic Cuts" and "Sketchy Bits," but not allowed to read good books? Why should not these people have full freedom? Having begun to understand the achievements of citizenship, they are not able to read about these things. These stupid ordinances will bring disgrace upon this nation and untold trouble upon the nation in the years to come. There are difficult times before the world. There is the question of reconciling Imperial possessions. There was a suggestion made from the Liberal benches that we should provide access to all the raw materials contained in the British Empire. I share that view, but really that is not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is to satisfy the people within this Empire, over whom we claim the right to govern and over whom the Minister governs at the present time without any intermediary body. He is at the head of many of those people whom we have discussed to-night. There is no one between him and these people. The responsibility is on this side. It is upon this House.
  1526
  We have heard of amateur and professional Governors. That is not so highly important, but what matters is that the Governors in these parts of the Empire have more power than the Prime Minister or the Crown in this country. They have almost absolute power to deal with the lives of those under their charge. We must carry out our trusteeship and responsibilities, and must not try in any way to limit the development of the lives of the people who live in the scattered parts of the Empire. If the Empire is to justify itself, it will do so by gathering in every one of these Colonies and establishing a common citizenship. It is difficult for a native person, dispossessed of his right to land and denied opportunities in his own country, to feel any pride of association with a country so far away, which shows so little sympathy with his daily needs.
  I will conclude because there are other speakers, but I do beg of the Minister to pay attention to the references that have been made from this side of the Committee because they represent the serious thoughts of those who are just as much concerned as any hon. Members opposite with doing justice to the people who for the moment are under our care. We shall return with our complaints, our accusations and our condemnation time and time again unless the injustices which are done to the native people are remedied.
  10.31 p.m.
  Sir FRANCIS ACLAND: My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) dealt so fully with the matters that I wish to bring before the House that little remains for me to say, before giving the Colonial Secretary a further innings. I do not complain in any way of the length of the speech to which we have just listened, which I have very much enjoyed and appreciated. I am very glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) got the chance to make that speech. I should like to say something on the subject of Kenya, although I welcome very much the statement which the Secretary of State has already made on that question, and I do not want him to trouble to say anything more about it. What I want to say is not in specific disagreement with anything that the right hon. Gentleman said but only to em-

  1527
  phasise certain points which seem to us important.
  Very important Orders in Council, or whatever the proper instruments are called, are in contemplation which will decide the destinies of Kenya for some time to come. Therefore this is the time to say what we feel we ought to say. In regard to the attitude of the Secretary of State, he seemed to show a human touch and sympathy in dealing with some of these matters from which the whole House will hope for the best in the settlement that is to be made. I gathered from what he said and from the report of the Royal Commission that the proposed settlement will be on the lines of greater differentiation than hitherto—more land, more stability for the natives in enlarged and extended native reserves and, on the other hand, more land in the area where, to use the phrase of the Royal Commission, "a special privilege for Europeans obtains." It has been suggested by hon. Members who have commented on what has been said from these benches that we are inclined to ignore the interests of the white settlers. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) suggested—I do not know whether he was referring to us—that we should be in favour of clearing them out altogether if they got in the way of our particular friends, the natives.
  That is not so, but one does doubt a little bit in reading the Report of the Royal Commission, which contains statements very often rather than justifications, whether the interests of the white settlers can best be safeguarded by segregation of them in one area and of the natives into an entirely different area. We are glad that the Secretary of State in that connection is going to give careful consideration to what is obviously an extremely difficult matter, namely, the position of the squatters. He ought to give very careful consideration before anything final is settled, and before anything is irrevocably done which turns off from their land the ancient inhabitants of those lands who were there before the British settlers came. It is proposed to give them land or money in exchange. I hope the settlement will always be friendly, and that wherever possible it will take the form of giving them land rather than money, because money goes, and land stays. We know in the history
  1528
  of our own villages how certain people with village rights were given money when enclosures were made, and how the money has been spent and the rights have entirely disappeared, whereas if they had had a bit of land it might be theirs now instead of their being landless.
  My second point is that if the natives have certain rights of access to the courts of law now with regard to land questions, it would be very difficult to prove any denial of those rights as a part of the new settlement. In dealing with the natives you must not only do what is right, but convince them that you have done what is right and fair, and it is rather difficult to reconcile that with a denial of whatever rights the natives possess to present their cases in the law courts. The hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg) laid stress, quite rightly, on the importance of economic rather than political development. I must express my agreement with the hon. Member in connection with one question about which I really know something—the question of forestry and forest development in the Colonies in general.
  The right hon. and gallant Member for the Drake Division of Plymouth (Captain Guest) complained very much of the heavy salaries which were paid to hordes of officials. I hope no one will apply that to the money spent on forestry services wherever they may be. I know that they suffered severely in the economy cuts which had to be made, but in many of our Colonies you can only keep agriculture going if you have a definite and well thought out and scientifically-directed forestry service working in close connection with agriculture. If you cannot keep up trees you get denudation, the rains descend and the soil is washed away, and the area for cultivation, particularly for pasturage, is entirely destroyed, the whole tract of country may be almost uninhabitable. In other cases, the humidity necessary for growing certain crops is kept up largely by the continued existence of the forests, and from every point of view a close co-operation of the forestry services and agriculture is of immense importance to the Colonies.
  I was glad to hear one phrase in the speech of the Secretary of State about

  1529
  Kenya, when he said that certain areas were intended to be reserved as forests for ever. If he will refer to the report of the Royal Commission, paragraph 1977, he will see that they contemplate with regard to certain forest reserves in the Northern Highlands that the time may come when they will be available for agriculture. I hope such a possibility is not contemplated. The idea that if sufficient pressure is put on by European settlers to get a little more land for agriculture it can be converted from forestry to agriculture, means the ruin of any stable policy in the forestry services.
  There are just two other points, one about Southern Rhodesia. I want to say a word about a Sedition Bill. I am not sure whether the Bill has yet been enacted. I gather that it contains a phrase which is said to be well known in South African legislation—
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I am in no way responsible for Southern Rhodesia. In so far as it is not completely self-governed, it is administered by my colleague the Secretary of State for the Dominions. I cannot make any reply with regard to Southern Rhodesia.
  Sir F. ACLAND: I am glad of that, because it relieves me of the necessity of dealing with that subject. I will conclude by referring to a subject which has been discussed to-night, that is, the open door. We have been given a good deal of good advice, almost of lecturing, on that subject, and I am bound to say that I was impressed by what the Secretary of State said about it. I am naturally glad to hear that he is doing all he can to encourage exports from the Colonies to whatever countries will take their goods. In regard to the Colonies—I am not referring to East Africa now—it seems to us that as long as the Colonies have differential import duties against foreign countries, one cannot expect them to be able to sell to foreign countries as much as they would otherwise do. That may be a Cobdenite doctrine, but it seems to us to be a perfectly sound one. In these unfortunate days of difficulty, if we want countries such as Czechoslovakia and Poland, for instance, to be able to buy from our Colonies, we ought not to put any obstacles in the way of their selling their goods to those Colonies.
  Captain P. MACDONALD rose—
  Sir F. ACLAND: I am not going to give way, not because I do not like controversy, on the contrary; but I do not wish unduly to delay the Secretary of State.
  Sir H. CROFT: Is the right hon. Gentleman referring to all the African Colonies?
  Sir F. ACLAND: I excluded the East African Colonies, because I know that in their case there are certain special conditions. We take our position with regard to that general doctrine of the importance of the open door if there is really to be the greatest amount of trade for the Colonies. As I saw my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) wanted to cross a sword with me, I will conclude by crossing a sword with him. I do not take the view that it is much more important that there should be good trade in the Lancashire cotton industry than that our Colonies should flourish. That was his point of view and it emphasises the difference between us.
  Captain MACDONALD: I did not say I do not want to see the Colonies flourish; I said that I want to see them flourish and increase the trade of the Lancashire cotton industry by buying from them instead of from Japan.
  Sir F. ACLAND: If my hon. and gallant Friend will look up his phrase in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, he will see that he said that his interest was rather that the Lancashire cotton industry should flourish than that the Colonies should have increased trade. That is a point of view with which we cannot agree, and against doctrines of that sort we maintain our doctrine of the importance of the open door.
  10.44 p.m.
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is not much time left for me, but I make no complaint, because we have had an extremely interesting Debate covering a wide area, and I have been asked far more questions than I can hope to answer. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) asked me a question with regard to forests. In reply I would say that I realise the vital need for adequate forest reserves, in the interests of both communities. It is unfair to suggest that in

  1531
  the increased area allotted under one Order-in-Council to native reserves we have included a lot of desert land or that in regard to the extended European Highlands, as I may call them, we have included a lot of extra good land. Admittedly, the future of the land in the greater part of the Colony is still undetermined. There is still land which is sparsely populated and hardly developed at all and some of it I believe to be capable of development, but that is all in the future.
  Do let us remember that these problems with which we are dealing in terms of land, of square miles, of boundaries, of legality, of Orders-in-Couucil and so-forth, are, fundamentally, human problems. One of the difficulties which we have is that everything said by us here goes to both the natives and the settlers in Kenya and even a single phrase used here may cause one or other of them to believe that their sentiments, their feelings, their point of view are not understood and appreciated by us, and that does irreparable harm. The only way in which we can keep control in the House of Commons of a great dependent Colonial Empire is by an understanding of the human problems in every case. Let us be perfectly clear that in Kenya the dual policy stands—the policy of developing the native in his own area and the European in that area where successive British Governments have invited him to try to make good in very difficult circumstances. There is no Colony more attractive than Kenya. On the other hand, there is no Colony with greater problems or greater difficulties. Having regard to the fact that recent settlers in Canada, Australia and New Zealand have been in difficulties in the last few years, can we wonder that Kenya has difficulties? We have to make allowances.
  I really believe that the hon. Gentleman who spoke last from the Front Opposition Bench is wrong in suggesting that there is any differentiation in railway freights between native produce and European produce. I do not believe that there is any such differentiation, but I intend to look into the matter and to check his statement. He began with a phrase which I really think we must get cleared out of the way once and for all,
  1532
  to the effect that the Europeans have occupied land which was previously in the occupation of natives. With the exception of those 200 or 300, about which we have heard, that is not so and I entirely agree with the last speaker that if it is possible to find land it is much better to deal with the difficulties in that way. To have a, European farm and a couple of natives working uncontrolled is liable to upset the economic future of both. We hope for a clear situation in that respect. Do let us remember that when Sir Charles Eliot was Governor of the East African Protectorate, as it then was, he reported that vast areas of that country, some of the finest parts of it, were absolutely empty. They had been swept for years by the Masai raiders. One still remembers that before the days when the Zionist movement reached the position which it has reached in Palestine to-day, Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, as Colonial Secretary, and Lord Lansdowne as Foreign Secretary, saw the then leader of the Zionist movement, Dr. Herzl, and offered him this very area, of the Highlands of Kenya, as a national home for the Jews. He refused it. It was then that the Government advisedly said "In order that this country may be developed, in order that we may have some return for the strategic railway up from Pretoria to the headwaters of the Nile, we will settle this country." And the first settlement was made just after the South African war.
  The next great settlement took place under the officers' settlement scheme, when 1,000 war agricultural settlers were sent out at the suggestion of the Government of this country. It is necessary to remember that history when we are assessing the great problems of Kenya. Although there are many sub-divisions of the black race in a country like Nigeria, in a purely native country like Nigeria administration is easier in many ways than in a Colony like Kenya, with Arabs. natives, Indians and Europeans. When hon. Members talk about Uganda and Kenya, when remarks are made about the high costs of administration in Kenya compared with Uganda, do remember that, quite apart from the fact that you have three groups of immigrant races of different kinds, the natives of Kenya are in themselves far more of a problem than they are, say, in neighbouring Uganda.

  1533
  In Kenya you have the meeting-ground of different races and people of very different stages of culture, with no common habits, and above all nowhere in Kenya have you anything like the ancient quality and the political and social organisation of the Uganda people.
  Hence in Kenya we find to-day that the high costs of administration are due to the fact—and it has been a little too much stressed—that it has been found necessary to employ Europeans, European clerks, officials and district commissioners, to do a lot of the work which in other territories, including Tanganyika and Uganda, is performed by natives and particularly native chiefs. The mere fact that you have this community of white settlers does necessitate your having European policemen and clerks to deal with that community, whereas in native territories you have native policemen and native clerks, and when settlers complain of the high cost of government let them realise that in a mixed country such overheads are inevitably higher.
  I must take up one point of the hon. Member for Gower, He said that he did not like these passlaws. We heard from several hon. Members on these benches references to the migration of labour from Nyasaland. The complaint there is that, without regulation and control, up and down Africa, from South Africa to the north part of East Africa, Nyasa boys have gone on their own initiative to seek work here, there and everywhere. I am now asked to control that migration which has hitherto been free, where a man has been allowed to go about "on his own," with, I admit, sometimes success, but sometimes, as the Commission found, anything but success for himself and his family, and if I am asked to control the organisation of labour which is seeking to see the world, then it is inevitable that you should have a pass system. You have to have a man given a certificate, you have to organise him and direct him to go to a particular home or employer, and watch over him and see that he is brought back along approved routes. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have freedom for the native to do as he likes, and you must have something in the nature of pass laws if you are to regulate and control the supply of labour going from
  1534
  native reserves and countries to the new industrial areas. I want to make that perfectly clear.
  Mr. PALING: Surely the control of natives in that way is a very different matter from the pass laws which have been embodied in the Southern Rhodesia Act?
  Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: That Act has nothing to do with me. There are one or two questions to which I think I ought to refer, which were raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut. -Commander Fletcher). In the first place, he asked about Ceylon. It is true that the richest part of Ceylon historically is Northern Central Ceylon, which is now practically derelict and unused. Malaria is the biggest problem Ceylon is up against, first and foremost, and I would impress upon everybody that malaria is not a problem of medicine and treatment of a disease, but a problem of prevention. I lectured the whole Legislative Council of Ceylon on the subject of the life history of the malarial parasite. Most of them did not know it, and unless they tackle the problem, not from the point of view of curing it, but of preventing it, they will not succeed. It is not a medical problem, but an engineering, an Agricultural, and entomological problem more than anything else, and unless they tackle that, they will have another epidemic. They have self-government now in these respects, and I hope self-government will be successful in setting about it.
  As to child adoption, I will make inquiries, but there again that is now within, the province of the State Council of Ceylon. They have in these matters of social progress complete self-government, and it is very difficult for us in this House to interfere with these ancient customs of other races. It is our hope that now that they have self-government they will take up these questions of social reform. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton was very wrong in what he said about the Malay rulers. I know most of the Malay rulers, and those I know are extremely conscientious servants of their State, and they certainly have the whole of the Malay people behind them. Any suggestion that they are not fulfilling their function coupled with the British resi-

  1535
  dents, is most unfortunate. I am certain that it will be resented by the Malays as a whole, and I want to take this opportunity to contradict it.
  Question put, "That a sum, not exceeding £112,359, be granted for the said Service."
  The Committee divided: Ayes, 86; Noes, 171.

  Division No, 282.]

  AYES.

  [11.0 p.m.

  Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke

  Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)

  Pritt, D. N.

  Adams, D. (Consett)

  Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)

  Quibell, D. J. K

  Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)

  Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)

  Richards, R. (Wrexham)

  Ammon, C. G.

  Harris, Sir P. A.

  Riley, B.

  Banfield, J. W.

  Henderson, T. (Tradeston)

  Ritson, J

  Barr, J.

  Holdsworth, H.

  Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)

  Broad, F. A.

  Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)

  Rothschild, J. A. de

  Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)

  John, W

  Rowson, G.

  Burke, W. A.

  Jones, A. C. (Shipley)

  Sexton, T. M.

  Charleton, H. C.

  Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)

  Silkin, L.

  Chater, D.

  Kelly, W. T.

  Simpson, F. B.

  Cluse, W. S.

  Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)

  Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford

  Lathan, G.

  Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)

  Daggar, G.

  Lawson, J. J.

  Smith, E. (Stoke)

  Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

  Leach, W.

  Smith, T. (Normanton)

  Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)

  Leslie, J. R.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Ede, J. C.

  McGhee, H. G.

  Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)

  Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)

  MacLaren, A.

  Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

  Edwards. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

  Mander, G. le M.

  Tinker, J. J.

  Evans, D. 0. (Cardigan)

  Marklow, E.

  Viant, S. P.

  Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)

  Marshall, F.

  Watkins, F. C.

  Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.

  Mathers, G.

  Westwood, J.

  Foot, D. M.

  Messer, F.

  Wllkinson, Ellen

  Gallacher, W.

  Milner, Major J.

  Williams, T. (Don Valley)

  Gardner, B. W.

  Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)

  Woods. G. S. (Finsbury)

  Garro Jones, G. M.

  Paling, W.

  Young, Sir R.(Newton)

  George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)

  Parker, J.

  Glbbins, J.

  Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—

  Grenfell, D. R.

  Potts, J.

  Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Acland.

  Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)

  Price, M. P.

  NOES.

  Albery, Sir I. J.

  Edmondson, Major Sir J.

  Leckie, J. A.

  Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)

  Emmott, C. E. G. C.

  Leech, Dr. J. W.

  Apsley, Lord

  Emrys-Evans, P. V.

  Leighton, Major B. F. P.

  Aske, Sir R. W.

  Entwistle, C. F.

  Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.

  Assheton, R.

  Errington, E.

  Levy, T.

  Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.

  Erskine Hill, A. G.

  Lindsay. K. M.

  Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)

  Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)

  Little, Sir E. Graham-

  Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.

  Findlay, Sir E.

  Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.

  Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.

  Fox, Sir G. W. G.

  Lloyd, G. W.

  Birchall, Sir J. D.

  Fraser, Capt. Sir I.

  Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.

  Bird, Sir R. B.

  Furness, S. N.

  Loftus, P. C.

  Bossom, A. C.

  Fyfe, D. P. M.

  Lovat-Fraser, J. A.

  Boulton, W. W.

  Ganzoni, Sir J.

  Lumley, Capt. L. R.

  Boyce, H. Leslie

  Goodman. Col. A. W.

  MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.

  Brocklebank, C. E. R.

  Gower, Sir R. V.

  M'Connell, Sir J

  Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)

  Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)

  McCorquodale, M. S.

  Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)

  Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)

  MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)

  Bull, B. B.

  Gridley, Sir A. B.

  MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)

  Butler, R. A.

  Gritten, W. G. Howard

  Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)

  Campbell, Sir E. T.

  Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)

  McEwen. Capt. J. H. F.

  Cartland, J. R. H.

  Guest, Maj. Hon. O.(C'mb'rw'll,N.W.)

  McKie, J. H.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gunston, Capt. D. W.

  Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.

  Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)

  Guy, J. C. M.

  Magnay, T.

  Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.

  Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.

  Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.

  Cook, T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)

  Hamilton, Sir G. C.

  Manningham-Buller, Sir M.

  Courtauld, Major J. S.

  Hannah, I. C.

  Maxwell, S. A.

  Craddock, Sir R. H.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.

  Craven-Ellis, W.

  Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)

  Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)

  Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page

  Holmes, J. S.

  Moreing, A. C.

  Crooke, J. S.

  Hope, Captain Hon. A. 0. J.

  Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)

  Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.

  Hopkinson, A.

  Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.

  Cross, R. H.

  Howitt, Dr. A. B.

  Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.

  Crowder, J. F. E.

  Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)

  Munro, P

  Cruddas, Col. B.

  Hudson, R. S. (Southport)

  Nall, Sir J.

  Denville, Alfred

  Hume, Sir G. H.

  Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.

  Donner, P. W.

  Hunter, T.

  Nicolson, Hon. H. G.

  Dugdale, Major T. L.

  James, Wing-Commander A. W.

  O'Connor, Sir Terence J.

  Duggan, H. J.

  Joel, D. J. B.

  O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh

  Duncan, J. A. L.

  Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)

  Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.

  Dunglass, Lord

  Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)

  Orr-Ewing, I. L.

  Eastwood, J. F.

  Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)

  Penny, Sir G.

  Petherick, M.

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.

  Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

  Pickthorn, K. W. M.

  Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)

  Thomson, Sir J. D. W.

  Ramsbotham, H.

  Smithers, Sir W.

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.

  Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)

  Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)

  Turton, R. H.

  Reed, A. C. (Exeter)

  Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, E.)

  Walker-Smith, Sir J.

  Remer, J. R.

  Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.

  Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)

  Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)

  Spens, W. P.

  Warrender, Sir V.

  Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)

  Storey, S.

  Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.

  Ropner, Colonel L.

  Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)

  Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)

  Salmon, Sir I.

  Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)

  Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)

  Sandeman, Sir N. S.

  Strickland, Captain W. F.

  Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.

  Sandys, E. D.

  Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)

  Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

  Scott, Lord William

  Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.

  Wise, A. R.

  Selley, H. R.

  Sutcliffe, H.

  Womersley, Sir W. J.

  Shakespeare, G. H.

  Tasker, Sir R. I.

  Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)

  Tate, Mavis C.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—

  Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)

  Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)

  Major Sir George Davies and

  Captain Waterhouse.

  Original Question again proposed.
  It being after Eleven of the Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceedings, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  HEALTH RESORTS AND WATERING PLACES BILL.
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  DISCHARGED DOCKYARDMAN, DEVONPORT.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir G. Penny.]
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. GALLACHER: Two weeks ago I raised the question of Mr. Salisbury, who had been employed in the Devonport Dockyard. He had worked there for a considerable number of years, but two years ago was dismissed on the ground that they were reducing the staff. His conduct and his workmanship had been very good, and he was given a gratuity of £34. Two weeks later he was re-started. He was advised, when he handed over the £34, that his employment would be considered continuous and that when he was next dismissed there would be a continual period of gratuity. At the beginning of this year he was again dismissed, but this time not on grounds of reduction of staff, but without reason of any kind. It may be as well to say that he was a shop steward. He was one of several
  1538
  who were very active in the Labour movement—in different branches of the Labour movement. I can lay my hand on my heart and say that I do not know to which particular branch of the movement he belonged, whether he was one of the Reddest of the Red or of a paler colour.
  Several of them were dismissed who had been very active. How was it possible to dismiss them? A very peculiar atmosphere had been created as a result of the acts of sabotage that had occurred, and that coincided with the movement of the Fleet towards the Mediterranean, while the serious situation existed with Italy and when very sinister moves were being made in London, and other parts of the country, by agents of Italy. The opportunity was taken for dismissing these shop stewards, and no reason was given. No complaint of any kind was made against any of them in respect of workmanship or conduct. There was no possibility of any of them being associated in any way with such an unpermissible and intolerable action as the sabotage that had taken place. This man was dismissed. Two years ago he had earned a gratuity of £34; he worked for a further two years; but he gets no gratuity, and repayment of his £34 is refused him. I understand the regulation to be that, where anyone is dismissed from his employment for any reason other than reduction of staff or ill health, he is not entitled to superannuation, but is given a compassionate gratuity, and so, on this formal regulation, they have refused to give him his £34, not to mention the extra two years' gratuity that he had earned.
  One of the most dangerous things for anyone to come up against is a bureau-

  1539
  cracy of this character. I cannot help recalling the case of ex-Inspector John Syme, who for 20 years fought against injustice, who was in prison and out of prison, until the situation became worse and worse and his health was undermined, simply because the bureaucrats insisted on the regulations. In 1929 the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), who was then Home Secretary, managed to get an accommodation after very great difficulty, and John Syme signed an accommodation agreement. But now, after the matter had been settled, it is all unsettled again, because the bureaucrats have got to work again, and John Syme understands that the pension he has been given is illegal. He is now writing to the Home Secretary, to the Commissioner of Police, and to the King.
  How is it possible that we can allow anything so inhuman as a bureaucracy working according to rules and regulations when we are dealing with human flesh and blood—with questions that demand ordinary human consideration? Let any Member try to place himself in the position of this man. He works well and hard for many years; his good conduct and workmanship are recognised; and when he leaves there is no hesitation about giving him a gratuity. As it happens, he becomes active in the Labour movement, or as a shop steward in connection with various activities that are going on; but he commits no offence of any kind. Surely he is entitled, even though he is working in a dockyard, to have political opinions, and to express political opinions. There has been a lot of talk this afternoon about restrictions placed on people in the Colonies, but here we are not dealing with a Colony, but with an engineering factory, and surely this man is entitled to have political opinions and to express them. I challenge the representative of the Admiralty to mention one thing against this man, either in connection with his workmanship or with his general conduct.
  We shall probably be told that there is no political discrimination, because, no matter what his political views were, he would not get the gratuity because he was dismissed on other grounds than reduction of staff or ill health; that if it were a Tory who was dismissed on other grounds than ill health or reduction
  1540
  of staff he would not get a gratuity. But the political discrimination is in the dismissal without any reason, and then the holding off of the gratuity that he paid in to the cashier a couple of years ago. I want to appeal to the Minister to avoid any possibility of a repetition of what has happened in the case of ex-Inspector Syme. The regulation can quite easily be overcome; it is only a formal reading and a formal consideration of the regulation that allows of this money being withheld. I appeal to the Minister to see that this matter is taken up with the responsible officer, and instead of a formal rule it is dealt with in a human and understanding way, and if they are not prepared to give him a gratuity embracing the extra two years work at any rate to give him back the £34 that he paid him two years ago in order that he would be considered for extra gratuity when the time came to leave the employment.
  11.21 p.m.
  The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I am sure the House will agree that it is only right that cases of this kind should be carefully considered, and I raise no objection to the hon. Member's general statement. I had better divide the matter into two parts. This is very largely a Treasury matter. The whole problem of pensions and superannuation of Government employés is governed by a series of Acts. I am extremely interested in the whole problem of pensions, but we are not dealing with that to-day: it is a separate class of established persons who get pensions. When this question was first asked, some sympathy was shown in the House, very largely due to a misunderstanding. I want to clear that matter up first. If a person is employed and has had not less than seven years' continuous employment, he is eligible—there is no right, but he is eligible—to a gratuity of a certain amount. That gratuity is given as a concession. When a man is discharged on grounds of reduction and goes back into employment some time later, he has the option of refunding the gratuity, because in a great many cases it is to his advantage. If a man has had seven years previously and then goes on serving, he may become established and it may make all the difference later on. I could quote cases where it would make

  1541
  a difference of £10 or £20 in his pension. It would make a difference in the gratuity that he would finally get as an established servant. This has been put in for the benefit of the man. But there are certain cases where it would work against him. That happens in all cases of insurance, that you take a certain chance, but it is for the man's benefit.
  The cases where it would work against him are these, where, for instance, the man has refunded the gratuity and then comes back into employment for less than 15 years. He would then lose the refund if he became infirm, or his dependants would not get anything if he died. I have looked the matter up carefully. The number of times where this has occurred is very small. In fact, in some of the dockyards it has never occurred at all. [An HON. MEMBER: "Because they usually get it?"] No, they cannot get a pension according to the Act. What you may get—and that is what the hon. Member suggested—is an ex gratia payment. That has nothing to do with any Superannuation Act or the statute under which we work. It is possible to relieve such a case out of a small compassionate fund which we have at the Admiralty. A case occurred some years ago when a man made his refund. He died and there were some dependants to be looked after, and an ex gratia payment was made to them. That is the only case I have come across when such a payment was made. It is impossible under the existing Act to do anything in the case of a man who has been discharged on other grounds than reduction of staff. The hon. Member said that this was bureaucracy. There is no bureaucracy about it. Any case of discharge of a man from work, at any rate, as long as I am in charge of this particular section of the Admiralty, will be looked into with the greatest possible care. It is a serious thing to discharge a man.
  In the case of this man Salisbury there are one or two facts which have not yet been made known. First of all it was suggested by an hon. Member on this side of the House when the question was asked that possibly the man had not been told, that he did not know the law. I made an inquiry into the matter and it is perfectly clear that Salisbury knew. It is clear in these rather rare cases that when a refund takes place the man is made completely aware of the whole
  1542
  circumstances, but they are a little complicated. I should say that in nine cases out of 10 it is to the man's advantage to refund, because the chances are that he will get a much better gratuity and very likely a pension if he lumps his whole service together. A man may have served seven years and he goes out on a reduction of staff. He comes back again after two years; he may say, "£34 is all very well, but if I stay on for another few years, I shall have a sporting chance of a pension by being established." This means certain employment until 60 and a pension on a higher basis, adding on all those previous years, and I think that is perfectly clear. There is no question of persecuting for holding a political opinion. There is no question of a person being penalised for being active in politics. Dockyard workmen can stand for Parliament. Dockyard workmen have ably filled municipal offices and do so up to this present moment—they have risen to the height of Lord Mayor—and are still dockyard workmen. Therefore, there is no question of persecution for political opinion.
  Mr. GALLACHER: Will the hon. Member tell us how many have been dismissed for it?
  Mr. LINDSAY: Any trade unionist knows about what I am saying. I meet them every month or so and we discuss every possible question on the Industrial Council, but there are cases, and there will be cases, where a Man has been discharged and where you have to take the Minister's word that it is in the public interest. In such cases it is impossible to go into details in this House. There may be cases of insubordination, or cases of "service no longer required," where there is no ground for reconsidering this question of refund especially when there are real cases of sickness and infirmity. I am sure that every dockyard worker and every Member of this House irrespective of party would believe me when I say—
  Mr. PALING: Why was he sacked?
  Mr. LINDSAY:—that we must preserve the security of the Royal dockyards.
  It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

  FLAG DAYS.
  FLAG DAYS.
  VACCINATION OFFICERS.
  VACCINATION OFFICERS.
  POST OFFICE (PENSIONED EMPLOYES).
  POST OFFICE (PENSIONED EMPLOYES).
  EDUCATION (MILK, CHILDREN).
  EDUCATION (MILK, CHILDREN).
  BRITISH GUIANA (EDUCATION).
  BRITISH GUIANA (EDUCATION).
  KENYA.
  KENYA.
  PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) ACT.
  PETROLEUM (PRODUCTION) ACT.
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  POTATOES (IMPORTS).
  POTATOES (IMPORTS).
  CHINA (COTTON GOODS).
  CHINA (COTTON GOODS).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (PORT GLASGOW).
  UNEMPLOYMENT (PORT GLASGOW).
  TRANSPORT (TRUNK ROADS).
  TRANSPORT (TRUNK ROADS).
  INCOME TAX.
  INCOME TAX.
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (PENSIONED EMPLOYES).
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (PENSIONED EMPLOYES).
  BOGUS CHARITIES.
  BOGUS CHARITIES.
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
LAND DRAINAGE PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
DARLINGTON CORPORATION TROL- LEY VEHICLES (ADDITIONAL ROUTES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DERBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
DONCASTER CORPORATION (TROL- LEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
READING CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
GRIMSBY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (COWES) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (KEYHAVEN) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARYPORT) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (PAIGNTON) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (WHITLEY BAY) BILL.
Read 2a (according to Order), and committed.
PENSIONS (GOVERNORS OF DOMINIONS, ETC.) BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

HOUSING BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on re-commitment of the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: There are a number of Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. They are all technical and drafting Amendments and with your Lordships' permission I will move them all en bloc. I beg to move that the Amendments proposed to be made by the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills be agreed to.
Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee be agreed to.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) BILL. [H.L.]
Amendments reported (according to Order).
Clause 233 [Provision of landing places, vessels, ambulances, etc.]:
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, in moving the Amendments to this Bill which are down in my name I think I ought to explain that they have been introduced by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, of which I was a member. Their object is to bring the Bill into conformity with the provisions of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill, which has now been passed. It was not possible to insert them before, until it was absolutely certain that the London County Council (General Powers) Bill would be passed into law this Session. The Amendments are purely consolidation, and without them the Consolidation Bill would not be complete.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I merely wish to say that the London County Council fully support the Amendments to be proposed by the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I beg to move the first Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 169, line 6, leave out ("shall maintain any") and insert ("may, if they think fit, maintain all or any of the").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 169, line 14, at end insert:
("Nothing in this subsection shall be taken to affect the operation of Section two hundred and twelve of the Port of London (Consolidation) Act, 1920.").—(The Earl of Lucan.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Seventh Schedule [Enactments repealed.]
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 251, after line 14, insert:

("26 Geo. 5 & 1 Edw. 8, c.

The London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1936.

Section forty three.")

(The Earl of Lucan.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LAND REGISTRATION BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

SHOPS BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the consideration of Commons Amendments read.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to this Bill be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
[The references are to Bill No. 74.]
In the Title, leave out ("reward") and insert ("purposes of gain").
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment, and I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out from ("the") to the end of the line and insert ("business of lending books or periodicals when carried on for purposes of gain")
Clause 1, line 11, leave out from the second ("the") to the end of line 12 and insert ("business of lending books or periodicals when carried on for purposes of gain")
Clause 1, line 16, leave out from ("the") to the end of line 19 and insert ("business of lending books or periodicals is not carried on for purposes of gain other than that of making profit for some philanthropic or charitable object (including any religious or educational object) or for any club or institution which is not itself carried on for purposes of gain.")
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, the first three Amendments inserted by the Commons in Clause 1, page 1, lines 8, 11 and 16, are purely drafting Amendments, and I beg to move that they be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT.
Page 1, line 19, after subsection (2) insert:
("(3) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Act, the Shops

595
Acts, 1912 to 1934, shall not apply to any library which, on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-six, was carried on by a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1928, mainly for the purpose of affording to its members means of education or recreation, so long as the following conditions are complied with, that is to say:—

(a)That the library continues to be carried on by the society mainly for the purpose aforesaid;

(b)That no pecuniary profit is directly derived from the lending of books or periodicals at or from the library;

(c)That no person employed about the business of any shop occupied by the society is engaged about the business of the library.")

THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, there is also a Commons Amendment to insert a new subsection (3). This is designed to safeguard the rights of co-operative societies which have established lending libraries for the benefit of their members. I am not quite certain that the Amendment is really necessary, but the Commons in their wisdom have decided that cooperative societies should be reassured thereby, and I am glad to say that provision has been made to ensure that the privilege thereby granted to them cannot be abused. I therefore beg to move that the Commons Amendment be agreed to.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Earl of Iddesleigh.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FOOD SUPPLY IN WAR TIME.
LORD PHILLIMORE LORD PHILLIMORE rose to inquire from His Majesty's Government what steps they have taken and propose in order to make provision for an adequate food supply in time of war; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the supply of food in time of war is a part of the problem of defence. I venture to say that it is as much a part of that problem as, for instance, the work to which those valuable lives lost only yesterday at Woolwich Arsenal were so honourably devoted. It is indeed an essential part of the problem. The starvation of the enemy, with a view to forcing his defeat by surrender, is, after all, one of the oldest problems of war. It was a measure which we
596
ourselves did our best to employ during the last War. It was a measure which our enemies did their best to employ by means of the unrestricted submarine warfare. It was a measure which reduced the very capital of France to the eating of rats in the war of 1876. It is, in fact, one of the recognised warlike measures by which you proceed to defeat your enemy. How many strong fortresses, how many castles, in spite of their gallant soldiers, have been forced to surrender by the use of this measure!
I propose first of all to dwell on the nature of the danger; next to ask the Government what steps they are taking to meet it; and lastly, to outline—and I shall only be able to outline—certain measures of defence which I think take priority over other measures which could be put forward. Our Navy, we are fond of saying, largely exists to defend our overseas commerce. If that is the case they have to defend amongst our imports that one-third of the total weight of imports which consists of food. It is with that one-third of our total imports that my speech will deal. No victories on foreign fields are possible to men who are half-starved or are starved outright. No bombing of our cities can ever be as vital to our existence as the simple warlike measure of starvation. All the world knows our weakness. Every boy who can pick up a book and read it can find out all that there is to know about the matter. There is therefore no need for reticence on this subject. There is nothing to conceal, and no reason why we should try to conceal it.
As to the degree of the danger, it really is extraordinary that only eighteen years after the War has finished we should have so completely lost the attitude of mind with which we finished that War. Then we said: "We have been caught napping this time. Never again!" Commissions and Committees sat on the subject, discussed the problem, put forward measures for its solution, and nothing whatever has been done. Nothing has been done by this Government nor by other Governments. And yet when the whole question of defence again presented itself in its present rather lurid colours, surely the first thing to consider was how to defeat this fearful menace against our whole

597
existence. It is quite sufficient for my purpose to remind your Lordships that only on June 25 Sir Samuel Hoare, the First Lord of the Admiralty, stated that within these shores our normal stocks of food are only for six weeks, and of raw materials, three months. That is the margin on which we gamble, and we place on the table the whole existence of this country.
Need I remind your Lordships that at the end of the last War it was variously calculated that we had escaped starvation and defeat by a margin of between two and six weeks? No phase of that War presented the same dangers as the submarine campaign, which restricted our food supplies. Need I remind your Lordships that during the whole of 1917 our Government were trying to build up a stock of wheat in this country amounting to thirteen weeks' supply, and that they failed to do it? Need I remind your Lordships that at one time stocks of sugar were down to three days' supply, and three days only? I heard that only the other day from the noble Lord, Lord Ernie, who was in charge of the production of food at that time. I cannot imagine what has calmed our mind and led us to this indifference. If it be contended that the introduction of the convoy system towards the close of the last War removed the worst of the menace, surely it can never be contended that the far more dangerous air attack on our incoming merchant vessels will be met by that same measure of protection. To bunch twenty, thirty, forty ships together in order to present a more vulnerable object of attack to a squadron of aeroplanes surely can never be our answer again as far as the narrow seas are concerned.
And then, if we are to rely on the Navy and convoy protection, what Navy have we got? We started the last War with 110 cruisers. I am told to-day that we have fifty, and that if we are lucky we shall have seventy in five years' time. And in the last War we used the Japanese to convoy our merchant vessels through the Mediterranean and, only to mention one other State, the United States to convoy our merchant vessels across the Atlantic. Are we going to have those allies in the next war? Your Lordships may not know the figures as to the convoys, and I stress them because they
598
show the enormous demand put on the Navy. During the last sixteen months of the War there were no fewer than 1,134 ocean-going convoys, and beyond that there were 51,000 odd short sailings, every one of which required naval protection by either cruisers, trawlers, sloops or destroyers. It required fifty cruisers alone to convoy our merchant ships down to Sierra Leone, and eighty-five destroyers—how many have we to-day?—were engaged in our western approaches alone and only on convoy work. Altogether there were 3,727 small craft engaged in anti-submarine measures in the year 1918. Where are we going to find them to-day? Beyond all this there were 1,000 aircraft operating under the Navy from sixty-six bases at the end of the last War. I believe the corresponding figure to-day is 217 aeroplanes.
It is of interest to note that in one day in 1918 there were in the Mediterranean 350 British ships of 1,400 tons and over. What would our position have been if most unfortunately we had been at war with one of the Mediterranean Powers possessed of a considerable navy? Let your Lordships remember at the same time that the tonnage of our Mercantile Marine is, I believe, inferior to what it was at the time of the Great War and has declined by 15 per cent. since 1930. Let your Lordships remember, too, that such tonnage as there may be is contained in larger, and therefore fewer, ships, so that the risk attaching to each ship is all the greater. And we must remember that we had virtually, so long as we retained the mastery of the seas, the whole neutral mercantile tonnage of the world working for us in the last War. Can we hope for such a thing again? We are told that the whole strength of the Government is now going into the work of building up our defences. I think no one would deny that it is high time that our strength was so directed. I only hope that it is not too late. I want to ask the Government what steps they are taking, what steps they have taken, and what steps they propose to take to meet the fearful menace which will exist as long as this country is an island, supporting a population for which it cannot grow sufficient food.
It is, perhaps, one reason for our indifference in this matter that when my grandfather was born this particular risk

599
did not attach to this country. By the time he died the situation had altered, and we had become a country largely dependent on overseas supplies for our food. Up to the present all we have been told by the Government is that the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence—and a busy man he must be—said on May 27 that a Sub-Committee under his chairmanship was examining all aspects of our food supply in time of emergency. They included, for example, the protection of shipping, security in ports, distribution and transport questions and reserve of stocks. Your Lordships will note that there is one notable omission. The production of food in this country is not mentioned as part of his reference.
I would point out that the Sub-Committee of which your Lordships have also heard, and which is presided over by Sir William Beveridge, is limited at the present stage to considering questions of rationing and consumption. It is in fact a Committee set up to count its chickens before they are hatched, because if there is no food to supply, what is the point of considering rationing? It is the work of the previous Committee to supply the eggs from which these chickens will be hatched. Is there any sign of that Committee installing an incubator or, even better, going a bit broody? I see no signs whatever, and as far as I know the first measure that should be taken—namely, consultation with the trades affected—has not even been commenced. Have the Government, have this Committee, taken note of the very numerous Committees and Commissions of reconstruction and of safety which, during and after the War, considered this very point? I regret that owing partly to the difficulty that besets all your Lordships, that of having too many tasks to perform, the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the noble Lord, Lord Ernie, are not with us in person to-day. All three of them at one time or another have presided over Committees or Commissions which have gone with the utmost thoroughness into these very questions. Has any notice been taken of their Reports, and why must we wait eighteen years, until the danger is as pressing as it is to-day, before we put into operation any of the measures which those very able Committees recommended?
It is not as if this particular measure of defence could be said to be directed against any country whatever. It is a purely pacific measure which threatens nobody and hurts nobody; and indeed there is no possible reason for concealing our weakness or need for going into this matter. So long as this Achilles' heel of our position stands open for all the world to see, so long is it a direct invitation to what we are accustomed to call the aggressor to come at us on that heel. After all, we have begun to recognise rather tardily that our influence in the counsels of the world depends on our strength and on very little else. So long as this great menace hangs over us, our strength is reduced by a proportion which I would not like to lay down but which, if I were an enemy, I would consider vital. There is therefore no sort of reason why prompt and quick measures should not be taken with regard to this problem. The provision of food supply in time of war would be, after all, the equivalent of many cruisers. It would be the equivalent of a good many divisions, and, without it, no divisions, no cruisers, could be of any use.
There is one other allied difficulty to which I wish to refer before I pass on to the measures which I think should be taken. That is the difficulty of mercantile tonnage. I have already referred to the fact that our mercantile tonnage is going down the hill. One-third of what that merchant fleet carries is, broadly speaking, foodstuffs. To the extent that you can relieve our merchant navy, possibly only at the beginning of the war, the most vital moment, of having to carry a proportion of these foodstuffs, to that extent you will make room for the necessary munitions of war which in the next war we are bound to require from foreign countries. It is a matter of common agreement that the next war will be, even more than the last, a war of material. It will demand all our man power either in the Services or in the factories, and, even so, we shall in all probability have to import not only raw materials for our munitions but also some of the finished products. So anything that lightens the demand on British mercantile tonnage becomes of the utmost importance. In the last War it was only with great difficulty, during the period of unrestricted submarine warfare, that we got neutral

601
vessels to ply to our ports. In the end the position got so desperate that the Shipping Controller, after pinching and paring all the committees of supply, reported to the Government that there was not enough mercantile tonnage for both food and munitions, and the Government took the fateful decision that munitions must take priority over food.
Fortunately the end of the War robbed us of the most ghastly part of that picture, but that decision was deliberately taken, and what it meant to the nation, or would have meant if the War had extended longer, I tremble to think. In short, in the last War the food available was inadequate, and it is more than certain, that in the next war it will be so too. Even in times of peace we import a tonnage of wheat of about 400,000 per month, and it may surprise some of your Lordships to know that, also monthly, we import 660,000 tons if iron ore and scrap; and in the beginning of a war that latter importation would be of far-reaching importance. What I am trying to point out to noble Lords is that unless we can free some tonnage at the beginning of the next war, assuming it to be a war of the same character as the last, we shall have to make that same decision again as to whether it is to be food or whether it is to be munitions, and I expect we shall have to come down on the side of munitions.
So far I have dealt with the nature of the menace. Now I should like to make a few suggestions as to the precautions that ought to be taken. There is one feature of our present food supply which stands out above all other features, and that is our dependence on the imported cereal. I have said that one-third of our total imports consists of foodstuffs. One half of our total imports of foodstuffs consists of wheat and 63 per cent. of our imported foodstuffs consists of cereals. I am speaking now of weight, not of values; it is weight that in this particular matter is of the greatest importance because we are considering freight and shipping. Please bear in mind, my Lords, that we are enormously dependent on the importation of cereals from abroad, that these cereals constitute the great bulk of the foodstuffs we have to import and for which we have to find tonnage. How are we to ease that situation? Personally I should be glad
602
to see a moderate extension of the wheat subsidy, say by another million quarters, which I think would conduce to the bringing of more of the countryside under arable cultivation, and would certainly by that substantial amount add to our security.
But that will not touch the main question, which is the old problem that faced Joseph many years ago in Egypt when "he gathered up all the food of the seven years which were in the land of Egypt and laid up the food in cities" against the seven years of dearth that he anticipated. On the other hand Joseph "gathered corn as the sand of the sea, very much, until he left numbering, for it was without number." I cannot believe that our civil servants would ever proceed with that same sublime disregard of statistics. This is one of those simple things which do not get done, apparently because they are so simple, and the truth of the matter is that if we could store an additional three months' supply of wheat in granaries over here we should have broken, I will not say the problem, but the worst of the problem. We should have afforded the Navy that breathing space at the beginning of a war which would probably be required to hunt the enemy into their own ports.
What would that cost? As far as I can calculate, and it is only a rough calculation, the placing in stock of three months' supply of wheat in this country would not cost the nation more than about £1,000,000 a year. Neither would there be any difficulty about it physically or commercially of any weight. At the present time there is a possible supply of wheat in the world of 285,000,000 bushels. Of that amount three months' extra supply in this country would only want one-sixth. That one-sixth is already waiting to come over here on the eastern terminal points in Canada. The only question is to transfer that which is waiting to come over to this side. Providing actual purchase and the storage of this wheat were left in the hands of the trades that understand it, there is no room for any doubt as to deterioration of the article whatever. After all, as I have just pointed out, Joseph laid his wheat up for seven years, and under my scheme it would only have to be laid up for six months at the outside.
It would be most simple and most effective if this storage was carried out at the various mills, and probably in proportion to their capacity. I bring this forward, not because I am a small miller, but because I know that the handling of the transport of this foodstuff would be immensely cheapened by treating it in that way, and handling and transport would be very important in time of war. I think, too, it is important to remember that there are altogether, big and small, about 500 flour mills in this country. Supposing you dispersed your stores over half that number, that measure of dispersal would be a very considerable insurance against the risk of air attack. The millers who have already operated—and I hope my noble friend Lord Peel will support me in this—the Wheat Subsidy Act very much to the satisfaction of those who are concerned, can be quite well trusted to be nationally minded about this matter and not to make money out of it.
How do I come to my £1,000,000 a year? I come to it partly by the very simple calculation that at present prices the extra amount of wheat required would cost about £10,000,000, and I allow roughly so much per cent. interest on that amount. The next item of expense would be the provision of storage accommodation. The facts in regard to the storage accommodation are very well known—I mean as to the construction of silos and so on—and we can say that, even if we have to construct afresh the whole amount of additional storage accommodation required, it would not cost us more than about £12,000,000 or £13,000,000, so that you have together there a sum of £23,000,000 on which you have to charge the annual interest against the nation. At this point I think it is well to remove any misapprehension which may have attached to a statement made by Mr. Runciman in another place, when he mentioned that there was only storage capacity for ten days' supply in this country.
LORD STRABOLGI: Ten weeks.
LORD PHILLIMORE: Ten days. At the moment he was speaking of public granaries and warehouses only, and he subsequently corrected himself, but I have found that that misapprehension has got very wide advertisement. The facts
604
so far as I can ascertain them are that in public granaries and millers' silos at ports there is at the present time, and generally, about twelve weeks' supply of wheat and flour, and that there is in the hands of bakers between two and four weeks supply, so that altogether you may be pretty sure that, apart from the English wheat harvest, there is about one-quarter of our wheat requirements normally existing in the country. My proposal would be to add another three months' supply to that amount.
I believe that there is already a certain amount of excess storage which is not being used, and it is a fact that millers are increasing their storage, so that I do not anticipate that quite such large sums as I have indicated would be required. There might be one other cost to meet, besides the interest on these outlays and the sinking fund. This would be required to extinguish the cost of the buildings. There might be some loss occasioned by market movements which would affect the three months' supply in hand, but I anticipate it might be possible to hedge against such losses, and in any case, if there are to be such losses, it makes it all the more incumbent on the Government to take the first step towards this, because the longer this process of accumulating a reserve goes on the more cheaply we shall be able to do it. Obviously if we went into the market tomorrow and said we wanted so many million tons extra of wheat, we should at once bull the market against ourselves, but if it can be spread over a period there is no reason to anticipate any considerable rise. Now, are the Government prepared with a scheme which will take the place of what I suggest, or are they willing, as I hope, that the nation should pay this small premium for its security? So far I have dealt only with the national reserve of wheat, and I have given your Lordships my reasons for thinking it is the most important part of the problem. I put it first because it is first in order of time. It can be done most quickly. It presents no difficulties.
Now I turn to the rest of the problem of our food supply in time of war, and I will deal with that in a very few brief sentences. I will only say this, that at the request of the Minister of Health, I think during the War, the Royal Society was asked to examine the then nutrition

605
of the people, to make recommendations, and to say what were the minimum requirements of a working man. Your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I have left the figures behind me, but the effect of those figures was this, that the cereals in the workers' food contributed practically, as you would expect, the carbo-hydrates required, but that meat, butter and eggs contributed very nearly the whole of the fats and by far the largest portion of the proteins that a working man must have if he is to do his work. Where are those proteins and fats, which the munitions worker and the soldier must have in time of war, coming from? Can you afford to devote to their carriage over here as much shipping as is now in use? Can you guard that shipping against submarine attack and air attack? If you cannot, as I believe you cannot, what measures are you going to take to encourage the production of these foods in this country? I beg to move.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on the very moderate way in which he presented a case which I venture to say is devastating. I understand that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will reply, and I hope he will answer the very pertinent questions which the noble Lord has put before your Lordships. The principal question is: Why have not the Government acted? They have known of this problem. We were told by the Secretary of State for War that the situation was desperate, that it was critical, that it could only be compared to the days immediately preceding the War in 1914. He said that in a speech which I ventured to criticise the other day in your Lordships' House. The Secretary of State for War has not been repudiated. The Government therefore accept the situation—I do not, but they do—and they should not have neglected this problem. Neglected it they have. The noble Lord referred to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade about the storage of wheat, and I understood from that that Mr. Runciman declared that in the ports there is storage for 1,500,000 tons of wheat, equivalent to ten weeks' supply or, as the noble Lord says, counting what is in the hands of millers and bakers about twelve weeks' supply. On March 1 last, according to the Corn Trade News, there were only 214,000 tons
606
in store, or about ten days' supply. That was on March 1, six days before the Germans re-entered the Rhineland and created a very serious international crisis.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him, but I should like to say that it was subsequently made quite clear that that was the supply contained in public granaries at the ports.
LORD STRABOLGI: I accept that at once, but that does not weaken the strength of the noble Lord's argument, an argument which I wish to support. During the last two or three years there has been in several countries a very heavy surplus of wheat. The Canadian Government have been taking over the surplus in Canada in order to stabilise prices and relieve Canadian growers. There are still stored in Canada immense quantities of wheat at Government expense. I should have thought it would have been the simplest thing in the world—I would very much like to know whether this solution has occurred to the Government—to come to an arrangement with the Canadian Government by which that same wheat should be stored here and released and paid for as it is required. Surely we could come to an arrangement of that sort with a Dominion Government, and I cannot for the life of me understand why nothing of the kind has been done in this case.
Now, in view of what is happening, it would not be so cheap to do that. As the noble Lord said, if the Government suddenly go into the market as large buyers they will have to pay handsomely for wheat. If we had not waited so long we could have had the wheat much cheaper. Last year there was widespread failure of crops in the Argentine, and this year, as your Lordships are aware, very serious havoc has been caused in the wheat-growing areas of the United States by the drought. I have here a cutting from The Times in which the New York correspondent of that paper says it is calculated that 100,000,000 bushels of wheat have been lost. The same thing is happening in some of the prairie provinces of Canada. Therefore the great surplus which was available last year will not be so great when we begin to act. Furthermore, I would remind your Lordships, the export of wheat from Russia

607
has been diminished. The population of that country is increasing, the standard of living is rising, and Russia will not export so much wheat. Therefore the visible surplus will not be so great in future. That is proved by the hectic gambling of the last few days in the Chicago Wheat Pit. The Government will cost the country dearly when they have to increase the supplies of wheat in this country.
The noble Lord who moved this Motion hoped that it was not too late. I hope so too, and I hope also that he and his colleagues, who have the whip hand over the Government in this House, will press the matter. We are only a few on this side. We will support and help, but we shall be accused of partisanship. I am not speaking as a partisan. I entirely agree with the noble Lord about the new factor introduced by aircraft. We had a very difficult task in the last War in maintaining overseas supplies because of the new weapon of the submarine. Not only the increased efficiency of aircraft but the immense numbers of aircraft built by foreign Powers will represent a most serious menace if we are ever again engaged in war.
That brings me to the question of storage at the ports. They will be the most tempting targets for air attack. Everyone knows that. They are the heel of Achilles of which the noble Lord spoke. Therefore I hope that this problem will be tackled from the point of view of storage being provided in less vulnerable districts. Many of your Lordships have been to Malta. I wonder if the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, has seen the wonderful granaries hewn out of the rock by the Knights of St. John, where years of supply of wheat could be stored so that Malta could stand a siege. They are about the only storehouses to-day which are practically immune from air attack. We could do the same thing with modern concrete and reinforced steel construction quite easily and cheaply.
With regard to the cost of storing wheat, I have seen a statement that does not diverge very much from that of the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore. To store six months' supply instead of twelve weeks' supply would cost about £1,250,000. That is less than the cost of one cruiser. Imagine the relief of the Commander-in-Chief of the Grand
608
Fleet, if we were involved in another war, at knowing that at any rate the country was supplied with foodstuffs and other essentials, and that he could devote his energies, instead of being exercised about the safety of trade routes, to the Royal Navy's proper function of destroying the enemy forces. The same thing would apply to the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, who would be equally concerned.
This is not, of course, only a question of wheat, although, as the noble Lord said, that is the bulkiest of the imports of food and the one of which there should be certain supply. I know that when our own harvests come in and when the harvests are transhipped across the Atlantic we have a better cereal supply, but I should very much like to ask the noble Viscount who is sitting on the Woolsack to say, when he replies, something about the frozen meat position. I understand that in this country we are fortunately placed as regards storage for chilled meat and frozen meat. I believe that is the case. But that again is a seasonal trade and it is surely elementary that we should always arrange that there is a minimum stock of frozen meat kept in the country. That is another great bulk import. The noble Lord mentioned Sir Samuel Hoare's statement about the three months' supplies of raw materials, and we must not forget those raw materials. I admit that food is perhaps the most essential, but if we are engaged in a war in the future, it may last a long time. It depends on who our enemy is. We shall have to keep up our employment, our exports and our credit, and there are great bulk supplies of raw material—of cotton, wool, timber, jute, certain metals, oil and so on—which we must have. I hope that fact is not being lost sight of.
I do not want to widen the debate, but as we have mentioned raw materials I must in a sentence or two, if I may, refer to the question of oil. Without oil in the country you cannot move your food about; the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, will agree to that. I know what the Government have been doing with regard to encouraging hydrogenation and that sort of thing, but I have had calculations made by experts, which are not challenged, showing what it would cost to make us self-supporting here with oil supplies from our own coal.

609
The figures are really fantastic. That is not practicable. You can do a great deal to encourage low-temperature carbonisation, the greater production of benzene, and such processes. But the Lord Chancellor is aware of these figures, and he knows that to make ourselves self-supporting in this country would cost us a capital expenditure of £100,000,000, which is too great. Moreover, we should employ only 50,000 extra miners and 50,000 other workmen and throw out of work a great many sailors and dock workers. We can therefore rule that plan out. I do, however, advocate not only that serious consideration should be given—we have had enough of that—but that action should be taken now with regard to the storage of oil supplies in this country also.
I have a calculation here which I know is approximately correct—it has been "vetted" in the most knowledgable quarters—to show that a year's peacetime supply of oil, three or four months, I suppose, in wartime, but still something substantial, could be provided at a total capital cost of £22,750,000, which includes the capital cost of the oil, £11,250,000, and the cost of storage—that is, with the tanks in a less vulnerable position than that in which they mostly are now. Your Lordships will be aware that the most conspicuous objects of interest at any of our naval ports are the great oil storage tanks. They are the first things you see when you come up Southampton Water. We should, of course, have to have storage for the extra supply, placed well away from them, and we should need for that extra storage an expenditure of £8,500,000. Then we should have to spend £3,000,000 cm extra storage for petrol under ground. I have been referring heretofore to heavy oil, which is less vulnerable in storage than petrol; but you need underground petrol stores as well. You will also have to have a subsidy scheme to set up extra cracking plants so as to make ourselves perfectly safe in oil reserves in time of war. Above all, I hope we may have some success from the deep drillings which are now going on, and that we shall discover some great pools of natural petroleum underneath our own soil.
In the meantime we have no excuse for further dawdling and dilatory action. The Government are sadly lacking in
610
leadership. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Stanhope, has come into the House; he has now joined the Cabinet, and I hope he will put a little ginger into the Government on this and other questions, for they badly need it. The Labour Party has a policy that we have been advocating for many years, and I venture to remind the Government and your Lordships that it is an obvious policy. It is not only a war policy, but it is a peace policy too. We believe that the Government should make themselves responsible for the bulk purchase and storage of the main articles of foodstuffs and raw material for commerce and particularly of wheat and meat. By so doing not only would the country be safer in time of war, but we could also prevent fluctuations in the price in peace time. We could buy wheat when it was cheap and store it—to take the wheat example—and could then prevent the sort of thing that is happening to-day. Your Lordships will be aware that already flour has gone up in price and that the price of bread has been increased already by one halfpenny a loaf, and further advances are foreshadowed.
A few days hence this House and the other House will be discussing the new Unemployment Regulations and what is the least amount that the Government can dare to offer to the unemployed man and his family. That figure will be upset if you put up the price of bread. A penny on the 4-lb. loaf means a difference of 7d. to 1s. weekly to every family. But if we had a system of Government purchase, storage and release, as we have been advocating for years in my Party, we could iron out those differences and at any rate let the working man and, still more important, his wife, know approximately what the main articles of food are going to cost from week to week. At present, once you have to put up the price of food in this country, you upset the results of collective bargaining over wages for the men in work and you worsen the lot of everyone out of work, or, at any rate, everyone on a fixed income or salary. That has been our policy, a policy which has been advocated with great brilliance by a right honourable friend of mine, Mr. Thomas Johnston, and which has been adopted by the official Labour Party. If we had had better leadership in our last period of

611
office, we should have carried it through, and there would then have been no need for the noble Lord to bring the matter forward to-day—though no one would, I am sure, be more pleased than he if he had not had to do so, and we should have missed the brilliant speech which he made.
I should like to make this point also. The Conservative Party, which is so strong in this House, dominates the present Government. I was always brought up to believe from my earliest days that the one thing the Conservatives would do was at any rate to look after the defences of the country properly; see that we were strong in case of trouble with foreigners; that we kept up a strong Army and a strong Navy. I thought that was what the Conservatives always did.
LORD PHILLIMORE: We have got a National Government.
LORD STRABOLGI: The Conservative Party dominates the National Government. They cannot shuffle out of their responsibilities like that. The Conservatives have a clear majority in both Houses and are well able to bring the Government to book, and have been so for a long time, on this as on other questions. As has been stated in another place, the Government had not even enough heavy gun ammunition for the Navy during the crisis last autumn. The Government, with their great majority, have left us short even of shells for our capital ships in a time of crisis, to say nothing of food supplies, frozen meat and so on. They are utterly incompetent; their incompetence is exposed every day.
At any rate all democracies are not quite as bad. The French Government have moved in this matter, I am glad to say. The Socialist Party is strongly represented in France, and the Government are moving with some vigour. I would call your Lordships' attention again to the Bill that has just passed through the French Parliament giving the Government very wide powers over the supplies of wheat in France. The French are going to be Safe, at any rate, and perhaps they can help us. I wish, as my noble friend Lord Snell reminds me that we had the Channel tunnel, at any rate, at the present time; we might then be able to draw wheat and other supplies from France in case of trouble.
612
Under the Bill which the French Minister of Agriculture has passed through Parliament the Department is authorised to fix the price of wheat, flour and bread, and will devote particular attention to the narrowing of the present gap between wheat prices and bread prices. It will have a monopoly of the import and export trade in wheat and flour.
The noble Lord wants the whole matter left in the hands of private traders in this country, and says that he is confident that they will not take advantage of the situation to profiteer. I wish we could be as confident as he is. Our policy is that of the French Government as represented in that Bill. Once more, as I have ventured to do before in your Lordships' House, I would indict the Government for their policy on the one hand of trying to encourage production of certain home foods, as the noble Lord has said, with their cattle subsidy and wheat subsidy, and on the other deliberately restricting the production of other home-produced foods. I will take two examples. The first is potatoes. Your Lordships know what happens there: you are not allowed to grow potatoes now without a permit, and if you grow potatoes without a permit you are fined, and if you do not pay the fine you go to prison. It is a crime to grow food now in the potato fields of this country. The second example—I do not see a representative of the Department here—is fish. The fisherman is not allowed to catch fish now without a permit. We are restricting the number of active fishing vessels at work on the coasts of Britain at the present time, restricting the supplies of fish in the country.
That is a criminal policy. We shall want all the fishermen and all the fishing vessels we can get if we are ever in trouble again. They were of the greatest assistance to us in the War not only as food producers but as auxiliaries to the Navy, and we are throwing these men out of work in order to keep up prices on the market. What sort of policy is that? What sort of Government is it which is tinkering with this question still? Commission after Commission has reported on the danger of the situation, and nothing has been done. There has been nothing but talk. The noble Lord mentioned the Minister for coordinating the Defence Services. He has

613
ray sympathy. That is all he has got. He has not got a proper staff, he is overburdened with work, he has to deal not only with supplies of munitions but with the planning of strategy, and it is a task which it is impossible for one man to perform. The rest of the Cabinet, except Lord Stanhope, who can prove an alibi, dithers and dodders and dawdles about, and heaven help us if a crisis comes.
LORD CRANWORTH: My Lords, I cannot but feel deeply grateful to my noble friend for bringing this matter before the House again, because in my personal capacity I have found the deep anxiety which people of this country feel on this matter. It is an anxiety which is not confined to the town but goes to the villages, and it goes through all ranks in this country. There is the very deepest anxiety on this matter, and I do not think that any of those—and I hope there may be many—who will read the speech of Lord Phillimore, will find that their anxiety is much lessened. Many instances have been given of the straits we were in during the War. The case of the three days' sugar supply, which I know to be an undoubted fact, was mentioned, and it was a fact which was used on many a platform when the sugar-beet subsidy came in. It was a very dominating factor on such platforms. There is one thing more which has not been mentioned, and that is the shortage of animal fat, which I believe came also to three days' supply, and which the Germans themselves admit was in the final event the main cause of their downfall.
I think every other nation, and I think every individual in this country—except perhaps a few extremists—knows that peace is the one thing that this nation seeks for earnestly, and means to have, but while we are in the position which has been disclosed to-day, and which we know to be a fact, we invite the attack of any nation which bears us ill-will, and we furnish a cause which may be decisive in promoting a very great war. Do we stand, to-day, in any better position than that in which we stood at the beginning of the last War? In spite of all the great efforts that the Ministry of Agriculture have made, and I would be the last to decry them, it is a fact that to-day there is less land under the plough than there was. It is a fact that to-day there are
614
fewer men employed on the land. It is true that there are more pigs in existence but, on the other hand, there are fewer cattle. Again the Germans, in their analysis at the end of the War, placed as one of the great factors of their downfall the fact that they placed reliance upon pigs rather than upon cattle. I think that situation is accentuated, to-day, when modern taste demands that no pig should have any fat upon it at all.
I know there is a school of thought, and a big school of thought, which does not accept the idea of the importance of this food question, and which says that there are other things to be thought of, such as petrol and metals, and that we must use all our efforts to having such a Navy as will drive our enemies back to their ports immediately. Our command of the sea might be temporarily lost for a short time, but it might be regained again, and it has been pointed out only too clearly that if we can save some cruisers from the duty of escorting vessels which are bringing in supplies of food they will then be available for other purposes. I want to recall to your Lordships the fact that there was a Committee set up at the end of the War on this point, and that they reported in these words:
"The experience of the present War leads to the conclusion that any measures which resulted in rendering the United Kingdom less dependent on the importation of foodstuffs during the period of a future war, and so in reducing the volume of seaborne traffic, would greatly relieve the strain upon the Navy and add immensely to the national security."
We seem to have forgotten that.
We have talked about storage in granaries, and a three months' supply has been mentioned. I am a little doubtful whether that is enough. I hope it is, but that is not the only sort of storage we want. We want storage in the stack. At the present moment there is storage in the stack after harvest, but it gets less and less and is practically exhausted at the present moment. I should have thought it was possible to have corn stored in the stack for a longer period by means of having some bonus for corn so kept, such bonus to be taken off at the other end. There is also another question of importance, and that is the productivity of the soil to replenish the stores when they become exhausted. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware that eighty years

615
ago in this land we practically fed the whole of our population, numbering 24,000,000, and the staple food in this country was not what it is to-day, tinned abominations and aperients. On the contrary, it was good English bread and good English beer; and although the standard of wages was miserable, and the standard of living was deplorable, it remains a fact that then the standard for the Army was five inches higher and the chest measurement was four inches more than they are to-day, and rejects were practically negligible. I think that that is worth remembering.
In spite of the efforts of the Minister of Agriculture, and I would in no way wish to decry them—no man in my opinion has ever done so much for the industry of agriculture as he has—nevertheless it is the case that there is less arable land and there are fewer men employed than there were a year or two ago. We must remember that there are 5,000,000 fewer acres in arable cultivation than there were fifty years ago. I know how much the Minister has done. I know that this problem has been lessened by the fact that the present Government have done so much for wheat and so much for sugar. But why have they not done more? Why is it that the productivity of the soil is, as it is undoubtedly, less than it was three or four years ago? I suggest to your Lordships that it is to a certain extent due to the fact that there has been no balanced plan for the whole of agriculture, that where one industry has cried louder than another for help it has got help, and, if that help has been sufficient, other industries less well placed have overflowed their proper boundaries and gone into that special branch of the industry. The great and notable case, of course, is that of milk. Where, owing to there being some slight profit in the sale of milk, the production of beef has gone down to a dangerous figure, the people who should be producing meat have gone into the production of milk, very often in districts where it is undesirable that milk should be produced. And so we heard the cries that "It is the beef man's turn next," and "Up horn and down corn" or the reverse.
I doubt if these things should be. I admit with the greatest pleasure that we have seen in the last few days a measure
616
to help beef. It does not give all that the beef industry wanted. Perhaps the beef industry would have got more had it not been for the cry, and for the very wise decision of the Government, to make national security the very next thing that they would tackle. But it does do something for beef and it will undoubtedly help. And there is a special point in that that I think is worthy of notice. I believe it is the intention that early matured beef will get some additional advantage. I welcome that for this reason, that it means the storage in this country of additional quantities of linseed and other cake, and that, it seems to me, adds some small but nevertheless valuable supplies which will be of use in time of war.
I think that a secure food policy brings together all classes of farmers. The noble Lord who has just sat down has shown that as far as his Party is concerned that is so. It brings together the people of the town and the people of the country, because the people of the town know that if there is a shortage of food it will be they who will be the first to suffer and not the people on the farms. It brings together the pacifist and the jingo. The one knows that he cannot have war unless his people are fed, and the other knows that a well-filled larder is no weapon of offence, but only of defence. There may be the cry that this will cost the country more. So far as I am concerned, I have no wish that it should cost the country one penny more. All that I am suggesting is that some few of these cruisers that will be used in escorting convoys of food to this country may be saved by the production of that corn and that meat in this country itself. That seems to me a worthy object, and I would suggest to your Lordships that whereas a cruiser is a wasting asset a prosperous agricultural countryside is an increasing asset, bringing in its wake employment, health and happiness.
EARL PEEL: My Lords, I am sure we are all extremely indebted to my noble friend, not only for introducing this subject but for supporting his arguments by such a wealth of accurate figures. It has this beneficent effect, that it makes it unnecessary for other speakers, among them myself, to deluge your Lordships with any great number

617
of figures. I was also grateful to the noble Lord opposite for the very impartial and non-Party speech which he delivered to us. He travelled very wide, as he admitted, and he wanted the Government to deal with all sorts of subjects—the control of wheat and oil and meat, and to manage the whole thing. The only trouble was that it has all to be done by Government; yet the Government on this side of the House at any rate is one of the most incompetent, dithering set of people, with the exception of my noble friend Lord Stanhope, that he has ever seen! It is obviously no good, therefore, recommending a policy of that kind to this Government. Well then, I thought we were going to get salvation from the other side, but when he began to speak of his own side it was almost more dithering and absurd than this Government; he said it had no leadership. And I came to this conclusion—very flattering to the noble Lord—that unless the noble Lord himself is to be the Leader of the Labour Party there is no salvation for this country at all.
Some very pertinent questions have been put to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Perhaps one may say first that the question of the security of our food supplies in time of war varies with the extent of our preparations for war, and therefore the first question that was put by my noble friend to the Lord Chancellor is: What has been done by the Government, and what is going to be done, to put our fighting forces on a secure basis? That is a very wide subject for him to deal with. But there is a further question. It is quite obvious that the security of this country in time of war depends very largely on our foreign policy. That lays a further burden on the Lord Chancellor, because he has got to explain exactly what our foreign policy is, and that, no doubt, is a further duty which he will have to discharge this evening. It is plain, I think, that if you can get a maximum security first of all from your maximum force, and if you have a certain number of allies, then there would be no difficulty, because the whole of your supplies of food and raw materials would come in from neutral countries. No doubt our shipping has deteriorated in proportion to world shipping in the last few years, yet there is a very large amount of world shipping
618
at the present moment which is capable of carrying any amount of food and raw material to this country. But unfortunately we cannot count on quite so satisfactory a position as that. We have to realise the additional factor brought in by the Air Force.
I am not for a moment going to suggest that the next war will be anything like an imitation of the last War, but I think it is very useful nevertheless to recall one or two incidents of the last War which may at least have some bearing on what is going to happen in the future. For the first two years of the War our supply of foodstuffs and of feeding stuffs was generally sufficient. Then gradually that began to be affected increasingly by the loss of tonnage through enemy action and by the diversion of tonnage for the transport of troops and munitions. In 1917 the shortage began to be severely felt. In 1918 there was a severe shortage of practically all kinds of imported feeding stuffs—barley, oats, maize, oilcake—and also of artificial fertilisers. The shortage of these feeding stuffs reacted on the home live-stock industry. The output of milk was hardly maintained, and the output of meat fell from 1917 to 1913 by 10 per cent. and from 1918 to 1919 by more than 25 per cent. of the pre-War average output—and that also at a time when there was a great shortage of tonnage for bringing food supplies and raw material from abroad. It was not until 1927–28, ten years after the War, that the volume of the home production of meat fully recovered from the reductions of herds and flocks necessitated by the War-time shortage of feeding stuffs. This shortage felt in the home output of meat reduced the whole output of British farms, and was not balanced by the tremendous efforts that were made by the Food Production Department and others to increase the quantity of food produced at home.
My noble friend has examined some of the supplies in which we are most vulnerable, and he has selected from a great many other matters the question of wheat. May I say that the figure given by the noble Lord opposite was a somewhat misleading figure? He stated, I think, that the quantity of wheat at a certain time at the ports amounted to only ten days' supply, but the millers have always something like a three weeks' supply, either in the form of flour or

619
wheat, in their granaries, and among the bakers there is also a supply. Therefore you have to add a good many weeks, four at least, to the figure that we were given by the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Phillimore has referred also to the possibility of increasing, by raising a little more money in quota payments, the wheat supply by another million quarters. I do not consider that a very large figure by which to raise it, because although the subsidy only applies to six million quarters of wheat a good deal more than six million quarters are grown at present in the country—something like eight millions. Of course the quota payment has to be spread more thinly over that larger surface, but I do not think the addition of one million quarters to the supply of wheat would make any very great difference. As to the appeal to the public spirit of the millers in carrying out the Wheat Act, I can endorse absolutely what was said by the noble Lord. There is no criticism of any kind to be brought against them. In fact, they deserve great credit for the way they have carried out the Wheat Act.
In addition to that the noble Lord has discussed this question of storage. Very intricate and technical points are involved in that question of storage of wheat. Even if we take the three months' supply that he has suggested, quite apart from the technical questions involved and apart also from the disturbance to other traders which would no doubt occur and which, however negligible it may be in time of war, has to be considered in time of peace, unless of course you put the whole business into the hands of the State as was largely suggested by the noble Lord—in addition to that you would have to be very careful to see that other stocks of wheat were not diminished in this country, because it is quite possible, if it were known there were large stocks to be turned over in the Government granaries, that might have a tendency to reduce the other supplies, in which case you would not gain very much. Nevertheless, I agree that that is a matter which ought to be fully gone into and considered, and I know it has been considered more than once by the Government. But I do not think that is anything like sufficient to meet the tremendous problem we are discussing to-day. We cannot separate one particular form of food from other forms of food. Home
620
supplies of meat, milk, and eggs are also in time of war highly vulnerable. Your Lordships know the enormous extent, for instance, to which the poultry business has increased in the last few years. That is a matter of common observation, quite apart from any figures with which we may be supplied. All these sources of food are highly vulnerable in time of war because we depend to so large an extent on imported feeding stuffs.
In time of war you may very rapidly be able to increase your wheat area, but to increase your meat very rapidly is far more difficult, except by a general destruction and slaughtering of your farm stock, which has the deplorable results that I pointed out were experienced in the last War. Moreover, we in these islands are in special difficulty as regards the question of meat, because the tendency would be more and more to import our meat from the other hemisphere, from Australia and from New Zealand, where you have, of course, a very long haul and where the use of your tonnage would be much less economical. This does urge upon us the necessity of putting the home live-stock industry on afar better footing than it is at present. In this particular relation I could quote many statistics. I have all the figures and they have been very carefully worked out not only in tonnage but also in matters of food units, but I do not wish to inflict these figures on your Lordships. But these statistics do show that the United Kingdom is far more dependent upon imported supplies of feeding stuffs for animals and poultry than it has ever been before. In the past ten years the tonnage of feeding grain—barley, oats, and so on—and fodder produced at home has declined by fully 20 per cent., while the tonnage of imported feeding stuffs has risen by about 25 per cent. The position as regards all these supplies which depend upon these feeding stuffs has deteriorated very seriously during the last six or seven years. It does seem to me, therefore, that quite apart from what you are going to do with wheat, we can only secure greater independence by a long-term policy which is designed to revive cultivation as a permanent matter of national defence.
I do not pretend to be a great authority on agriculture, as are my noble friends Lord Ernie and Lord Bayford, who are

621
sitting here. I only approach it, as it were, from certain particular angles and I rather appeal to them to confirm what I say. It has been suggested that an animal and a grass policy are not compatible with our arable policy, and that they do not really fit into each other. I would ask whether that is not a complete fallacy. I would also say this, that the extent to which cultivation is carried on in this country is very largely a matter of national policy. There are millions of acres capable of cultivation, which can be cultivated if a fair return is given to the farmer. Farmers are perfectly prepared and are capable of doing their part. If you can get this higher condition of cultivation, that again demands more supplies of feeding stuffs and fertilisers, a large part of which in that case you would be able to get from the country itself. The wheat subsidy has been referred to this afternoon, but the wheat subsidy is not nearly enough. It is only one part of the whole agricultural policy, because in large parts of the country you have barley and oats growing, and a great deal of the increased wheat growing in this country has been to the discredit, as it were, of oats and of barley.
So far as I have been able to obtain statistics there has been comparatively little of the grassland ploughed up in order to grow this extra amount of wheat, and the reason I think is obvious. It is that, if wheat comes into the rotation, a farmer, in considering whether he should grow wheat, has not only to consider the wheat subsidy but he will also consider what he is going to cultivate in the second and third years, and how the crops in those years will pay him. It becomes, therefore, again very largely a matter of Government policy as to whether they can secure that the different factors in the rotation bring in sufficient remuneration to the farmer. Clearly, the greater the output of grain in this country the greater the different classes of offals—I must not call them offals nowadays in the case of wheat, but wheat foods—that are available as feeding stuffs. Therefore, in order to render us less dependent than we are on imported feeding stuffs, it is necessary that the Government should have a long-term policy of this character which in the event of war would give us much greater
622
safety for the output of our meat, our milk and our eggs. Such a policy would also make us less dependent, because there would be more wheat in the country, on the supplies of imported wheat; it would reduce the vulnerability of our food supplies to enemy action; and, incidentally, as has been pointed out already, it would give far more freedom of action to our naval forces.
I do not see why in this respect you should separate your war policy from your policy in time of peace. It is quite clear that, with a policy of this kind steadily carried out—and I entirely agree, if I may say so, with my noble friend who spoke before me—you do want all these different productions in this country to be brought into relation with each other, and, as we have got, unfortunately, this diminishing area of land under cultivation, its best use has become far more valuable than it was thirty or forty years ago. A policy of this kind carried out largely, if you like as a war policy, would mean a certain disturbance in our fiscal policy, but, while regarding it first of all as a war policy, it would have an enormous benefit in times of peace, because it would give greater employment to the agricultural industry and it might commend itself to the towns, because they would see that they had a steady market in the country itself for their goods. This is important in view of the constantly diminishing area of international trade with which we are met on every hand. Therefore, if I may sum up with the suggestion I was going to make, it would be this. I do not deprecate my noble friend's suggestion, but I can sum it up in a few words—it is not so much a question of storing your grain as it is of speeding your plough.
LORD ERNLE: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for having made the mistake of thinking that this discussion began at a quarter past four; consequently I have not heard all the speeches which have already been made; but I want to put a point of view which I have not heard discussed by either of the two previous speakers and that is this. Agriculture is asking the Government a very difficult thing; it is asking the Government to lay down the programme of production in case of war; whereas it is the agricultural community itself that should lay down that

623
programme now and ask the Government for assistance on every point where it is needed. My suggestion would be that the principal agricultural bodies like the Royal Agricultural Society, the National Farmers' Union, the Central Landowners' Association, the Surveyors' Institution, the Land Agents' Society, and all of them, should be asked to frame a programme of production for application in the event of war. Then they should meet, put their programmes together, and when the final programme is completed they should submit it to the Government emphasising the points in which Government assistance is needed. In that way, and in that way only, do I think we should be really justified in asking the Government to do more than express their sympathy with the movement for production.
I take it that nobody has disputed the necessity of increasing our food supplies in time of war. To put it shortly, it is no good arming to the teeth if your teeth have nothing to chew. That is so obvious that everybody is of that opinion. There are certain other minor points, apart from that of the programme of agricultural production, which I should like to ask the Government if they have gone into. I am speaking from my own experience in taking office when the War had been going on for two years and a half. Examining the condition of the farms in this country, I found that some fifty farms, we will say, in a district were stripped bare of men, while others retained their full complement of labour, and in the districts around every blacksmith's shop was closed and similarly every saddler's shop. The first question I would like to ask the Government is whether, assuming, as I suppose we must assume, that we shall have labour conscription from the first, they have made any provision, and what it is, for the systematic calling up of labour from the land. It is no good the Government treating the rural population as a store-house of man-power. They must also look upon them as people who are carrying on an indispensable industry in time of war and they must govern their method of calling up men on that principle.
I should like to ask also if they have considered the method which was adopted in the last War when the final push for men took place. We were then asked to
624
provide 30,000 men from a depleted agricultural population. We did it, and we did it without friction, by doing it through the War Agricultural Committees. I should like to say that it would be one of the best preparations for war if those agricultural committees were asked to frame schemes for calling up the men in their districts, county by county, and for protecting the ancillary indispensable industries like the blacksmith's and even the saddler's. Saddlers, of course, are not so important as they were twenty years ago, but they are still important, and the blacksmiths are invaluable. This recruiting question is one which the Government ought to have considered and to have their plan ready now, and be able to tell us that they have one. There are certain other points of a similar kind, but I do not wish to trespass on your Lordships time by enumerating other practical preparations.
The noble Lord who preceded me spoke of a probable lack of concentrated foodstuffs. That is a very great problem, but I think it could be very largely met by improving our methods of grass treatment. We could probably double the nutritive value of our grass at the present moment. That is not an exaggeration. It is a practical calculation that has been made. There is something that we could set about doing at once and that we ought to do. If the Government would organise a lecture campaign on the subject by a man like Professor Stapledon through our grass country in these islands, I am quite convinced they would have a quick response from the men who own it, and they would be doing something very important to increase our supplies of concentrated foodstuffs.
There is another question to which I should like to refer. I have heard lately a great many people say that we should drop sugar beet and employ the land in growing wheat. I am sure that is a great mistake. The sugar-beet industry, through its by-products, provides a most important concentrated feeding stuff and one that we could very ill spare. Besides that, the land on which sugar beet is being grown will certainly produce, if properly cultivated, 25 per cent. more corn. Therefore the cry against the sugar-beet industry seems to me to be a

625
very great mistake. I am surprised that the Government, whose land policy generally I most cordially approve, should have put a fixed limit to the number of sugar-beet factories in the country and have said that no more are to be established. I doubt whether, from the point of view of preparation for war, that is at all a wise principle to have adopted. The question of storage has already been discussed. I think it is of some importance, but I do not think it is of such importance as the programme for agricultural production which I should like to see drawn up by the expert authorities of our own agricultural industry and, when completed, submitted to the Government.
Another thing to be remembered is that you cannot feed your men at the front unless you have preserved meat. I believe that at the present moment there is not in the whole country one single establishment capable of freezing meat. Surely that is a matter to which the Government should turn their attention. It is not going to be a paying proposition in ordinary times, but of course the question of price does not matter in time of war. It would be a great help to the farmer if he could send his beasts to the freezing factories and be saved the enormous expense of feeding cattle for the Christmas market. Another point to be taken into consideration is that during the War we had to supplement our bread corn by potatoes. I believe it is true that in this country we have not a single factory capable of turning out potato flour. Everybody who knows anything about potato growing knows that there may be in one year a positive glut of potatoes. What are you going to do with that glut? The unfortunate pigs are supposed to consume it, though I do not know whether they get very fat on it. We ought to have factories for making potato flour or, as an alternative, for making industrial alcohol—a spirit of the utmost value—as part of our agricultural operations.
When I took office at the Ministry of Agriculture, I had to consider the quickest way in which to increase the meat supply, and I believe that the "pigs, potatoes and Prothero" were for a time used as a sort of slogan. But you cannot fatten pigs without meal, and at that
626
time everything from the mill was wanted for bread. We had to mix barley into the bread, as everybody knows. Therefore you have to weigh the question whether it is better to feed grain through the pig to the human being or feed it direct to the human being. I think you will find that in time of war it is much better to feed the grain direct to the human being. Therefore the pig may not be the sheet anchor that we think it is. I do not know.
The main point which I rose to make is that the agricultural institutions of this country could not do a better thing than meet together and hammer out a programme, and when they have hammered out a programme submit it to the Government and ask the Government to assist them with its details. One of their proposals would, I hope, be the development of the nutritional value of our grass-lands and the consequent increase in their capacity to produce meat. Simultaneously we ought to be better provided with the means of dealing with cattle ripe for slaughter. I refer particularly to abattoirs and the plant for freezing meat. We felt the want of both during the late War. Our reserves of imported frozen meat were so near to exhaustion that the War Office appealed to us to supply troops serving in this country with fresh meat, until it could build up its reserves of imported frozen meat. The appeal, if known to the public, might have caused a panic. We succeeded in meeting the need without attracting attention. But the scarcity of abattoirs was the main difficulty. The point is one to which the Government might well give attention. I think that is all that I find it necessary to say now to an audience which knows as much of agriculture as I do.
LORD GLENRAVEL: My Lords, the reason why I am rising to-day to say a word or two on this subject is that it is a matter which has been very close to my heart for a great many years. I went into it very thoroughly and found that it was absolutely true that unless we could get extra supplies in case of war we could not keep the people fed. The matter has been going on for years. In 1897, discussions were held in another place and the result was that a Royal Commission was appointed. I think it

627
was a very strong Commission. It reported in 1904 or 1905, but no action was taken. In 1911 several of us did our best to get the Government to take action, but we did not succeed. If I may be allowed to refer to the other place, I had been asking questions on this subject, and the then Prime Minister replied to me on March 9, 1914, in these words:
"The Government have various aspects of the question of food supplies in time of war, including that suggested by the hon. Member, under consideration, but at present a final reply cannot be given."
We have had no final reply, and we know now that it is a possible thing for us to erect granaries, to encourage the growth of wheat, potatoes and other things like that, which are necessary for the upkeep of our people, and we want to feel that in time of war we shall not have to sacrifice thousands of our best sailors and a great deal of our tonnage in order to get the foodstuffs here.
At that period I went into the questions of the costs. I have them all on me. It would have cost £4,000,000 to provide granaries with all the modern equipment by which they could turn over the grain—the whole plant. That sum would have put up granaries all over England, as near the ports but as much secluded from view as possible. The extra cost during the coming years would not have been over £800,000 or £900,000. But nothing was done. To-day, I hear, prices are going up and for the next four or five months we have to rely very largely on Canada. If, however, we are in that position, I do not suggest that we should ask the Government to go and buy the grain, but I do suggest that they should put up the granaries and tell the various people that they will make advances on the stuff that is in there, provided that they will keep so many thousand quarters in hand in case they should be needed in time of war. That is not a matter which we can discuss here, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me for bringing it up in this way. But I think that the Government should appoint a strong non-Party Commission to go into the matter and see how this can best be done, and that the sooner we do it the better it will be for our country. From what I have heard lately from abroad, they are realising there that we depend very largely on two of the countries that are nearest to us for a great deal of our
628
farm produce. I am told that 30 per cent. of all our farm produce comes from Holland and Denmark. Those two countries are very liable to trouble in case of war and might find it impossible to send the stuff here. I hope that your Lordships will see your way to advise the Government very strongly to take action at once.
LORD CORNWALLIS: My Lords, I understand that the noble Lord who has just spoken has made his maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I trust that he will not think it at all impertinent or pushing for one who is only speaking a second time to offer him my sincere congratulations and to hope that we may hear him on many occasions. One knows that he had a great experience in the other House; I hope he will accept a welcome from one who gives it very sincerely and very modestly. I do not think that any of us need say any more about the seriousness of the situation or of the importance of the Motion which has been put before us to-day. I am not going back over the cereal question nor, perhaps, over the beef question, but if I may I will put to your Lordships just one or two points which are perhaps only minor ones but may have a little bearing on keeping up, for even a short time, the food supply of this country in time of war. Cold storage and freezing have been mentioned by several noble Lords during the course of the debate, but I think that that science is absolutely in its infancy. In the part of the country from which I come we are just learning a tremendous amount, not only about cold storage but also about gas storage, for fruit, vegetables and suchlike necessary articles of food. I was always brought up when young to believe that man cannot live by bread alone. Perhaps he wants beef, but he also wants fruit and vegetables to assist his nutrition.
Cannot the Government do something to help to get us over what the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, called, I think, the "six months' breather" that we may want? Two seasons ago I saw very good fruit simply shovelled into pits because there was no market. When there happened to be a glut here, I saw apples that we should have liked to send to the north simply thrown away because there was no market. Is it not possible, in these days of cold storage and gas

629
storage, to make sure that, when we have a supply of that kind, we may know that we can put some of it up, anyhow for six months. That would be useful if war should happen to come upon us suddenly—and we do not know exactly when it is coming. The same is true of the canning industry. This industry, round my neighbourhood, is growing; it is canning fruit and vegetables, and I cannot see why it should not be—as I think was mentioned by one noble Lord—extended to meat. Why should we not can our own bully-beef, our meat, when we have a canning industry started in this country?
To my mind, perhaps living very near this great town, it seems to me it is not only a question of what is going to happen if war comes suddenly. It is a much bigger question, a question as to the future policy with regard to the agricultural industry—the future supply of food. It is not only a question, it seems to me, of consumables, but a question of land. We have heard Lord Peel state that the area is diminishing. It is diminishing and it is not only diminishing in point of view of acres but also from the point of view of quality. One sees some of the most fertile land in this country and the most productive land, simply being destroyed by sporadic building, what we may call crazy town planning, when perhaps that is the very land which should be kept for the purpose of growing some particular article of food. There is perhaps other land not very far off which could well be taken for building, but because it is near a town this land which is more suitable for agriculture is taken, and until one realises that agricultural land is far more valuable to the nation than building land this process will go on. There is also the diminishing agricultural population, and we may find ourselves in time of crisis, if this process goes on much longer, in a position of not having the skilled agriculturists and agricultural workers on the land, ready to increase our output when we really want it. Owing to the incidence of taxation and other things, as your Lordships know, agricultural estates are being broken up, and, what is much worse, the race of agriculturists is being depleted. If the Government would take a very great interest in the fostering not only of agricultural land but of the agricultural population,
630
I feel that they would be doing something which, if war does not come too soon, may help to increase our supplies if and when in fact it does come.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Phillimore opened this debate with a very closely reasoned plea for the consideration of storage as against war-time needs, with particular reference to wheat, and Lord Strabolgi, who immediately followed him, spoke on that particular line, but he also did something for which I personally feel grateful to him. Not only did he show us what support would come from the Party opposite, but he went for the Government. Now, I do not agree with what he said, but I do regard with great enjoyment the introduction of a factor which has been sadly lacking for some time, and to think that an Opposition is slowly developing itself can only be refreshing to those on this side who have had to be content merely with addressing themselves to the Government on this side.
That, however, is by the way. The debate has developed into a consideration of wider aspects of the whole question, with particular reference to the requirements of the situation in so far as they affect food production at, home. It is quite evident that the more immediate appeal to the industrial millions of this country will be made in the matter of storage. It has immediate effect, it is easily explained, and is sound in itself, and I have not a word to say against it; but it is as certain as anything can be that whereas storage, one might hope, will provide against emergency, no real policy exists which does not include the consideration of agricultural production in our own country. Lord Cornwallis referred very briefly to the constant diminution of the area of land in England under cultivation. Ours is not a large island. I doubt whether it is always fully realised to what an alarming extent available cultivable land in this country—usually the best land—is being used for other purposes.
For years not less than 50,000 acres a year is being so used, and that amount is even exceeded. Every year 50,000 acres of agricultural land goes into other purposes, such as buildings, roads, recreation grounds and so forth, and as

631
the acreage of agricultural land can never be increased by reclamation to any considerable extent, we are all the more compelled to consider the productivity of the land which remains, and it is upon that question that I wish to address the House. Lord Cranworth, who is so well qualified to debate and discuss questions of that kind, has already addressed himself to that particular subject, but it permits of repetition. Lord Ernie asked whether the House would not think it well if a committee were set up to advise the Government. I regret that my noble friend has left the House, but I will tell him what I think he does not know, that a self-constituted committee of the character which he has in mind has been sitting and discussing this matter since the earlier part of the year. It drew up a memorandum, and this was presented to the Prime Minister, who referred the committee and its spokesmen to the Minister for Agriculture, whom we saw only yesterday.
I do not feel that I should be entitled to quote from that memorandum, it being at the moment in the hands of the Government and not released, but there is at the end of it a recommendation. Having propounded eight items which this committee considered to be essential for the development of our home agricultural industry, it recommended that:
"A strong committee should be set up to work out a policy to be adopted on the above lines, with special reference to the formulation of a long-term policy suitable for peace and war and the availability of adequate nutrition for all classes."
The members of that committee were constituted from the kind of bodies which Lord Ernie had in mind—namely, the Royal Agricultural Society of England, the Central Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union, the Central Chambers of Agriculture, and others, and these bodies, having prepared their memorandum, have now offered their services to the Government and are prepared to set up the kind of body which Lord Ernle had in mind.
This deputation, to which I have been referring, had the privilege of meeting the Minister of Agriculture yesterday, and they received from him a short résumé of the position as it appeared to him, which gave us food for very much thought. It would be improper that I should disclose in public that which was
632
said in confidence, but there was one particular point which after the interview rested very strongly in my mind, and it is one to which reference has not yet been made. It was that in anything that we do and have in mind for the improvement of British agricultural production we must remember the cost factor. We are at this moment unquestionably on the eve, in fact we have almost passed the eve, of the finding of great sums of money for the rearmament of our forces. And it is held by those of us who place the necessity for food production in the very forefront that at least a proportion of the money which will be spent upon armaments should be diverted to that most important of all munitions of war—namely, the production and storage of food. The question that the Government will have to decide is how much, if any, of those moneys which are to be found for the purpose of rearmament are to be so diverted, and also what may be the effect upon the great industrial population of this country of a rise in food prices.
The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, very rightly and most helpfully reminded us that whatever may be done in this regard will upset the balance of calculations of other departments in the matter of unemployment pay and the rest of it. I do say that, whereas it is quite easy for an agriculturist to make a very strong and irrefutable case for the increase of agricultural production in this country, the Government are bound to have in mind the very factors which Lord Strabolgi introduced into the debate, and which he and those who think with him would be very largely responsible for accommodating to the view of the industrial population; because if it is considered necessary that the country should he taxed for the improvement and increase of its warlike armaments, it is not impossible that the people may also have to pay for the increase and improvement of that agricultural store. To what extent will they be so prepared I do not know. But it is a certain fact that at the present time agricultural produce is made available to the public at a price very largely below the cost of production, and I refer not only to the production of British agriculturists but of all agriculturists all over the world. That agricultural production comes to our country because we are about the only country

633
which is prepared to pay, and it is better in the estimation of the producers that they should get something rather than nothing at all.
But they are producing below the cost of production. How long will that go on? We are unable to say. It is not going to be possible for agricultural producers of the world to carry the industrial population for ever. I think the time must come when it will be absolutely necessary for the people of this and other countries to pay more for the foods which they eat. That particular point is one which I feel that we, wishing to assist and not to impede the Government, have got to consider and to realise that the Government themselves will have to bear in mind in any scheme they may have in prospect for the improvement of British agricultural production. But the position of British agricultural production is alarming in the highest possible degree. I have already mentioned that the land of England in agricultural occupation is diminishing. Other speakers have referred to the fact that in the last half century we have lost five million acres of cultivable land, and others again have mentioned that no fewer than half a million agricultural workers have gone out of that profession, never to return. Now there is a social side to that—a social side which has always interested me, perhaps more than any other. Believing as I do, and as most of us surely will, that the great strength of any country must really rest in the workers and persons who are bred on the soil, I feel that it is a disaster of the highest magnitude if the population on whom the strength of this country must eventually depend should be constantly diminished and be drawn into the towns and converted into unemployed workers and deteriorated both in morale and in physique. There is that question. I do not think this debate is the proper occasion on which to enlarge upon it, but it should never be forgotten.
My noble friend Lord Cranworth did refer to the decreased fertility of the soil which has been consequent on the continually falling prices which farmers have received for their produce now for many years. When a man is going to get little for what he does, he cannot afford to put much into his cultivation, and he has not done it. And there is
634
nothing more certain than that the productivity of British land has diminished, is diminishing, and will continue to diminish. I am very well aware that the Government have in their possession figures which will show that in certain directions production has not gone down but has increased. We hold as agriculturists that the measure of the increase of production is not in those directions which are most essential to the needs of the country in time of war. Vegetables are necessary no doubt to the well-being of the people, but you can live without vegetables, and it is chiefly in vegetables that production has increased. Pig meat we have already had described to us by the noble Lord, Lord Ernie, and the defects of increasing the number of pigs in any country are those which he so ably pointed out. There are other luxuries—fruits and things of that kind—which have improved, but we are not going to live on those things when we go to war; we have to live on the necessities of life—on bread, on meat, and on fats, and it is in those directions that our deficiencies are so marked.
I have a feeling that, important though the work has been that the Government have already done, more particularly in stabilising the production of wheat in this country, very particularly in the increase of sugar production which their Acts have brought about, it will eventually be found that in the improvement and maintenance of live stock our salvation will rest. It is going to be very much easier to store wheat than it is to store meat, and if you have a supply of fresh meat available in your own country you have at hand a great source of strength. You cannot have a solid and progressive live-stock policy unless you also encourage arable farming, for the good reason that has been pointed out by many speakers, that stock eat; and if you have to import all that they eat you are going to be in the same trouble as if you have to import the stock itself. Consequently you must have a well developed and consistent arable policy in order to feed those very animals on which in time of war, as in time of peace, you must depend.
I come now to consider what is the kind of food grown on arable land that stock eat. The Government have done all they could, and done it exceedingly

635
well, to encourage wheat production, but they have done nothing for those other cereals which are essential to stock. Land is going out of cultivation which used to grow barley by the score of thousands of acres—the kind of land which cannot grow wheat, but can grow barley, and can grow nothing else. Barley and roots both feed stock. It is a short-sighted policy to let arable land go out of cultivation that can and does grow food for stock. It is as short-sighted a policy as to let go out of cultivation land which grows food for human beings, because it is the stock you require for your human food. I do not believe myself that anything more important can now be done than to encourage the growth in suitable areas of those other cereals which to date have had no attention paid to them, not in order that more money may be put into the pockets of their growers, but in order that the country may have what is essential to it, and that is a proper supply of meat and of animal fats in time of war and also in time of peace.
Nutritionists had a field day lately with the Minister, but they are not really at variance with us. Agriculturists do not desire to raise the price of any foodstuffs to the public if by some manner of means the price can be kept down. But price is not on an occasion of this kind the deciding factor. It is a necessity which we are up against, and if to-day the Government can produce a well-planned scheme which is going to be sufficient to defend our essential needs in time of war, they will find that it will be probably the cheapest thing they can do and will avoid the expenditure of vast sums of money at a later date, and that it will have on the people of this country a psychological effect which in itself is almost as valuable as a victory won. I do not propose to detain the House for another moment except to thank my noble friend Lord Phillimore for having introduced this subject into the House.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, like one or two other noble Lords I am at a disadvantage to-day in that I forgot we were meeting at three o'clock instead of at a quarter past four, so that I did not hear two or three of the opening speeches. But I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord
636
Phillimore, for having raised this matter here as a question of defence. Any one who looks round the world, any one who looks round Europe, must realise that the clouds of war are increasing and darkening, and it behoves all of us who have the welfare of the country at heart to ask ourselves what we should do, not next year, not after the Coronation, but this year, in order to provide for a contingency which may occur at any moment, not necessarily through a deliberate act but, it may be, through some mischance, as has happened before in history. Very briefly, the feeling I have about agriculture in connection with defence is this. First of all, I gather from what I have heard of subsequent speakers that the noble Lord who initiated this debate was advocating a certain measure of storage. If that is the case, I should like to support that as a fundamental policy for agriculture in case of war. If we had that I believe we could base our long-term agricultural policy on our peace needs. The next point we should always bear in mind is the importance of maintaining our overseas trade in time of peace. It is absolutely vital that we should do nothing to ruin our Mercantile Marine or its man-power which is so vital for us in time of war.
One of the great difficulties in discussing agriculture is that there is no industry in the whole world that is undergoing such vast change because of the advance of science. The chemist, the engineer, and the biologist are changing the whole of our methods of agriculture, and it is extraordinarily difficult in trying to frame a Government policy to get away from our methods of food production ten, twenty, or thirty years ago, because modern knowledge is revolutionising the whole management of food production and agriculture. Not only are science and invention altering the conduct of agriculture, but when we make preparations for another war we may be making preparations for the last war. It may well be that the next war, when it comes, will be waged on substantially different lines, and steps which would have been suitable for a war in 1914 may not be up to date or the best steps the country can take in view of developments in the conduct and management of war. It may well be that the next war will be decided much more quickly, so that the wise thing

637
need not be necessarily to prepare for a prolonged siege of an island country. I do not know, but these are points which I think the Government should bear in mind when discussing the question.
What are our requirements in case of war? I said just now that we are discussing agricultural policy in terms of war needs. The noble Lord who has just spoken, and whose contributions are always so interesting, has emphasised the desirability of increasing the number of men engaged in food production. Science makes it extraordinarily difficult not to face the probability of a reduction in the number of people engaged in food production. But what I think is equally important is the point I indicated just now—namely, to do nothing to diminish sustantially the number of men engaged in our overseas trade, to do nothing in any way to reduce our shipbuilding industry. We want to have an efficient, live shipbuilding industry in this country, capable of expansion in case of war, just as we want to have a large naval reserve associated with our Mercantile Marine. When we are discussing the possibility of war we should bear that in mind. We should not attempt to grow so much food here that there would be a danger of reducing substantially our shipping, our shipbuilding industry, or the man-power associated with our overseas trade, because it is on that that we shall very largely depend for the bringing into this country of large quantities of munitions and large numbers of fighting men in case of war.
Then there is another point, and that is the importance of maintaining good relations with our Dominions and with other countries. It was an enormous advantage to us during the last War to have the benevolent neutrality of many of the Scandinavian and other countries in northern Europe. The success of the War very largely depended upon the Dominions being associated with us not only through ties of blood and of interest, but also through economic ties. It is absolutely vital that in considering the future of our agricultural policy we should not deliberately attempt a policy of self-sufficiency in food production. I believe it would be disastrous to the future of this country and the British Empire if we were to attempt to do that. That does rot mean that we ought not to aim at
638
having a flourishing agriculture. Some noble Lords have emphasised the desirability of food production, others of food storage. These policies are not necessarily mutually exclusive. What we want is to have a balanced policy as a whole. I wish this afternoon to emphasise the desirability of increasing the storage of food as compared with the alternative policy of attempting to increase substantially, regardless of cost, the production of food. The question of cost is vital.
In another place there was a very interesting debate yesterday on the evil effects of malnutrition. I have been brought into contact with this very much during the last few months as Chairman of the International Commission set up by the League of Nations. There is abundant and increasing evidence from British sources of the evils of malnutrition, not only in the poor countries, but in the wealthy countries such as ours. Noble Lords will remember the findings of Sir John Orr. We in Plymouth made a social survey a couple of years ago, and we found that roughly 16 per cent. of the population in Plymouth were under the poverty line. The International Labour Office has recently published a report also dealing with malnutrition, and there again they bring out quite clearly the evil effect of poverty on nutrition. Therefore in trying to evolve a wise national agricultural policy we must bear in mind the standard of living of the poor; we must bear in mind the cost of living. The British Medical Association recently brought out a dietary. Since then the cost of food has gone up, not excessively, but the tendency has been upward. In our attempt to win the war through agriculture do not let us evolve an agricultural policy which will lose the peace, because the consumers of this country, who, after all, are in a majority, refuse to pay the price. We must be wise in our generation.
I should like to support what I understand the noble Lord who brought forward this Motion emphasised—namely, the need for storage. It seems to me there are two sorts of food which we ought to store. There are two essentials: first, wheat; secondly, certain feeding stuffs for cattle. Noble Lords have emphasised the importance of the live-stock industry. I think that if we could have three months' storage, six months' storage, a

639
year's storage of wheat we could embark upon a war in a much calmer frame of mind. The noble Lord, my former colleague in the representation of Plymouth, Lord Glenravel, gave certain figures connected with the building of granaries. At the present moment we grow roughly 24 per cent. of our wheat and import 76 per cent. If we were to double our wheat production we should still have to import over half. We are growing 24 per cent. because of the wheat quota. The Government have increased the home production of wheat from 16 per cent. to 24 per cent., an increase of 8 per cent., at a cost of £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 per annum. We could, I believe, store a whole year's wheat supply for an annual expenditure of something like £2,500,000.
I do not want to suggest that we should do nothing for wheat. The point I wish to bring before your Lordships is that if we are thinking of war we can have three months', six months', a year's storage of wheat at a relatively small cost compared to any result which would be achieved by attempting to increase substantially the present amount of home-grown wheat. On the question of feeding stuffs I am not going to put forward any definite figure, but I think we are importing something like 3,500,000 tons of cake, linseed, cotton seed and all that sort of thing, and we are importing 2,500,000 tons of maize. If the Government embark upon a policy of storing wheat I hope they will not turn down the possibility of storing maize for cattle. I think that such an expenditure would be worth making, because if we were to add that then we could meet a quick war, and it is possible that the next war may be a quick one. It would mean that we should have our merchant shipping available for the carrying of munitions and of soldiers; and it would mean that we should relieve the Navy from a substantial part of its duty in escorting our foodstuffs. If we had a year's supply of wheat we could use up three months of that supply every year, and we could run a four years' war—a tremendous advantage—if we had that storage here in this country.
As I said just now, the cost of storage is infinitesimal compared to the cost of increasing the production of food, particularly of wheat, and a policy such as that need not interfere with our development of the best agricultural
640
peace policy. If we go in for a policy of storage, then we can develop those branches of agriculture which are most suited to this country and to the world if we are at peace. I believe that if we develop along those lines we can have an agriculture as prosperous as, probably more prosperous than, if we formulate our agricultural policy mainly with the object of growing as much food as possible for war purposes alone. Therefore I venture to hope that when the Government's policy is stated they will be able not only to indicate that they mean to include in their policy the storage of certain foods in anticipation of a possible war, but that they may be able to announce that they intend to do that now without further loss of time. I hope that when they explain to the country their long-term agricultural policy they will base it upon our peace needs and not mainly upon our war needs. I hope that they will do nothing to reduce substantially our overseas shipping for the reasons which I have explained, and that they will do nothing to diminish the economic ties which unite the Dominions to us by attempting to grow at a very high cost those kinds of food which could be grown much more cheaply in the British Dominions.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, it is very difficult to follow the noble Lords who have spoken already, but there is one question which I feel it is my duty to lay before your Lordships. The small agricultural part of the country to which I belong produces two principal articles of food, fish and beef. The main fishing villages lie along a short strip of coast within seven miles of my home. Fish is caught mainly for export, but quite a small portion of the fishing fleet of this country could very easily take sufficient fish to feed the whole country in time of war, and I hold that fish forms a very great potential reserve of food in time of war. The Government succeeded to a very difficult question, which was handed to them by their predecessors in a very difficult state.
The history of the fishing industry is briefly as follows. Before the War the fishing fleets of this country exported fish to Germany, Russia and Siberia. They held those three markets because we catch superior fish to any other country, and the cheapness and the flavour of our

641
products ensured us the whole of those markets. At the close of the War our fishing fleets found themselves with their productivity but little impaired but every market was closed to them. A little later they managed to get entry, after the raising of the blockade, to the markets of Germany, but that country was not able to buy our fish because it was not able to pay for it, and eventually Germany began to take more and more of the coarser fish supplied by our Norwegian rivals. The first efforts to assist the industry on the part of the Government were perhaps not very happy. Indeed, the first scheme broke down because the Government of that day refused to recognise the position of the exporters in the industry. I suppose the information available was a little out-of-date. Since that time the industry has been obliged more and more to contract its scope, and only recently the Chairman of the Herring Board announced to the industry that still further contraction of the scope of the industry must be pursued unless general bankruptcy was to occur.
The fishing industry is divided into three main branches—the exporters, who are the main marketers of the fish, the curers, who prepare the fish, and the people who catch the fish. The fishermen have been trained to their work from childhood and they are not able to take to any other form of industry. They are, as a matter of fact, a very peculiar people. But they have this great advantage, that I believe them to be essential to this country in time of war. During the last War it was the men of the fishing fleet who manned the mine sweepers and kept the roads of the sea open. I maintain that whatever kind of war comes, if ever it does come, these men are essential to the safety of the nation. These men see themselves menaced by starvation by the announcement of the Chairman of the Herring Board, because they can take to no other industry, and if the fleet is to be still further contracted the majority of them would be out of employment.
I have a special title and a special right to urge the claims of these people upon your Lordships because from a very long time in the past these people were commended to my predecessors by the Government of their country, and for centuries they have steered these people
642
through difficulties and crises, financial and otherwise. One crisis at least which I know, and which your Lordships will probably know, the Darien crisis, was far more severe and prolonged than the 1928 crisis of which we hear so much. After that time, however, the Government of this country took away from my predecessors the somewhat ample powers which they had had at their disposal, and they have also taken away from my predecessors and from myself a considerable portion of the means we had at our disposal for carrying out the task laid upon us by the Government of our country. That task which we successfully accomplished in our time now has fallen upon the Government which took those steps, and I feel it my duty to suggest to the Government that in taking away the duty which they laid upon my predecessors they have assumed it themselves. We were responsible to our King and to the Almighty for the discharge of that task and the Government are responsible to the same authorities.
I am told that in case of war the Admiralty do not want the use of small boats like drifters, but they will require the use of larger boats like trawlers for mine-sweeping. I do not know, but I believe it may be possible that you can take a lad from the plough, put him on a battleship and make a good sailor of him, but you cannot take a lad from the country and send him to sea in a small craft unless he has been trained from youth to the sea, and has devoted himself exclusively to that element. Therefore, the mine-sweepers, whatever vessels they may be, must be manned from the fishing fleet, and it is of the utmost importance that the personnel of the fishing fleet should be maintained somehow. After all, the Government will have to pay one way or another, because it is out of the question that, at this time of day, any large body of men like these fisher-folk are going to be allowed literally to starve—and that is what they are in danger of doing. Some means of help, something perhaps in the nature of unemployment pay, will have, in the end, to be devised.
It occurs to me to ask His Majesty's Government whether it is not possible to take up the question now and do something of this kind. I suggest that there should be some kind of Militia for these fishermen, and that they should be paid so much for the sea time they put in

643
during the fishing season on the condition of their being at the service of the nation during war. This would give the Government something which they greatly need at the present moment. It would ensure a properly manned auxiliary fleet in time of war, and at the same time, if the scheme was properly devised, it would help to make the industry self-supporting. I have not got recent figures with me, but from my own knowledge and memory of the industry I think I can tell your Lordships that very few curers got through the last season without losing sixpence a barrel. It is clear, therefore, that they cannot offer the fishermen a higher price for fish. There is no relief there. If we are to maintain our precarious place even in those foreign markets to which we have entry at present we cannot afford to raise prices. If we are to acquire new markets we must, if possible, lower the price. At present prices fishermen cannot live. There is no question about that. All branches of the trade recognise it. Some scheme of the kind I have suggested would have the effect of enabling those in the trade to sell fish according to market conditions and, besides ensuring us an essential service in time of war, it would probably enable us to extend and expand the market of the herring industry.
Most people in this country, I think, are far more interested in agriculture than in fish, and in regard to agriculture I would say that it has always appeared to me possible for us in this country to grow a far greater proportion of the agricultural food supply we require than we do. A healthy and intelligent and well-nourished population is essential for a country whether in peace or war. In these circumstances I have never been able to understand the policy of His Majesty's Government, seeing that admittedly a large proportion of our people are under-fed and under-nourished. I question the wisdom of the policy and I question the soundness of the principle that has sought to raise prices by limiting supplies. It must always be a very doubtful principle to restrict the home production of the food of the people. How often do we read in the course of history something like this: "A succession of magnificent harvests at last enabled this people to put into practice the design they had so long entertained." There have been occasions in the history of our own country when Governments
644
have not hesitated to take credit for good harvests. I cannot quite understand the policy of a Government of whom it would seem that they wish their historian to write: "Their skill in creating an artificial scarcity of all the fruits of the earth had so enriched the British people that they were at length enabled to put into practice their plans for social amelioration." I cannot see the logic of it; I think it is a most dangerous policy.
I come from a country which has an agricultural system very different from that in this country. It differs very little in many outward signs from the agricultural system of neighbouring counties, but the differences that do exist and that did exist thirty years ago have been such as to make it the countryside par excellence in which a man could rise from the very bottom to wealth and prosperity. This is not an agricultural debate and it would not be becoming for me to take up your Lordships' time in explaining how this comes about. I will merely give your Lordships an instance. The other day, talking to a neighbouring farmer, a friend of mine, who lives near the sea, I asked him how many people he knew who had risen from the plough. After some consideration he turned to me and said: "Within ten miles of my home I could count fifty and of the remainder a quarter are one generation removed from the plough." Under the present agricultural policy of the Government that process has ceased. The Government are not wholly responsible for it; it began twenty-five years ago with the land legislation of that time and has gone on ever since. It is very unusual now to see a man rise from the plough to be a prosperous farmer.
This policy of agricultural restriction has had some very curious effects. One of them was that not very long ago a neighbouring farmer, whom I do not know, was called up by the Milk Board for selling milk to people in a fishing village—I believe fishing villages are admitted by His Majesty's Government to be distressed areas—at twopence a pint. As a result of this correction he was unable to send the milk into the village and had to pour it away. Very shortly after hearing this story I opened my paper and read a very fine speech by a Minister of the Government defending the Potato Board from attack because

645
they had sold potatoes under the market price in the County of Durham, also a distressed area. I know that the difference can be explained, but the fact remained, and it does not become a Government always to be explaining.
The real difficulty in the period that I have mentioned, from 1911 onwards, is that the incessant legislation has produced this effect: it has prevented the people who plough the land from rising to occupy farms or own them. It has altered the distribution of capital in the industry; and finally, it has appropriated most of the capital in the industry. The real difficulty in the agricultural policy of the country is that the equipment of agriculture is defective, and the costs are too high because the defective equipment leads to under-production. The agricultural policy of His Majesty's Government appears to me not to have gone beyond the old barber-surgeon stage: incessant bleeding of the patient and then, when things are in extremis, we get, with all the consequence of science, a little blood transfusion. We get a policy of boards and bonuses instead of letting the industry retain some of its own earnings to put into the business again and cheapen costs and improve production.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in the debate, but, interesting subject as it is that is being discussed, it has been approached very largely from the interests of agriculture, and I hope your Lordships will pardon me if I bring you back to the sea. For, whatever may be the development of the food supply in this country, for many years to come the principal source of supply must be from overseas. The provision of food from overseas is often alluded to as if it were a question of getting food from a foreign port to one of our home ports. That is of course a fallacy. The journey starts with the producer and ends on the table of the consumer in this country. Thousands of tons of food during the last War rotted in our harbours because it could not be got away. Ships were held up for weeks with their cargoes in their holds unable to unload them, and thousands of tons of food perished abroad on the wharves awaiting shipment to this country, because the ships that ought to have been free to go out and load up were hung up in our own ports unable to discharge their cargoes. In some cases
646
the delay of cargoes ran into weeks, and large stores of foodstuffs were lying on the wharves in the harbours while there was an urgent demand for them in other parts of the country.
No doubt, as has been stated in this debate, the supply of sugar in this country was short at one time, but at another time there were 100,000 tons of sugar on the wharves of Liverpool and six ships waiting in the Mersey full of sugar and unable to discharge it. Many of your Lordships will remember the famous incident of the bacon. At Gravesend at one time forty-five ships wore awaiting an opportunity to unload, and it has been calculated that at one time 1,500,000 tons of Allied shipping was tied up in Allied ports because of the congestion that prevailed. In considering these facts in regard to possible events in the future your Lordships must remember this lamentable fact: that we have now a thousand seagoing steamers less than we had in 1914, and if we had started the last War with a thousand steamers less, it is perfectly certain that we should have gone under.
There were many causes, of course, which contributed to this congestion of ports which kept so many useful ships idle. These causes were tackled in turn and order was produced out of chaos. The problem was, however, with us all through the War. It flared up again when the intensive submarine campaign brought about the convoy system, because ships were arriving in the ports in large numbers at a time, and the ports had been designed and were used for dealing with a normal flow of traffic—ships coming in at the rate of so many a week and getting out to sea again. Specialisation of ports—that is to say, one port dealing with grain and another with coal—prevented any diversion of shipping to a port that had nothing in tit when others were glutted.
In these days, however, we must remember this important factor, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, drew our attention: that the next war is going to be different from the last. In those days, when we got our ships and their cargoes into port they were safe. Today such an accumulation of shipping and stores in one place would prove just the incentive necessary to an enterprising enemy to try to destroy the whole lot by an intensive air attack. I am not one

647
of those who fear or foresee continual and prolonged air attack on this country, because I believe that it would only be incredible bungling that could let us single-handed into a war with one of our powerful neighbours, and so long as we have Continental allies the Continental Air Forces will be fairly well employed with each other. But of course we shall have sporadic attacks on this country, and if we provide tempting objectives by accumulating ships in harbour and stores on the wharves we may be quite sure that they would be just the objectives that the enemy Air Force would like to have.
I submit to your Lordships two things. If this storage which has been pressed upon the Government does take place, and if we are going to build large storage places, do not put them near ports. That is the last place in which they should be put. I also submit to your Lordships that it is very necessary to organise our northern ports now, so that ships can get in quickly, get rid of their cargoes, turn round, and get out to sea again, and so that as soon as the cargoes have been discharged they can be distributed all over the country by means of rail, road, canal, and coastal shipping, almost as soon as the cargoes are in the sheds. I hope very much that the new Government policy, as announced in another place, of taking over the roads of the country foreshadows the planning necessary to deal with the problem of feeding the population of the south from the ports in the north. What is most probable is that the ports of London and Southampton will be unable, for considerable periods, to function at full capacity, even if they are able to carry on at all. The large amount of money spent on the southern harbours may be a good peace investment, but looked at as a preparation for war it is of very doubtful value. It seems to me that with the steady drift of population and factories to the south it is possible that the Government will be confronted at a difficult time with the necessity of shifting large numbers of people to the north in order to facilitate feeding them. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack when he replies will be able to assure the House that while taking the question of food supplies into consideration equal attention will be given by the Government to the question of food distribution.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate unduly, but there are one or two things which I would add to what has been already said. First, I would like to go back to the earlier part of the debate and to the speech of Lord Strabolgi, to which I listened with extraordinary interest. He made an attack on the Government, and that in itself is, of course, no unusual thing—no doubt he will do so again in the same rather delightful way—but what really interested me was that the basis of his attack upon the Government was their unpreparedness for defending the country, not only so far as food was concerned but so far as the defence forces were concerned. He cited as an example to the Government the Government of France, which not only through all these years has been keeping its defence forces up to strength, but also, and this is very interesting to me, is one of the most highly protective countries in the world. I was wondering whether he was speaking for his Party and indicating a change of heart with regard to the policy of duties on foodstuffs coming into this country.
LORD STRABOLGI: I was not referring to the French Government's tariff policy, but to the policy of the new French Government with regard to the control and regulation of wheat supplies, and import and export of wheat and flour, and control of bread prices.
THE EARL OF RADNOR: That I think is a protectionist policy to a high degree. Lord Strabolgi is not the only noble Lord who has gone into the question of the unpreparedness of this country to defend itself at the present time, and I do not propose to cover that ground, except to emphasise the unknown quality of the menace from the air. One noble Lord, I think Lord Cranworth, said it was dangerous from the point of view of the convoy system and of ships being sunk at sea from the air. I do not take that view. I believe that the menace and danger is at the terminal ports, where we may have a complete disorganisation. The noble Earl who spoke last indicated that he thought we should improve the ports in the north of this country and distribute our food from there, but I think I am correct when I say that the modern aeroplane can reach any part of this country with the greatest of ease,

649
so that no port will be safe from the air. That is an unknown factor—the extent of the damage and disorganisation that can be brought about—but it should make us very careful to ensure that we have a food supply adequate to our needs.
There are two things which must not be lost sight of in considering this matter. Napoleon said an army marches on its stomach. That may have been true in the days when it was said, and may be still true, but one must expand it in these days. In Napoleon's day war was a matter of professional armed forces. In these days war is a matter of whole nations, and I think one can say possibly that your defence forces will fight on the stomach of the people they are depending upon. There is another thing. You cannot improvise a food policy in time of war. You have got to do it in time of peace, especially if the danger which you are afraid of is one which means cutting off supplies from overseas. The whole debate has confirmed me in the view which I had formed as to the two courses which must be pursued to safeguard our food supplies. One is the storage of suitable foods, in sufficient quantities, for whatever the Government may consider to be the necessary time. The other is that we must increase our home production so far as we possibly can. Wheat, as we are told, is the biggest single item of foodstuffs that we import. It fortunately is one which is the easiest to store. In spite of what Lord Peel said I do not believe that the technical difficulties are at all great. In Canada it is stored for months at a time. We can and ought to store wheat and, as Lord Astor suggested, we should also store maize or cattle feeding stuffs, because they are food in the raw.
We are left with the protein foods such as meat and vegetables, butter, and so on, all of which can be produced in this country, and which under a real encouragement from the Government would be produced in this country certainly in quantities which would be a considerable increase on what is being done to-day. I am not going to pretend that we can produce all the food that we want in this country. Even if it were physically possible, I believe that economically it is quite impossible, but we can, without doing any great harm to
650
the people of this country, increase our production of these foods very considerably. It might mean a certain increase in the cost of living, and I have no doubt that it would be said that for a Government to put forward a policy which would mean an increase in the cost of living would be almost suicidal; at any rate would lay it open to very considerable criticism from the electorate, If the Government had courage I do not know that the electorate would criticise them very much. I wonder whether the Government are afraid to tell the people of this country the plain facts of the case, and say: "There may be a certain increase in the cost of living but it is your contribution towards defence of this country in time of war." They have not been afraid to tell the taxpayers of this country that they want more money out of them to provide ships and guns and armaments. Why should they be afraid of the ordinary electors? Why should they not tell them straight out that it is an absolute and immediate necessity for us to increase our home production of food, and that that may mean a slight increase in the cost of living? I do not think it would need to be a very great increase, if indeed there was any increase. After all, if you increase the production in this country you will probably tend towards more economic production.
Not only that, but there is a point which has not been mentioned by anybody. The index figure for wholesale prices of foodstuffs in 1935 was 104.8, taking 1913 as 100. The index figure for retail prices is to-day 122, taking 1914 as 100. The figures, of course, are not strictly comparable, but they were the only figures that I could get hold of. There is therefore a considerably greater increase in the retail prices than in the wholesale prices. There is a widening of the margin there which, I take it, must mean an increased cost of distribution. I am not going to say that our methods of distribution before the War were as perfect and as economical as they might be. But cannot the Government, at the same time as they are anxious to increase home production, institute an inquiry into the methods and profits of distribution and, if necessary, take action to alter the methods of distribution so as to make them more economical, and thus prevent that rise in the cost of

651
living which increased production might otherwise mean?
This Motion, brought forward by my noble friend Lord Phillimore, is one of very great importance. Food, as he said, is as important in the defence of this country as a large Army or a large Navy. It is the one subject of defence upon which the Government have been peculiarly reticent. We have had practically no information as to what they are doing or what they are proposing. Noble Lords who have spoken to-day have spoken largely in the dark. It would have been a great help to us in this debate if, instead of only one Government speaker at the end of the debate, we had had some pronouncement, some lead from the Government earlier in the debate. The only reason I can think of why the Government have not done that is that they have nothing particular to say, and they have therefore left it to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to perform that most essential function of a Cabinet Minister, which is to say nothing in such a way as to make his hearers believe that he is giving useful information. But I do hope that, not only on this occasion but on other occasions which are as important as this, we may possibly have a Government pronouncement earlier in the debate, so as to give us that help and that lead which we need.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I am greatly encouraged by the charitable view of the noble Earl who has just sat down that my function is merely to say nothing while making you think I am saying something, and that the reason why I am speaking at the end is that I have nothing to say. The reason why I am speaking at the end is one that I have proclaimed on earlier occasions when I had the honour to be the Leader of this House—namely, that it seems to me more courteous and more useful to your Lordships' House that the Government should speak after they have heard the questions to which answers are desired, rather than that they should speak early and so avoid the opportunity of answering questions which are very important. I have no doubt that if I had spoken early Lord Radnor would have told me that the reason I spoke early was so that I should avoid answering the questions he was about to put.
652
It is true that the question that we are discussing this evening is perhaps as important as any question which it is possible for either House of the Legislature to consider. It is a question which, to an island people like ourselves, has always been regarded as one of cardinal importance. We cannot forget, and we ought not to forget, that situate as we are, of necessity dependent as we are on our imports for existence, the fact that we must be able adequately to protect ourselves against being starved out is a matter which we can never overlook, and which we must always bear in mind. But it is not true to say that that is a question which is confined to food supplies. It is quite true that by cutting off our supplies of food an enemy could reduce us to surrender. But there are many other materials which, under modern conditions, are just as essential to our existence in a time of war as even the food of our people. If I may take one obvious example to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred, how long could we maintain ourselves in time of war against any major opponent if we had no supply of oil fuel in the country and were unable to obtain it? And one could easily imagine other equally apt illustrations.
The actual question of food supply has been the subject of consideration and discussion for a great number of years. My noble friend Lord Glenravel, in his interesting maiden speech, referred to the Commission which was appointed in the year 1904 and which reported, I think, in the following year. Although the conditions of the problem change with the changing conditions of warfare, the problem itself remains always with us. It was regarded as of such importance in 1904 that on that Commission there was appointed as one of its members no less a personage than the Prince of Wales, afterwards His Majesty King George. The difficulties which even in those days the problem presented are perhaps illustrated by the fact that, although in that Commission there was ultimately a unanimous Report by its seventeen members, fourteen out of the seventeen—all excepting His Royal Highness and the Chairman who drafted the Report and one other—appended minutes of dissent and reservation, many of them on matters of cardinal importance.
It is also worth mentioning, whilst referring to this Report, that whereas my

653
noble friend Lord Glenravel seemed to criticise successive Governments for never having embarked on a policy of storage such as my noble friend Lord Phillimore has advocated this evening, and although my noble friend seemed to be under the impression that in so doing we were disregarding the advice of that Royal Commission, the fact is that that Commission, after going very fully into the question, reported against the policy of storage which Lord Phillimore is anxious we should adopt, in these words:
"We have come to the conclusion that the disadvantages and evils which it seems to us are inseparable from all or nearly all of these schemes "—
that is the schemes to increase the amount of grain normally held in this country—
"are greater than any benefit which is likely to be derived from them."
Obviously that is an opinion in 1905 under conditions very different from those that prevail to-day, but I do not want your Lordships to remain under the impression that as long ago as 1905 those who went into the subject reached the conclusion that storage was a proper solution of the difficulty.
It seems to me at least that there are three different methods of grappling with the problem, and that these three different methods are not necessarily antagonistic—that is to say, that the fact that you adopt one does not necessarily preclude the adoption of the others, but that in any wise system of Government you will weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of all three to see whether it is preferable in the national interest to adopt one or another or a combination of all three. Of the three possible solutions which seem to me to deserve consideration there is first of all an increase of production in this country. That was stressed very well by my noble friend Lord Hastings, who pointed out that the question of increasing production was more important than any other. The second is the free importation of necessary food supplies from abroad to which Lord Astor referred. The third is the question of storage which my noble friend Lord Phillimore desires we should adopt.
One great advantage of the production plan—speaking, of course, purely from the point of view of defence—is that it is more decentralised than either of the other two. If you have a farm or several
654
farms growing one thousand acres of wheat, that wheat is far more difficult to destroy than it would be if it were concentrated at one port or in one granary. The disadvantage of this method of dealing with the problem is that to some degree it lacks flexibility. When the farmer has once sown his crop of wheat, at any rate until that wheat matures, he is committed to that, and the country can only look for grain and not for anything else. When you come to storage, you have, to a very large extent at any rate, the disadvantage of centralisation. If you have a great number of small granaries scattered all over the country the organisation is much more difficult and the expense is probably a good deal greater. Any system that I have seen seriously discussed of building public granaries or using those which are already in existence involves a centralisation of the stores on which you rely, and therefore renders them much more vulnerable and much more liable to destruction. And, of course, what you have stored you have committed yourself to, and the element of flexibility is entirely absent. The advantage of the system of importation is, first of all, that it has complete flexibility, because, until you are actually going to get the particular article you desire you can send your ship wherever you please, and you may fill the ship when it arrives at the exporting port with whatever you most need. Secondly, it is very largely decentralised, because obviously you can divert your ships to whatever ports happen to be safest or the ones from which distribution is most earnestly required.
My noble friend Lord Phillimore was good enough to assert with great emphasis that the Government have done nothing, and the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, not unnaturally, repeated that criticism with extreme gusto; he would like to believe it even if it is not true! Therefore your Lordships will forgive me if for a few moments I venture to controvert that suggestion by dealing with some of the things the Government have done. I want first of all to take what admittedly is one of the possible ways of dealing with this problem of food supply in time of war, and that is the question of food production at home. It is a gross injustice to the Government to say that the Government have done nothing

655
to encourage food production during five years of office. Since, apparently, some memories are so short, I want to remind your Lordships of some of the things we have done. Take first wheat, which has bulked largely in this discussion. We instituted very soon after the National Government was formed the system of what is compendiously described as levy-subsidy, which has been worked with great smoothness and efficiency under my noble friend Lord Peel, to whom I think the country ought to be more grateful than it is for the admirable way in which that work has been carried out. As the result of that policy of levy-subsidy the acreage of wheat has been increased by 50 per cent. in five years—625,000 acres more than in 1931—and the actual tonnage increase is more like 70 per cent.
Then look at sugar. My noble friend Lord Ernie, who spoke with an authority which we all recognise, and whose return to our debates we all welcome, was pleased with our sugar policy, but I gathered that he thought it did not go quite far enough. That of course is an arguable point of view, but from the point of view we are now considering—that of what we have done to increase food production—I think the record of sugar is remarkable. Before the War there was no sugar production in this country—I think actually it was 1,000 or 1,200 tons. To-day nearly a quarter of our consumption is produced in this country. But, as I am dealing with what the Government have done, I may remind your Lordships that since 1931 the sugar production in this country has gone up by 95 per cent. It has very nearly doubled itself; and only this year, although we were warned that economically sugar production was not a paying proposition in this country by the Commission presided over by Sir Wilfrid Green, the Government nevertheless thought, in the interests of agriculture, that it was necessary to maintain the crop, and they induced Parliament to pass the Reorganisation Act under which a substantial subsidy is given from year to year. I think this year it is 4s. 9d. a cwt.—I am speaking from memory—and under that Act provision is made for the production to go up to some 560,000 tons, I think it is, per year. I do not think that can be fairly be described as doing nothing.
656
Then there are a number of other directions in which we have encouraged production. Poultry and eggs: by duties we have been able at any rate, to increase our poultry population and our egg production, and in the five years to which I am referring the poultry population of the country has gone up by 10 per cent. As to milk, we already produce all the fresh milk which the country needs for its consumption, and the Government have sought to encourage increased consumption of milk, because in that way you can most profitably use the milk which is produced. At the same time you are, incidentally, creating a reserve of butter fat in case of emergency in time of war. The dairy herd population of this country has gone up in the same five years not less than 10 per cent. Then comes meat. In 1931 there was a period of great glut of mutton and lamb just commencing, thanks to over-production, if that is the right phrase to use, largely in our oversea Dominions. The Government, by arranging for quotas and regulating the supply, have been able to restore the mutton and lamb production of this country to a state of reasonable prosperity. With regard to beef we were confronted with excessive competition between Australia and the Argentine, resulting in prices being forced down far below the cost of production. There also we have been able to intervene. We are giving a subsidy to the farmer of 5s. per live cwt. It has been a little less hitherto, but that is what it is going to be. That is to cost the country some £5,000,000 a year. We are arranging in our long-term policy for a duty on foreign imports of meat, and we have been able, by regulation, at any rate to save the fanner at home from some of the worst disasters which might have fallen upon him if it had not been for Government help.
Then bacon. The noble Lord, Lord Ernie, told us quite truly that you must not expect too much from that noble animal the pig. None the less it is a very useful adjunct to our food supply, and, thanks to the arrangements which were advocated by the Commission presided over by Lord Bingley, we have established the Pig Board and the Bacon Board, and by the efforts of those Boards the pig population of this country has gone up by 42 per cent. in the five years to the highest figure that it has ever

657
reached, I believe, in the history of England. Moreover, the bacon production last year had gone up 70 per cent. above what it was five years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, referred to fruit and vegetables and canning. Thanks to our seasonal duties we have been able to encourage the production of vegetables and the production of fruit so that we have an increase in acreage of 7 per cent. in the one case and 8 per cent. in the other. In the case of peas and beans I think the increase is 22 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively in the five years. Thanks to our policy there has grown up in this country during the last five years a canning industry which does a great deal to preserve for consumption vegetables and fruit for which there is not an immediate demand. We have encouraged market gardening and allotments and thereby have done a good deal to provide most valuable food for our people.
I do not want to weary your Lordships too much by going into the achievements of the Government, though I could go on giving other instances of what the Government have done. We were accused by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, of having done something very wicked with regard to potatoes and with regard to fish. What in fact we have done in each case has been to set up in each industry a Board managed by that industry in order that it may control the industry in the interests of the producers. The noble Lord agrees that is what we have done. Then how can you complain that we are doing nothing for the producers? You may say if you like that the consumer might have cause to complain. I do not think that would be a just complaint. I do not want to go into detail on this occasion, but we have made adequate provision for the protection of the consumers' interests.
It is unhappily true that for a long time past in a great many directions the wholesale price of many of our primary products has been below the cost of production, and that is not good for either the producer or the consumer, but when I find myself accused of having committed every crime for which the Boards of the potato and the fish industries are responsible, I am a little surprised to find that the Government are blamed for having done nothing for the producer, for injuring the producer merely because they
658
allowed producers to manage their industries in the way that was in their own best interests. Of course it is perfectly true that if we chose we could do more for production. It is true that if we liked we could produce in this country the greater part of what this country requires to consume, but the extra cost of that production would be not trifling, as my noble friend Lord Radnor suggested, but enormous, and I doubt very much whether you would persuade the people of this country permanently to acquiesce in a policy which would enormously increase the price of food and which would permanently deprive them of the advantages of cheap food produced abroad which they have been able to enjoy for a great many decades now.
The actual volume of production in 1935 in England and Wales—the figures for Scotland are not yet available—was 19.7 per cent., or nearly one-fifth, more than in 1931. That, I claim, has been largely due to Government encouragement and Government action. Of course, in time of war there would have to be means taken to ensure that there should be an expansion. That must necessarily take time, but we are in an infinitely better position to do it in 1936 than we were in 1914, largely by reason of the organisations—the Pigs Board, the Milk Board, the Potato Board, and so on—which in their respective industries have got into touch with the individual producers all over the country, are in a position therefore to get expert knowledge and expert opinion at short notice, and are able to organise any increase with far more certainty and far more quickly than was possible in the days of August, 1914. The noble Lord, Lord Ernie, asked whether we were thinking about questions of man-power. I can assure him most certainly that the answer is in the affirmative. It is obviously a matter on which one cannot give details—they are highly confidential—but there is in fact a Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence which has plans on that subject.
So much for production. Let me turn to the second possible means of dealing with the problem, the question of importation. That resolves itself into two or three different elements. First you have to be sure that the food which we require is available in the world, and is available at a place which is willing to

659
let you have it. That second consideration is of greater importance to-day than it was at the beginning of the last War, because we have seen how some great countries have declared that their policy in the event of any-war would be to prevent any supplies going to either belligerent. Therefore, it is very important to be as sure as we can that the supplies on which we are relying should be available at a place willing to let them come here. Thanks to our Ottawa policy we have ensured that the things that we most need are being produced in our Colonies and in the Dominions overseas, and they are therefore available if need should arise.
Not only have we to ensure that they are there—it has been pointed out that there are large stocks of wheat in Canada, and mutton and lamb in New Zealand, meat in Australia and so on—but we have to be sure that supplies can get here, and that there is tonnage available to bring them. It has been pointed out more than once that the proportion of British tonnage to the world tonnage has dropped very much since 1914. It was as much as 43 per cent. in 1914. it is about 28 per cent. now. But it is reassuring to remember that that alteration in tonnage is not, to any large extent, due to a reduction in the volume of British tonnage but to an increase in the volume of world tonnage. Actually British tonnage, which was something over 18,000,000 tons in 1914, is over 17,000,000 tons to-day. When we turn to cargo tonnage, which is what we are primarily concerned with, the actual tonnage available, excluding tankers and coastal vessels, was estimated to be 12,000,000 tons in 1933 as against 11,000,000 odd tons in 1914. World tonnage has gone up. It has gone up, I think, to 61,000,000 odd tons, a very substantial increase since 1914. That means not that there is less chance of our being able to import goods, but that there is a better chance, because it would not be in the least true to say that neutral tonnage must be ignored. On the contrary, as we remember, neutral tonnage was very freely available during the War, and I have no doubt at all that it would be available again in the future.
Our actual import requirements are about 55,000,000 tons a year, and of that food constitutes about one-third. That is nearly the same as in 1914.
660
When we remember that although there are fewer ships they are faster and more economical to run and load, that the facilities for loading and discharging are far better now than in 1914, I think there is no doubt that if, unhappily, any war should come upon us in future, the tonnage available would be far greater than in 1914. But, of course, it is no good having tonnage available unless ships can get to this country. There we get to what is a vital element in the policy of the Government, and that is the provision of adequate defence. We have to rely now, as in 1914, primarily on the Navy, but to-day of course we have also to make adequate provision against attacks from the air. When it is a question of protection against attacks far out at sea, it is mainly on the ships of the Navy that we have to rely; when we come nearer there must be co-operation between the Air Force and the Navy; and at the ports we must rely partly on the Air Force and partly also on the Army, the Territorials and anti-aircraft defence.
In this debate your Lordships will not wish me to elaborate the details of our provision for defence which have been laid before you on other occasions, but your Lordships will have seen that some £30,000,000 of Supplementary Estimates have been laid before the House of Commons, making the total Defence Estimates already this year up to, I think, £188,000,000, a very much larger amount than they have been for a great number of years. I am not going to pretend that the efforts which we made to procure world disarmament for a great many years by setting an example ourselves has not put us in a position less favourable than we would wish it to be, but the Government have been frank with the country. We went to the country last year and, with the facts laid before the country, we received a mandate to set our defences in order. I think your Lordships may be satisfied that that mandate is being courageously and rapidly carried into effect.
My noble friend Lord Cork drew attention to a matter of very great importance. That is the difficulty which would arise when ships arrived in port, from the danger of air attack and the disorganisation which would be caused. That, of course, is a perfectly just and cogent consideration. There are at present Committees of the Committee of Imperial

661
Defence—one of them dealing with the diversion of shipping in time of war from the more perilous to the less dangerous ports, another dealing with the distribution of goods from any given port when they have arrived, and a third dealing with the rationing of food supplies to the consumer. Then again, of course, there is the question of taking over control of the whole of the mercantile shipping if the necessity should arise. So that all these matters are being worked out and carefully considered from day to day. Obviously they are not matters on which your Lordships would wish or would expect me to give the details and plans which are worked out, because they are in the last degree confidential. But I can give your Lordships the assurance, and I can give any noble friend the assurance, that they are matters which are being all the time carefully borne in mind.
Then I come to the third alternative, the question of storage. We do not rule out the possibility of having to encourage the storage of some particular articles at some particular time or in some particular place. I doubt very much whether it would be food supplies which we should first find it advisable to store. The oil fuel problem, to which I referred a little earlier, may perhaps be more urgent, and oil may better lend itself to storage than food. But one has to take into consideration a great number of matters which I am not sure have been fully weighed up by those of your Lordships who pronounced yourselves so emphatically in favour of an immediate policy of storing wheat. There are questions of deterioration. I think it was Lord Phillimore who brushed them aside and said that wheat was stored for ever so long in Canada, and could be stored for just as long in England. The climate of England and the climate of the interior of Canada are not quite the same. He may be right, and I hope he is right, but at any rate there are some people who claim to speak with authority who do not share his confidence. Then there is the question of contamination. If you have any large quantity of stores collected they will be very vulnerable, and gas contamination is a matter which has very carefully to be considered before you commit yourself to that policy.
He also spoke of a policy of storing by means of buying up wheat in Canada,
662
bringing it over to this country, keeping it for six months and then turning it over—because obviously you could not keep the same lot of wheat indefinitely. That policy, while of course it is possible, involves—as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who adopted the plan with such enthusiasm, was quick to observe—the Government becoming the main wheat dealer in the world. They are buying £10,000,000 worth of wheat—and, indeed, I take the noble Lord's own figures: £10,000,000 worth—not all at once, but accumulating that quantity; they are constantly selling it, and after six months have passed there will be, of course, a flowing out of wheat and further wheat coming in, and either a profit or loss being made. They would obviously, however, be in effect controlling the market.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I beg the noble Viscount's pardon, but I never suggested that the Government should purchase wheat at all. I suggested that it should be left in the hands of the trade.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: How could it?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if it rested in the hands of the trade there would not be any purchase of wheat by the Government.
LORD PHILLIMORE: I am sorry to have to explain myself again. I suggested that the Government should pay the trade the interest on the money locked up.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Then that gets rid of my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, who was enthusiastically welcoming the prospect of all the dealings in wheat being a Government monopoly, and was at once tempted with the prospect, which always attracts every gambler, of buying cheap and selling dear. Everybody who deals in wheat thinks he is going to buy cheap and sell dear, but unfortunately the forces of nature sometimes say that what he thought was a cheap buy shall turn out to be a very expensive one, and then, where he thought he was going to make a large profit, he makes a very big loss. Lord Phillimore proposed that the trade should buy a very large quantity of wheat and that the Government should pay the interest upon it. I should think that that would probably be a much better plan if we were going to embark upon such

663
a policy, but of course you could not stop there, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, pointed out, you would at once get the claim from our farmers that if the Government are going to finance the holding of wheat, why not finance the holding of wheat in a very much more decentralised form—in the stalk? That is a difficult argument to meet. Then, again, it would mean not only paying interest, but also insurance against loss, and delay for the use of the straw in which the wheat would be kept, and you would find a very considerable sum of money being asked for on those grounds. It is not a method which one wishes to rule out, but one wants to be quite sure that it is necessary before we embark upon it.
Some figures have been given to-day as to the storage capacity in this country. I believe that, as far as we are able to ascertain, there were in March last, which is the last date I have, some 690,000 tons stored in the millers' stocks and on the average some 355,000 tons are stored in the public granaries, making 1,045,000 tons in wheat, or flour reckoned as wheat, altogether. That means a good three months' supply. If you were to use all the capacity of the public granaries, it is calculated according to the most recent figures, which are rather less than some earlier ones, that there are about 1,500,000 tons of grain storage in this country. Of course, that could not all be used for wheat, because you have to store quantities of other grains. My noble friend Lord Phillimore I think anticipated the criticism, which was bound to be made at once, that storage at the ports was inviting attack and destruction, by saying that we should build fresh granaries and that we should scatter them all over the country. If they were big ones they would themselves become targets, and if they were small ones they would be very numerous and, I think, a little more expensive than he anticipated.
There is no doubt that if the country thought it right to do it, we could, instead of having three months' supplies, have—at a cost—six months' supplies; or, as I think Lord Astor suggested, twelve months' supplies, or, if you chose to say you would cover four years of war, four years' supplies. There is no limit except what you are willing
664
to spend upon them. The question is whether that is the wisest way to spend money which is available for defence. Your Lordships will appreciate that even if we built any number of granaries and had any quantity of wheat available in this country, yet if we lost command of the sea we should lose the war just as certainly as if we had no wheat at all. We must, in order to wage a successful major war, have and keep the command of the sea. There may be a short period—a period perhaps of three months—during which our command of the sea might be in danger and during which it might be and would be advisable to have some stock to fall back upon; but the question is, how large a stock you require to meet that contingency, not how large a stock you require to carry on the whole war. So far as we are able to calculate, a three months' stock, which is what we have to-day and which is what we normally have, ought to be enough to carry us over any such temporary squeeze. We do not, so far as we are able to judge from the advice we get, see any reason to anticipate that there will be such a shortage of shipping as to render the fact that we have not got to bring in wheat a very great advantage because of the shipping being required for some other purpose.
LORD STRABOLGI: If I might ask the noble Viscount a question: do I understand that three months is the minimum store which we have always, or does it fall below that at certain times?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Of course, it varies almost from week to week, but three months' is what, on an average, you could say is here. Probably it is a little over three months'—four months'. It may temporarily get a little lower, but roughly, as far as we can ascertain, you may say that there will be at any one moment not less than three months' supplies in the country. Just after the harvest it will, of course, be more; it goes up and down. I gave the figures for March, which were the latest I had, and they seem more or less to bear out that estimate. A noble Lord said it was not only wheat that you needed to store, but what about maize? I think the question of maize is perhaps in some ways a more serious one than the question of wheat, because, although you can substitute oats if grown, if maize

665
is a substance which you need you must import it from abroad.
Then Lord Astor asked: What about storing frozen meat? We have the figures with regard to that. There are some 50,000,000 cubic feet of cold storage in this country, of which about 39,000,000 are available for frozen meat. In fact there is not at any moment a very large quantity of frozen meat in storage in this country. For one thing an increasing quantity of imported beef is not frozen but merely chilled, and when beef is merely chilled it goes into circulation much more quickly. There is, however, no difficulty in warning ships that beef is required to be not merely chilled but frozen, and then you will have large supplies of frozen meat coming in within a short time. I do not say that under no circumstances are we going to invite the country to store a substance for which we are dependent upon importation from overseas, but I want your Lordships to realise that no method of storage is going to save us so long as we do not keep command of the seas, and now of the air. Therefore the primary purpose of our whole policy must be to see that we are adequately prepared against attack, and able to give adequate protection by sea and by air to the imports which are coming in to keep this country going. That is the primary purpose of which we must never lose sight, and if in connection with that policy, and as a subsidiary, it should be necessary to have a certain store of some particular goods which in time of war may not, we think, be available, then there may be a case for storage; but unless that is the case, then the case for storage is not made out.
We have had in the course of this discussion a very large number of very interesting suggestions from one side and another as to the means which should be adopted. We had from Lord Hastings a statement that only yesterday, I think he said, a series of suggestions had been laid before the Minister for Agriculture by an agricultural committee. I am quite sure, although I have not seen them and do not know what they are, that those suggestions will have the most careful consideration at the hands of the Minister for Agriculture, and I think I am safe in claiming, from your Lordships' own experience, that the Minister
666
for Agriculture is not unreceptive of suggestions which come from the agricultural industry. There have been suggestions made to-day which will be considered by the Committee which, as your Lordships have been told, is sitting constantly considering this very problem of food supplies, collecting from a number of Sub-Committees and other sources information about it. It is not a static problem about which conditions never change. As the range and swiftness of aeroplanes alter so necessarily the strategical and tactical problems alter, too. We have to keep these things constantly under review, and under review they will constantly be kept.
If I am not able to give to Lord Phillimore the promise he would like on his policy of storage, it is only because it is not a policy which has been proved at the moment to be necessary. But we shall continue to encourage production at home; we shall continue most urgently to ensure free importation from abroad, and we shall rely only upon storage, as supplementing that policy, if and when those who advise us consider that it is necessary and advisable. I am grateful to your Lordships for having listened to me much longer than I had intended, but the magnitude of the problem made it imperative that I should deal with it at some length, and when I sit down I hope Lord Radnor will be good enough to confess that after all I had something to say.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I would like briefly to thank those noble Lords who have supported me in debate and thrown so much light on this important subject. The number of speakers and the range of experience which they have put at our disposal show how much this question interests the country at large and the members of this House. I regret that I do not see quite the same extent of interest in it on the part of the Government; but before I deal with the reply of the noble and learned Viscount I should like to put particular emphasis on a remark of Lord Ernie, that he deprecated the limitation of production. And particularly in connection with sugar beet, I take this opportunity of venturing what I think is a mild correction of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. He took a great deal of credit to the Government for the sugar-beet subsidy. Am I wrong, or was it

667
first granted by the Government of which Lord Snowden was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and was it a Labour Government? I gather from the Leader of the House that the Government can claim the credit, but the Act this year cuts down the amount of sugar beet to be produced, so that as an answer to those who object to the policy of the limitation of production I think the reply of the noble Viscount on the Woolsack leaves something to be desired.
Then I would like to ask whether we had command of the seas during 1917 and 1918. If we had not I do not know what better command of the seas we are likely to get during the next war. If we had, why is it we were nearly starved? It seems to me that the whole idea of starvation does not present itself very easily to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. To me it is a real thing, and the real trouble is that the command of the sea is of no use to a man who is dead of starvation, nor is it if he is half-dead of starvation. In other words, food supplies come first. Then I would say this, that I never recommended, as other speakers have said, large central stores. What I recommended was the dispersal of that storage. If anybody can find a better method to meet air attack I should be glad to hear it. I would like to know on what ground the noble and learned Viscount said that neutral tonnage during the last War was freely available, and, if he thinks that, why he thinks that it would be the case in the next war. I may remind him that during 1917–18 we had to drive violent bargains with neutral countries in order to get them to ply to and from our ports. We had to put the greatest possible pressure, and almost the threat of starvation, upon them in order to get them to do that. Neither do I see the slightest reason to suppose that in the next war neutral tonnage will be as freely available to us.
But, after all, what is the gravamen of the charge that I do bring against the Government? In the words of the noble and learned Viscount, it is because I see a wise Government weighing the advantages and the disadvantages of the measures which should be taken. On July 8, 1914, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne was addressing this House on the Government of Ireland Bill. In
668
January, 1918, at the end of a long and exhausting war, he presided over a Commission to consider this question which we are now discussing. Did any of your Lordships who were present in July, 1914, realise that within a month of that discussion on the Government of Ireland Bill we should be at war? And yet we have a wise Government still weighing the pros and cons of the measures that should be taken for the preservation of this country's existence! It is not sufficient to say that we have been thinking about disarmament and have been deceived. I submit that we have to take the first measures that we can in order to put this country in a really defensive position; and the very quickest in some respects of all the measures that we can take is at least to fill up the national larder with all the food that it can at present accommodate. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has clearly no Papers for which I can ask, and, in the circumstances I cannot press my Motion to a Division, for it would do no good. But I do beg and pray the Government to be more active, to be more ready, to show a far greater foresight than they have shown in preparing this country for warfare, which is, I am afraid, only too possible.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT HALIFAX): My Lords, before we adjourn may I inform your Lordships that it is proposed that the House should meet on Monday next for the Second Readings of the Air Navigation Bill and the Finance Bill and other business, and that meetings of the House next week should be at three o'clock.
  INDIA: FAMILY PENSION FUNDS.
  INDIA: FAMILY PENSION FUNDS.
  DEATH DUTIES.
  DEATH DUTIES.
LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.

WELLINGBOROUGH GAS ORDER, 1936.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Wellingborough Gas Light Company, Limited.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

STRETFORD AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1936.
Special Order proposed to be made on the application of the Stretford and District Gas Board:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

SEA FISHING INDUSTRY (REGULA- TION OF LANDING) ORDER, 1936.
Order, dated 8th July, 1936, made by the Board of Trade under Section 1 of the Sea Fishing Industry Act, 1933:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.